Preparing a seismic hazard model for Switzerland: the view from PEGASOS Expert Group 3 (EG1c)

The seismic hazard model used in the PEGASOS project for assessing earth-quake hazard at four NPP sites was a composite of four sub-models, each produced by a team of three experts. In this paper, one of these models is described in detail by the authors. A criticism sometimes levelled at probabilistic seismic hazard studies is that the process by which seismic source zones are arrived at is obscure, subjective and inconsistent. Here, we attempt to recount the stages by which the model evolved, and the decisions made along the way. In particular, a macro-to-micro approach was used, in which three main stages can be described. The first was the characterisation of the overall kinematic model, the “big picture” of regional seismogenesis. Secondly, this was refined to a more detailed seismotectonic model. Lastly, this was used as the basis of individual sources, for which parameters can be assessed. Some basic questions had also to be answered about aspects of the approach to modelling to be used: for instance, is spatial smoothing an appropriate tool to apply? Should individual fault sources be modelled in an intraplate environment? Also, the extent to which alternative modelling decisions should be expressed in a logic tree structure has to be considered.     

Evaluating hazard results for Switzerland and how not to do it: A discussion of “Problems in the application of the SSHAC probability method for assessing earthquake hazards at Swiss nuclear power plants” by J-U Klügel

The PEGASOS project was a major international seismic hazard study, one of the largest ever conducted anywhere in the world, to assess seismic hazard at four nuclear power plant sites in Switzerland. Before the report of this project has become publicly available, a paper attacking both methodology and results has appeared. Since the general scientific readership may have difficulty in assessing this attack in the absence of the report being attacked, we supply a response in the present paper. The bulk of the attack, besides some misconceived arguments about the role of uncertainties in seismic hazard analysis, is carried by some exercises that purport to be validation exercises. In practice, they are no such thing; they are merely independent sets of hazard calculations based on varying assumptions and procedures, often rather questionable, which come up with various different answers which have no particular significance.