Part A- Comments - Continued

DOE-STD-1024-92

OR-3

The guidelines state that DOE is reviewing the LLNL and EPRI seismic hazard

data to determine if the range in slopes used, accurately represents the full

range over all probabilities linked to UCRL-15910, and that this review may

require a modification to the factor used to obtain the pseudo-mean peak ground

acceleration. The guidelines do not discuss the possible modifications, but our

review of another draft DOE-HQ document (Seismic Design and Evaluation

Guidelines for the Department of Energy High-Level Waste storage Tanks)

raises concern on the impact of the modifications. It appears the seismic hazard

results at annual probabilities of 1 x 10-04 and 1 x 10-05 will be used to modify the

hazard results at 1 x 10-03. We have much more confidence in the higher annual

probabilities (2 x 10-03 to 1 x 10-03) than the lower annual probabilities, therefore

the lower values should not, be used to modify the higher values.

OR-4

Table 2 in the guidelines is not complete in some instances. The acceleration

values which are not specified in Table 2 (footnote #3) of the guidelines are as

follows:

Site

1 x 10E-3

2 x 10E-4

Portsmouth

LLNL (with 5)

0.10 0.40 0.34

Oak Ridge

LLNL (with 5)

0.10 0.40 0.32

0.22 0.75 0.55

OR-5

We suggest a workshop involving the seismic working group and consultants,

DOE field offices, and management and operating (M&O) contractors should be

held to discuss the guidelines, due to their growing complexity.

OR-6

We suggest the Oak Ridge site be used as a case study for developing the site

specific spectra, since we have already initiated the studies.

A-15