Challenges Ahead for Nuclear Facility Site-Specific Seismic Hazard Assessment in France: The Alternative Energies and the Atomic Energy Commission (CEA) Vision

Seismic analysis in the context of nuclear safety in France is currently guided by a pure deterministic approach based on Basic Safety Rule (Regle Fondamentale de Surete) RFS 2001-01 for seismic hazard assessment, and on the ASN/2/01 Guide that provides design rules for nuclear civil engineering structures. After the 2011 Tohohu earthquake, nuclear operators worldwide were asked to estimate the ability of their facilities to sustain extreme seismic loads. The French licensees then defined the 'hard core seismic levels', which are higher than those considered for design or re-assessment of the safety of a facility. These were initially established on a deterministic basis, and they have been finally justified through state-of-the-art probabilistic seismic hazard assessments. The appreciation and propagation of uncertainties when assessing seismic hazard in France have changed considerably over the past 15 years. This evolution provided the motivation for the present article, the objectives of which are threefold: (1) to provide a description of the current practices in France to assess seismic hazard in terms of nuclear safety; (2) to discuss and highlight the sources of uncertainties and their treatment; and (3) to use a specific case study to illustrate how extended source modeling can help to constrain the key assumptions or parameters that impact upon seismic hazard assessment. This article discusses in particular seismic source characterization, strong ground motion prediction, and maximal magnitude constraints, according to the practice of the French Atomic Energy Commission. Due to increases in strong motion databases in terms of the number and quality of the records in their metadata and the uncertainty characterization, several recently published empirical ground motion prediction models are eligible for seismic hazard assessment in France. We show that propagation of epistemic and aleatory uncertainties is feasible in a deterministic approach, as in a probabilistic way. Assessment of seismic hazard in France in the framework of the safety of nuclear facilities should consider these recent advances. In this sense, the opening of discussions with all of the stakeholders in France to update the reference documents (i.e., RFS 2001-01; ASN/2/01 Guide) appears appropriate in the short term.