ML18078A827: Difference between revisions

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
← Older edit
VisualWikitext
Created page by program invented by StriderTol
StriderTol Bot change
 
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown)
Line 13: Line 13:
| document type = CORRESPONDENCE-LETTERS, INCOMING CORRESPONDENCE, UTILITY TO NRC
| document type = CORRESPONDENCE-LETTERS, INCOMING CORRESPONDENCE, UTILITY TO NRC
| page count = 5
| page count = 5
| project =
| stage = Other
}}
}}


=Text=
=Text=
{{#Wiki_filter:e OPS~G Public Service E!ectric and Gas Company 80 Park Place Newark, N.J. 07101 Phone 201 /430-7000 Februa.cy 6, 1979 Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulatioo U. S. Nuclear Regulato:r:y Comnissicn Washmgtm, D. c. 20555 Attentim:         Mr. Olan D. Parr, Chief Light Water Reactors Branch 3 Division of Project Management Gentlerren :
{{#Wiki_filter:I -
RESPONSE TO REQUESTS FOR ADDITIONAL INED!MATION No. 2 UNIT SAIEM NUCLEAR GENERATIN'G STATION J:DCKET NO. 50-311 Public Service Electric and Gas Cc:mpany hereby transmits sixty (60) copies for your request for further clarificaticn related to the response to NIC Questicn 5. 94. The information ccntained herelil will 1:e mco:rporated mto the Salem FSAR m an amendment to our application.
e OPS~G Public Service E!ectric and Gas Company 80 Park Place Newark, N.J. 07101 Phone 201 /430-7000 Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulatioo U. S. Nuclear Regulato:r:y Comnissicn Washmgtm, D. c.
20555 Attentim:
Mr. Olan D. Parr, Chief Gentlerren :
Light Water Reactors Branch 3 Division of Project Management RESPONSE TO REQUESTS FOR ADDITIONAL INED!MATION No. 2 UNIT SAIEM NUCLEAR GENERATIN'G STATION J:DCKET NO. 50-311 Februa.cy 6, 1979 Public Service Electric and Gas Cc:mpany hereby transmits sixty (60) copies for your request for further clarificaticn related to the response to NIC Questicn 5. 94.
The information ccntained herelil will 1:e mco:rporated mto the Salem FSAR m an amendment to our application.
Should you have any questicns, please do not hesitate to contact us.
Should you have any questicns, please do not hesitate to contact us.
Ve~l~ yo           s, fl4?1/
Enclosure 7 90 2 0 90 201 The Energy People Ve~l~ yo s, fl4?1/
R. L. Mittl General Manager -
R. L. Mittl General Manager -
Licensing and Environment Engmeering and Construction Enclosure 7 90 2 0 90 201 The Energy People 95-2001 (400M) 9-77
Licensing and Environment Engmeering and Construction 95-2001 (400M) 9-77  


