Part A- Comments - Continued

DOE-STD-1024-92

requirements, may affect the Hanford Site. These include the incorporation of a

consistent approach to uncertainty analysis into the DOE seismic hazard studies

of the sites as well as spectral velocity and uniform hazard spectra which have

not been determined for the site. The resolution of these differences, if required,

would involve additional investigations.

EH-.l

The Office of Safety and Quality Assurance, EH-30, has reviewed the DOE

SWG's draft report and interim position on the use of probabilistic seismic

hazard curves. The interim position provides a practical approach for using the

EPRI and LLNL hazard curves; however, there are technical issues that still

remain to be resolved, such as those found as a result of the EM application of

reference (2) during the evaluation of underground waste tanks.

EH-2

Existing concerns raised by various reviewers should be adequately resolved by

the SWG, for example: (1) how the hazard curve slope factors are determined;

and (2) the extent to which the input from expert #5 should be utilized.

EH-3

Because the interim position does not significantly change the peak ground

acceleration values from those currently used at the five sites under

consideration, other justifications for using the new information should be

noted.

EH-4

Recently developed probabilistic ground motion hazard maps stemming from

the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) and other inputs to the National

Earthquake Hazard Reduction Program (NEHRP) (1991 Provisions) should be

considered. A comparison of the 2E-3 values of the USGS maps with the

interim position and the TERA, Inc. values (see attached Table 1) shows a

similarity to the TERA, Inc. values given in UCRL-15910, and suggests that the

DOE SWG should consider using the NEHRP probability hazard map

information in assessing our interim position.

EH-5

Recent information developed by the U.S. Continental Scientific Drilling (CSD)

Program may be helpful in resolving some of the uncertainties in the EUS, and

may be useful in the development of a "final standard" for both eastern and

western DOE locations. Mr. Bill Luth, of the Engineering & Geosciences

Division, ER-15, is the DOE lead on this program and should be invited to the

SWG to discuss the CSD Cajun Pass findings on fault mechanics, and to

identify other technical resources.

A-17