The Central and Eastern United States Seismic Source Characterization for Nuclear Facilities (CEUS-SSC) Project was conducted over the period from April 2008 to December 2011 to provide a regional seismic source model for use in probabilistic seismic hazard analyses (PSHAs) for nuclear facilities. The study replaces previous regional seismic source models conducted for this purpose, including the Electric Power Research Institute–Seismicity Owners Group (EPRI-SOG) model (EPRI, 1988, 1989) and the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory model (Bernreuter et al., 1989). Unlike the previous studies, the CEUS-SSC Project was sponsored by multiple stakeholders-namely, the EPRI Advanced Nuclear Technology Program, the Office of Nuclear Energy and the Office of the Chief of Nuclear Safety of the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), and the Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). The study was conducted using Senior Seismic Hazard Analysis Committee (SSHAC) Study Level 3 methodology to provide high levels of confidence that the data, models, and methods of the larger technical community have been considered and the center, body, and range of technically defensible interpretations have been included.

The regional seismic source characterization (SSC) model defined by this study can be used for site-specific PSHAs, provided that appropriate site-specific assessments are conducted as required by current regulations and regulatory guidance for the nuclear facility of interest. This model has been designed to be compatible with current and anticipated ground-motion characterization (GMC) models. The current recommended ground-motion models for use at nuclear facilities are those developed by EPRI (2004, 2006a, 2006b). The ongoing Next Generation Attenuation–East (NGA-East) project being supported by the NRC, DOE, and EPRI will provide ground-motion models that are appropriate for use with the CEUS-SSC model. The methodology for a SSHAC Level 3 project as applied to the CEUS-SSC Project is explained in the SSHAC report (Budnitz et al., 1997), which was written to discuss the evolution of expert assessment methodologies conducted during the previous three decades for purposes of probabilistic risk analyses. The methodological guidance provided in the SSHAC report was intended to build on the lessons learned from those previous studies and, specifically, to arrive at processes that would make it possible to avoid the issues encountered by the previous studies (NRC, 2011).

The SSHAC assessment process, which differs only slightly for Level 3 and 4 studies, is a technical process accepted in the NRC’s seismic regulatory guidance (Regulatory Guide 1.208) for ensuring that uncertainties in data and scientific knowledge have been properly represented in seismic design ground motions consistent with the requirements of the seismic regulation 10 CFR Part 100.23 (“Geologic and Seismic Siting Criteria”). Therefore, the goal of the SSHAC assessment process is the proper and complete representation of knowledge and uncertainties in the SSC and GMC inputs to the PSHA (or similar hazard analysis). As discussed extensively in the SSHAC report (Budnitz et al., 1997) and affirmed in NRC (2011), a SSHAC assessment process consists of two important sequential activities, evaluation and integration. For a Level 3 assessment, these activities are conducted by the Technical Integration (TI) Team under the leadership of the TI Lead. As described in NRC (2011),

The fundamental goal of a SSHAC process is to carry out properly and document completely the activities of evaluation and integration, defined as:

Evaluation: The consideration of the complete set of data, models, and methods proposed by the larger technical community that are relevant to the hazard analysis.

Integration: Representing the center, body, and range of technically defensible interpretations in light of the evaluation process (i.e., informed by the assessment of existing data, models, and methods).

Each of the assessment and model-building activities of the CEUS-SSC Project is associated with the evaluation and integration steps in a SSHAC Level 3 process. Consistent with the requirements of a SSHAC process, the specific roles and responsibilities of all project participants were defined in the Project Plan, and adherence to those roles was the responsibility of the TI Lead and the Project Manager. The technical assessments are made by the TI Team, who carry the principal responsibility of evaluation and integration, under the technical leadership of the TI Lead. The Database Manager and other technical support individuals assist in the development of work products. Resource and proponent experts participate by presenting their data, models, and interpretations at workshops and through technical interchange with the TI Team throughout the project. The Participatory Peer Review Panel (PPRP) is responsible for a continuous review of both the SSHAC process being followed and the technical assessments being made. The project management structure is headed by the Project Manager, who serves as the liaison with the sponsors and the PPRP and manages the activities of all participants. The SSHAC Level 3 assessment process and implementation is discussed in depth in Chapter 2 of this report.