QUESTION 5.94 Compare the response spectra and damping values utilize~         i~
QUESTION 5.94 Compare the response spectra and damping values utilize~ i~
your seis~ic analysis with the related ones identifie~ i~
your seis~ic analysis with the related ones identifie~ i~
Regulatory Guides 1.60 and 1.61 and provide us with the results of your evaluation.
Regulatory Guides 1.60 and 1.61 and provide us with the results of your evaluation.
* ANSWER The tabulation below provides a comparison of the damping values used in the seismic analysis with those identified in Regulatory Guide 1.61. It can be seen that the damping values used in the Salem analysis are consistently more conservative than the Regulatory Guide recommended values.
ANSWER The tabulation below provides a comparison of the damping values used in the seismic analysis with those identified in Regulatory Guide 1.61.
Com2onent                               Damei ng Values SSE                     OBE Salem     RG 1. 61     Salem     RG 1. 61 Westinghouse Supplied Equi pm en t and Large     1. 0         3.0         *5         2. 0 .
It can be seen that the damping values used in the Salem analysis are consistently more conservative than the Regulatory Guide recommended values.
Diameter Piping Systems Greater than 12" Small Diameter Piping         *5         2.0         *5         1. 0 Systems 12" or less Concrete Structures         5.0         7.0       2.0         4. 0 Bolted or Rivited Steel     5.0         8.0       2.5         4.0 Welded Steel               3.0         4.0       1. 0       2.0 The Salem ground response spectra are generally lower than those normalized from Regulatory Guide 1.60.       However, the conservative damping values used in the Salem analyses compen-sated for the differences. Furthermore, our consultant, Conrad Associates used time history as input for Class I structure SNGS-FSAR                                             Amendment 43 UNITS 1 & 2               QS.94-1                     P78 72 56
Com2onent Damei ng Values SSE OBE Salem RG 1. 61 Salem RG 1. 61 Westinghouse Supplied Equi pm en t and Large
: 1. 0 3.0
* 5
: 2. 0.
Diameter Piping Systems Greater than 12" Small Diameter Piping
* 5 2.0
* 5
: 1. 0 Systems 12" or less Concrete Structures 5.0 7.0 2.0
: 4. 0 Bolted or Rivited Steel 5.0 8.0 2.5 4.0 Welded Steel 3.0 4.0
: 1. 0 2.0 The Salem ground response spectra are generally lower than those normalized from Regulatory Guide 1.60.
However, the conservative damping values used in the Salem analyses compen-sated for the differences.
Furthermore, our consultant, Conrad Associates used time history as input for Class I structure SNGS-FSAR UNITS 1 & 2 QS.94-1 Amendment 43 P78 72 56  


.... ',
seismic analyses.
seismic analyses. The respGnse nGrmalized tG EL Centre     !~(G N-S components, as shGW!i in FSAR Figures 5.2-22 an~ 5.2-2? are considerably higher than the Salem grGun~ respcnse spe=tra.
The respGnse nGrmalized tG EL Centre  
In the seismic analysis Gf mechanical equipment (Westinghcuse supplied) and catagory I structures the method of combining responses is to add absolutely the results of the vertical and the worst of the two horizontal earthqu3ke   CG~pcnents.
!~(G N-S components, as shGW!i in FSAR Figures 5.2-22 an~ 5.2-2? are considerably higher than the Salem grGun~ respcnse spe=tra.
SNGS-FSAR                                         Arien<iment  43 UN:'.:TS l & 2             QS.94-1               P"78 72 57
In the seismic analysis Gf mechanical equipment (Westinghcuse supplied) and catagory I structures the method of combining responses is to add absolutely the results of the vertical and the worst of the two horizontal earthqu3ke CG~pcnents.
SNGS-FSAR UN:'.:TS l  
& 2 QS.94-1 Arien<iment 43 P"78 72 57  


....
QUESTION 5.94 Compare the response spectra and damping values utilized i~
QUESTION 5.94 Compare the response spectra and damping values utilized i~
your seis~ic analysis with the related ones identifie~ :~
your seis~ic analysis with the related ones identifie~ :~
Regulatory Guides 1.60 and 1.61 and provide us with the res~lts of your evaluation.
Regulatory Guides 1.60 and 1.61 and provide us with the res~lts of your evaluation.
ANSWER The   ta~ulation below provides a comparison of the damping values used in the seismic analysis with those identified in Regulatory Guide 1.61. It can be seen that the dam?ing values used in the Salem analysis are consistently more conservative than the Regulatory Guide recommended values.
ANSWER The ta~ulation below provides a comparison of the damping values used in the seismic analysis with those identified in Regulatory Guide 1.61.
Comoonent                               Damt:in9 Values SSE                   OBE Salem     RG l. 61   Salem     RG l. 61 Westingho:..ise Supplied Equi pm en t and Large       l. 0       3.0         *5         2.0 Diameter Piping Systems Greater than 12" Sm al 1 Diameter Piping         *5       2.0         .5         l. 0 Systems 12" or less Concrete Structures           5.0       7.0       2.0         4. 0 Bo 1 ted or Rivited Steel     5.0       8.0       2. 5       4. 0 Welded Steel                 3.0       4.0       1. 0       2.0 The Salem ground response spectra are generally lower than those normalized from Regulatory Guide 1.60.       However, the conservative damping values used in the Salem analyses compen-sated for the differences. Furthermore, our consultant, Conrad Associates used time history as input for Class I structure SNGS-FSAR                                             Amendment 43 UNITS l & 2                 Q5.94-l                   P78 72 56
It can be seen that the dam?ing values used in the Salem analysis are consistently more conservative than the Regulatory Guide recommended values.
Comoonent Damt:in9 Values SSE OBE Salem RG l. 61 Salem RG l. 61 Westingho:..ise Supplied Equi pm en t and Large
: l. 0 3.0
* 5 2.0 Diameter Piping Systems Greater than 12" Sm al 1 Diameter Piping
* 5 2.0  
.5
: l. 0 Systems 12" or less Concrete Structures 5.0 7.0 2.0
: 4. 0 Bo 1 ted or Rivited Steel 5.0 8.0
: 2. 5
: 4. 0 Welded Steel 3.0 4.0
: 1. 0 2.0 The Salem ground response spectra are generally lower than those normalized from Regulatory Guide 1.60.
However, the conservative damping values used in the Salem analyses compen-sated for the differences.
Furthermore, our consultant, Conrad Associates used time history as input for Class I structure SNGS-FSAR UNITS l & 2 Q5.94-l Amendment 43 P78 72 56  


