ML18295A123

Redacted - Millstone Power Station, Unit 2 - Updated Final Safety Analysis Report, Chapter 5, Revision 35

ML18295A123
Person / Time
Site:	Millstone
Issue date:	06/29/2017
From:	Dominion Nuclear Connecticut
To:	Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Guzman R V
Shared Package
ML17212A038	List: ML17212A039 ML17212A041 ML17212A042 ML17212A044 ML17212A045 ML17212A047 ML17212A048 ML17212A049 ML17212A050 ML17212A051 ML17212A052 ML17212A053 ML17212A054 ML17212A056 ML17212A058 ML17212A059 ML17212A060 ML17212A063 ML17212A064 ML17212A065 ML17212A066 ML17212A067 ML17212A068 ML17212A069 ML17212A070 ML17212A071 ML17212A072 ML17212A073 ML17212A074 ML17212A076 ML17212A077 ML17212A079 ML17212A080 ML17212A081 ML17212A082 ML17212A083 ML17212A084 ML17212A086 ML17212A087 ML17212A088 ML17212A089 ML18295A107 ML18295A114 ML18295A123 ML18295A125
References
17-208
Download: ML18295A123 (413)

Text

Millstone Power Station Unit 2 Safety Analysis Report Chapter5 MPS2 UFSAR 5-i Rev. 35 CHAPTER 5-STRUCTURES Table of ContentsSection Title Page5.1GENERAL...........................................................................................................5.1-15.1.1Classes Of Structures..................................................................................5.1-15.1.1.1Class I Structures........................................................................................5.1-15.1.1.2Class II Structures.......................................................................................5.1-25.1.2Codes And Specifications...........................................................................5.1-25.1.3Regulatory Guides......................................................................................5.1-25.2CONTAINMENT GENERAL DESCRIPTION.................................................5.2-15.2.1Construction Materials................................................................................5.2-15.2.1.1Corrosive Protection...................................................................................5.2-35.2.2Design Bases...............................................................................................5.2-45.2.2.1Bases for Design Loads..............................................................................5.2-45.2.2.1.1Dead Loads.................................................................................................5.2-45.2.2.1.2Live Loads..................................................................................................5.2-55.2.2.1.3Loss-of-Coolant Accident Loads................................................................5.2-55.2.2.1.4Thermal Loads............................................................................................5.2-55.2.2.1.5Earthquake Loads.......................................................................................5.2-65.2.2.1.6Wind and Tornado Loads...........................................................................5.2-65.2.2.1.7Hydrostatic Loads.......................................................................................5.2-75.2.2.1.8External Pressure Loads..............................................................................5.2-75.2.2.1.9Prestressing Loads......................................................................................5.2-75.2.2.1.10Test Loads...................................................................................................5.2-75.2.2.2Load Combinations.....................................................................................5.2-75.2.2.2.1Load Prior to Prestressing...........................................................................5.2-85.2.2.2.2Loads at Transfer of Prestress.....................................................................5.2-85.2.2.2.3Loads Under Sustained Prestress................................................................5.2-95.2.2.2.4At Design Loads.........................................................................................5.2-95.2.2.2.5At Factored Loads.....................................................................................5.2-115.2.2.2.6Prestress Losses........................................................................................5.2-155.2.2.2.7Capacity Reduction Factors......................................................................5.2-155.2.2.3Structural Analysis....................................................................................5.2-165.2.2.3.1Critical Areas of Analysis.........................................................................5.2-165.2.2.3.2Analytical Techniques..............................................................................5.2-165.2.2.3.3Buttress and Tendon Anchorage Zone Analyses......................................5.2-185.2.2.3.4Stresses Near Large Openings..................................................................5.2-195.2.2.3.5Seismic Analysis.......................................................................................5.2-205.2.2.3.6Wind and Tornado Analyses.....................................................................5.2-215.2.2.3.7Results of Structural Analyses..................................................................

5.2-22 MPS2 UFSAR Table of Contents (Continued)

Section Title Page 5-ii Rev. 355.2.3Steel Liner Plate And Penetration Sleeves...............................................5.2-235.2.3.1Construction Materials..............................................................................5.2-235.2.3.2Design Criteria..........................................................................................5.2-235.2.3.3Design Loads............................................................................................5.2-245.2.3.4Permissible Stresses and Strains...............................................................5.2-255.2.3.5Design of Liner Plate Anchorage..............................................................5.2-255.2.3.6Design of Weldments................................................................................5.2-275.2.4Interior Structures.....................................................................................5.2-275.2.4.1General......................................................................................................5.2-275.2.4.2Construction Materials..............................................................................5.2-285.2.4.3Design Loads............................................................................................5.2-285.2.4.3.1Dead Loads...............................................................................................5.2-285.2.4.3.2Live Loads................................................................................................5.2-285.2.4.3.3Earthquake Loads.....................................................................................5.2-295.2.4.3.4Loss-of-Coolant-Accident (LOCA) Loads...............................................5.2-295.2.4.4Design Criteria..........................................................................................5.2-305.2.4.4.1At Design Loads.......................................................................................5.2-315.2.4.4.2At Factored Loads.....................................................................................5.2-315.2.4.4.3Thermal Gradients....................................................................................5.2-325.2.4.4.4Differential Pressures................................................................................5.2-335.2.5Specific Design Topics.............................................................................5.2-345.2.5.1Missile Protection.....................................................................................5.2-345.2.5.1.1Design Criteria Inside the Containment....................................................5.2-345.2.5.1.2Design Criteria Outside the Containment.................................................5.2-365.2.5.1.3Turbine Missile Consideration..................................................................5.2-375.2.5.2Post-Tensioning Sequence........................................................................5.2-385.2.5.3Differential Displacement Between Structures.........................................5.2-395.2.5.4Polar Crane for the Containment..............................................................5.2-395.2.5.5Containment Maintenance Truss..............................................................5.2-395.2.5.6Unit 2 Stack..............................................................................................5.2-405.2.5.7Pipe Whip Protection Criteria...................................................................5.2-405.2.5.7.1Methods of Protection Against Pipe Whip...............................................5.2-405.2.5.7.2Design Procedures for Restraints and Barriers.........................................5.2-425.2.5.8Jib Crane for Containment........................................................................5.2-435.2.6Containment Penetrations.........................................................................5.2-445.2.6.1Types of Penetrations................................................................................5.2-445.2.6.1.1Electrical Penetrations..............................................................................5.2-445.2.6.1.2Piping Penetrations...................................................................................5.2-445.2.6.1.3Equipment Hatch and Personnel Lock......................................................5.2-445.2.6.1.4Fuel Transfer Tube....................................................................................5.2-455.2.6.2Design of Penetrations..............................................................................

5.2-46 MPS2 UFSAR Table of Contents (Continued)

Section Title Page 5-iii Rev. 355.2.6.2.1Design Criteria..........................................................................................5.2-465.2.6.2.2Design of High-Temperature Penetrations...............................................5.2-465.2.6.2.3Penetration Materials................................................................................5.2-475.2.6.2.4Provisions for Isolation Valves.................................................................5.2-485.2.6.3Installation of Penetrations.......................................................................5.2-485.2.6.4Testability of Penetrations........................................................................5.2-485.2.7Containment Isolation System..................................................................5.2-495.2.7.1Design Bases.............................................................................................5.2-495.2.7.1.1Functional Requirements..........................................................................5.2-495.2.7.1.2Design Criteria..........................................................................................5.2-495.2.7.2System Description...................................................................................5.2-505.2.7.2.1System.......................................................................................................5.2-505.2.7.2.2Components..............................................................................................5.2-535.2.7.3System Operation......................................................................................5.2-535.2.7.3.1Emergency Operation...............................................................................5.2-535.2.7.4Availability and Reliability.......................................................................5.2-545.2.7.4.1Special Features........................................................................................5.2-545.2.7.4.2Tests and Inspections................................................................................5.2-575.2.8Containment Testing And Surveillance....................................................5.2-585.2.8.1Integrated Leak-Rate Surveillance Test Program.....................................5.2-585.2.8.1.1Total Time Method for Calculating Containment Leakage Rate.............5.2-595.2.8.1.2Mass Point Method for Calculating Containment Leakage Rate.............5.2-605.2.8.2Structural Integrity Test............................................................................5.2-605.2.8.3Post-Operational Leakage Monitoring......................................................5.2-605.2.8.4Tendon Surveillance.................................................................................5.2-605.2.8.4.1Program Description.................................................................................5.2-605.2.8.4.2Compliance with Regulatory Guide.........................................................5.2-615.2.9References.................................................................................................5.2-615.3ENCLOSURE BUILDING..................................................................................5.3-15.3.1General Description....................................................................................5.3-15.3.2Construction Materials................................................................................5.3-25.3.3Design Bases...............................................................................................5.3-25.3.3.1Bases for Design Loads..............................................................................5.3-25.3.3.1.1Dead Loads.................................................................................................5.3-35.3.3.1.2Live Loads..................................................................................................5.3-35.3.3.1.3Earthquake Loads.......................................................................................5.3-35.3.3.1.4Wind and Tornado Loads...........................................................................5.3-35.3.3.2Design Load Combination and Structural Analysis...................................5.3-45.3.3.2.1At Design Loads.........................................................................................

5.3-4 MPS2 UFSAR Table of Contents (Continued)

Section Title Page 5-iv Rev. 355.3.3.2.2At Factored Loads.......................................................................................5.3-45.3.3.2.3Seismic Analysis.........................................................................................5.3-55.3.4Through-Line Leakage Evaluation.............................................................5.3-55.4AUXILIARY BUILDING...................................................................................5.4-15.4.1General Description....................................................................................5.4-15.4.1.1Fuel Storage Facility...................................................................................5.4-15.4.1.1.1New Fuel Storage........................................................................................5.4-15.4.1.1.2Spent Fuel Storage......................................................................................5.4-15.4.1.1.3Compliance with Safety Guide 13..............................................................5.4-25.4.2Construction Materials................................................................................5.4-25.4.3Design Bases...............................................................................................5.4-35.4.3.1Bases for Design Loads..............................................................................5.4-35.4.3.1.1Dead Loads.................................................................................................5.4-35.4.3.1.2Live Loads..................................................................................................5.4-45.4.3.1.3Thermal Loads............................................................................................5.4-45.4.3.1.4Earthquake Loads.......................................................................................5.4-45.4.3.1.5Lateral Pressure Loads................................................................................5.4-45.4.3.1.6Wind and Tornado Loads...........................................................................5.4-45.4.3.1.7Pipe Restraint Loads...................................................................................5.4-55.4.3.1.8Pipe Whipping Loads..................................................................................5.4-55.4.3.1.9Cask Drop Loads........................................................................................5.4-55.4.3.1.10Fuel Transfer Tube Bellows.......................................................................5.4-65.4.3.2Design Load Combinations........................................................................5.4-75.4.3.3Structural Analysis....................................................................................5.4-105.4.3.3.1Seismic Analysis.......................................................................................5.4-105.4.3.3.2Wind and Tornado Analysis.....................................................................5.4-105.4.3.3.3Cask Drop in Spent Fuel Pool...................................................................5.4-105.4.3.3.4Stainless Steel Liner Plate for Spent Fuel Pool........................................5.4-115.4.3.3.5Fuel Transfer Tube....................................................................................5.4-115.4.3.3.6Spent Fuel Pool Missile Protection...........................................................5.4-125.5TURBINE BUILDING........................................................................................5.5-15.5.1General Description....................................................................................5.5-15.5.2Construction Materials................................................................................5.5-15.5.3Design Bases...............................................................................................5.5-25.5.3.1Bases for Design Loads..............................................................................5.5-25.5.3.1.1Dead Loads.................................................................................................5.5-25.5.3.1.2Live Loads..................................................................................................

