Seismic Evaluation Approaches for Spent Fuel Pool Structures in Nuclear Power Plants

Abstract

The United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission issued requests for licensees to re-evaluate the seismic hazards at their sites after the accident at the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant in Japan on March 11 in 2011 and to identify and address any site-specific vulnerabilities associated with seismic hazards. The primary guidance for performing those evaluations is provided in the Electric Power Research Institute EPRI-1025287 report, which also provides guidance for evaluating spent fuel pool (SFP) integrity. In addition, the EPRI-3002009564 report also provides evaluation approaches regarding the effects of seismic ground motions on SFPs that supplement the guidance provided in EPRI-1025287. SFP integrity has become increasingly important for active and decommissioned nuclear power plants. According to EPRI-1025287, the SFP integrity evaluation emphasizes failure modes of the SFP that could result in “rapid drain-down.” The definition of “rapid drain-down” is a failure that could lead to the uncovering of irradiated fuel stored in the SFP within 72[Formula: see text]h of an earthquake. Possible failures can be classified into two categories: failures relevant to the SFP structure and failures relevant to non-structural elements. This paper aims to study the approaches of implementing seismic evaluation of an SFP structure. EPRI-3002009564 provides separate seismic evaluation approaches for plants with a ground motion response spectrum (GMRS) peak [Formula: see text][Formula: see text]g and for plants with a GMRS peak [Formula: see text][Formula: see text]g. Structural dynamic analysis is also a common approach for implementing seismic evaluation if a detailed finite element model is available. In this paper, a sample SFP structure was evaluated using the two approaches, structural dynamic analysis and structural analysis criteria. The results indicate that shear failure controlled the failure mode of the SFP structure for both approaches. This shows that the two approaches drew the same conclusion regarding the failure mode. Furthermore, a smaller seismic margin was obtained using the structural analysis criteria, which means this evaluative approach is more conservative.