Each of the methodology steps in the SSHAC guidelines (Budnitz, 1997) was addressed adequately during the CEUS-SSC Project. Furthermore, the project developed a number of enhancements to the process steps for conducting a SSHAC Study Level 3 project. For example, the SSHAC guidelines call for process steps that include developing a preliminary assessment model, calculating hazard using that model in order to identify the key issues, and finalizing the model in light of the feedback provided from the hazard calculations and sensitivity analyses. Because of the regional nature of the project and the multitude of assessments required, four rounds of model-building and three rounds of feedback were conducted. These activities ensured that all significant issues and uncertainties were identified and that the appropriate effort was devoted to the issues of most significance to the hazard results. A comparison of the activities conducted during the CEUS-SSC Project with those recommended in the SSHAC guidelines themselves (Section 2.6) led to the conclusion that the current standards of practice have been met for a SSHAC Study Level 3 process-both those that are documented in the SSHAC report and those that resulted from precedents set by projects conducted since the SSHAC report was issued.

The catalog of past earthquakes that have occurred in a region is an important source of information for the quantification of future seismic hazards. This is particularly true in stable continental regions (SCRs) such as the CEUS where the causative mechanisms and structures for the occurrence of damaging earthquakes are generally poorly understood, and the rates of crustal deformation are low such that surface and near-surface indications of stresses in the crust and the buildup and release of crustal strains are difficult to quantify. Because the earthquake catalog is used in the characterization of the occurrence of future earthquakes in the CEUS, developing an updated earthquake catalog for the study region was an important focus of the CEUS-SSC Project. The specific goals for earthquake catalog development and methods used to attain those goals are given in Chapter 3.

The earthquake catalog development consists of four main steps: catalog compilation, assessment of a uniform size measure to apply to each earthquake, identification of dependent earthquakes (catalog declustering), and assessment of the completeness of the catalog as a function of location, time, and earthquake size. An important part of the catalog development process was review by seismologists with extensive knowledge and experience in catalog compilation. The result is an earthquake catalog covering the entire study region for the period from 1568 through the end of 2008. Earthquake size is defined in terms of the moment magnitude scale (Hanks and Kanamori, 1979), consistent with the magnitude scale used in modern ground-motion prediction equations (GMPEs) for CEUS earthquakes. A significant contribution of the CEUS-SSC Project is the work conducted to develop an updated and consistent set of conversion relationships between various earthquake size measures (instrumental magnitudes and intensity) and moment magnitude.

The conceptual SSC framework described in Chapter 4 was developed early in the CEUS-SSC Project in order to provide a consistent approach and philosophy to SSC by the TI Team. This framework provides the basic underpinnings of the SSC model developed for the project, and it led to the basic structure and elements of the master logic tree developed for the SSC model. In considering the purpose of the CEUS-SSC Project, the TI Team identified three attributes that are needed for a conceptual SSC framework:

1. A systematic, documented approach to treating alternatives using logic trees, including alternative conceptual models for future spatial distributions of seismicity (e.g., stationarity); alternative methods for expressing the future temporal distribution of seismicity (e.g., renewal models, Poisson models); and alternative data sets for characterizing seismic sources (e.g., paleoseismic data, historical seismicity data).
2. A systematic approach to identifying applicable data for the source characterization, evaluating the usefulness of the data, and documenting the consideration given to the data by the TI Team.
3. A methodology for identifying seismic sources based on defensible criteria for defining a seismic source, incorporating the lessons learned in SSC over the past two decades, and identifying the range of approaches and models that can be shown to be significant to hazard.

Each of these needs was addressed by the methodology used in the project. For example, the need for a systematic approach to identifying and evaluating the data and information that underlie the source characterization assessments was met by the development of Data Summary and Data Evaluation tables. These tables were developed for each seismic source to document the information available at the time of the CEUS-SSC assessments (the Data Summary tables) and the way those data were used in the characterization process (the Data Evaluation tables). Given the evolution of approaches to identifying seismic sources, it is appropriate to provide a set of criteria and the logic for their application in the CEUS-SSC Project. In the project, unique seismic sources are defined to account for distinct differences in the following criteria:

• Earthquake recurrence rate

• Maximum earthquake magnitude (Mmax)

• Expected future earthquake characteristics (e.g., style of faulting, rupture orientation, depth distribution)

• Probability of activity of tectonic feature(s)

Rather than treat these criteria as operating simultaneously or without priority, the CEUS-SSC methodology works through them sequentially. Further, because each criterion adds complexity to the seismic source model, it is applied only if its application would lead to hazard-significant changes in the model. In this way, the model becomes only as complex as required by the available data and information.