5.5-3 MPS2 UFSAR Table of Contents (Continued)

Section Title Page 5-v Rev. 355.5.3.1.3Thermal Loads............................................................................................5.5-35.5.3.1.4Earthquake Loads.......................................................................................5.5-35.5.3.1.5Wind and Tornado Loads...........................................................................5.5-35.5.3.1.6Crane Loads................................................................................................5.5-45.5.3.2Design Load Combinations........................................................................5.5-45.5.3.3Structural Analysis......................................................................................5.5-55.5.3.3.1Seismic Analysis.........................................................................................5.5-55.5.3.3.2Wind and Tornado Analysis.......................................................................5.5-55.6INTAKE STRUCTURE......................................................................................5.6-15.6.1GENERAL DESCRIPTION.......................................................................5.6-15.6.2Construction Materials................................................................................5.6-15.6.3Design Bases...............................................................................................5.6-25.6.3.1Bases for Design Loads..............................................................................5.6-25.6.3.1.1Dead Loads.................................................................................................5.6-25.6.3.1.2Live Loads..................................................................................................5.6-25.6.3.1.3Earthquake Loads.......................................................................................5.6-35.6.3.1.4Lateral Pressure Loads................................................................................5.6-35.6.3.1.5Wind and Tornado Loads...........................................................................5.6-35.6.3.1.6Hurricane Wave Loads...............................................................................5.6-35.6.3.2Design Load Combinations........................................................................5.6-45.6.3.3Structural Analysis......................................................................................5.6-45.6.3.3.1Seismic Analysis.........................................................................................5.6-55.6.3.3.2Wind and Tornado Analysis.......................................................................5.6-55.6.3.3.3Hurricane Wave Analysis...........................................................................5.6-55.7EXTERNAL CLASS I TANKS..........................................................................5.7-15.7.1General Description....................................................................................5.7-15.7.2Construction Materials................................................................................5.7-15.7.3Design Bases...............................................................................................5.7-15.7.3.1Bases for Design Loads..............................................................................5.7-25.7.3.1.1Dead Loads.................................................................................................5.7-25.7.3.1.2Live Loads..................................................................................................5.7-25.7.3.1.3Earthquake Loads.......................................................................................5.7-25.7.3.1.4Wind and Tornado Loads...........................................................................5.7-25.7.3.2Design Load Combinations........................................................................5.7-35.8SEISMIC DESIGN..............................................................................................5.8-1 MPS2 UFSAR Table of Contents (Continued)

Section Title Page 5-vi Rev. 355.8.1Input Criteria...............................................................................................5.8-15.8.1.1Design Response Spectra............................................................................5.8-15.8.1.2Synthetic Time History...............................................................................5.8-25.8.2Soil-Structures Interaction..........................................................................5.8-45.8.2.1Soil-Foundation Interaction........................................................................5.8-45.8.2.2Dynamic Soil Pressure on Structures..........................................................5.8-55.8.2.3Underground Structures..............................................................................5.8-65.8.3Seismic Structural Analysis........................................................................5.8-65.8.3.1Methods of Analysis...................................................................................5.8-65.8.3.2Procedure for Analysis................................................................................5.8-75.8.3.2.1Structural Responses...................................................................................5.8-75.8.3.2.2Combination of Vertical and Horizontal Responses.................................5.8-105.8.3.2.3Torsional Effect Considerations...............................................................5.8-105.8.3.2.4Natural Frequencies and Response Loads................................................5.8-115.8.3.3Damping Values.......................................................................................5.8-115.8.4Seismic System Analysis..........................................................................5.8-125.8.5Seismic Equipment Analysis....................................................................5.8-135.8.5.1Static Tests................................................................................................5.8-155.8.5.2STERI Evaluations...................................................................................5.8-155.8.5.3GIP NARE Evaluations............................................................................5.8-155.8.6Seismic Instrumentation Program.............................................................5.8-165.8.6.1Conformance with NRC Requirements....................................................5.8-165.8.6.2Description of Program.............................................................................5.8-165.8.6.3Action Following an Earthquake..............................................................5.8-195.8.7References.................................................................................................5.8-195.9CONSTRUCTION PRACTICE AND QUALITY ASSURANCE.....................5.9-15.9.1Applicable Construction Codes..................................................................5.9-15.9.2Quality Assurance Program........................................................................5.9-25.9.3Construction Materials Inspection And Installation...................................5.9-25.9.3.1Concrete......................................................................................................5.9-25.9.3.1.1Aggregates..................................................................................................5.9-25.9.3.1.2Cement........................................................................................................5.9-35.9.3.1.3Fly Ash........................................................................................................5.9-35.9.3.1.4Water and Ice..............................................................................................5.9-45.9.3.1.5Admixtures..................................................................................................5.9-45.9.3.1.6Concrete Mix Design..................................................................................5.9-45.9.3.1.7Concrete Production and Testing................................................................5.9-55.9.3.2Reinforcing Steel........................................................................................5.9-75.9.3.2.1Reinforcing Steel Materials........................................................................

5.9-7 MPS2 UFSAR Table of Contents (Continued)

Section Title Page 5-vii Rev. 355.9.3.2.2Reinforcing Steel User Test Sampling........................................................5.9-75.9.3.2.3Splicing Reinforcing Bars...........................................................................5.9-95.9.3.3Post-Tensioning System...........................................................................5.9-125.9.3.3.1Tendons.....................................................................................................5.9-125.9.3.3.2Anchorages...............................................................................................5.9-135.9.3.3.3Sheathing..................................................................................................5.9-145.9.3.3.4Corrosion Protection.................................................................................5.9-145.9.3.4Structural and Miscellaneous Steels.........................................................5.9-155.9.3.5Steel Liner Plate and Penetration Sleeves.................................................5.9-165.9.3.5.1General......................................................................................................5.9-165.9.3.5.2Fabrication and Erection...........................................................................5.9-165.9.3.5.3Inspection and Testing..............................................................................5.9-175.9.3.5.4Quality Control of Fiel d Welding Electrodes...........................................5.9-195.9.3.6Interior Coatings (Original Construction).................................................5.9-205.9.3.6.1Containment Steel Line r Plate Coatings...................................................5.9-205.9.3.6.2Containment Interior Coatings..................................................................5.9-215.9.3.7Interior Maintenance Coatings (first implemented during Mid cycle 13, 1997).

5.9-215.9.3.7.1Stainless Steel Surfaces............................................................................5.9-225.9.3.7.2Galvanized Surfaces.................................................................................5.9-225.9.3.7.3Carbon Steel Surfaces...............................................................................5.9-225.9.4Quality Control Procedures For Fi eld Welding And Nondestructive Examina

-tions...........................................................................................................5.9-235.9.4.1Scope.........................................................................................................5.9-235.9.4.2Qualifications for Welding Inspectors......................................................5.9-235.9.4.3Welding Performed by Bechte l Construction Personnel..........................5.9-235.9.4.3.1Welding Procedures..................................................................................5.9-235.9.4.3.2Welder Qualification.................................................................................5.9-235.9.4.4Welding Performed by Bechtel Subcontractors........................................5.9-245.9.4.4.1Welding Procedures..................................................................................5.9-245.9.4.4.2Welder Qualification.................................................................................5.9-245.9.4.5Instructions for Field Welding Inspectors................................................5.9-245.9.4.5.1Welding Procedures..................................................................................5.9-245.9.4.5.2Postweld Heat Treatment..........................................................................5.9-255.9.4.5.3Visual Inspection of Weldments...............................................................5.9-255.9.4.5.4Magnetic Particle Inspection....................................................................5.9-265.9.4.5.5Dye Penetrant Inspection..........................................................................5.9-265.9.4.5.6Radiographic Inspection...........................................................................5.9-275.9.4.5.7Other Welding Inspections.......................................................................5.9-275.9.4.5.8Repairs......................................................................................................5.9-275.9.4.5.9Records.....................................................................................................

5.9-27 MPS2 UFSAR Table of Contents (Continued)

Section Title Page 5-viii Rev. 355.ADESCRIPTION OF FINITE ELEMENT METHOD USED IN CONTAINMENT ANALYSIS.........................................................................................................5.A-15.A.1Introduction................................................................................................5.A-15.A.2Analytical Method.....................................................................................5.A-15.A.3Computer Program.....................................................................................5.A-15.A.4Comparisons With Known Solutions........................................................5.A-25.A.5References..................................................................................................5.A-35.BJUSTIFICATION FOR LOAD FACTORS AND LOAD COMBINATIONS USED IN DESIGN EQUATIONS OF CONTAINMENT.............................................5.B-15.B.1General........................................................................................................5.B-15.B.2Dead Loads.................................................................................................5.B-15.B.3Live Loads..................................................................................................5.B-15.B.4Seismic Loads.............................................................................................5.B-15.B.5Wind and Tornado Loads...........................................................................5.B-25.B.6Loss-of-Coolant Incident............................................................................5.B-25.B.7References...................................................................................................5.B-25.CJUSTIFICATION FOR CAPACITY REDUCTION FACTORS () USED IN DETERMINING CAPACITY OF CONTAINMENT........................................5.C-15.DEXPANDED SPECTRUM OF TORNADO MISSILES...................................5.D-15.D.1References..................................................................................................5.D-95.D.AThe Development of the Wind-Field, Tangential Velocity...................5.D.A-15.ECOMPUTER PROGRAM LIST AND DESCRIPTIONS...................................5.E-15.E.1Computer Program Applicability and Validation.............................................5.E.1-15.E.2Computer Program Test Problem Solutions.....................................................5.E.2-15.E.3Computer Program Test Problem Similarities..................................................5.E.3-15.FCONTAINMENT WATER INTRUSION INTO TENDON GALLERY DURING CONSTRUCTION (1)..................................................................................................................5.F-1 MPS2 UFSAR 5-ix Rev. 35 CHAPTER 5-STRUCTURES List of Tables Number Title5.2-1Containment Structur e Analysis Summary5.2-2Containment Structure Anal ysis Summary - Dead Load, Initial Prestress and Live Load (D+KF+L)5.2-3Containment Structure Anal ysis Summary - Dead Load, Initial Prestress and Live Load (D+F+L+1.15P)5.2-4Containment Structure Anal ysis Summary - Dead Load, Initial Prestress and Live Load, Operating Temperature and OBE (D+F+L+T 0+E) 5.2-5Containment Structure Anal ysis Summary - Dead Load, Prestress, Live Load, 100% Accident Pressure and Acci dent Temperature (D+F+L+1.0P+T 1)5.2-6Containment Structure An alysis Summary - Dead Lo ad, Prestress, Operating Temperature, Thermal Expansion Forces of Pipes, Pipe Rupture Forces and DBE (D+F+T 0+H+R+E 1)5.2-6A Deleted by FSARCR 04-MP2-0165.2-7Containment Structure Analysis Summary - Dead Load, Prestress, 100% Accident Pressure, Thermal Expansion Forces of Pipes, Pipe Rupture Forces and DBE (D+F+1.0P+H+T 1+E 1)5.2-8Containment Structure Analysis Summary - Dead Load, Prestress, 125% Accident Pressure, 125% Thermal Expansion Forces of Pipes, Accident Temperature and 125% DBE (D+F+1.25P+1.25H+T 1+1.25E)5.2-9Containment Structure Analysis Summary - Dead Load, Prestress, 150% Accident Pressure, and Accident Temperature (D+F+1.5P+T 1)5.2-10Spectrum of Potential Missil es From Inside the Containment5.2-11Containment Structure Is olation Valve Information5.2-12Containment Penetration Piping5.2-13Major (1) Containment Isolation Valves5.2-14Typical Leak Rate Measur ement System Instrumentation5.2-15Typical Containment Re sistance Temperature Det ectors and Dewcell Sensor Volume Weight Fractions5.5-1Maximum Actual Stresses - Turbine Building 5.8-1Material Damping Values 5.9-1Aggregate Tests MPS2 UFSAR List of Tables (Continued)

Number Title 5-x Rev. 355.9-2Cement Tests5.9-3Fly Ash Tests5.9-4Typical Chemical Analysis of Fly Ash Used5.9-5Allowable Void Limits for Cadwelding5.D-1Impactive Velocities (fps) of Missiles of Different C dA/W Factors as Picked from the Ground by the Design Tornado5.D-2Kinetic Energy per Ft 2 of Impact Area5.D-3Radius vs. Velocity FPS/MPH (D=0.882 psi/V 1 = 27 mph)5.D-4Radius vs. Velocity FPS/MPH (D=3 psi/V 1 = 60 mph)5.D-5Velocities of Various Missiles5.D-6Test Data Summary5.D.A-1ARelative Conservatism in Steps A, B, and C 5.D.A-2A 5.D.A-3A MPS2 UFSARNOTE: REFER TO THE CONTROLLED PLANT DRAWING FOR THE LATEST REVISION.

