This report describes and summarizes a probabilistic evaluation of ground motions for the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory (INEL). The purpose of this evaluation is to provide a basis for updating the seismic design criteria for the INEL. In this study, site-specific seismic hazard curves were developed for seven facility sites as prescribed by DOE Standards 1022-93 and 1023-96. These sites include the: Advanced Test Reactor (ATR); Argonne National Laboratory West (ANL); Idaho Chemical Processing Plant (ICPP or CPP); Power Burst Facility (PBF); Radioactive Waste Management Complex (RWMC); Naval Reactor Facility (NRF); and Test Area North (TAN). The results, probabilistic peak ground accelerations and uniform hazard spectra, contained in this report are not to be used for purposes of seismic design at INEL. A subsequent study will be performed to translate the results of this probabilistic seismic hazard analysis to site-specific seismic design values for the INEL as per the requirements of DOE Standard 1020-94. These site-specific seismic design values will be incorporated into the INEL Architectural and Engineering Standards.

The identification of seismic sources is often based on a combination of geologic and tectonic considerations and patterns of observed seismicity; hence, a historical earthquake catalogue is important. A historical catalogue of earthquakes of approximate magnitude (M) 2.5 and greater for the time period 1850 through 1992 was compiled for the INEL region. The primary data source used was the Decade of North American Geology (DNAG) catalogue for the time period from about 1800 through 1985 (Engdahl and Rinehart, 1988). A large number of felt earthquakes, especially prior to the 1970s̀, which were below the threshold of completeness established in the DNAG catalogue (Engdahl and Rinehart, 1991), were taken from the state catalogues compiled by Stover and colleagues at the National Earthquake Information Center (NEIC) and combined with the DNAG catalogue for the INEL region. The state catalogues were those of Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Utah, and Wyoming. NEICs̀ Preliminary Determination of Epicenters (PDE) and the state catalogues compiled by the Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries (DOGAMI), and the University of Nevada at Reno (UNR) were also used to supplement the pre-1986 time period. A few events reanalyzed by Jim Zollweg (Boise State University, written communication, 1994) were also modified in the catalogue. In the case of duplicate events, the DNAG entry was preferred over the Stover et al. entry for the period 1850 through 1985. A few events from Berg and Baker (1963) were also added to the catalogue. This information was and will be used in determining the seismic risk of buildings and facilities located at the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory.

Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis (PSHA) is a methodology that estimates the likelihood that various levels of earthquake-caused ground motion will be exceeded at a given location in a given future time-period. LLNL has been developing the methodology and codes in support of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) needs for reviews of site licensing of nuclear power plants, since 1978. A number of existing computer codes have been validated and still can lead to ranges of hazard estimates in some cases. Until now, the seismic hazard community had not agreed on any specific method for evaluation of these codes. The Earthquake Engineering Research Institute (EERI) and the Pacific Engineering Earthquake Research (PEER) center organized an exercise in testing of existing codes with the aim of developing a series of standard tests that future developers could use to evaluate and calibrate their own codes. Seven code developers participated in the exercise, on a voluntary basis. Lawrence Livermore National laboratory participated with some support from the NRC. The final product of the study will include a series of criteria for judging of the validity of the results provided by a computer code. This EERI/PEER project was first planned to be completed by June of 2003. As the group neared completion of the tests, the managing team decided that new tests were necessary. As a result, the present report documents only the work performed to this point. It demonstrates that the computer codes developed by LLNL perform all calculations correctly and as intended. Differences exist between the results of the codes tested, that are attributed to a series of assumptions, on the parameters and models, that the developers had to make. The managing team is planning a new series of tests to help in reaching a consensus on these assumptions.