				Search Options
Index \| Site Map \| FAQ \| Facility Info \| Reading Rm \| New \| Help \| Glossary \| Contact Us

Guidance for Performing Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis for a Nuclear Plant Site: Example Application to the Southeastern United States (NUREG/CR-6607)

On this page:

Publication Information
Abstract

Download complete document

The following links on this page are to documents in Adobe Portable Document Format (PDF). See our Plugins, Viewers, and Other Tools page for more information. For successful viewing of PDF documents on our site please be sure to use the latest version of Adobe.

NUREG/CR-6607 (PDF - 13.75 MB)

Publication Information

Manuscript Completed: September 2002
Date Published: October 2002

Prepared by
J. B. Savy, W. Foxall,
N. Abrahamson, D. Bernreuter
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
Livermore, CA 94550

E. Zurflueh, S. Pullani, NRC Project Managers

Prepared for
Division of Engineering Technology
Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Washington, DC 20555-0001

Availability Notice

Abstract

From 1981 to 1989, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL) developed a Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis (PSHA) method for the eastern United States (NUREG/CR-5250), followed in 1993 by improvements in the handling of the uncertainties (NUREG-1488). Differences between these results and those of a utilities sponsored study (Electric Power Research Institute, 1989) led to the formation of the Senior Seismic Hazard Analysis Committee (SSHAC) to identify the sources of differences and give guidance on how to perform a state-of the-art PSHA (NUREG/CR-6372, 1997).

The present study is a trial implementation of the SSHAC guidance. As part of the project, additional guidance was developed and proposed for performing a PSHA. The trial implementation project tested the issue of development of the seismic zonation and seismicity models for two sites: Watts Bar and Vogtle. It was found that the uncertainty generated by disagreements among experts could be considerably reduced through interaction and discussion of the data, and by concentrating on the elements common to all experts’ interpretations. The present study includes analyses of the differences between its results and the NUREG-1488 results (Appendix G).