5-1 Rev. 35CHAPTER 5 - STRUCTURES List of Figures Number Title5.2-1Containment Structure Details5.2-2Containment Structure Details 5.2-3Design Thermal Gradient 5.2-4Equipment Hatch Details 5.2-5Personnel Lock Details 5.2-6Liner Plate 5.2-7Leak Chase Channels 5.2-8Typical Penetrations 5.2-9Bracket Details 5.2-10Liner Plate Details 5.2-11Reactor Vessel Support Details 5.2-12Lower Steam Genera tor Support Details5.2-13Upper Steam Generator Support Details 5.2-14Primary and Secondary Shield Wall 5.2-15Detail - Seismic Restraint 5.2-16Finite Element Mesh of Bo ttom of Containment Shell5.2-17Finite Element Mesh of Top of Containment Shell 5.2-18Finite Element Mesh of Contai nment Shell for Stressing Sequence5.2-19Containment Structure Stress Analysis Summary, Dead Load and Initial Prestress, Live Load5.2-20Containment Structure Stress Analysis Summary, Dead Load, Live Load, Prestress and Test Pressure5.2-21Containment Structure Stress Analysis Summary, Dead Load, Live Load, Prestress, Operating Temperature and DBE5.2-22Containment Structure Stress Analysis Summary, Dead Load, Live Load, Prestress, 100% Accident Pressure a nd Accident Temperature5.2-23Containment Structure Stress Analysis Summary, Dead Load, Prestress, Operating Temperature, Thermal Expansion Forces of Pipes, Pipe Rupture Forces and DBE MPS2 UFSAR List of Figures (Continued)NOTE: REFER TO THE CONTROLLED PLANT DRAWING FOR THE LATEST REVISION.

Figure Title 5-2 Rev. 355.2-24Containment Structure St ress Analysis Summary, Dead Load, Prestress, 100% Accident Pressure, Thermal Expansion Forces of Pipes, Accident Temperature and DBE5.2-25Containment Structure St ress Analysis Summary, Dead Load, Prestress, 125%

Accident Pressure, 125% Thermal Expa nsion Forces of Pipes, Accident Temperature and 125% OBE5.2-26Containment and Structure Stress Analysis Summary, Dead Load, Prestress, 150%

Accident Pressure and Accident Temperature5.2-27Isolation Valve Arrangements 5.2-28Isolation Valve Arrangements 5.2-29Isolation Valve Arrangements 5.2-30Isolation Valve Arrangements 5.2-31Isolation Valve Arrangements 5.2-32Isolation Valve Arrangements 5.2-33Isolation Valve Arrangements 5.2-34Isolation Valve Arrangements 5.2-35Reactor Coolant System Plan 5.2-36Reactor Coolant System Elevation5.2-37Deleted by FSARCR 04-MP2-016 5.3-1Enclosure Building 5.3-2Enclosure Building Layout 5.3-3Waterproof Membrane Details 5.3-4Waterproof Membrane Details 5.3-5Spent Fuel Cask Travel Limits 5.4-1Probable Missile Trajectories Inside Auxiliary Building5.4-2Missile Resistant Siding Detail 5.4-3Location of Missile Resistant Siding 5.5-1Joint Detail at Turbine Pedestal 5.5-2Joint Detail at Col. Line E MPS2 UFSAR List of Figures (Continued)NOTE: REFER TO THE CONTROLLED PLANT DRAWING FOR THE LATEST REVISION.

Figure Title 5-3 Rev. 355.6-1Intake Structure Layout5.6-2C.W. System - Plan 5.8-1Recommended Damped Response Spectr a 9%g Acceleration, Operating Basis Earthquake5.8-2Recommended Damped Response Spec tra 17%g Accelerati on, Design Basis Earthquake5.8-3Recommended Damped Response Spectr a 9%g Acceleration, Operating Basis Earthquake (Soil Surface)5.8-4Recommended Damped Response Spectr a, 17%g Acceleration, Design Basis Earthquake (Soil Surface)5.8-5Comparison of Smooth Response Spectra vs. Response Spectra from the Anamet Time History Desi gn Earthquake (Criti cal Damping = 0.5%)5.8-6Comparison of Smooth Response Spectra vs. Response Spectra from the Anamet Time History Desi gn Earthquake (Criti cal Damping = 1%)5.8-7Comparison of Smooth Response Spectra vs. Response Spectra from the Anamet Time History Desi gn Earthquake (Criti cal Damping = 2%)5.8-8Comparison of Smooth Response Spectra vs. Response Spectra from the Anamet Time History Desi gn Earthquake (Criti cal Damping = 5%)5.8-9Response Spectra from the Time History Design Earthquake with Various Frequency Intervals5.8-10Comparison of Response Spectra with 1952 Taft and 1940 El Centro Earthquake 5.8-11Foundation Outline 5.8-12Sections A-A & B-B 5.8-13Auxiliary Bay of Turbine Building 5.8-14Containment Mass Model 5.8-15Mode Shapes for the Containment Building 5.8-16Containment Building Design Earthquake 9% Ground Acceleration5.8-17Containment Building Design Ea rthquake 17% Ground Acceleration5.8-18Containment Structure El evation 53 feet 0 inches5.8-19Containment Structure El evation 97 feet 0 inches MPS2 UFSAR List of Figures (Continued)NOTE: REFER TO THE CONTROLLED PLANT DRAWING FOR THE LATEST REVISION.

Figure Title 5-4 Rev. 355.8-20Containment Structure El evation 152 feet 6 inches5.8-21Containment Internals Model 5.8-22Mode Shapes & Frequencies Containment Internals - North-South 5.8-23Mode Shapes & Frequencies Containm ent Internals - North-South OBE (DBE)5.8-24Mode Shapes & Frequencies Containment Internals - East-West 5.8-25Containment Internals - East-West OBE (DBE) 5.8-26Containment Internals Elevation 0 feet 0 inches - OBE (North-South) Reactor Vessel Support5.8-27Containment Internals Elevation 0 feet 0 inches - OBE (East-West) Reactor Vessel Support5.8-28Containment Internals Elevation 14 feet 6 inches - OBE (North-South) Pressurizer Support5.8-29Containment Internals Elevation 14 feet 6 inches - OBE (East-West) Pressurizer Support5.8-30Containment Internals Elevation 38 feet 6 inches - OBE (North-South) Safety Injection Tank Support5.8-31Containment Internals Elevation 38 feet 6 inches - OBE (East-West) Safety Injection Tank Support5.8-32Containment Internals Elevation 43 feet 0 inches - OBE (North-South) Steam Generator Upper Support (Snubbers)5.8-33Containment Internals Elevation 43 fe et 0 inches - OBE (East-West) Steam Generator Upper Support (Snubbers)5.8-34Containment Internals Elevation 50 feet 0 inches - OBE (North-South) Steam Generator Upper Suppo rt (Shear Keys)5.8-35Containment Internals Elevation 50 fe et 0 inches - OBE (East-West) Steam Generator Upper Suppo rt (Shear Keys)5.8-36Containment Internals Elevation0 feet 0 inches - OBE (North-South) Steam Generator Lower Support5.8-37Containment Internals Elevation 0 fe et 0 inches - OBE (East-West) Steam Generator Lower Support5.8-38Auxiliary Building Model MPS2 UFSAR List of Figures (Continued)NOTE: REFER TO THE CONTROLLED PLANT DRAWING FOR THE LATEST REVISION.

Figure Title 5-5 Rev. 355.8-39Mode Shapes & Frequencies A uxiliary Building - North-South5.8-40Auxiliary Building - North-South OBE (DBE) 5.8-41Mode Shapes & Frequencies Auxiliary Building - East-West5.8-42Auxiliary Building - East-West OBE (DBE) 5.8-43Auxiliary Building Elevation 14 feet 6 inches 5.8-44Auxiliary Building Elevation 38 feet 6 inches 5.8-45Auxiliary Building Elevation 71 feet 6 inches 5.8-46Warehouse Model 5.8-47Mode Shapes & Frequencie s Warehouse Bldg. - East-West5.8-48Mode Shapes & Frequencies Warehouse Bldg. - North-South 5.8-49Warehouse Bldg. - OBE (DBE) 5.8-50Warehouse Elevation 38 feet 6 inches 5.8-51Turbine Building Model 5.8-52Mode Shapes & Frequencies Turbine Bldg. - North-South5.8-53Turbine Bldg. OBE (DBE) East-West 5.8-54Mode Shapes & Frequencie s Turbine Bldg. - East-West5.8-55Turbine Bldg. OBE (DBE) North-South 5.8-56Turbine Building Elevation 31 feet 6 inches 5.8-57Turbine Building Crane - OBE 5.8-58Intake Structure Model 5.8-59Intake Structure OBE (DBE) 5.8-60Mode Shapes & Frequencies Intake Structure 5.8-61Intake Structure Elevation 14 feet 0 inches OBE 5.A-1Thick Walled Cylinder With Internal Pressure5.D-1Tangential Velocities as Derived fr om Hoecker's Pressure - Time Profile5.D-2Monthly Weather Review - Hoecker 5.D-3Test Data Summary MPS2 UFSAR List of Figures (Continued)NOTE: REFER TO THE CONTROLLED PLANT DRAWING FOR THE LATEST REVISION.

Figure Title 5-6 Rev. 355.D-1APlan of Spent Fuel Area5.D-2ASpent Fuel Pool Section View 5.D-3AMissile Strike Angle to Missile Proof Siding MPS2 UFSAR5.1-1Rev. 35CHAPTER 5 - STRUCTURES

5.1 GENERAL

The design bases for structures required for the normal operati ng conditions are governed by the building design codes and specific ations listed in Section 5.1.2. Th e basic design criterion for the design basis accident and seismic conditions specified that there sh all be no loss of any function of the structures which can cause danger to the safety of the public. It should be noted that the terms "Category" and "Class" are used interc hangeably throughout the MP2 FSAR in defining seismic design classifications of Structures, Systems and Components.

5.1.1 CLASSES

OF STRUCTURESStructures are grouped into two classes, depending on how their functions relate to public safety and plant operation.

5.1.1.1 Class I StructuresClass I structures are those struct ures whose loss of function could: a.Cause or increase the severity of an accident.

b.Preclude establishing and maintaining safe shutdown.c.Result in a release of radioactivity to the site boundary in excess of the l0 CFR l00 guidelines.Class I structures are designed to withstand the appropriate seis mic and other applicable loads without loss of function. These Class I structures are sufficiently is olated or protected from Class II structures to ensure that their integrities are maintained at all times. The following are Class I structures: a.The containment shell and internalsb.The enclosure building c.The auxiliary buildingd.The warehouse (eastern portion of the auxiliary building)e.The turbine building, except turbine pedestalsf.The intake structure g.The supports for all Class I system components MPS2 UFSAR5.1-2Rev. 35Note:See Table 1.4-1 for complete listing of Class I structures, systems, and components that follow the guidance of Regulator y Guide 1.29, Seismic Design Classification.

5.1.1.2 Class II StructuresClass II structures are those whose failure would not result in the release of radioactivity beyond the site boundary in excess of th e l0 CFR 20 annual limits and would not prevent safe shutdown of the reactor. The failure of Class II structures, however, may interrupt power generation.

All structures that are not listed under Class I are Cla ss II structures.

