Part B - Response To Comments

DOE-STD-1024-92

Appendix A

COMMENT - RESOLUTION DOCUMENT

Development of a DOE Wide Position Regarding the Use of

LLNL and EPRI Probabilistic Seismic

Hazard Curves

PART B - RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

GENERAL RESPONSE

(NS-1, LLNL-1, LLNL-7, LLNL-12, LLNL-13, NP-1, NP-2, RF-2, NV-1, EM-1,

RHO-1, EH-1, RW-1)

The general response from comments submitted was positive. Most

organizations indicated that a need for this Standard currently exists and

that the approach outlined by this position is rational and practical.

Indicated strengths of the position include the incorporation of both EPRI

and LLNL methodologies, the use of appropriately conservative correction

factors and the inclusion of thorough background material.

There do exist newly discovered technical issues within the Standard

position, also indicated in the comments, which need to be resolved before

final endorsement. The SWG is currently following and participating in the

efforts of EM in the development of seismic guidelines for high level waste

storage tanks, and the efforts of NE-70 in the development of natural

phenomena review guidelines.

A statement has been added to the revised Standard exempting DOE

facilities from this Standard that are subject to NRC licensing

requirements.

USE OF TERA, INC. CURVES OR NEHRP MAP

(NS-2, EH-3, EH-4)

The Standard is recommended for Eastern sites because it gives a more

up-to-date representation of seismic hazard and is necessary to

incorporate more recent information as soon as possible and to address

the concerns with the TERA, Inc. study. In general, the TERA, Inc.

seismic hazard curves do not now represent state-of-the-art seismic

hazard estimates, particularly with respect to uncertainty assessment

and characterization. The Standard recommendations are thought to be

conservative in that future work will demonstrate that the mean hazard

curves are lower than values recommended.

A-22