Part A- Comments - Continued

DOE-STD-1024-92

NS-8

Our calculations show two errors in Table 3 of the SWG report. The 2 x 10-3

value for Savannah River and the 1 x 10-3 values for Portsmouth should both

be 0.06 g's, not 0.07g's.

NS-9

Tables 2 and 3 of the SWG report should replace "Tera" with "TERA."

LLNL-1

I am very pleased to see that Dr. C. Allin Cornell, together with R. E. I. were

able to identify and quantify clearly the most important stable elements of both

EPRI and LLNL studies. I fully endorse the conclusions made by Dr. Cornell

and reported in the attachment.

It appears that the essence of the (estimated) seismic hazard has been

captured and can be used efficiently for general statement about it in the

Eastern United States (EUS).

Considering the fact that the document describes a procedure intended to be

applied only during an interim period, after which possibly a more rigorous

analysis would be used, I think that the proposed procedure is appropriate.

It is appropriate because it immediately resolves an important engineering

problem and it does it by using each of the two sets of inputs (LLNL and EPRI

results) with maximum efficiency.

In conclusion, I fully endorse the 4 step procedure to develop a composite

estimate of the ground motion at a DOE site using EPRI and LLNL (1989) EUS

results.

LLNL-2

The proposed procedure is based on a generalization of the results obtained

at sites all over the EUS, it appears to apply well to a large number of sites,

hence a large portion of the EUS where the DOE sites are also located.

Because the procedure is also based on a variety of assumptions, it appears

that some of the selected parameters may not apply very well in some regions.

Once the choice of the median hazard curves was made, the only remaining

parameters to be selected in the procedure were:

The ratio of mean to median hazard

rmm

The slope (b) of the mean hazard curve in a log-log

system of axis.

A-4