Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A streamlined approach for the seismic hazard assessment of a new nuclear power plant in the UK

  • Case Study Reports
  • Published:
Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This article presents a streamlined approach to seismic hazard assessment aimed at providing regulatory assurance, whilst acknowledging commercial and program constraints associated with the development of safety–critical facilities. The approach was developed based on international best practice and followed the spirit of the Senior Seismic Hazard Analysis Committee (SSHAC) Level 2 requirements, while incorporating the key features of the SSHAC Level 3 process aimed at achieving regulatory assurance, but with a more flexible implementation. It has also benefited from experience gained by others regarding the implementation of the SSHAC process in projects in the USA, Switzerland and South Africa. The approach has been successfully applied as part of the Safety Case for the new-build nuclear power plant at Hinkley Point, UK. The proposed approach can be considered as a cost-effective solution for the seismic hazard evaluation of safety-significant facilities where a high level of regulatory assurance is required.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Abbreviations

CBR:

Centre, body and range

CEUS:

Central and eastern United States

CH2M:

CH2M Hill

EDF:

Électricité de France

GEM:

Global Earthquake Model

GMM:

Ground-motion model

HID:

Hazard input document

IAEA:

International Atomic Energy Agency

NNB GenCo:

Nuclear New Build Generation Company (subsidiary of EDF Energy)

NPP:

Nuclear power plant

ONR:

Office for Nuclear Regulation

PSHA:

Probabilistic seismic hazard analysis

PMT:

Project management team

PPRP:

Participatory peer review panel

PRT:

Peer review team

SAP:

Safety assessment principles

SE:

Subject Expert

SSC:

Seismic source characterization

SSM:

Seismic source model

SHWP:

Seismic Hazard Working Party

SRID:

Site response input document

SSHAC:

Senior Seismic Hazard Analysis Committee

TAG:

Technical assessment guides

TDI:

Technically defensible interpretations

TDT:

Technical Delivery Team

TI:

Technical Integrator

USNRC:

US Nuclear Regulatory Commission

References

  • Abrahamson N, Birkhäuser P, Koller M, Mayer-Rosa D, Smit P, Sprecher C, Tinic S, Graf R (2002) PEGASOS—a comprehensive probabilistic seismic hazard assessment for nuclear power plants in Switzerland. In: 12th European conference on earthquake engineering, London

  • Bernreuter D, Savy J, Mensing R, Chen J (1989) Seismic hazard characterization of 69 nuclear plant sites east of the Rocky Mountains. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory

  • Bommer J (2010) Seismic hazard assessment for nuclear power plant sites in the UK: challenges and possibilities. Nucl Future 6(3):164–170

    Google Scholar 

  • Bommer J, Coppersmith K (2013) Lessons learned from application of the NUREG-2117 guidelines for SSHAC Level 3 probabilistic seismic hazard studies for nuclear sites. In: 22nd conference on structural mechanics in reactor technology (SMiRT-22), International Association for Structural Mechanics in Reactor Technology (IASMiRT), San Francisco, California, USA

  • Bommer J, Strasser F, Monelli D, Pagani M (2013) Quality assurance for logic-tree implementation in probabilistic seismic-hazard analysis for nuclear applications: a practical example. Seismol Res Lett 84(6):938–945

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bommer JJ, Coppersmith K, Coppersmith R, Hanson K, Mangongolo A, Neverling J, Rathje EM, Rodriguez-Marek A, Scherbaum F, Shelembe R, Stafford PJ, Strasser Strasser F O (2015) A SSHAC Level 3 probabilistic seismic hazard analysis for a new-build nuclear site in South Africa. Earthq Spectra 31(2):661–698

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Budnitz RJ, Apostolakis G, Boore DM, Clu LS, Coppersmith KJ, Cornell CA, Morris PA (1997) Recommendations for probabilistic seismic hazard analysis: guidance on uncertainty and use of experts. US Nuclear Regulatory Commission, NUREG/CR-6372

  • Coppersmith K, Bommer J (2012) Use of the SSHAC methodology within regulated environments: cost-effective application for seismic characterization at multiple sites. Nucl Eng Des 245:233–240

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coppersmith K, Bommer J, Bryce R, McDuffie S, Lisle G (2013). An application of the SSHAC Level 3 process to the probabilistic seismic hazard analysis for nuclear facilities at the Hanford site, eastern Washington, USA. 22nd Conference on Structural Mechanics in Reactor Technology (SMiRT-22), International Association for Structural Mechanics in Reactor Technology (IASMiRT), San Francisco, California, USA

  • EPRI (1989) Probabilistic seismic hazard evaluations at nuclear power plant sites in the central and eastern United States: Resolution of the Charleston earthquake issue. Electric Power Research Institute, prepared by Risk Engineering Inc., Yankee Atomic Power Company and Woodward Clyde Consultants, EPRI report NP-6395-D

  • EPRI (2013) EPRI 2004-2006 Ground-motion model (GMM). Review project 3002000717, final report, Electric Power Research Institute, Palo Alto, California

  • HSE (2009) New nuclear power stations generic design assessment: safety assessment in an international context. health and safety executive, Version 3

  • Juckett M, Stamatakos J, Coppersmith K, Ake J, Bommer J (2016) Updating the SSHAC implementation guidance in NUREG-2117. DOE Natural Phanomena Hazards Technical Meeting, Southwest Research Institute, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

