Overview of the seismic probabilistic safety assessment applied to a nuclear installation located in a low seismicity zone

Ellison Amaro de Oliveira; Patricia da Silva Pagetti de Oliveira; Miguel Mattar Neto; Marcos Coelho Maturana

doi:10.15392/bjrs.v9i2B.1560

Authors

Ellison Amaro de Oliveira Instituto de Pesquisas Energéticas e Nucleares - IPEN
Patricia da Silva Pagetti de Oliveira Instituto de Pesquisas Energéticas e Nucleares - IPEN
Miguel Mattar Neto Instituto de Pesquisas Energéticas e Nucleares - IPEN
Marcos Coelho Maturana Laboratório de Análise, Avaliação e Gerenciamento de Risco, LabRisco - USP

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.15392/bjrs.v9i2B.1560

Keywords:

Seismic Probabilistic Safety Assessment methodology, Support studies, Low seismicity zone

Abstract

Deterministic and probabilistic nuclear safety analysis methodologies have been developed and updated based on operational experience, investigation of past incidents or accidents, and analysis of postulated initiating events in order to maintain the protection of workers, the public and the environment. The evaluation of accident sequences and the total radiological risk resulting from off-site releases are general objectives addressed by these methodologies. There are hazards that continually challenge the safety of a nuclear facility or its nearby area. In particular, seismic events represent a major contributor to the risk of a nuclear facility. Different levels of ground motion induced by earthquakes may be experienced by the structures, systems and components (SSCs) of the installation. In this context, a seismic hazard analysis, seismic demand analysis and seismic fragility analysis must be carried out in order to characterize the local seismic hazard and what are the seismic demands on SSCs, allowing an adequate seismic classification of SSCs, even in installations located in sites with low seismicity. In this article, a general description of the Seismic Probabilistic Safety Assessment (Seismic PSA) methodology is presented, with emphasis on their support studies, aiming at applying the methodology described in this article to an experimental nuclear installation containing a PWR reactor designed for naval propulsion to be installed in a low seismicity zone in Brazil.

Views: 182
PDF Downloads: 230

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

IAEA - International Agency Energy Atomic – IAEA. Fundamental Safety Principles. IAEA Safety Fundamentals No SF-1. IAEA, 2006.

ASME – The American Society of Mechanical Engineers. Standard for Level 1/Large Early Release Frequency Probabilistic Risk Assessment for Nuclear Power Plant Applications. ASME-ANS RA-Sb-2013. ASME, 2013.

IRNS - Institute For Radiological Protection And Nuclear Safety. Guidance document on practices to model and implement SEISMIC hazards in extended PSA. IRSN ASAMPSA_E WP22/ D50.15/ 2017-33/v. 2. IRNS, 2017.

RAUSAND, M.; HOYLAND, A. System Reliability Theory Models and Statistical Methods. 2004. Available at: https://notendur.hi.is/hthb1/%C3%81rei%C3%B0anleiki%20kerfa/System %20Reliability%20Theory%20Models%20and%20Statistical%20Methods.pdf>. Last accessed: Jan. 2019.

USGS – United States Geological Survey. The layer of the Earth we live on is broken into a dozen or so rigid slabs (called tectonic plates by geologists) that are moving relative to one another. 2011. Available at: <https://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/dynamic/slabs.html>. Last accessed: Jan. 2019.

WEI-CHAU XIE et al. Seismic risk analysis of nuclear power plants. 1st. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2019.

ALMEIDA, A. A. D.; Assumpção, M.; BOMMER, J. J.; DROUET, S.; RICCOMINI, C.; PRATES, C. L. M.; Probabilistic seismic hazard analysis for a nuclear power plant site in southeast Brazil. Journal of Seismology, v. 23, pp 1–23, 2018.

BERROCAL, J. et al. Sismicidade do Brasil, 1st ed. São Paulo: Editora Esperança – IAG/USP, 1984.

DOUGLAS, J. Ground motion prediction equations 1964-2018. 2019. Available at: <http://www.gmpe.org.uk/gmpereport2014.pdf>. Last accessed: Jun. 2019.

AKE, J. Uncertainties in Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analyses for Regions of Low-to-Moderate Seismic Potential: The Need for a Structured Approach. 2012. Available at: <https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML0808/ML080870337.pdf>. Last accessed: Jun. 2018.

BOMMER, J. J. et al. A SSHAC Level 3 Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis for a New-Build Nuclear Site in South Africa”, Earthquake Spectra, v. 31, No. 2, pages 661–698, 2015.

U.S. NRC – United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Performance-based approach to define the site-specific earthquake ground motion. U.S.NRC Regulatory Guide 1.208. U.S. NRC, 2007.

U.S. NRC – United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Recommendations for Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analyses: Guidance on Uncertainty and Use of Experts. U.S. NRC NUREG-CR-6372. U.S. NRC, 1997.

BAKER, J. W. Introduction to Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis. 2013. Available at: <https://web.stanford.edu/~bakerjw/Publications/Baker_(2013)_Intro_to_PSHA_v2.pdf>. Last accessed: Jun. 2018.

GEM – Global Earthquake Model Foundation. Open Quake (OQ). 2019. Available at: <https://docs.openquake.org/manuals/OpenQuake%20Manual%20%28latest%29.pdf>. Last accessed: Jan. 2019.

ORDAZ M. AND SALGADO-GÁLVEZ M.A. R-CRISIS Validation and Verification Document. 2019. Available at: <http://www.r-crisis.com/Content/files/R-CRISIS%20V_AND_V%20Document_V1%20Full%20document.pdf>. Last accessed: Jan. 2019.

FIELD, E.H., T.H. JORDAN, AND C.A. CORNELL OpenSHA: A Developing Community-Modelling Environment for Seismic Hazard Analysis, Seismological Research Letters, 74, no. 4, p. 406-419, 2003.

U.S. NRC – United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 10 Code of Federal Regulation - Appendix S to Part 50 – Earthquake Engineering Criteria for Nuclear Power Plants. U.S. NRC, 2007.

EPRI – Electric Power Research Institute. Seismic Fragility Application Guide. EPRI Technical Report 1002988, Palo Alto: EPRI, 2002.

EPRI – Electric Power Research Institute. Seismic Probabilistic Risk Assessment Implementation Guide. EPRI Technical Report 3002000709, Palo Alto: EPRI, 2013.