The CEUS-SSC master logic tree is tied to the conceptual SSC framework that establishes the context for the entire seismic source model. The master logic tree depicts the alternative interpretations and conceptual models that represent the range of defensible interpretations, and the relative weights assessed for the alternatives. By laying out the alternatives initially, the subsequent detailed source evaluations were conducted within a framework that ensures consistency across the sources. Important elements of the master logic tree are as follows:

• Representation of the sources defined based on paleoseismic evidence for the occurrence of repeated large-magnitude earthquakes (RLMEs, defined as two or more earthquakes with M ≥ 6.5).

• Alternatives to the spatial distribution of earthquakes based on differences in maximum magnitudes (Mmax zones approach).

• Representation of uncertainty in spatial stationarity of observed seismicity based on smoothing of recurrence parameters.

• Representation of possible differences in future earthquake characteristics (e.g., style, seismogenic thickness, and orientation of ruptures), which lead to definition of seismotectonic zones in the logic tree (seismotectonic zones approach).

The methodologies used by the project to make the SSC assessments are discussed in Chapter 5. The heart of any SSC model for PSHA is a description of the future spatial and temporal distribution of earthquakes. Continued analysis of the historical seismicity record and network monitoring by regional and local seismic networks has led to acceptance within the community that the general spatial patterns of observed small- to moderate-magnitude earthquakes provide predictive information about the spatial distribution of future large-magnitude earthquakes. The analyses leading to this conclusion have focused on whether the observed patterns of earthquakes have varied through time; therefore, in effect, this is an assessment of uncertainty in whether small- to moderate-magnitude earthquakes have been relatively stationary through time. However, the available data on larger-magnitude earthquakes and their relationship to the spatial distribution of smaller earthquakes based on the observed record are quite limited. These data are not sufficient to allow confidence in the predictions generated by empirical spatial models. For this reason, geologic and geophysical data are needed to specify the locations of future earthquakes in addition to the observed patterns of seismicity.

Detailed studies in the vicinity of large historical and instrumental earthquakes, and liquefaction phenomena associated with them, coupled with field and laboratory studies of geotechnical properties, are leading to a stronger technical basis for (1) placing limits on the locations of paleoearthquakes interpreted by the distribution of liquefaction phenomena and (2) defining their magnitudes. In some cases, the paleoseismic evidence for RLMEs is compelling, and the TI Team has included the RLME source in the SSC model. The locations of RLME sources notwithstanding, the spatial distribution of distributed seismicity sources has advanced in PSHA largely because of the assumption of spatial stationarity, and the SSC and hazard community uses approaches to “smooth” observed seismicity to provide a map that expresses the future spatial pattern of recurrence rates. The CEUS-SSC model is based largely on the assumption, typical in PSHA studies, that spatial stationarity of seismicity is expected to persist for a period of approximately 50 years.

Estimating Mmax in SCRs such as the CEUS is highly uncertain despite considerable interest and effort by the scientific community over the past few decades. Mmax is defined as the upper truncation point of the earthquake recurrence curve for individual seismic sources, and the typically broad distribution of Mmax for any given source reflects considerable epistemic uncertainty. Because the maximum magnitude for any given seismic source in the CEUS occurs rarely relative to the period of observation, the use of the historical seismicity record provides important but limited constraints on the magnitude of the maximum event. Because of the independent constraints on earthquake size, those limited constraints are used to estimate the magnitudes of RLME. For distributed seismicity source zones, two approaches are used to assess Mmax: the Bayesian approach and the Kijko approach. In the Bayesian procedure (Johnston et al., 1994), the prior distribution is based on the magnitudes of earthquakes that occurred worldwide within tectonically analogous regions. As part of the CEUS-SSC Project, the TI Team pursued the refinement and application of the Bayesian Mmax approach because it provides a quantitative and repeatable process for assessing Mmax.

