Comment (4) of Patricia Campbell on FR Doc # 2013-04514

GEH provides the following general and specific comments for NRC-2013-0041. General Comment: Issuing the “Technical Rational” paper explaining the proposed revisions was helpful in understanding the basis for the overall approach and is a good practice for other situations involving several different guidance document revisions. Issuing redline versions of the draft revised SRP section is also a good practice. The following two specific comments are provided for NRC consideration in preparing the final SRP revisions: -SRP 3.7.2, Section II, Acceptance Criteria, SRP Acceptance Criteria, Item 4: Soil Structure Interaction (Item B on page 3.7.2-15): Expand the discussion of the finite element discretization of the excavated soil volume to include: “The finite element mesh of the excavated soil/rock volume may be sized to pass 50 Hz or the highest frequency of significance in all directions for the Upper Bound soil/rock profile. The same mesh may be used for the Lower Bound and Best Estimate profiles for which the passing frequencies are lower.” -SRP 3.7.2, Section II, Acceptance Criteria, SRP Acceptance Criteria, Item 4: Soil Structure Interaction (Item (2) on page 3.7.2-20): Clarify that the modified subtraction method (MSM) is also known as the extended subtraction method (ESM).