5.1.2 CODES

AND SPECIFICATIONS The following codes and specifica tions, where applicable, were us ed as the bases for the design and construction of all structures. Modifications to these codes a nd specifications are noted in the appropriate sections that descri be the details of the structur es, materials, and construction practices. Later editions of th e AISC Manual of Stee l Construction (7th, 8t h, and 9th edition - Allowable Stress Design) and ACI 318 Code (1971, 1977, 1983, 1989, and 1995) were used for the design and construction of new a nd modified portions of structures.

Subsequent editions of the AISC Manual of Steel Construction and the ACI 318 Code, as governed by the plant design change process, may be used for the design and construction of new and modified portions of structures.a.Uniform Building Code (l967 Edition)b.Building Code Requirements for Re inforced Concrete (ACI 3l8-63)c.Specifications for Structural C oncrete for Buildings (ACI 30l-66)d.Manual of Steel Construc tion (AISC, 6th Edition, 1963)e.State of Connecticut Building Code f.ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code (1968 Edition)g.ASTM Standards - Materials and testing procedures used are referenced in the appropriate sections. Whenever possible, ASTM or ASME material and testing procedures are used. Materials and test ing procedures for new and modified portions of structures conf orm to ASTM or ASME Standards as implemented by plant design change documents.

5.1.3 REGULATORY

GUIDESThe following Regulatory Guides that were in eff ect at the time of appl ication for an Operating License were used, where applicable, to establish the bases for th e design and construction of all MPS2 UFSAR5.1-3Rev. 35structures. Every effort was made to follow the guidance of the documents. Any areas where the guidance was not followed are deta iled in the specified subsections.Regulatory Guide Number Title Subsection 1.10Mechanical (Cadwell) Splices in Reinforcing Bars of Concrete Structures 5.9.3.2.31.11Instrumentation Line s Penetrating Primary Reactor Containment 5.2.7.2.11.13Fuel Storage Facility Design Basis5.4.1.1.31.15Testing of Reinforci ng Bars for Concrete Structures 5.9.3.2.21.19Nondestructive Exa mination of Primary Containment Liners 5.9.3.5.31.35In-service Survei llance of Ungrouted Tendons in Prestressed Concrete Containment Structures 5.2.8.41.12Instrumentation for Earthquakes5.8.61.18Structural Acceptance Test for Concrete Primary Reactor Containments 5.2.8.2 MPS2 UFSAR5.2-1Rev. 35

5.2 CONTAINMENT

GENERAL DESCRIPTION The containment system used for Millstone Unit 2 consists of a concrete cylindrical structure, hereinafter referred to as the containment, and a steel framed structure called the enclosure building, which completely surrounds the containment. The spaces be tween the enclosure building and the containment, together with selected areas of the auxiliary building such as the penetration rooms and rooms containing the engineered safety features, are referred to as the enclosure building filtration region (EBFR). In the event of a loss-of-coolant accident (LOCA), the EBFR is maintained at a slight vacuum by the enclosure building filt ration system. Air from the EBFR is processed through charcoal filters a nd released through the Millstone stack.The containment consists of a prestressed, reinforced concrete cylinder and dome connected to and supported by a massive reinforced concrete foundation slab. The cylindrical portion is prestressed by a post-tensioning system composed of horizontal and vertical tendons, with the horizontal tendons placed in three 240 degree systems using three buttresses as supports for the anchorages. The dome has a thr ee-way post-tensioning system. The concrete foundation slab is conventionally reinforced with high strength reinforcing steel. A continuous access gallery is provided beneath the base slab for installation of vertical tendons. A one-quarter inch thick welded steel liner is attached to the inside surface of the concrete shell to ensure a high degree of leak-tightness. The floor liner is installed on top of the structural slab and is then covered with concrete.The containment completely encloses the reactor, reactor coolant system, and portions of the auxiliary and engineered safety features systems. It ensures that an acceptable upper limit for leakage of radioactive materials to the environment will not be exceeded even if gross failure of the reactor coolant system occurs.

Principal nominal dimensions of the containment are as follows:Inside diameter (feet) 130Inside height (feet) 175Cylindrical wall thickness (feet) 3.75Dome thickness (feet) 3.25 Foundation slab thickness (feet) 8.5Liner plate thickness (inches) 0.25Internal free volume (cubic feet) 1,899,000 The containment is shown in Figures 5.2-1 and 5.2-2.

5.2.1 CONSTRUCTION

MATERIALS The following materials are used in the construction of the containment.a.Structural and Miscellaneous SteelRolled shapes, plates, and barsASTM A-36 MPS2 UFSAR5.2-2Rev. 35Crane rails ASTM A-1 High strength bolts ASTM A-325 or ASTM A-490Stainless steel ASTM A-240, Type 304b.Concrete Base slab (psi) 5000Cylindrical wall and dome (psi)5000Tendon access gallery (psi)3000 Floor slabs above floor liner (psi) 3000 Primary shield walls and steam generator pedestals (psi) 5000 All other internal structures (psi) 4000c.Reinforcing Steel Deformed bars ASTM A-615, Grade 60 Spiral bars ASTM A-82d.Prestressing Steel Tendons, Anchorage, and SheathsWires ASTM A-421, Type BA Bearing plates Armco VNTStressing washers ASTM A-4330 ShimsArmcoVNT Sheaths Galvanized corrugated steel tubing, 22 Gaugee.Containment Steel Liner Plate one-quarter inch plates ASTM A-285, Grade A Insert plates ASTM A-516, Grade 60 Penetration sleeves:Pipes ASME SA-333, Grade 6 Plates ASME SA-516, Grade 60 Exception ASME SA-36 for Equipment Hatch External Bolting Attachments MPS2 UFSAR5.2-3Rev. 35f.Interior Coating (Original Construction)Steel liner platePrimer Carbo-Zinc 11Finish coat Phenoline Number 305Concrete and masonry surfacesSurfacer Keeler & Long, Number 6548 epoxy block filler Primer Keeler & Long Number 7107 epoxy white primer Finish coat Keeler & Long, epoxy enamelg.Interior Maintenance Coatings (Fir st implemented in Mid Cycle 13, 1997)

All coating materials applied to surfaces inside or to be installed in the reactor containment are epoxy material s tested to withstand Mill stone Unit 2 design basisloss of coolant accident (DBA-LOCA) c onditions. The coating materials and their application comply with the requirement s of Regulatory Guide 1.54. Each coatingwas tested in accordance with ASTM D391 1, "Evaluating Coatings Used in Light-Water Nuclear Power Plants at Simu lated Design Basis Accident (DBA)

Conditions," to the DBA c onditions represented by the pressure (70 psig) and temperature (340

°F) curve of Figure 1, therein. Prior to expos ure to the simulated DBA conditions, each coating wa s irradiated to an accumulated dose of at least 1x10 9 Rads in accordance with ASTM D4082, "Effect of Gamma Radiation onCoatings for Use in Light-Water Nuclear Power Plants."h.Waterproofing Membrane The waterproofing membrane that was installed during c onstruction of the containment is a continuous plain sheet of polyvinyl chloride applied to the concrete surface with an adhesive. The membrane was applied after the forms were stripped. The membrane is composed of an elastomeric material havingthickness of 40 mils (minimum), a minimum tensile strength of 2,000 psi, a

minimum elongation of 200 percent at 75-80

°F, and the water absorption is less than 0.1%. The extent of the waterpr oofing membrane is shown in Figures 5.3-2 through 5.3-4 of the FSAR. All joints are la pped and the adhesive is applied continuously to the contact surface.

5.2.1.1 Corrosive Protection The reinforcing steel and tendon shea ths are cast in the concrete wa lls and base sl ab, which is a corrosion inhibitive environment.

The steel liner is in direct c ontact with, and anchored to, the inner surface of the concrete wall. Concrete will passivate the st eel surfaces, thereby lowering the galvanic potential and making it compat ible with any buried copper ground conductors.

Measurements taken in the area show that the earth has a very high resistivity. This further MPS2 UFSAR5.2-4Rev. 35diminishes the possibility of galvanic corrosion. It is therefore beli eved that there is no need for a cathodic protection system for these steel members.

A refined petroleum oil based product is used as a protective compound for the tendons. The electrical resistivity of this compound is relatively high, which makes it a poor electrolyte. This prevents the possibility of galvanic corros ion that could be detrimental to the tendons.Note: For description of water intrusion into the tendon gallery during construction and methods of repair, see Appendix 5.F.

5.2.2 DESIGN

BASES The design of the containment structure provides th e required features as out lined in Criteria 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 16, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 60, 61, Appendix A of 10 CFR Part 50.

5.2.2.1 Bases for Design LoadsThe containment is designed for all credible loads and load combinations. These load combinations consist of loads under normal operation, loads during a LOCA, test loads, and loads due to adverse environmental conditions. The following loads are considered:a.Dead loadsb.Live loadsc.Loads caused by the pressure and temperature transients of a LOCAd.Thermal loadse.Earthquake loadsf.Wind and tornado loadsg.Uplift loads due to buoyant forcesh.External pressure loadsi.Prestressing loadsj.Test loads 5.2.2.1.1 Dead LoadsDead loads consist of the weight of the containment wall, dome, base mat, interior framing and slabs, and all interior structures and equipment. Equipment dead loads are those specified on the MPS2 UFSAR5.2-5Rev. 35 drawings which are supplied by the manufacturers of the equipment installed within the containment.

5.2.2.1.2 Live LoadsLive loads in the containment in clude design floor loads, equipm ent live loads, and all loads transmitted through the supports of the enclosure building. A snow lo ad of 60 psf is used for the roof of the enclosure building.

The interior floors and slabs have the following live loads:a.Floor grating 250 psfb.Concrete floor slabs1000 psfc.Equipment live loads As spec ified on drawings supplied by th e manufacturers of the various pieces of equipment 5.2.2.1.3 Loss-of-Coolant Accident Loads The design pressure and temperatur e of the containment are greate r than the peak pressure and temperature that would result fr om a postulated complete blowdown of the reactor coolant. This could cover a rupture of the reactor coolant system up to and including the severance of the largest reactor coolant pipe.

The supports for the reactor coolan t system are designed to withst and the blowdown forces and to restrict the structural deformations associated with the sudden severance of the reactor coolant piping.Transient pressures and corresponding temperatures resulting from a LOCA or main steam line break accident are presented in Section 14. Thes e serve as the basis for a containment design pressure of 54 psig.

The variations of temper ature with time and the forces resul ting from the expansion of the liner plate with the temperature associated with a LOCA are considered.

5.2.2.1.4 Thermal LoadsThe spaces between the containment and the encl osure building are maintained at a minimum temperature between 55 and 70

°F by unit heaters, as discusse d in Section

9.9.2. Under

normal operating conditions, a temperature gr adient exists when the exterior structure of the concrete cylindrical wall is at 55 to 70

°F, while the interior surface is at an operating ambient temperature of 120°F.However, to be conservative, a design temperature of 20

°F (average minimum temperature at the site) is applied at the exterior surfaces of the concrete cylindrical wall in analyzing the temperature gradient under the normal operating conditions.

MPS2 UFSAR5.2-6Rev. 35 The temperature gradients through the cylindri cal wall of the cont ainment during normal operating and LOCA conditions are shown in Figure 5.2-3.

5.2.2.1.5 Earthquake Loads Earthquake loads are predicated on an operating basis earthquak e (OBE) at the site having a horizontal ground surface accelerat ion of 0.09 g. In addition, a de sign basis earthquake (DBE), having a horizontal ground surface acceleration of 0.17 g, is used to check the design to ensure that loss of structural functions would not occur. The seismic desi gn spectrum curves are given in Section 5.8.1.1. A vertical component two-thirds of the magnitude of the horizontal component at the ground surface is applied simultaneously as a static coeffici ent throughout the height of the structure. A dynamic analysis, ut ilizing the response sp ectrum technique, is used to obtain the earthquake loads for design.

