Status report on seismic re-evaluation

In May 1997, a meeting of the PWG 3 Sub Group on the Seismic Behaviour of Structures agreed several priority objectives, of which one was the production of a status report on seismic re-evaluation. Seismic re-evaluation is identified as the process of carrying out a re-assessment of the safety of existing nuclear power plants for a specified seismic hazard. This may be necessary when no seismic hazard was considered in the original design of the plant, the relevant codes and regulations have been revised, the seismic hazard for the site has been re-assessed or there is a need to assess the capacity of the plant for severe accident conditions and behaviour beyond the design basis. Re-evaluation may also be necessary to resolve an issue, or to assess the impact of new findings or knowledge. A questionnaire on the subject was issued to all members of the Seismic Sub Group in the summer of 1997, and responses to the questionnaire had been received from most members by the end of 1997. This report is based on the responses to the questionnaire, together with comment and discussion within the group. The questionnaire covered the following main topics of interest in relation to seismic re-evaluation: General and Legislative Framework, Overall Approach, Input Definition and Analysis Methods, Scope of Plant and Assessment of As-built Situation, Assessment criteria, Outcome of Re-evaluations, Research. The responses to the questionnaire have been collated and reviewed with the objective of comparing current practice in the field of seismic re-evaluation in member countries, and a number of important points have been identified in relation to the position of seismic re-evaluation in the nuclear power industry throughout the world. It is evident that seismic re-evaluation is a relatively mature process that has been developing for some time, with most countries adopting similar practices, often based on principles which have been developed in the US nuclear industry. Seismic re-evaluation of individual plants is typically carried out at intervals of approximately ten years. Major re-evaluations typically take 2 to 3 years to perform at a cost of approximately $US 1 million for software alone, although the majority of re-evaluations are carried out in less time and at lower cost. Methods of seismic re-evaluation include PSA, margins assessments and deterministic analysis, and a common feature of the process is a seismic walk-down, often based on SQUG principles. The input motion levels, seismic categorisation, analysis methods and assessment criteria that are applied depend on the objectives of the re-evaluation. In several responses they are indicated to be generally similar to those specified for new plant. In situ inspection of structures and plant is generally adopted, although most countries use original specifications for material properties, with some in situ evaluation where possible. More realistic criteria than would usually be adopted for new plant are often employed in the assessment of plant behaviour for severe accidents or risk estimates. The majority of countries are satisfied with the seismic re-evaluations that have been carried out to date, although there are a number of recommendations for improvements based on the experience gained so far. The process has resulted in some quite extensive physical modifications, improving the seismic robustness of structures, anchorages and restraints, particularly in older plants. Approximately half of the responding countries reported that they were engaged in active research in the specific field of seismic re-evaluation, but it is noted that there is also considerable effort taking place in the wider field of seismic research, and that this has a direct bearing on the re-evaluation process, leading to an improved understanding of failure modes and more realistic assessments of section capacity. There is also a need to identify future areas of research. It is recommended that some areas of the seismic re-evaluation process are considered in the future for the mutual benefit of the member countries. These include a better understanding of the benefits and disadvantages of the various methods employed in the re-evaluation process, the definition of the scope of plant to be selected for the re-evaluation process, definition of the criteria for re-evaluation, and the role and scope of the peer review process. Also included are the strengthening of plant, the incorporation of operational and research data/experience into the re-evaluation process and the identification of areas of new research that could provide benefits and improvements for the re-evaluation process. A summary of the responses to each section of the questionnaire is contained in Section 2. The responses are discussed in Section 3 of the report, and conclusions and recommendations resulting from the discussion are contained in Section 4. Appendix A contains a copy of the questionnaire which was issued to the participants. Appendix B presents details of the participating countries, organisations and individual representatives, and a copy of each of the completed and returned questionnaires is presented in Appendix C. Appendix D contains some brief details relating to the nuclear power industry in each of the participating countries, together with a database of details of the nuclear power plants in each of the participating countries