*--~
*--~
seismic analyses. The respGnse ncr~alized ts EL Centre   19~0 N-S compo~~nts, as shew~ in FSAP Figures 5.2-2? and 5.2-29 are considerably higher than the Salem grGund respcnse spe=tra.
seismic analyses.
In the seismic analysis cf mechanical equipment (Westinghcuse supplied) and catagory I structures the methud of combining responses is to add absolutely the results of the vertical and the worst of the twc horizontal earthquake cc~pcnents.
The respGnse ncr~alized ts EL Centre 19~0 N-S compo~~nts, as shew~ in FSAP Figures 5.2-2? and 5.2-29 are considerably higher than the Salem grGund respcnse spe=tra.
SNGS-F SAR                                       Arn endm en t 43 UNITS 1 & 2               QS.94-1               P"78 72 57}}
In the seismic analysis cf mechanical equipment (Westinghcuse supplied) and catagory I structures the methud of combining responses is to add absolutely the results of the vertical and the worst of the twc horizontal earthquake cc~pcnents.
SNGS-F SAR Arn endm en t 4 3 UNITS 1 & 2 QS.94-1 P"78 72 57}}

Latest revision as of 06:19, 6 January 2025

Forwards Addl Info in Response to NRC Question 5.94 on Response Spectra & Damping Values Used in Util Seismic Analyses,As Compared W/Those in Reg Guides 1.60 & 1.61.Info Will Be Incorporated Into FSAR in Amend to Application
ML18078A827
Person / Time
Site: Salem 
Issue date: 02/06/1979
From: Mittl R
Public Service Enterprise Group
To: Parr O
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
NUDOCS 7902090207
Download: ML18078A827 (5)
v • d • e


Text

I -

e OPS~G Public Service E!ectric and Gas Company 80 Park Place Newark, N.J. 07101 Phone 201 /430-7000 Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulatioo U. S. Nuclear Regulato:r:y Comnissicn Washmgtm, D. c.

20555 Attentim:

Mr. Olan D. Parr, Chief Gentlerren :

Light Water Reactors Branch 3 Division of Project Management RESPONSE TO REQUESTS FOR ADDITIONAL INED!MATION No. 2 UNIT SAIEM NUCLEAR GENERATIN'G STATION J:DCKET NO. 50-311 Februa.cy 6, 1979 Public Service Electric and Gas Cc:mpany hereby transmits sixty (60) copies for your request for further clarificaticn related to the response to NIC Questicn 5. 94.

The information ccntained herelil will 1:e mco:rporated mto the Salem FSAR m an amendment to our application.

Should you have any questicns, please do not hesitate to contact us.