The TI Team also explored alternative approaches for the assessment of Mmax that provide quantitative and repeatable results, and the team identified the approach developed by Kijko (2004) as a viable alternative. While the Kijko approach requires fewer assumptions than the Bayesian approach in that it uses only the observed earthquake statistics for the source, this is offset by the need for a relatively larger data sample in order to get meaningful results. Both approaches have the positive attribute that they are repeatable given the same data and they can be readily updated given new information. The relative weighting of the two approaches for inclusion in the logic tree is source-specific, a function of the numbers of earthquakes that are present within the source upon which to base the Mmax assessment: sources with fewer earthquakes are assessed to have little or no weight for the Kijko approach, while those with larger numbers of events are assessed higher weight for the Kijko approach. In all cases, because of the stability of the Bayesian approach and the preference for “analogue” approaches within the larger technical community, the Bayesian approach is assessed higher weight than the Kijko approach for all sources.

A major effort was devoted to updating the global set of SCR earthquakes and to assessing statistically significant attributes of those earthquakes following the approach given in Johnston et al. (1994). In doing so, it was found that the only significant attribute defining the prior distribution is the presence or absence of Mesozoic-or-younger extension. The uncertainty in this assessment is reflected in the use of two alternative priors: one that takes into account the presence or absence of crustal domains having this attribute, and another that combines the entire CEUS region as a single SCR crustal domain with a single prior distribution. The use of the Bayesian-and Kijko-approach requires a definition of the largest observed magnitude within each source, and this assessment, along with the associated uncertainty, was incorporated into the Mmax distributions for each seismic source. Consideration of global analogues led to the assessment of an upper truncation to all Mmax distributions at 8¼ and a lower truncation at 5½. The broad distributions of Mmax for the various seismic source zones reflect the current epistemic uncertainty in the largest earthquake magnitude within each seismic source.

The CEUS-SSC model is based to a large extent on an assessment that spatial stationarity of seismicity will persist for time periods of interest for PSHA (approximately the next 50 years). Stationarity in this sense does not mean that future locations and magnitudes of earthquakes will occur exactly where they have occurred in the historical and instrumental record. Rather, the degree of spatial stationarity varies as a function of the type of data available to define the seismic source. RLME sources are based largely on paleoseismic evidence for repeated large-magnitude (M ≥ 6.5) earthquakes that occur in approximately the same location over periods of a few thousand years. On the other hand, patterns of seismicity away from the RLME sources within the Mmax and seismotectonic zones are defined from generally small- to moderate-magnitude earthquakes that have occurred during a relatively short (i.e., relative to the repeat times of large events) historical and instrumental record. Thus, the locations of future events are not as tightly constrained by the locations of past events as for RLME sources. The spatial smoothing operation is based on calculations of earthquake recurrence within one-quarter-degree or half-degree cells, with allowance for “communication” between the cells. Both a-and b-values are allowed to vary, but the degree of variation has been optimized such that b-values vary little across the study region.

The approach used to smooth recurrence parameters is a refinement of the penalized-likelihood approach used in EPRI-SOG (EPRI, 1988), but it is designed to include a number of elements that make the formulation more robust, realistic, and flexible. These elements include the reformulation in terms of magnitude bins, the introduction of magnitude-dependent weights, catalog incompleteness, the effect of Mmax, spatial variation of parameters within the source zone, and the prior distributions of b. A key assessment made by the TI Team was the weight assigned to various magnitude bins in the assessment of smoothing parameters (Cases A, B, and E). This assessment represents the uncertainty in the interpretation that smaller magnitudes define the future locations and variation in recurrence parameters. Appropriately, the penalized-likelihood approach results in higher spatial variation (less smoothing) when the low-magnitude bins are included with high weight, and much less variation (higher smoothing) in the case where the lower-magnitude bins are given low or zero weight. The variation resulting from the final set of weights reflects the TI Team’s assessment of the epistemic uncertainty in the spatial variation of recurrence parameters throughout the SSC model.

The earthquake recurrence models for the RLME sources are somewhat simpler than those for distributed seismicity sources because the magnitude range for individual RLMEs is relatively narrow and their spatial distribution is limited geographically such that spatial variability is not a concern. This limits the problem to one of estimating the occurrence rate in time of a point process. The data that are used to assess the occurrence rates are derived primarily from paleoseismic studies and consist of two types: data that provide estimated ages of the paleoearthquakes such that the times between earthquakes can be estimated, and data that provide an estimate of the number of earthquakes that have occurred after the age of a particular stratigraphic horizon. These data are used to derive estimates of the RLME occurrence rates and their uncertainty.

