Ref. Ares(2019)7523682 - 06/12/2019 NARSIS New Approach to Reactor Safety ImprovementS WP1: Characterization of potential physical threats due to different external hazards and scenarios Del 1.6 Development of single and secondary hazard assessment methodologies including uncertainty quantification and comparison This project has received funding from the Euratom research and training programme 2014-2018 under Grant Agreement No. 755439. NARSIS Project (Grant Agreement No. 755439) Del 1.6 Project Acronym: NARSIS Project Title: New Approach to Reactor Safety Improvements Deliverable: Del 1.6: Development of single and secondary hazard assessment methodologies including uncertainty quantification and comparison Month due: 24 Month delivered: 26 Leading Partner: Karlsruhe Institute of Technology Version: V2 Authors: James DANIELL, Andreas SCHAEFER, Friedemann WENZEL, Eric HÄCKER, Ann-Kathrin EDRICH (KIT) Hugo WINTER (EDF_UK) Carole DUVAL, Anne DUTFOY, Tiphaine LE MORVAN, Irmela ZENTNER, Zhiyi WANG (EDF) Deliverable Review: - Reviewer #1: Phil VARDON and Varenya MOHAN Date: 28/08/2019 (TU Delft) - Reviewer #2: Cor MOLENAAR and Venkat Date: 23/10/2019 NATRAJAN (NRG) Dissemination Level X PU Public PP Restricted to other programme participants (including the Commission Services) RE Restricted to a group specified by the consortium (including the Commission Services) CO Confidential, only for members of the consortium (including the Commission Services) 2 - NARSIS Project (Grant Agreement No. 755439) Del 1.6 History of Changes Version Publication Date Change V1 18/11/2019 Initial version V2 06/12/2019 Minor editing improvements 3 - NARSIS Project (Grant Agreement No. 755439) Del 1.6 Table of contents 1 Executive Summary 14 2 Background and Introduction 16 2.1 Scope and Objectives of the Deliverable 16 2.2 Organisation of the Deliverable 17 2.3 Existing Guidance: Key Documents 18 3 Background of Site Selection for hazard curve locations 20 3.1 Identification of NPP sites 20 3.2 General overview of European data and models covering the decommissioned sites 25 4 Available data, models and methodologies for production of hazard curves 26 4.1 Individual Hazard Types and their applicability 26 4.1.1 Earthquake 26 4.1.2 Earthquake – Secondary Effects 28 4.1.3 Tsunami 30 4.1.4 Extreme Weather - Wind Speed, Temperature and Precipitation 33 4.1.5 Tornado 37 4.1.6 Hail 38 4.1.7 Lightning 39 4.1.8 Riverine Flood 44 4.2 Definition of event inundation for flood analysis beyond extreme value statistics of flow data in German sites 48 4.3 Univariate extreme value analysis of weather hazards 51 4.3.1 Motivation and methodology 51 4.3.2 Estimating confidence intervals 53 5 Key Examples of Curve production for Decommissioned Sites 54 5.1 Multiple single hazard assessment for Trino Vercellese 54 5.1.1 Site Description 54 5.1.2 Probabilistic/Stochastic Hazard Model for earthquake 55 5.1.3 Disaggregation and Conditional Event Spectra for earthquake 56 5.1.4 Flood analysis 57 5.1.5 Tornado and Lightning analysis 61 5.2 Earthquake hazard for a different decommissioned site showing derivation from source 62 5.2.1 Site Descriptions 62 5.2.2 Key Metrics 62 5.3 Station correlation analysis for extreme weather 63 4 - NARSIS Project (Grant Agreement No. 755439) Del 1.6 5.4 Application of Univariate Extremes for extreme precipitation 64 5.4.1 Data 64 5.4.2 Results for a single weather gauge 67 5.4.3 Results for multiple sites 72 5.5 Application for extreme air temperature 75 5.5.1 Data 75 5.5.2 Application of EVA 78 5.5.3 Addition of data from the summer of 2019 80 5.5.4 Results for multiple sites 82 5.6 Application for extreme wind speeds 82 5.6.1 Data 82 5.6.2 Application of EVA 84 5.6.3 Incorporating directionality 85 5.7 Multivariate and multistation analysis for single perils 91 5.7.1 Motivation and methodology 91 5.7.2 Extreme precipitation at two weather gauges 92 5.7.3 Results for geographically close stations 95 6 Integration of methodologies into the single hazard and multi hazard software 100 6.1 Software Schema 100 6.2 Example Case 101 6.3 Development Background 103 7 Conclusions and Recommendations 104 8 References 106 5 - NARSIS Project (Grant Agreement No. 755439) Del 1.6 List of Figures Figure 1: Framework for choosing NPP sites which are relevant for analysis and which could be used as analysis sites. .................................................................................................... 20 Figure 2: Locations of identified NPPS, with countries shaded by number of NPPs. Red locations are where at least 1 decommissioned, shut down or suspended unit or NPP exists. ............................................................................................................................................ 