Click here to make tpub.com your Home Page

Page Title: Part A- Comments - Continued
Back | Up | Next

Click here for thousands of PDF manuals

Google


Web
www.tpub.com

Home

   
Information Categories
.... Administration
Advancement
Aerographer
Automotive
Aviation
Construction
Diving
Draftsman
Engineering
Electronics
Food and Cooking
Logistics
Math
Medical
Music
Nuclear Fundamentals
Photography
Religion
   
   

 



DOE-STD-1024-92
NP-1
As requested, a review of the proposed DOE Interim Position for the use of LLNL
and EPRI Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Curves was performed by the Office of
New Production Reactors. The Draft Position is consistent with earlier drafts
reviewed by Mr. R. C. Burrow of the Office of Modular High-Temperature Gas-
Cooled Reactors (NP-60) and Mr. L. V. Ely of the Office of Heavy Water Reactor
(NP-40). No essential comments have been identified.
The proposed approach provides consistent guidance for the design of
nonreactor facilities, implementing UCRL-15910, "Design and Evaluation
Guidelines for Department of Energy Facilities Subjected to Natural Phenomena
Hazards" and DOE Order 6430.1A, "DOE General Design Criteria." The Office
of Heavy Water Reactor, DP-40, and the Office of Modular High-Temperature
Gas-Cooled Reactors, DP-60, concur with the subject interim position.
NP-2
The interim position regarding the use of the EPRI and LLNL seismic hazard
results, when they both exist, as covered under A:, and for the case when only
one of them exists, as covered under B: is very clear and could be easily
followed. The interim position is supported by the work presented and, indeed,
protects the extremes, i.e., below the 15th percentile and above the 85th
percentile, where the EPRI/LLNL methodology might be questioned.
NP-3
The case for the sites which choose to develop a deterministic site-specific
spectral shape is not so clear and, at best, requires additional explanations.
Notwithstanding the question as to why a deterministic, Appendix A type work
would have to be established as indicated, the requirement of using the
dominant earthquake distance from the probabilistic work needs to be explained.
To my knowledge, the probabilistic work defines areas over which an earthquake
has an equal probability of occurrence. Thus, guidance has to be provided as to
how the location of the dominant earthquake is to be established. Although
papers were published discussing this very subject, this interim position which is
rather precise in every detail has to specify the method. (As a case in point, an
expert could decide to define Charleston as being capable of occurring over an
area extending all the way to the New Production Reactor (NPR) site. While this
assumption will not result in results too much different than when other
assumptions are used, as the area is used to divide by, one has to be told
precisely how to use such an input to estimate distance.)
RF-I
The interim position applies to all DOE sites east of 104W but excludes Rocky
Flats. No reason is given for excluding Rocky Flats. We appreciate the need for
an awareness of the position since existing site specific probabilistic seismic
hazard curves are to be reviewed in the near future.
A-11


Privacy Statement - Press Release - Copyright Information. - Contact Us

Integrated Publishing, Inc. - A (SDVOSB) Service Disabled Veteran Owned Small Business