The estimation of the RLME occurrence rates is dependent on the probability model assumed for the temporal occurrence of these earthquakes. The standard model applied for most RLME sources in this study is the Poisson model, in which the probability of occurrence of an RLME in a specified time period is completely characterized by a single parameter, λ, the rate of RLME occurrence. The Poisson process is “memory less”-that is, the probability of occurrence in the next time interval is independent of when the most recent earthquake occurred, and the time between earthquakes is exponentially distributed with a standard deviation equal to the mean time between earthquakes. For two RLME sources (Reelfoot Rift–New Madrid fault system and the Charleston source), the data are sufficient to suggest that the occurrence of RLMEs is more periodic in nature (the standard deviation is less than the mean time between earthquakes). For these RLME sources a simple renewal model can also be used to assess the probability of earthquake occurrence. In making an estimate of the probability of occurrence in the future, this model takes into account the time that has elapsed since the most recent RLME occurrence.

The CEUS-SSC model has been developed for use in future PSHAs. To make this future use possible, the SSC model must be combined with a GMC model. At present, the GMPEs in use for SCRs such as the CEUS include limited information regarding the characteristics of future earthquakes. In anticipation of the possible future development of GMPEs for the CEUS that will make it possible to incorporate similar types of information, a number of characteristics of future earthquakes in the CEUS are assessed. In addition to characteristics that might be important for ground motion assessments, there are also assessed characteristics that are potentially important to the modeling conducted for hazard analysis. Future earthquake characteristics assessed include the tectonic stress regime, sense of slip/style of faulting, strike and dip of ruptures, seismogenic crustal thickness, fault rupture area versus magnitude relationship, rupture length-to-width aspect ratio, and relationship of ruptures to source boundaries.

Chapters 6 and 7 include discussions of the seismic sources that are defined by the Mmax zones and the seismotectonic zones branches of the master logic tree. Because of convincing evidence for their existence, both approaches include RLME sources. The rarity of repeated earthquakes relative to the period of historical observation means that evidence for repeated events comes largely from the paleoseismic record. By identifying the RLMEs and including them in the SSC model, there is no implication that the set of RLMEs included is in fact the total set of RLMEs that might exist throughout the study region. This is because the presently available studies that locate and characterize the RLMEs have been concentrated in certain locations and are not systematic across the entire study region. Therefore, the evidence for the existence of the RLMEs is included in the model where it exists, but the remaining parts of the study region are also assessed to have significant earthquake potential, which is evidenced by the inclusion of moderate-to-large magnitudes in the Mmax distributions for every Mmax zone or seismotectonic zone.

In Chapter 6, each RLME source is described in detail by the following factors: (1) evidence for temporal clustering, (2) geometry and style of faulting, (3) RLME magnitude, and (4) RLME recurrence. The descriptions document how the data have been evaluated and assessed to arrive at the various elements of the final SSC model, including all expressions of uncertainty. The Data Summary and Data Evaluation tables (Appendices C and D) complement the discussions in the text, documenting all the data that were considered in the course of data evaluation and integration process for each particular seismic source.

Alternative models for the distributed seismicity zones that serve as background zones to the RLME sources are either Mmax zones or seismotectonic zones. The Mmax zones are described in Chapter 6 and are defined according to constraints on the prior distributions for the Bayesian approach to estimating Mmax. The seismotectonic zones are described in Chapter 7 and are identified based on potential differences in Mmax as well as future earthquake characteristics. Each seismotectonic zone in the CEUS-SSC model is described according to the following attributes: (1) background information from various data sets; (2) bases for defining the seismotectonic zone; (3) basis for the source geometry; (4) basis for the zone Mmax (e.g., largest observed earthquake); and (5) future earthquake characteristics. Uncertainties in the seismotectonic zone characteristics are described and are represented in the logic trees developed for each source.

For purposes of demonstrating the CEUS-SSC model, seismic hazard calculations were conducted at seven demonstration sites throughout the study region, as described in Chapter 8. The site locations were selected to span a range of seismic source types and levels of seismicity. The results from the seismic hazard calculations are intended for scientific use to demonstrate the model, and they should not be used for engineering design. Mean hazard results are given for a range of spectral frequencies (PGA, 10 Hz, and 1 Hz) and for a range of site conditions. All calculations were made using the EPRI (2004, 2006) ground-motion models such that results could be compared to understand the SSC effects alone. Sensitivity analyses were conducted to provide insight into the dominant seismic sources and the important characteristics of the dominant seismic source at each site. The calculated mean hazard results are compared with the results using the SSC model from the 2008 U.S. Geological Survey national seismic hazard maps and the SSC model from the Combined Operating License applications for new nuclear power reactors. The hazard results using the CEUS-SSC model given in Chapter 8 are reasonable and readily understood relative to the results from other studies, and sensitivities of the calculated hazard results can be readily explained by different aspects of the new model. The TI Team concludes that the SSC model provides reasonable and explainable calculated seismic hazard results, and the most important aspects of the SSC model to the calculated hazard (e.g., recurrence rates of RLME sources, recurrence parameters for distributed seismicity sources, Mmax) and their uncertainties have all been appropriately addressed.

