Part A- Comments - Continued

DOE-STD-1024-92

RW-6

A brief justification of the 50 km distance would be appropriate, such as,

"because ground motion beyond 50 km from an active seismic source is not

expected to affect engineering design, even for the largest expected sources," if

that is your meaning.

RW-7

The suggestion that western DOE sites should be "aware of the position" needs

to be clarified. Reference should be made to existing guidelines for western

sites and planned revisions.

RW-8

The statement is made that it is unfortunate that regulations do not give

guidance for repeating seismic hazard analysis at set time intervals. Is there

an implication here that repeat analyses should be done with attendant

implications for facilities built under an earlier analysis? Some method to

balance the costs of increasing structural integrity with safety considerations

may be necessary.

RW-9

"absolute value" - the adjective is unnecessary if the value is never negative.

RW-10

You are assuming that older hazard curves are correlated with median

estimates. Median estimates from LLNL and EPRI being lower only implies

that median estimates have decreased if your assumption is true. Thus any

meaningful conclusion is unwarranted.

RW-11

The meaning of the second set of three bars is not explained.

RW-12

"i.e." should be "e.g." here and at its several other locations in the text.

RW-13

"has" should be "have"

RW-14

Should "large" be "larger"?

A-20