
doi: 10.2172/451214
Members of the US Geological Survey staff in Golden, Colorado, have reviewed the submissions of Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL) staff and of Risk Engineering, Inc. (REI) (Golden, Colorado) for seismic hazard estimates for Department of Energy facilities at Portsmouth, Ohio, and Paducah, Kentucky. We reviewed the historical seismicity and seismotectonics near the two sites, and general features of the LLNL and EPRI/SOG methodologies used by LLNL and Risk Engineering respectively, and also the separate Risk Engineering methodology used at Paducah. We discussed generic issues that affect the modeling of both sites, and performed alternative calculations to determine sensitivities of seismic hazard results to various assumptions and models in an attempt to assign reasonable bounding values of the hazard. In our studies we find that peak acceleration values of 0.08 g for Portsmouth and 0.32 g for Paducah represent central values of the, ground motions obtained at 1000-year return periods. Peak accelerations obtained in the LLNL and Risk Engineering studies have medians near these values (results obtained using the EPRI/SOG methodology appear low at both sites), and we believe that these medians are appropriate values for use in the evaluation of systems, structures, and components for seismic structural integrity and for the seismic design of new and improved systems, structures, and components at Portsmouth and Paducah.
Ground Motion, Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant, 05 Nuclear Fuels, Seismic Events, 550, Seismicity, Paducah Plant, Tectonics, Risk Assessment
Ground Motion, Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant, 05 Nuclear Fuels, Seismic Events, 550, Seismicity, Paducah Plant, Tectonics, Risk Assessment
| selected citations These citations are derived from selected sources. This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | 0 | |
| popularity This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network. | Average | |
| influence This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | Average | |
| impulse This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network. | Average |