5.2.2.1.6 Wind and Tornado LoadsWind loads for the containment are determined on the basis of the ASCE Paper 3269, "W ind Forces on Structures," using the highest wind veloci ty at the site for a 100 year re currence period.

The ASCE Paper 3269 is used mainly to determine the shape factors. Base d upon the site location and the structure classification, th e design wind velocity is taken to be 115 mph with gusts up to 140 mph.

The containment has been analyzed for torna do loads (not coincident with a LOCA or earthquake) on the following basis:a.Differential bursting pressu re between the interior and exterior of the containment is assumed to be 3 psi pressure occurring in the three seconds (1 psi/sec), followed by a calm for two seconds and a re-pre ssurization.b.Lateral loads on the containment are based on a tornado funnel which is conservatively assumed to have a periphe ral tangential veloci ty of 300 mph and a forward translation of 60 mph. These velocities are added together, resulting in a design basis tornado wind ve locity of 360 mph. The a pplicable portions of the wind design methods described in the ASCE Paper 3269 are used, particularly for the shape factors. The provisions in the paper for gust factors and variations inwind velocity with respect to height are not applied. Th e wind velocity is assumed to be uniformly distributed ove r the height of the structure.c.A tornado-borne missile as defined in Section 5.2.5.1.2.With the exception of the missile impact area, the allowable stresses necessary to resist the effects of tornadoes are 90 percen t of the yield strength of the reinforcing stee l and 85 percent of the ultimate strength of the concrete.

A discussion of the probabi lity of tornado occurrence is presented in Section 2.3 of the Millstone Unit 3 FSAR (Reference 5.2-13).

MPS2 UFSAR5.2-7Rev. 35 5.2.2.1.7 Hydrostatic LoadsBuoyant forces resulting from the displacement of ground or flood water by the structure are accounted for in the design of the structure.

The following water levels are considered:Ground water Elevation(+) 5-0Flood water Elevation (+) 18-1 5.2.2.1.8 External Pressure LoadsAn external design pressure, equivalent to a barometric pressure rise to 31 inches of mercury after the containment is sealed at 29 inches of mercury, is considered. For this condition, a differential pressure of 2 psi from the exterior to the interior of the containment is assumed and applied as an external pressure on the containment.This external design pressure is also adequate to permit the containment to be cooled to 50

°F from an initial maximum opera ting temperature of 120

°F.5.2.2.1.9 Prestressing LoadsWhere applicable, prestressing forces are considered in the loading combinations. These include the axisymmetric loads of normal compressive forces in the containment wall and dome, and the local effects at the anchorage zones from stressing and shimming the tendons.

5.2.2.1.10 Test LoadsAt the completion of construction, the containment and its penetrations are tested at 115 percent of the design pressure. This test pressure is considered in the load combinations to ensure the structural integrity of the containment.

5.2.2.2 Load CombinationsTo ensure the structural integrity, both th e working stress method and the ultimate strength method are used in the design of the containment for various loading combinations. The containment is examined with respect to stre ngth, the nature, and the amount of cracking, the magnitude of deformation, and the extent of corrosion so as to ensure proper performance. The structure is designed to meet the performanc e and strength requireme nts under the following conditions:a.Prior to prestressing MPS2 UFSAR5.2-8Rev. 35b.At transfer of prestressc.Under sustained prestressd.At design loadse.At factored loadsAll design criteria are in accordance with ACI-318-63 unless stated othe rwise herein. Members subject to stresses produced by temperature forces combined with other loads in design load combinations may be proportioned for reinforcing steel stresses 33-1/3% greater than those specified.

5.2.2.2.1 Load Prior to PrestressingUnder this condition, the structure is designed as conventionally reinforced concrete. It is designed for dead loads, live loads (including construction loads), and wind loads. Allowable stresses are in accordance with ACI-318-63.

5.2.2.2.2 Loads at Transfer of PrestressThe containment is checked for prestress loads and the resulting stresses are compared with those allowed by ACI-318-63, with the following exception:

The membrane compressive stresses are limited to 0.30 fci whereas in combination with flexural compressive stresses, the maximum allowable compressive stresses are limited to 0.60 f'ci in accordance with the ACI Code.For local stress concentrations with nonlinear stress distribution, as predicted by the finite element analysis, a compressive stress of 0.75 fc is permitted when reinforcing steel is utilized to distribute and control these localized strains. These high stresses are allowed since they occur only in small localized areas which are confined by material at lower stresses, and would have to be considerably greater than the allowable stresses of the material before significant local plastic yielding takes place.Membrane and flexural tensile stresses in concrete are permitted provided that they do not jeopardize the integrity of the steel liner plate. Membrane tensile stresses in concrete are permitted to occur during the post-tensioning sequence, but are limited to 1.0 fci. When there are flexural tensile stresses but no membrane tensile stresses, the section is designed in accordance with Section 2605(a) and the ACI Code. The stresses in the liner plate due to the combined membrane tensile stress and flexural tensile stresses are limited to 0.5 f

y. The effects of the prestressing sequence are considered.Design criteria for shear are in accordance with ACI-318-63, Chapter 26, as modified by the equations shown in Section 5.2.2.2.5. For ultimate st rength design, a load factor of 1.5 is used.

MPS2 UFSAR5.2-9Rev. 35 5.2.2.2.3 Loads Under Sustained Prestress The design conditions and the allowa ble stresses for this case are the same as those stated in Section 5.2.2.2.2 except that the allowable tensile stresses in nonprestressed reinforcing are limited to 0.5 f y and no membrane tensile stresses in c oncrete are permitted. When membrane stresses are combined with flexural stresses, te nsion is permitted provide d it does not jeopardize the integrity of the liner plate. Where the flexural tensile stresses exist, the section is designed in accordance with Section 2605(b) of the ACI Code.

5.2.2.2.4 At Design Loads The containment is designed by the working stress method for the following loading combin ations:a.D + F + L Construction caseb.D + F + L + T o + EOperating casec.D + F + L + P + T i Design incident cased.D + F + L + T s + EProlonged shutdown casee.D + F + L + 1.15 PTest case where:D = dead loads

L = live loads F = prestressing loads

P = design pressure

T i = thermal loads due to the loss-of-coolant incident T o = thermal loads due to the operating temperature T s = thermal loads due to transient wall temperature over a prolonged shutdown (20

°F at exterior face, 70

°F at center, 50

°F at interior face)

E = operating basis earthquake loads (0.09 g)Long term effects of creep and shrinkage in concre te are considered in all loading combinations.

When determining the value of the modulus of elasticity of concrete to be used in the containment analysis, instantaneous loads such as internal pressure are differentiated fr om sustained loads such as dead, prestress, and thermal loads. This distinction is necessary to evaluate the effects of creep and shrinkage deformations on the concrete.

The following equation is used to include the ef fect of creep and shrinkage in the modulus of elasticity:

MPS2 UFSAR5.2-10Rev. 35 where: E cs - sustained concrete modulus of elasticity E ci - instantaneous concrete modulus of elasticity E s - concrete strain from sustained loads E i - concrete strain from instantaneous loads The modifications described above are used in the analysis of th e containment shell for both the design and factored load conditions.

No modification is made to Pois son's ratio for concrete for eith er sustained or instantaneous loads.

Sufficient prestressing is provided in the cylin drical and dome portions of the containment to eliminate membrane tensile stress es under design load combinations. Flexural tensile cracking is permitted, but is controlled by unprestressed reinforcing steel.

Under the design load combina tions, the same performance criteria as specified in Section 5.2.2.2.2 are applied with the following exceptions:a.When the net membrane compressive stresses are below 100 psi, they are neglected an d a cracked section is assumed in the concrete for the computation ofunprestressed reinforcing steel for flexural tension. Flexural tensile stress of 0.5f y in unprestressed reinforc ing steel are allowed.b.When the maximum flexural tensile stress does not exceed and the extent of the tension zone is no more than one-third the depth of the section underconsideration, unprestressed reinforcing steel is provided to carry the entire tensile forces in the tension block. Otherwise, a cracked section is assumed in the design of the unprestressed reinforcing steel. Wh en the tensile stresses due to the bending moment are additive to the thermal tensile stresses, the allowable tensil e stresses in the unprestressed reinforcing steel is 0.5 f y.c.The problems of shear and diagonal tension in a pres tressed concrete structure areconsidered in two parts: membrane principal tension and flexur al principal tension.

Since sufficient prestressing is used to eliminate membrane tensile stresses at design loads, membrane principal tension is not a critical design case. Membrane E cs E ci E i E s E i+-----------------

x=6fc MPS2 UFSAR5.2-11Rev. 35principal tension due to combined membrane tension and membrane shear is discussed in Section 5.2.2.2.5.Flexural principal tension is associated with bending in planes perpendicular to the surface of the shell and shear acting along these planes (radial shear). The present ACI-318-63 provisions of Chapter 26 for shear are adequate for design purposes with the modifications as discussed in Section 5.2.2.2.5.Crack control in concrete is accomplished through the use of reinforcing steel in accordance with the ACI-ASCE Code Committee Standards. These criteria are based on recommendations of the Prestressed Concrete Institute.

The minimum reinforcing provided in terms of the gross concrete cross-sectional area is as follows:a.0.25 percent at the tension face for small members.b.0.20 percent for medium size members.c.0.15 percent for large members.d.0.25 percent at the exterior faces of the containment.

5.2.2.2.5 At Factored LoadsLoad factors are the coefficients by which loads are multiplied for analysis purposes to ensure that the load-deformation behavior of the structure is elastic with low strain. Th e load factor approach is used in the design as a means of making a rational evaluation of the isolated loads which must be considered to assure an adequate safety margin for the structure. This approach permits the designer to place the greatest conservatism on those loads which have the most variation and which most affect the overall safety of the structure. Consequently, a smaller load factor is used for the fixed gravity loads and larger load fa ctors are employed for th e LOCA, earthquake, and tornado loads. Justification of the load factors is discussed in Appendix 5.B.

The design of the containment satisfies the fo llowing load factors and load combinations:

C = 1/ [(1.00 +/- 0.05) (D) + 1.5P + 1.0T I + 1.0F]Eq (1)

C = 1/ [(1.00 +/- 0.05) (D) + 1.25P + 1.0T I + 1.25H + 1.25E + 1.0F]Eq (2)

C = 1/ [(1.00 +/- 0.05) (D) + 1.25H + 1.0R + 1.0F + 1.25E + 1.0T o]Eq (3)C = 1/ [(1.00 +/- 0.05) (D) + 1.25H + 1.0F + 1.25W + 1.0T o]Eq (4)C = 1/ [(1.00 +/- 0.05) (D) + 1.0P + 1.0T I + 1.0H + 1.0E + 1.0F]Eq (5)

C = 1/ [(1.00 +/- 0.05) (D) + 1.0H + 1.0R + 1.0E + 1.0F + 1.0T o]Eq (6)

MPS2 UFSAR5.2-12Rev. 35 where: C = required capacity of the stru cture to resist factored loads= capacity reduction factor D = dead loads of structures and equipm ent plus any other permanent loads which contribute stresses, such as hydrostatic pressure or soil pressure. In addition, portions of the live loads are added when these incl ude items such as pi ping, cables, and trays suspended from floors. An a llowance is also made for future additional permanent loads.P = design accident pressure loads F = final prestress loads

R = forces or pressures on structure due to the rupture of any one pipe H = forces on structure due to the thermal expansion of pipes T I = thermal loads due to the temperature gradient through th e walls, based on temperature corresponding to unfactored design accident pressure T o = thermal loads due to the normal operati ng temperature gradient through the walls E = operating basis earthquake loads

E = design basis earthquake loads W = normal wind or tornado loads (use 1.0 factor for tornado loads)Equation (1) assures that the containment has the cap acity to withstand pressure loadings at least 50 percent greater than those calcula ted for the postulated LOCA alone.

Equation (2) assures that the c ontainment has the capacity to withstand loadings at least 25 percent greater than those calculated for the pos tulated LOCA with a coincident operating basis earthquake.

