ML18078A827: Difference between revisions
StriderTol (talk | contribs) Created page by program invented by StriderTol |
StriderTol (talk | contribs) Created page by program invented by StriderTol |
||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
| issue date = 02/06/1979 | | issue date = 02/06/1979 | ||
| title = 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 | | title = 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 | ||
| author name = | | author name = Mittl R | ||
| author affiliation = PUBLIC SERVICE ELECTRIC & GAS CO. OF NEW JERSEY | | author affiliation = PUBLIC SERVICE ELECTRIC & GAS CO. OF NEW JERSEY | ||
| addressee name = | | addressee name = Parr O | ||
| addressee affiliation = NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION (NRR) | | addressee affiliation = NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION (NRR) | ||
| docket = 05000311 | | docket = 05000311 | ||
Revision as of 17:21, 17 June 2019
| 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) | |
Text
I -e 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 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 your analysis with the related ones 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 N-S components, as shGW!i in FSAR Figures 5.2-22 5.2-2? are considerably higher than the Salem 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 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 your analysis with the related ones Regulatory Guides 1.60 and 1.61 and provide us with the of your evaluation.
ANSWER The 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 ts EL Centre N-S as 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 SNGS-F SAR Arn endm en t 4 3 UNITS 1 & 2 QS.94-1 P"78 72 57