Part A- Comments - Continued

DOE-STD-1024-92

plant sites for the EUS. These results are not generally directly useful for DOE

sites. The current results generally must be rerun for the DOE site. Either the

EPRI or LLNL algorithms may be used; however, we recommend both be

conducted at each site.

Our comments on the interim position are directed at the use of this position by

DOE Sites and its compatibility with UCRL-15910. Our comments are as

follows.

LLNL-8

Since this position will be used by many sites in the DOE complex it must be

very clear to avoid misuse.

To use the position, the site must have an EPRI or LLNL hazard curve

developed specifically for its location, preferably both. Interpolation from

reactor sites is not permitted.

This must be done by the EPRI approach and the 1989 version of the

LLNL approach.

If Newmark and Hall spectra (NUREG/CR-0098) are used as the standard

median spectral shape they must also be corrected for the EUS, i.e.,

enriched in higher frequency content.

A suggestion for what to do at Paducah, Kentucky, near the New Madrid,

Missouri Source Zone may be appropriate.

LLNL-9

When used with the design and evaluation criteria in UCRL-15910, a correction

should be made due to the shape of the seismic hazard curves.

UCRL-15910 adds intentional conservatism based on the shape of the

TERA, Inc. hazard curves.

The EPRI and LLNL curves have shapes that are different from the TERA,

Inc. curves and need this correction.

This correction has been developed by Dr. Kennedy in his work for

DOE/EM on buried waste tanks and is necessary to achieve the

performance goals established in UCRL-15910.

A-7