Equation (3) assures that the containment has th e capacity to withstand earthquake loadings 25 percent greater than those calculated for the operating basis earthquake coincident with the associated rupture of any one of the attached piping.

Equation (4) assures that the containment has the capacity to with stand wind loadings at least 25 percent greater than the design wind loadings or full tornado loadings.

Equations (5) and (6) assure that the containment has the capacity to withstand either a postulated LOCA or the rupture of any one of the attached piping coin cident with the design basis earthquake.

The yield strength of the structur e is defined as the upper limit of the proportional stress-strain behavior of the effective load carrying capacities of th e structural material

s. The stresses from these load combinations, with the load factors given therein, are less than the yield strength of the MPS2 UFSAR5.2-13Rev. 35 structure. For steel (both pres tressed and unprestressed), the up per limit is taken to be the guaranteed minimum yield strength, as specified in the appropriate ASTM specifications. For concrete, it is the ultimate values of shear (as a measure of diagonal tens ion) and bond as specified by ACI-318-63 Code, as well as the 28 day ultimate compressive strength for concrete in flexure (fc).The peak strain in the concrete due to secondary moments, membrane loads, local loads, and thermal loads is limited to 0.003 inch/inch.

The predicted strain in the steel liner plate for all loading combinations does not exceed 0.005 inch/inch.

Principal concrete tension due to the combined membrane tension and membrane shear, excluding flexural tension due to bending moments or thermal gradients, is limited to 3((fc)1/2).Principal concrete tension due to the combined membrane tension, membra ne shear , and flexural tension caused by the bending moments or thermal gradients is limited to 6((fc)1/2). When the principal concrete tension exceeds the limit of 6(fc)1/2 , reinforcing steel is provided in the following manner:a.Thermal flexural tension - Reinforcing steel is provided in accordance withACI-505. The minimum area of steel provided is 0.25 percen t of the gross concrete cross-sectional area in each direction.b.Bending moment tension - Sufficient rein forcing steel is provi ded to resist the moment on the basis of the cracked section theory. The exception is when the bending moment tension is additive to the thermal tension, th e allowable tensile stress in the reinfo rcing steel is 0.5 f y.Shear stress limits and reinforcing for radial sh ear are in accordance wi th Chapter 26 of ACI-318 with the following exceptions:a.Formula 26-12 of the Code is replaced by:

V ci = Kbd(fc)1/2 + M cr(V/M) + V i where: K = 1.75 - (0.036/np+ 4.0 np but not less than 0.6 for p >0.003.For p < 0.003, the value of K is zero.

n = (505/(fc)1/2)

MPS2 UFSAR5.2-14Rev. 35 p = (A s/bd) M cr = (1/y)(6((fc)1/2) + f pe + f n + f i)and f pe = compressive stresses in concrete due to prestress only applied normal to the cross-section after all losses (including the stresses induced by any secondary moments), at the extreme fiber of the section at which tensile stresses are caused by live loads. (f pe is negative for tensile stresses; positive for compressive stresses) f n = stresses due to applied axial loads (f n is negative for tensil e stresses; positive for compressive stresses) f i = stresses due to the initial loads at the extreme fiber of a section at which tensile stresses are caused by the applied loads (including the stresses induced by any secondary moments, f i is negative for tensile stre sses; positive for compressive stresses)V = shear at the section under consideration due to the applied loads M = moment at the critical section under c onsideration, in the di rection of decreasing moment, due to the applied loads. The critical section is considered to be at a distance of 1/2 (d) from the support, where d is th e effective depth of the concrete section.

V i = shear due to the initial loads (positive when the initial shear is in the same direction as the shear due to the applied loads).

The lower limit given by the ACI-318-63 on V ci as 1.7bd(fc)1/2 is not applied.b.Formula 26-13 of the Code is replaced by:

V cw = 3.5bd(fc)1/2 [1 + (fpe + fn)/(3.5(fc)1/2)]1/2 + V p Eq (8)where V p = radial shear component of effective pres tress due to the curvature of tendon at the section considered, and the term, f n , is as defined in Equation (7

). All other not ations are in accordance with Chapter 26 of ACI-318-63.

Equation (7) is based on test and work done by Dr. A. H. Mattock of the University of Washington. Equation (8) is based on the commen tary for the Proposed Redraft of Section 2610 of ACI-318 by Dr. A. H. Ma ttock, dated December 1962.When these equations indicate that the allowed shear stress in concrete is zero, radial shear ties are provided to resist all the calculated shear.

MPS2 UFSAR5.2-15Rev. 35 5.2.2.2.6 Prestress Losses In accordance with ACI-318-63, the design provides for prestress losses caused by the following ef fects:a.Seating of anchorageb.Elastic shortening of concretec.Creep of concreted.Shrinkage of concrete e.Stress relaxation of steelf.Frictional losses due to intended or unintended curvature in the tendon All of these losses have been predicted with a reasonable degree of accuracy

.In the present application, the environment of the pr estressing system a nd concrete is not appreciably different from that found in conventional prestressed concrete structures such as bridges and buildings. Data from research and practical experience with this type construction have made it possible to evaluate conservatively the al lowances for all the prestress loss due to various causes.

5.2.2.2.7 Capacity Reduction Factors The capacity of all load-carrying structural elements is reduced by a capacity re duction factor () as given below. The justification for these numerical values is given in Appendix 5.C. These factors provide for the possibility that smal l adverse variations in material strengths, workmanship, dimensions, control, and degree of supervision, while indi vidually within required tolerances and the limits of good practice, may occasionally combine to result in undercapacity.The capacity reduction factors used are as follows:= 0.90 for concrete in flexure= 0.85 for tension, shear, bond, and anchorage in concrete= 0.75 for spirally reinforced concrete compression members= 0.70 for tied compression members= 0.90 for fabricated structural steel= 0.90 for mild reinforcing steel= 0.95 for prestressed te ndons in direct tension MPS2 UFSAR5.2-16Rev. 35 5.2.2.3 Structural AnalysisThe containment is analyzed by a finite element computer program for individual loading cases of dead loads, live loads, winds and tornadoes, temperatures, pressures, and prestresses. A dynamic analysis for seismic loads is performed. The results of the various loadings are superimposed according to the design and fa ctored equations as stipul ated in Sections 5.2.2.2.4 and 5.2.2.2.5.The ACI-318-63 design methods and allowable stresses are used for the concrete as well as for the prestressed and unprestressed reinfo rcing steel, except as noted herein.

5.2.2.3.1 Critical Areas of AnalysisThe main areas for design analysis are:

Restraints at the top and bottom of the cylinder Restraints at the edge of the dome Ring girder Behavior of the base slab relative to an elastic foundationTransient temperature gradients in the steel liner plate and concreteLarge penetrationsTendon anchorage zones Concentrated loads Seismic loads 5.2.2.3.2 Analytical TechniquesThe analysis of the containment consists of two parts: the axisymmetric analysis and the nonaxisymmetric analysis. The axisymmetric analysis is performed by utilizing a finite element computer program for the individual loading cases of dead loads, live loads, temperatures, pressures, and prestresses. The axisymmetric finite element representation of the containment assumes that the structure is axisymmetric and does not take into account the buttresses, penetrations, brackets, and anchors. These items, together with the lateral loads due to earthquakes, winds, tornadoes, and various concentrated loads, are considered in the nonaxisymmetric analysis.

5.2.2.3.2.1 Axisymmetric AnalysisThe axisymmetric analysis is performed by using a finite element computer program developed by Dr. E. L. Wilson under the sponsorship of the National Science Foundation. Such a method of analysis is normally used for thick-walled structures where a conventional shell analysis may yield less accurate results. Good correlation has been demonstrated between the finite element analysis method and the test resu lts for thick wall model vessels.

MPS2 UFSAR5.2-17Rev. 35The finite element technique is a general method of structural analysis in which a continuous structure is replaced by a system of elements connected at a finite number of nodal points. In applying this method to an axisymmetric solid structure, such as a containment shell, the continuous structure is replaced by a system of rings of quadrilateral cross-sections which are interconnected at the circumferential joints. Based on energy princi ples, a set of force equilibrium equations is formulated in which the radial and axial displacements at the circumferential joints are the unknowns. The results obtained by solving these equations are the deformations of the structure under the given loading conditions.The finite element mesh used to describe the structure is shown in Figures 5.2-16 through 5.2-16.

The upper and lower portions of the containment are analyzed separately to permit use of a greater number of elements for those areas of the structure which are of major concern, e.g., the ring girder area and th e haunch connecting the cylindrical shell to the base slab. The finite element mesh of the base slab is extended into the foundation to give consideration to the elastic nature of the foundation material and its effect upon the behavior of the base slab. The tendon access gallery is designed as a separate structure.The finite element analysis produces stresses due to axisymmetric loads. The stresses from the earthquake loads, as well as wind and tornado loads, are obtained by the nonaxisymmetric analysis and then superimposed on the stresses obtained from the finite element analysis. The final summation of all the stresses is used in the design of the base slab, shell, and dome. The liner plate is considered as an integral part of the structure and is incl uded in the finite element mesh of the containment.Thermal loads result from temperature differentials across the cylindrical wall. The design temperature gradients for the containment are shown on Figure 5.2-3. In the finite element analysis, when temperatures are specified at every nodal point, thermal stresses are obtained at the center of each element.The computer program used in the finite element analysis is capable of handling the following inputs:Eight different materialsNonlinear stress-strain curves for each material Axisymmetric loadings of any shape The program outputs are:

C D P MPS2 UFSAR5.2-18Rev. 35 An auxiliary computer program plots the isostress curves based on the outputs of the aforementioned program.

5.2.2.3.2.2 Nonaxisymmetric Analysis The nonaxisymmetric configurati ons and loadings require vari ous methods of analysis. The descriptions of the methods used, as applied to th e different parts of the c ontainment, are given in the following sections.

5.2.2.3.3 Buttress and Tendon Anchorage Zone Analyses The containment has three buttr esses. At each buttress, tw o out of any gr oup of three hoop tendons are spliced by anchoring on the opp osite f aces of the buttress, and the third tendon is continuous through the buttress.

Between the opposite anchorages in the buttress, the compressiv e forces exerted by the spliced tendons are twice as great as elsewhere on the shell.

This value, combined with the effect of the tendon which is not spliced, is 1.5 times the prestr essing force acting outside of the buttresses. The thickness at the buttress is about 1.5 times that of the wall. Thus, the hoop stresses as well as the hoop strains and radial displa cements can be considered as being nearly constant all around the structure.

The vertical stresses and strain s, caused by the vertical post-te nsioning, become constant a short distance from the anchorages because of the stiffn ess of the cylindrical shell. The stresses and strains remain nearly axisymmetric despite the presence of the buttresses. The effect of the buttresses on the overall vessel behavior is negligible, whethe r the structure is under dead loads or prestress loads.

The analysis of the anchorage zone stresses at the buttr esses is the most crit ical of the various types of anchorage areas on the sh ell. The local stress distribution in the immediate vi cinity of the bearing plates is investigated using the following procedures:a.The Guyon's Equivalent Prism Method: This method is based on the experimental photoelastic results as well as the equ ilibrium considerations of homogeneous and continuous media. It also considers the relative beari ng plate dimensions of the anchorag es. (Reference 5.2-1)b.The experimental test data presented by S. J. Taylor of the March 1967 London Conference of the Institute of Civil Engi neers (Group H, Paper 49): these data are MPS2 UFSAR5.2-19Rev. 35used to evaluate the effect of the biaxial stress es at the anchorages, including the effects of the trumpet welded to the bearing plate.c.F. Leonhardt's formula for determining the bursting force in the anchorage zone of a prestressed concrete member (Reference 5.2-2).d.The three-dimensional stress distribution in the anchor age zones is analyzed in sufficient detail to permit a rational ev aluation of the stress concentrations. Aconical wedge segment is used as the ba sic design element and the radial splitting tension is determined as a tangential distri bution function. The summation of the splitting stresses through the entire volum e of the leading zone establishes the value of the splitting force. This force is a function of the ratio of the base dimensions of the cone; i.e., a/b, and the height, h, of the cone. Several differentcombinations of the values are analyzed and the most critical values selected.Note:For description of water intrusion into the tendon gallery from around the bearing plates during constructi on and methods of repair , see Appendix 5.F.Transient thermal gradients are used in the analys is and the resulting stresses are superimposed on the bursting stresses obtained fro m the triaxial stress analysis.