  • Musson RM (2014) UK seismic hazard assessments for strategic facilities: a short history. Bollettino di Geofisica Teorica ed Applicata 55(1):165–173

    Google Scholar 

  • ONR (2014) Safety assessment principles for nuclear facilities. Office for Nuclear Regulation, Revision 0

  • ONR. (2017a) External hazards. Office for nuclear regulation, nuclear safety technical assessment guide, NS-TAST-GD-013 Revision 6-DRAFT

  • ONR (2017b) Seismic hazard. Office for nuclear regulation, nuclear safety technical assessment guide annex, NS-TAST-GD-013 Annex 1 Revision 1-DRAFT

  • ONR Expert Panel on Natural Hazards (2017) Analysis of seismic hazards for nuclear sites. NS-TAST-GD-013 Annex 1 reference paper, expert panel report: GEN-SH-EP-2016-1 DRAFT

  • Ordaz M, Martinelli F, Aguilar A, Arboleda J, Meletti C, D’Amico V (2015) Crisis2015 Ver. 1.0: Program for computing seismic hazard. Instituto de Ingenieria, UNAM

  • Pagani M, Monelli D, Weatherill G, Danciu L, Crowley H, Silva V, Henshaw P, Butler L, Nastasi M, Panzeri L, Simionato M, Vigano D (2014) OpenQuake Engine: an open hazard (and risk) software for the global earthquake model. Seismol Res Lett 85(3):692–702

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Renault P (2013) Lessons learned from the seismic hazard assessment of NPPs in Switzerland. SMiRT22 - NGA-East Special Session, Retrieved 5 February 2016 from http://peer.berkeley.edu/ngaeast/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/02_Renault_PegasosRefinement_SMIRT22.pdf

  • Renault P (2015) PEGASOS refinement project: a refined seismic hazard assessment for Swiss nuclear power plants. In: 14 D-A-CH conference—earthquakes and existing buildings, Zurich (In German)

  • Salomone L (2015) A probabilistic seismic hazard analysis update review for two DOE sites and NGA-East project overview and status. Seismic Lessons-Learned Panel Meeting, 27 May, Link Technologies, Inc

  • SHWP (1988) Report on seismic hazard assessment, volume 3 M, a review of seismic hazard assessment methods and their adaptation for Britain. Seismic Hazard Working Party, Central Electricity Generating Board

  • SHWP (1991) Report on seismic hazard assessment, supplement to volume 3 M—seismic ground motion. Seismic Hazard Working Party, Central Electricity Generating Board

  • Thomas P, Wong I, Abrahamson N (2010) Verification of probabilistic seismic hazard analysis computer programs. Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, PEER Report 2010/106

  • Tromans IJ, Aldama-Bustos G, Douglas J, Lessi-Cheimariou A, Hunt S, Davi M, Musson RMW, Garrard G, Strasser F, Robertson C (2018) Probabilistic seismic hazard assessment for a new-build nuclear power plant site in the UK. Bull Earthq Eng. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-018-0441-6

    Google Scholar 

  • USNRC (2007) A performance-based approach to define the site-specific earthquake ground motion. Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Regulatory Guide 1.208

  • USNRC (2012) Practical implementation guidelines for SSHAC level 3 and 4 hazard studies. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, NUREG-2117, Rev. 1

  • USNRC (2018) Updated implementation guidelines for SSHAC hazard studies. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, NUREG-2213, in preparation

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank the PRT, Hilmar Bungum and Martin Koller, for their valuable comments and discussions during the development of the project, which helped to streamline the approach originally proposed at the beginning of the study. Their experience on previous SSHAC Levels 3 and 4 studies was invaluable. The authors would like to thank EDF-NNB GenCo for agreeing to the publication of this article. Finally, we thank three anonymous reviewers for their positive and constructive comments on an earlier version of this article.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Jacobs, Elms House, 43 Brook Green, London, W6 7EF, UK

    Guillermo Aldama-Bustos, Iain J. Tromans, Angeliki Lessi-Cheimariou & Manuela Daví

  2. Independent consultant / Jacobs, Elms House, 43 Brook Green, London, W6 7EF, UK

    Fleur Strasser

  3. Jacobs, Burderop Park, Swindon, SN4 0QD, UK

    Graham Garrard, Guy Green, Liz Rivers & Simon Hunt

  4. University of Strathclyde, James Weir Building, 75 Montrose Street, Glasgow, G1 1XJ, UK

    John Douglas

  5. University of Edinburgh, School of Geosciences, James Hutton Road, Edinburgh, EH3 3FE, UK

    Roger M. W. Musson

  6. NNB GenCo, Bridgewater House, Counterslip, Bristol, BS1 6BX, UK

    Colin Robertson

Authors
  1. Guillermo Aldama-Bustos
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Iain J. Tromans
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Fleur Strasser
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Graham Garrard
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Guy Green
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Liz Rivers
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. John Douglas
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Roger M. W. Musson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Simon Hunt
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Angeliki Lessi-Cheimariou
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. Manuela Daví
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  12. Colin Robertson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Guillermo Aldama-Bustos.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Aldama-Bustos, G., Tromans, I.J., Strasser, F. et al. A streamlined approach for the seismic hazard assessment of a new nuclear power plant in the UK. Bull Earthquake Eng 17, 37–54 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-018-0442-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-018-0442-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation