ML19341B801

From kanterella
Revision as of 08:31, 31 January 2020 by StriderTol (talk | contribs) (Created page by program invented by StriderTol)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Clarifies Impact of Mod Proposed in PSAR Suppl 8 Re Structural Response of Containment Bldg to Seismic Loads,Per NRC Request.Encl Bldg Deletion Would Cause Lower Response, Due to Reduction in Weight Containment Bldg Must Carry
ML19341B801
Person / Time
Site: Vogtle  Southern Nuclear icon.png
Issue date: 02/23/1981
From: Ehrensperger W
GEORGIA POWER CO.
To: Eisenhut D
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
NUDOCS 8102270621
Download: ML19341B801 (2)


Text

O Oc: d ~ #

C :" O J"-/

P;e c- 5:n 45;5

{-c-N 3 -~++

a us  ;\-Sv

a y g ,

7 +;--n ::a CZ C5:

W. E. Ehrensoerger p

= n =m :m

- : .- u: ,

gv February 23, 1981 +) %.,

.( ,g .

Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Attn: Darrell C. Eisenhut, Director /w gf f{'ij[N. AG'y Division of Project Management '.-

t h p 4 uf/ b' LIl $

U. S. Naciear Regulatory Corm:ission J J G lcg Washington, D.C. 20555 dg-" ced,

% 'jp.7,, ,,.Cy NRC DOCKET NUMBERS 50-424 AND 50-425 CONSTRUCTION PERMIT NUMBERS CPPR-108 AND CPPR-109 k'4' A __ , .,C/ ,h"

ALVIN W. V0GTLE NUCLEAR PLANT-UNITS 1 AND 2 XQU,c 3 ENCLOSURE BUILDING

Dear Mr. Eisenhut:

As a result of Supplement 8 to the Vogtle Nuclear Plant PSAR, the NRC requested additional information to clarify the impact of the proposed modification on structural response of the containment building to seismic loads. The following additional information is provided.

The mass and stiffness characteristics are the two principal parameters in dynamic analysis of the containment, and by addressing the impact of the deletion of the enclosure building on these parameters, the effect of the proposed design modification on structural response of the con-tainment building to seismic loads can be ascertained.

The enclosure building is a light steel frame structure with metal siding and provides negligible additional stiffness contribution compared to the stiffness of the containment shell. As such, the stiffness characteris-tics of the enclosure building were not included in the seismic model of .

the containment building used to obtain the acceleration values for which the building was designed. Thus, there is no impact of the deletion of the enclosure building on the stiffness characteristics of the containment building.

The total we_ight of the containment building with the enclosure building and the weight of the enclosure building itself, as modeled in the seismic analysis, are about 150,200 kips and 2,682 kips respectively.- As such, the mass of the enclosure building is about 2% of the total mass, and hence the impact of the deletion of the enclosure building on the mass char-acteristics of the containment building is _ considered insignificant.

0I 40 18102270 SI a

e Mr. Darrell C. Eisenhut Februa ry 23, 1981 Page Two Based on the above discussion, it can be concluded tnat the response characteristics of the containment building under seismic loads would essentially be unaltered by the deletion of the enclosure building and the total force on the containment buildina would be, if anything, lower due to the slight reduction in the total weight the containment building has tc carry.

Yours truly,

,  ! , e='

W. E. Ehrensperger UEE/sb xc: J. A. Bailey D. E. Dutton R. A. Thomas J. L. Vota B. L. Lex L. T. Gucwa G. F. Trowbridge, Esq.

File: X7M00.0, X7BC06, X?BJ07 Log: GN-115 Suorn to and subscribed before .Te this /.I d day of k/w- y, , 1981.

h k./h: ./m b Notary Public Notary PARc, Gedrgis, State At terne ify comi ssion expi res: My commissien r.nskes mar. 21. It'-

.