ML18078A827: Difference between revisions

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
← Older editNewer edit →
VisualWikitext
Created page by program invented by StriderTol
Created page by program invented by StriderTol
Line 16: Line 16:


=Text=
=Text=
{{#Wiki_filter: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:
{{#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 :
Mr. Olan D. Parr, Chief Gentlerren
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.
: 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. 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.
Ve~l~ yo           s, fl4?1/
* 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
R. L. Mittl General Manager -
* 5 2. 0 . Diameter Piping Systems Greater than 12" Small Diameter Piping
Licensing and Environment Engmeering and Construction Enclosure 7 90 2 0 90 201 The Energy People 95-2001 (400M) 9-77
* 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.
QUESTION 5.94 Compare the response spectra and damping values utilize~        i~
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}}
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                                              Amendment 43 UNITS 1 & 2                QS.94-1                    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                                        Arien<iment  43 UN:'.:TS l & 2            QS.94-1                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                                              Amendment 43 UNITS l & 2                  Q5.94-l                  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 43 UNITS 1 & 2               QS.94-1               P"78 72 57}}

Revision as of 15:37, 21 October 2019

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

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 :

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.

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

Ve~l~ yo s, fl4?1/

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

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 Amendment 43 UNITS 1 & 2 QS.94-1 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 Arien<iment 43 UN:'.:TS l & 2 QS.94-1 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 Amendment 43 UNITS l & 2 Q5.94-l 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 43 UNITS 1 & 2 QS.94-1 P"78 72 57

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML18078A827&oldid=1944683"