The possibility of a torsional load being applie d to the anchors because the tendon wires are twisted was considered. It was de termined that no such load occu rs since the ram pull rod is free to rotate during the stressing operation.The design of the anchorage zone reinforcing is based on the results of these analyses, and the following considerations:a.Bechtel Topical Report BC-Top-7, "Full Scale Buttress Test for PrestressedNuclear Containment Structures."b.Design of similar anchorages.c.Rebar spacing determined to allow ease in placing of sound concrete behind the anchorag e bearing plates.d.Review of the reinforci ng details from earlier pr ojects undertaken by the consulting firm of T. Y. Lin, Kulka, Yang and Associates.

5.2.2.3.4 Stresses Near Large Openings The analytical solutions fo r determining the state of stresses in the vicinity of large openings are based on the procedure described in the Welding Research Coun cil (WRC) Bulletin Number 102, entitled "State of Stress in a Circular Cylindrical She ll with a Circular Hole." (Reference 5.2-3)

MPS2 UFSAR5.2-20Rev. 35 The analysis of the containmen t, as a whole, was first carri ed out without considering any openings. This analysis has been done by using the finite element program.

The containment, considering openi ngs, is then analyzed as follows:a.Formulate differential equations for the shell in a complex variable form with the center of the hole as the origin.b.Solve the differential equations.c.Evaluate parameters in the solution.d.Formulate the boundary conditions based on the stresses obtaine d from the shell analysis without the hole.e.Calculate membrane forces, moments, and shears around and at the edge of the opening.f.Increase and reinforce the wall thic kness around the opening to carry the higher forces, moments, and shears. The effect s of stress concentration due to the thickening of the wall are considered.g.Evaluate the effects of prestressing that are not handled in the WRC Bulletin Number 102.h.Check the design to ensure that the st rength of the reinforcement provided is adequate to replace the strength remove d by the opening. This check is done to assure a good degree of comp atibility between the general containment shell and the areas around the opening.To analyze the thermal stresses around the openings the following pr ocedure is used. At the edge of the opening a uniformly distri buted moment equal but opposite to the moment existing on the rest of the shell is applied. Th e opening is then analyzed using the methods of the WRC Bulletin Number 102. The effects are superimposed on the stresses calculated by the finite element method.

The membrane stresses resulti ng from the seismic loads around the openings are modified by appropriate stress concentration factors.

Typical details of reinforci ng around the equipment hatch a nd personnel lock are shown on Figures 5.2-4 and 5.2-5.

5.2.2.3.5 Seismic Analysis The seismic loads on the containm ent are determined from a dynami c analysis of the structure.

The method of analysis is presented in Section 5.8.3.

MPS2 UFSAR5.2-21Rev. 35 5.2.2.3.6 Wind and Tornado AnalysesThe design wind loads on the containment are a f unction of the kinetic ener gy per volume of the moving air mass. The product of one-half of the air density and the square of the resultant design velocity results in a pressure corresponding to the design wind.

Determination of the design wind pressure on the containment is in accordance with the ASCE Paper 3269, "Wind Forces on Structures."

The pressure corresponding to th e standard air at 0.07651 pcf at 15

°C and 760 mm of mercury in terms of the velocity at the appropriate height zone is given by:

q = 0.002558V 2 Similarly, the design pressure, including the effect of the shape coefficient, C d , is given by:

p = q x C d = 0.002558V 2 C d The design wind velocity for the c ontainment, with the enclosure bui lding attached to it, is taken to be 115 mph with gusts up to 140 mph. The shape coefficient fo r the enclosure building is found to be: C d = 1.30 The design wind pressure based on the above shape coef ficient and the wind velocity of 140 mph is: P = 65.2 psf The design pressure is assumed to be constant throughout the height of the enclosure building and is being resisted entirely by the containment.The design tornado loads on the containment are analyzed on the following basis.a.Tornado loads are not coincident with an accident or earth quake.b.Differential bursting pressure between the inside and outside of the containment is assumed to be 3 psi pressure occurring in three seconds (1 psi/second), followed by a calm for two seconds and a repressurization outside.c.The wind force on the containm ent is considered as a uniform static load caused by a tornado funnel having a peripheral tangential velo city of 300 mph and a translational velocity of 60 mph. These velocities are combined, resulting in adesign wind velocity of 360 mph. The applicable portions on wind design methods described in the ASCE Paper 3269 are use d, particularly for shape factors. The MPS2 UFSAR5.2-22Rev. 35 provisions in the ASCE Paper 3269 for gust factors and variatio n of wind velocity with height do not apply. Th e wind velocity is assumed to be uniformly distributed over the height of the structure.d.The metal sidings (but not the supporting frame) of the enclos ure are designed to be blown away by the dif f erential bursting pressure, thereby, subjecting the containment to the lateral forces resulting from the 360 mph wind.e.Tornado-borne miss iles is defined in Section 5.2.5.1.2.f.Except for local crushing at the missile impact area, the allowable stresses available to resists the effects of torna does are 90 percent of the yield strength ofthe reinforcing steel and 85 percent of the ultimate strength of the concrete.

Based on an aspect rati o (h/d) of 1.12 an d a surface smoothness (t/d) of 1.8 percent, the shape factor for the containment in the tornado analysis is found to be:

C d = 0.70 where: h = containment height above ground t = projection of buttress

d = maximum outside diamet er of the containment The maximum pressure is found to be 274 psf (negative) and occurs at 90 degrees to the direction of wind. Since the analysis of the containment is limited to uniform pressure loading, 80 percent of the maximum pressure is a ssumed to act uniformly across the horizontal projection of the containment. This is believed to be a conservative approach.

5.2.2.3.7 Results of Structural AnalysesScaled plots for the results of structural an alyses on moments, shears, normal forces, and deflections of all loading conditions are show n in Figures 5.2-19 th rough 5.2-26. Corresponding stresses at various locations on the containment are show n in Tables 5.2-1 through 5.2-9.

Deformations are consistent with the elastic st rains; i.e., design is not governed by deformation. The deformations will not affect the continued functional capability of the containment structure or any other Class I structure which might interact with it. Measurable relative displacements are expected between the containment and other components and struct ures due to the loads imposed.

Those displacements have been accounted for by pr oviding expansion joints or, in the case of most pipes, imposing those deflec tions on the interfacing components.

MPS2 UFSAR5.2-23Rev. 35

5.2.3 STEEL

LINER PLATE AND PENETRATION SLEEVESThe containment steel liner plate and penetration sleeves are designed to serve as the primary leakage barrier for the containment. Typical details of the liner are shown on Figures 5.2-6 and 5.2-7. The design considered the composite action of the liner and the concrete structure and includes the transient effects of the liner due to temperature changes during construction, normal operation, and the LOCA. The changes in strain to be experienced by the liner due to these effects, as well as those at the pressure testing of the containment, are considered.The stability of the liner is achieved by anchoring it to the concrete structure. At all penetration sleeves, the liner is thickened to reduce stress concentrations, based on the 1968 ASME Code,Section III, for Class B vessels. The thickened portions of the liner are then anchored to the concrete. All weldments associated with the penetration sleeves are designed to resist the full applied loads. Typical deta ils of the penetration sleeves are shown on Figure 5.2-8.All components of the liner which must resist the full design pressure, such as penetration sleeves, personnel lock, and equipment hatch, are designed to meet the requirements of paragraph N-1211, of Section III, Nuclear Vessels, 1968 Edition through the summer 1969 addenda of the ASME Code, except the external bolting attachments to the equipment hatch which were designed to meet the requirements of Sectio n III, Subsection NE, 1986 Edition.In isolated areas, the liner has an initial inward curvature due to fabrication and erection tolerances and inaccuracies. The anchors are designed to resist the forces and moments induced when a section of liner between anchors has initial inward curvature while the adjacent panels have no such imperfections. As a result, inward deformation of the liner between anchors may occur under both operating and accident conditions.

The liner and the anchors are designed with sufficient ductility to undergo displacement to relieve the loads without rupturing under these conditions.With the exception of the containment spray piping supports, an insert plate is provided to transmit the load through the liner at each location where a load is transferred to the walls, slabs, or dome of the containment. The insert plate is anchored to the concrete by appropriate anchors and shear connections. Examples of such insert plates are the polar crane brackets and the floor beam brackets at the operating deck. Typical de tails of these brackets are shown in Figure 5.2-9.

5.2.3.1 Construction MaterialsMaterials used for the construction of the steel liner pl ate and penetration sleeves are listed in Section 5.2.1.

5.2.3.2 Design CriteriaThe design criteria applied to the containment steel liner plate to meet the specified leak rate under the operating and accident conditions are as follows:

MPS2 UFSAR5.2-24Rev. 35a.The liner is protected fr om damage by potential missi les generated from a LOCA and main steam pipe break.b.The liner strains are limited to those values that have been shown by pastexperience to result in leaktight pressure vessels and piping.c.The liner is prevented from developing distortions sufficient to impair leak tightness.

5.2.3.3 Design Loads The liner is designed with the capability to resist , without rupture, the co mpressive stresses due to the following loads:a.Construction loads, particularly those wh ich are applied to the liner before the concrete is placed.b.Local thermal loads at hot process penetrations.c.Thermal gradients.d.Thermal shock loads due to cold sprays.e.Local loads, such as structural sup ports, pipe supports, and restraints, etc.f.Prestress loads.g.Creep and shrinkage loads.

The fatigue analysis of the liner plate is made on the basis of the following considerations:a.Thermal cycling due to annual outdoor temperature variations. The number of cycles for this loading is 40 for the plan t life of 40 years. (Daily temperature variations do not penetrate a significant distance into the concrete shell to appreciably change the average temperature of the shell relative to the liner, and therefore, are not considered.)

MPS2 UFSAR5.2-25Rev. 35b.Thermal cycling due to the containment interior temperatur e variations during heatup and cooldown of the r eactor system. The number of cycles for this loading is assumed to be 500.c.Thermal cycling due to the LOCA is assumed to be one cycle.

5.2.3.4 Permissible Stresses and Strains The basis for establishing the al lowable liner strains is the 1968 ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code,Section III, Nuclear Vessels, Article 4.

The thermal stresses in the liner fa ll into the categories as considered in Article 4 of Section III.

The allowable stresses in Figure N-415 (A) of the Code are for al ternating stress intensity for carbon steels, with the temperature not exceeding 700

°F.To fulfill the criteria set forth in the 1968 ASME Code, Paragraph N-412 (m) 2, the liner is restrained against significant distortion of an angle grid anchor system. Materials are expected to be exposed to a maximum temp erature of approximately 289

°F under a LOCA condition which is well below the 700

°F limit. The liner design also satisfies the criteria for limiting the strains on the basis of fatigue consideration. Figure N-415 (A) of Paragraph N-412 (n) of the ASME Code and its appropriate limitations are used as the bases for establis hing the allowable strains for the liner.

Since the graph in Figure N-415 (A) does not extend below 10 cycles, 10 cycles were used for the LOCA conditions instead of one cycle.

The allowable strain from Figure N-415 (A), based on 10 signifi cant thermal cycles on the LOCA conditions, would be approximately two percent. However, the maximum allowable membrane tensile or compressive strain is conservatively set at 0.5 percent.

The maximum predicted strain in the liner during the LOCA conditions is found to be 0.25 percent in compression.

No maximum allowable compressive strain is set fo r the test condition becaus e it is expected the value will be less than that experienced under the LOCA condi tions. The maximum allowable tensile strain is 0.2 percent for the test c onditions; the predicted value is nearly zero.