Presumably, the GMC model input to the PSHA calculations will be replaced in the future by the results of the ongoing NGA-East project. The calculated hazard at the demonstration sites in Chapter 8 comes from the regional CEUS-SSC model and does not include any local refinements that might be necessary to account for local seismic sources. Depending on the regulatory guidance that is applicable for the facility of interest, additional site-specific studies may be required to provide local refinements to the model.

To assist future users of the CEUS-SSC model, Chapter 9 presents a discussion on the use of the model for PSHA. The basic elements of the model necessary for hazard calculations are given in the Hazard Input Document (HID). This document provides all necessary parameter values and probability distributions for use in a modern PSHA computer code. The HID does not, however, provide any justification for the values, since that information is given in the text of this report.

Chapter 9 also describes several simplifications to seismic sources that can be made to increase efficiency in seismic hazard calculations. These simplifications are recommended on the basis of sensitivity studies of alternative hazard curves that represent a range of assumptions on a parameter’s value. Sensitivities are presented using the test sites in this study. For applications of the seismic sources from this study, similar sensitivity studies should be conducted for the particular site of interest to confirm these results and to identify additional simplifications that might be appropriate. For the seismic sources presented, only those parameters that can be simplified are discussed and presented graphically. The sensitivity studies consisted of determining the sensitivity of hazard to logic tree branches for each node of the logic tree describing that source. The purpose was to determine which nodes of the logic tree could be collapsed to a single branch in order to achieve more efficient hazard calculations without compromising the accuracy of overall hazard results.

Finally, this report provides a discussion of the level of precision that is associated with seismic hazard estimates in the CEUS. This discussion addresses how seismic hazard estimates might change if the analysis were repeated by independent experts having access to the same basic information (geology, tectonics, seismicity, ground-motion equations, site characterization). It also addresses how to determine whether the difference in hazard would be significant if this basic information were to change and that change resulted in a difference in the assessed seismic hazard. This analysis was performed knowing that future data and models will continue to be developed and that a mechanism for evaluating the significance of that information is needed. Based on the precision model evaluated, if an alternative assumption or parameter is used in a seismic hazard study, and it potentially changes the calculated hazard (annual frequency of exceedance) by less than 25 percent for ground motions with hazards in the range 10^–4 to 10^–6, that potential change is within the level of precision at which one can calculate seismic hazard. It should be noted, however, that a certain level of precision does not relieve users from performing site-specific studies to identify potential capable seismic sources within the site region and vicinity as well as to identify newer models and data. Also, this level of precision does not relieve users from fixing any errors that are discovered in the CEUS-SSC model as it is implemented for siting critical facilities. In addition, NRC has not defined a set value for requiring or not requiring siting applicants to revise or update PSHAs.

Included in the report are appendices that summarize key data sets and analyses: the earthquake catalog, the Data Summary and Data Evaluation tables, the paleoliquefaction database, the HID, and documentation important to the SSHAC process. These data and analyses will assist future users of the CEUS-SSC model in the implementation of the model for purposes of PSHA. The entire report and database will be provided on a website after the Final Project Report is issued.

The TI Team, Project Manager, and Sponsors determined the approach for quality assurance on the CEUS-SSC Project in 2008, taking into account the SSHAC assessment process and national standards. The approach was documented in the CEUS-SSC Project Plan dated June 2008 and discussed in more detail in the CEUS-SSC Report (Appendix L). Beyond the assurance of quality arising from the external scientific review process, it is the collective, informed judgment of the TI Team (via the process of evaluation and integration) and the concurrence of the PPRP (via the participatory peer review process), as well as adherence to the national standard referred to in Appendix L, that ultimately lead to the assurance of quality in the process followed and in the products that resulted from the SSHAC hazard assessment framework.