Enclosure 7 90 2 0 90 201 The Energy People Ve~l~ yo s, fl4?1/

R. L. Mittl General Manager -

Licensing and Environment Engmeering and Construction 95-2001 (400M) 9-77

QUESTION 5.94 Compare the response spectra and damping values utilize~ i~

your seis~ic analysis with the related ones identifie~ i~

Regulatory Guides 1.60 and 1.61 and provide us with the results of your evaluation.

ANSWER The tabulation below provides a comparison of the damping values used in the seismic analysis with those identified in Regulatory Guide 1.61.

It can be seen that the damping values used in the Salem analysis are consistently more conservative than the Regulatory Guide recommended values.

Com2onent Damei ng Values SSE OBE Salem RG 1. 61 Salem RG 1. 61 Westinghouse Supplied Equi pm en t and Large

1. 0 3.0
  • 5
2. 0.

Diameter Piping Systems Greater than 12" Small Diameter Piping

  • 5 2.0
  • 5
1. 0 Systems 12" or less Concrete Structures 5.0 7.0 2.0
4. 0 Bolted or Rivited Steel 5.0 8.0 2.5 4.0 Welded Steel 3.0 4.0
1. 0 2.0 The Salem ground response spectra are generally lower than those normalized from Regulatory Guide 1.60.

However, the conservative damping values used in the Salem analyses compen-sated for the differences.

Furthermore, our consultant, Conrad Associates used time history as input for Class I structure SNGS-FSAR UNITS 1 & 2 QS.94-1 Amendment 43 P78 72 56

seismic analyses.

The respGnse nGrmalized tG EL Centre

!~(G N-S components, as shGW!i in FSAR Figures 5.2-22 an~ 5.2-2? are considerably higher than the Salem grGun~ respcnse spe=tra.

In the seismic analysis Gf mechanical equipment (Westinghcuse supplied) and catagory I structures the method of combining responses is to add absolutely the results of the vertical and the worst of the two horizontal earthqu3ke CG~pcnents.

SNGS-FSAR UN:'.:TS l

& 2 QS.94-1 Arien<iment 43 P"78 72 57

QUESTION 5.94 Compare the response spectra and damping values utilized i~

your seis~ic analysis with the related ones identifie~ :~

Regulatory Guides 1.60 and 1.61 and provide us with the res~lts of your evaluation.

ANSWER The ta~ulation below provides a comparison of the damping values used in the seismic analysis with those identified in Regulatory Guide 1.61.

It can be seen that the dam?ing values used in the Salem analysis are consistently more conservative than the Regulatory Guide recommended values.

Comoonent Damt:in9 Values SSE OBE Salem RG l. 61 Salem RG l. 61 Westingho:..ise Supplied Equi pm en t and Large

l. 0 3.0
  • 5 2.0 Diameter Piping Systems Greater than 12" Sm al 1 Diameter Piping
  • 5 2.0

.5

l. 0 Systems 12" or less Concrete Structures 5.0 7.0 2.0
4. 0 Bo 1 ted or Rivited Steel 5.0 8.0
2. 5
4. 0 Welded Steel 3.0 4.0
1. 0 2.0 The Salem ground response spectra are generally lower than those normalized from Regulatory Guide 1.60.

However, the conservative damping values used in the Salem analyses compen-sated for the differences.

Furthermore, our consultant, Conrad Associates used time history as input for Class I structure SNGS-FSAR UNITS l & 2 Q5.94-l Amendment 43 P78 72 56

  • --~

seismic analyses.

The respGnse ncr~alized ts EL Centre 19~0 N-S compo~~nts, as shew~ in FSAP Figures 5.2-2? and 5.2-29 are considerably higher than the Salem grGund respcnse spe=tra.

In the seismic analysis cf mechanical equipment (Westinghcuse supplied) and catagory I structures the methud of combining responses is to add absolutely the results of the vertical and the worst of the twc horizontal earthquake cc~pcnents.

SNGS-F SAR Arn endm en t 4 3 UNITS 1 & 2 QS.94-1 P"78 72 57

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML18078A827&oldid=5015174"