Seismic risk assessment for the CEUS nuclear power plant fleet based on the NGA-East ground motion model

Abstract

Knowledge of seismic hazard at engineered facilities evolves with the growth in related technical fields. This presents challenges to stability and decision-making concerning safety that require effective assessment tools. Updated mean hazard estimates were developed at nuclear power plant (NPP) sites in Central and Eastern United States (CEUS) using the Next Generation Attenuation (NGA)-East ground motion model (GMM) and the latest available site amplification data. These estimates indicated that seismic hazard increases at several CEUS NPP sites, especially for spectral frequencies below 5 Hz. To assess the safety implications, updated mean seismic core damage frequency (SCDF) estimates were developed for the CEUS NPP fleet using the updated mean hazard estimates and updated plant-level fragilities (PLFs). The PLFs were developed from plant-specific information compiled by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (USNRC) and recent seismic probabilistic risk assessments (SPRAs) completed by some NPPs. The SCDF quantification followed a method defined by the USNRC to combine risk contributions from different spectral frequencies. While not intended to provide a precise quantification of risk, such as that provided by a full SPRA, when the results are compared against other estimates using the same approach, this process provides valuable insight into the overall change in risk as the understanding of hazard changes. The assessment indicated no significant change in estimated risk for the majority of the CEUS fleet compared to the 2010 USNRC estimates—about 90% of the fleet risk distribution was lower, equal, or slightly higher. A few NPPs had SCDF estimates significantly larger than the 2010 estimates. The SCDF increases at these few NPPs have larger contributions from updated PLFs than updated hazard estimates. The majority of these NPPs have recently completed detailed SPRAs and have tools to develop more accurate estimates of the updated risk than can be achieved in this fleet-level study.

Keywords

NGA-East nuclear power plants SPRA seismic risk plant-level fragility post-Fukushima NTTF 2.1 seismic hazard update core damage frequency GI-199

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE)/SEI 43-05 (2005) Seismic Design Criteria for Structures, Systems, and Components in Nuclear Facilities. Reston, VA: ASCE.

Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) (1989) Probabilistic seismic hazard evaluations at nuclear plant sites in the Central and Eastern United States: Resolution of the Charleston earthquake issue. EPRI NP-6395-D, 1 May. Palo Alto, CA: EPRI.

Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) (1991) A methodology for assessment of nuclear power plant seismic margin (revision 1). EPRI NP-6041-SLR1, 1 August. Palo Alto, CA: EPRI.

Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) (2013a) EPRI (2004, 2006) ground-motion model (GMM) review project. EPRI 3002000717, 13 June. Palo Alto, CA: EPRI.

Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) (2013b) Seismic evaluation guidance: Screening, prioritization and implementation details (SPID) for the resolution of Fukushima near-term task force recommendation 2.1: Seismic. EPRI 1025287, 28 February. Palo Alto, CA: EPRI.

Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) (2018) Seismic fragility and seismic margin guidance for seismic probabilistic risk assessments. EPRI 3002012994, 27 September. Palo Alto, CA: EPRI.

Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) (2020a) Fleet risk assessment for the next generation attenuation east ground motion model. EPRI 3002018217, 16 July. Palo Alto, CA: EPRI.

Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) (2020b) Simplified method for estimating mean seismic hazard for an updated ground motion or site amplification model: Application to the Central and Eastern United States. EPRI 3002018216, 9 July. Palo Alto, CA: EPRI.

Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) (2020c) Updated plant level fragility estimates: Reassessment of IPEEE data and seismic probabilistic risk assessment data. EPRI 3002018215, 25 June. Palo Alto, CA: EPRI.

10.

Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI), U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) and U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (USNRC) (2012) Central and Eastern United States seismic source characterization for nuclear facilities. Technical report, EPRI 1021097, DOE NE-0140 and NUREG-2115, 31 January. Palo Alto, CA: EPRI; Washington, DC: DOE and USNRC.

11.

Kennedy

(1999) Overview of methods for seismic PRA and margin analysis including recent innovations. In: Proceedings of the OECD-NEA workshop on seismic risk, Tokyo, Japan, 10–12 August.

12.

Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) (2014) Seismic risk evaluations for plants in the Central and Eastern United States: Nuclear power plants using new site-specific seismic hazard estimates (A Pietrangelo, Letter to USNRC E Leeds). Project no. 689, 12 March. Washington, DC: NEI.

13.

Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center (PEER) (2018) Central and Eastern North America ground-motion characterization: NGA-East final report. December, PEER report no. 2018/08. Berkeley, CA: PEER, University of California, Berkeley.

14.

Talaat

Seifried

Anup

Hardy

Richards

(2021) Simplified methods to estimate mean hazard due to updated ground motion model: Application to nuclear power plants in CEUS. Earthquake Spectra. Epub ahead of print 7 May. DOI: 10.1177/87552930211007499.

15.

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) (2008) Documentation for the 2008 update of the United States national seismic hazard maps by the national seismic hazard mapping project. Open-file report 2008-1128, 1 April. Reston, VA: USGS.

16.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (USNRC) (1994) Revised Livermore seismic hazard estimates for sixty-nine nuclear power plant sites east of the Rocky Mountains. Report no. NUREG-1488, April. Washington, DC: USNRC.

17.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (USNRC) (1995) Individual plant examination of external events (IPEEE) for severe accident vulnerabilities. Generic letter no. 88-20 (GL 88-20), Supplement 5, 8 September. Washington, DC: USNRC.

18.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (USNRC) (1997) Recommendations for probabilistic seismic hazard analysis: Guidance on uncertainty and use of experts. Report no. NUREG/CR-6372, April. Washington, DC: USNRC.

19.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (USNRC) (2007) A Performance-Based Approach to Define the Site-Specific Earthquake Ground Motion (Regulatory guide 1.208). Washington, DC: USNRC.

20.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (USNRC) (2010) Generic Issue 199 (GI-199): Implications of Updated Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Estimates in Central and Eastern United States on Existing Plants, Safety/Risk Assessment. Washington, DC: USNRC.

21.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (USNRC) (2012) Request for information pursuant to title 10 of the code of federal regulations 50.54(f) regarding recommendations 2.1, 2.3, and 9.3, of the near-term task force review of insights from the Fukushima Daiichi accident. ADAMS accession no. ML12053A340, 12 March. Washington, DC: USNRC.