Quality Assurance and Peer Review

DOE-STD-1020-2002

potential seismic hazards to which it might be subjected. If the facility does not meet the seismic

evaluation criteria of this chapter, several alternatives can be considered:

If an existing SSC is close to meeting the criteria, a slight increase in the annual risk

to natural phenomena hazards can be allowed within the tolerance of meeting the

target performance goals. Note that reduced criteria for seismic evaluation of existing

SSCs is supported in Reference C-63. As a result, some relief in the criteria can be

allowed by performing the evaluation using hazard exceedance probability of twice

the value specified for new design for the performance category of the SSC being

considered.

The SSC may be strengthened such that its seismic resistance capacity is sufficiently

increased to meet these seismic criteria. When upgrading is required, it should be

accomplished in compliance with unreduced criteria (i.e., Item 1 provisions should

not be used for upgrading).

The usage of the facility may be changed such that it falls within a less hazardous

performance category and consequently less stringent seismic requirements.

It may be possible to conduct the aspects of the seismic evaluation in a more rigorous

manner that removes conservatism such that the SSC may be shown to be adequate.

Alternatively, a probabilistic assessment might be undertaken in order to demonstrate

that the performance goals can be met.

The requirements of Executive Order 12941, ICSSC Standard RP6, (Ref. C-71)

FEMA 310 and FEMA 356 (Ref. C-70) must be taken into consideration while evaluating and

upgrading existing facilities.

C.8

Quality Assurance and Peer Review

Earthquake design or evaluation considerations discussed thus far address recommended

engineering practice that maximizes earthquake resistance of structures, systems, and

components. It is further recommended that designers or earthquake consultants employ special

quality assurance procedures and that their work be subjected to independent peer review.

Additional earthquake design or evaluation considerations include:

Is the SSC constructed of known quality materials that meet design plans and

specifications for strength and stiffness?

Have the design detailing measures, as described above, been implemented in the

construction of the SSC?

The remainder of this section discusses earthquake engineering quality assurance, peer

review, and construction inspection requirements.

C-51