21 Figure 3: Sites considered for analysis here where no existing running NPP or research location is present. .............................................................................................................. 22 Figure 4: 475-year hazard model – MPS19 vs. MPS04 via Meletti et al. .............................. 27 Figure 5: Spatial distribution of average expected ground motions with a return period of 5000 years based on the SHARE model ...................................................................................... 27 Figure 6: Spatial distribution of 95th percentile of expected ground motions with a return period of 5000 years based on the SHARE model ......................................................................... 28 Figure 7: The ELSUS v2 200m resolution landslide susceptibility model with the NPPs around Europe (black circles) .......................................................................................................... 29 Figure 8: Tsunami scenario example for a Mediterranean earthquake. ............................... 30 Figure 9: The TSUMAPS-NEAM project model portal where hazard curves are produced based on the model. ............................................................................................................ 31 Figure 10: The TSUMAPS-NEAM hazard curve for the offshore point leading to Hinkley Point A NPP. ................................................................................................................................ 31 Figure 11: Elevations of the decommissioned and shutdown NPPs above sea level ........... 32 Figure 12: JRC Station Data via the Agric4cast Wiki for various station data parameters as per the table .............................................................................................................................. 34 Figure 13: Probability of annual occurrence (rate/yr) for winds exceeding 32m/s via the RAIN Project. ................................................................................................................................ 36 Figure 14: Probability of annual occurrence (rate/yr) for tornadoes from the RAIN project reanalysis of historical data ................................................................................................. 38 Figure 15: Hail event frequencies as estimated by Punge et al. (2014) ............................... 39 Figure 16: Storm day conversion to number of strikes via the IEC62305 ............................. 41 Figure 17: Probability of a certain current per strike via the IEC62305 and via IEEE ........... 42 Figure 18: Probability of a certain current per strike via Franc et al. (2014) ......................... 42 Figure 19: Annual number of situations conducive to thunderstorm formation in the period from 1971-2000 (developed from RAIN Project Data).................................................................. 43 Figure 20: Probability of a certain current per strike using different methods (Taszarek et al., 2019) ................................................................................................................................... 44 Figure 21: GRDC station data around Europe in terms of flow data .................................... 45 Figure 22: Percentage completeness of station flow data across Europe ............................ 45 Figure 23: Shutdown NPPs with flood hazard via large scale JRC modelling. ..................... 46 Figure 24: Flow gauge locations across the UK (NFRA, 2019) ............................................ 47 Figure 25: Extreme event (1000-year) flooding at the Biblis NPP site via HLNUG (Hessen State Institute for the Environment, Survey and Nature Conservation Flood Portal Hazard Maps) modelled at a 1m resolution. ............................................................................................... 48 6 - NARSIS Project (Grant Agreement No. 755439) Del 1.6 Figure 26: Zoomed version of Extreme event (1000-year) flooding at the Biblis NPP site via HLNUG (Hessen State Institute for the Environment, Survey and Nature Conservation Flood Portal Hazard Maps) modelled at a 1m resolution. .............................................................. 49 Figure 27: Extreme event (500-year) flooding at the Biblis NPP site via JRC Flood portal modelling. ............................................................................................................................ 49 Figure 28: Zoomed version of Extreme event (1000-year) flooding at the Mülheim-Kärlich NPP site via Rhineland-Palatinate for the Environment, Energy, Food and Nature Conservation Flood Portal Hazard Maps modelled at a 1m resolution. ...................................................... 50 Figure 29: Extreme event (500-year) flooding at the Mülheim-Kärlich