5.2.3.5 Design of Liner Plate Anchorage The anchors are designed to preclude failure wh en subjected to the mo st severe loads or deformations. They are designed s o that a missing or defective anchor will not jeopardize the overall integrity of the liner and anchorage system.

The following factors are considered in the design of the anchorage system:a.The initial inward curvature of the line r between anchors due to fabrication and erection tolerances and inaccuracies.

MPS2 UFSAR5.2-26Rev. 35b.Variations of anchor spacing.c.Misalignment of liner seams.d.Variations of plate thickness.e.Variations of the yield streng th of the liner plate materials.f.Variations of the Poisson's ra tio for the liner plate materials.g.Variations of the anchor stiffness.

The anchorage system satisfies the following conditions:a.The anchors have sufficie nt strength and ductility so their energy absorbing capability is sufficient to restrain the maximum force and displacement resulting from the condition where a pane l with an initial outward curvature is adjacent to apanel with an inward curvature.b.The anchors have sufficient strength to resist the bending moment that results when a panel with an initial outward curvature is adjacent to a panel with an inward curvature.c.The anchors have sufficient strength to resist the radial pullout forces.

The proprietary topical report, "Consumer Power Company Palisades Nuclear Power Plant Containment Building Liner Pl ant Design Report B-TOP-1," constitutes the basic design approach used in Millstone Unit 2.The following are the minor differences between the Millstone Unit 2 design and the one presented in the topical report.a.The welding of the stiffeners is 3/16-6 x 12 rather than 3/16-4 x 12. This does not invalidate the analysis, because the spri ng constants used in the analysis are similar.b.The stiffeners on the thickened plates ar e not welded with a double fillet weld as stated in the topical report. The 3/16-6 x 12 welding is used on all stiffeners. Thetopical report indicates that additional welding is not re quired to resist the loads.c.The 1/4 inch liner material is ASTM A-285 Grade A. This pl ate has a specified yield strength of 24,000 psi which is lower than the values used in Topical Report, MPS2 UFSAR5.2-27Rev. 35B-TOP-1. This would only tend to decrease th e loads on the anchors, as stated in Section 3.4 of the report.d.A self supporting dome is used on Millstone Unit 2. It is stiffened in two directions instead of one as stated in Section 2.2.2 of the report. Details of the dome are shown on Figure 5.2-6.5.2.3.6 Design of WeldmentsParagraphs of UW-8 to UW-19, Subsection B, Sect ion VIII of the 1968 ASME Code are used as a guide in the design of the weldment.

Inspection and testing of line r plate weldments during and af ter erection are discussed in Section 5.9.3.5.3.

Quality control of field welding el ectrodes are presented in Section 5.9.3.5.4.

Quality control procedures fo r field welding and nondestructive examination are defined in Section 5.9.4.

5.2.4 INTERIOR

STRUCTURES 5.2.4.1 General Design of the containment interior structures evolves from four basic systems: reactor coolant, main steam, engineered safety features and fuel handling.

The structures which house or s upport the basic systems are designe d to sustain the loading cases as outlined in Sections 5.2.4.4.1 and 5.2.4.4.2.

The design bases are as follows:a.The structures are capable of sustaini ng all operating loads, seismic loads, and thermal deformations.b.Loads and deformations resulting from an LOCA and the associated effects on any of the basic systems are sust ained and restricted so that propagati on of the failure to any other system is prev ented. In addition, a single fail ure in one of the cooling pipes of the nuclear steam supply system is restricted such that propagation of the failure to the other cooling piping is prevented.Structural details for the supports for major Cla ss I equipment such as the reactor vessel and steam generators, are shown in Figure 5.2-11 through 5.2-13. Typical details for the primary and secondary shield walls are shown on Figure 5.2-14.

MPS2 UFSAR5.2-28Rev. 35 5.2.4.2 Construction Materials The following materials are used in the constr uction of the containment interior structures:

Concrete:Primary shield walls 5,000 psiSteam generator supports 5,000 psiSecondary shield walls 4,000 psiRefueling pool walls 4,000 psiReinforcing steel ASTM A-615, Grade 60Carbon steel plates ASTM A-302, Grade B, A-441, and A-569Stainless steel plates ASTM A-240, Type 304Stainless steel tubes ASTM A-358, Type 304Structural and miscellaneous steel ASTM A-36 and A-441Anchor bolts ASTM A-307, A-325, and A-490 5.2.4.3 Design LoadsThe following loads are considered in the design of the interior structures:a.Dead loadsb.Live loadsc.Earthquake loadsd.Loss-of-coolant accident (LOCA) loadse.Pipe rupture loads 5.2.4.3.1 Dead LoadsDead loads consist of the weight of the concrete, structural steel, equipment, major piping, and electrical conductors. Equipment dead loads are those specified on the drawings supplied by the manufacturers of the various pieces of equipment. Major equi pment supported by the interior structures are reactor vessel, steam generators, pressurizers, and the reactor coolant pumps.

5.2.4.3.2 Live Loads Live loads for the design of the interior structures are:

MPS2 UFSAR5.2-29Rev. 35Floor and equipment area 250 psfContainment laydown area 1,000 psf Equipment live loads are those specified on the drawings suppl ied by the manufacturers of the various pieces of equipment.

5.2.4.3.3 Earthquake Loads Earthquake loads are predicated upon an operating base eart hquake at the site having a horizontal ground acceleration of 0.09 g and a vertical acceleration of 0.06

g. In addition, a design basis earthquake having a ground accelerati on of 0.17 g and a vertical acceleration of 0.1 1 g is used to check the design to ensure that th ere will be no loss of function.

Seismic response spectrum curves are given in Section 5.8.1.1, for both horizontal and vertical ground motions.

5.2.4.3.4 Loss-of-Coolant-Accident (LOCA) LoadsThe maximum forces which result from a pipe rupture are ba sed on the following:a.A single break in any pipe under consideration is assumed to occur at one time.

b.The maximum area of the break is assumed to be an opening in the pipe equivalent to its cross-sectional area.c.The maximum force is based on a free dischar ge from an open-ended pipe.

The minimum design pressure and te mperature of the interior structures are equal to, respectively, the peak pressure and temperature occurring as a result of the complete blowdown of the reactor coolant due to a rupture of the reactor coolant system. This could be up to and including the hypothetical double-ended rupture of the largest pipe in the primary coolant system. The following effects associated with a LOCA are considered:a.Thrust loads resulting from the rapid mass release from a pipe break in the reactor system or other systems, if the br eak occurs during a design incident.

MPS2 UFSAR5.2-30Rev. 35b.Pressure build-up in locally confined areas such as the secondary shielding room, as described in Section 5.2.4.4.4.c.Jet forces resulting from the impingement of the es caping mass upon the adjacent structure.d.Pipe whipping following a pipe br eak in the reactor coolant system.e.Rapid rise in ambient temperature and accompanying rise in ambient pressure.f.Missiles as described in Section 5.2.5.1.1.Leak-before-break (LBB) analyses of the reactor coolant system (RCS) main coolant loops, the pressurizer sur ge line, and uniso lable RCS portions of the safety injection and shutdown cooling piping allows the exclusion of the dynamic effects associ ated with pipe rupt ures in the above piping segments from the design basis. Dynamic effects of pipe rupture include the ef fects of pipe whipping, subcompartment pressurization and discharging fluids.

5.2.4.4 Design Criteria In establishing the structural desi gn criteria for the interior struct ures, consideration was given to a structure which would withstand the differential pressure within the cavities in the event of an accident, and to minimizing the effects of the pipe rupture fo rce by the use of supports and restraints.

The ACI-318-63, "Building Code Requirements for Reinforced Concrete," and AISC "Manual of Steel Construction," 6th Edition, are used as design criteria for rein forced concrete and structural steel, respectively, except as noted in the following:

Localized concrete yielding is permitted when it can be demonstrated that the yield capacity of the component is not affected, and that this small localized yielding does not generate missiles which could damage the structure. Full recognition is given to the time

increments associated with these postulate d failure conditions, and yield capacities are appropriately increased when a transient analys is demonstrates that the rapid strain rate justifies this approach. The walls are also designed to provide adequate protection for

potential missile generation which could damage the containment liner.

The yielding of concrete discussed above concerns itself with localized stress concentration under the load a ssociated with a LOCA. The load due to pipe whipping followed a pipe break in the re actor coolant system is considered a concentrated load and is analyzed to ascertain that its local effect on the concrete surface will not result in changes in the member capacity. These high lo cal stresses are not id entified because of simplifications made in the design analysis. These high stresses are allowed because they occur in a very small percentage of the cro ss-section, are confined by material at lower stress, and would have to be considerably greater than the values allowed before significant local plastic yield would result.

MPS2 UFSAR5.2-31Rev. 35 The outline of the reactor coolant system and the primary supporting stru cture are presented in Figures 5.2-35 and 5.2-36. Localized concrete yieldi ng is permitted at the point of impact resulting from any high energy pipe rupture. The high concrete stress is limited to the area of impact and is confined by concrete in comp ression at lower stresses, and is estimated conservatively to be not more than one inch in thickness within the secondary wall boundary.

Since the area of high concrete stresses is in compression, no significant concrete cracking is expected. Pipe rupture is postulated at locations which result in the most critical conditions for designing the structures. A typical case is sh own in Figures 5.2-35 a nd 5.2-36. Under this load, combined with other loads in the design load combination, a strip of concre te wall of width L as shown in Figure 5.2-36 was analyzed.

A continuous span of secondary shield wall, supported at the buttresses and fixed at the refueling pool walls was assumed. Re inforcing steel was proportioned according to the results obtained.The strength of the structures at working stress and overall yi elding is compared to various loading combinations to ensure safety. The stru ctures are designed to meet the performance and strength requirements under the following conditions:a.At design loads.

b.At factored loads.

5.2.4.4.1 At Design Loads This loading is the basic "working stress" desi gn. The structure is designed for the following loading cases:a.D + L b.D + L + Hc.D + L + H + E where:D = dead loads L = live loads

H = thermal loads under operating conditions

E = operating basis earthquake 5.2.4.4.2 At Factored LoadsThe structure is checked for the factored loads and load combinations as follows:a.C = 1/ (1.25D + 1.25L + 1.0 R + 1.25E)

MPS2 UFSAR5.2-32Rev. 35b.C = 1/ (1.25D + 1.25L + 1.25 H + 1.25E)c.C = 1/ (1.0D + 1.0L + 1.0 R + 1.0T I + 1.0E)d.C = 1/ (1.0D + 1.0L + 1.0 H + 1.0E)e.C = 1/ (1.0D + 1.0L + 1.0 P + 1.OT I + 1.0E)where: C = required capacity of the stru cture to resist factored loads= capacity reduction factorD = dead loads L = live loads H = thermal loads under operating conditions P = differential pressure due to a double-ended pipe rupture T I = loads due to thermal gradient produced by a double-ended pipe break E = operating basis earthquake loads

E = design basis earthquake loads R = loads due to pipe rupture (includes bot h jet and pressure differential forces) 5.2.4.4.3 Thermal GradientsThe thermal gradients in the interior structures ar e maintained at a low level so they have very small structural effects on the c oncrete walls. Nevertheless, these effects are considered in the design.a.Primary shield walls.

Based on the reactor vessel and cooling piping heat loads and 100 percent of cooling air, the temperature within the primary shield walls is approximately 7

°F higher than the air temperature, due to nuclear heating. Cooling air from the CAR coolers is supplied to the bottom of the react or cavity , primary sh ield walls, reactor vessel supports and the ex-core detect ors. Calculations, which support the permanent reactor cavity s eal project and neutron sh ield modification, haveestimated that the cavity cooling air limits the maximum temperature of the primary shield walls to less than 150

°F.

MPS2 UFSAR5.2-33Rev. 35b.Secondary shield walls, steam genera tor pedestals, and refueling pool walls.The ventilation system will eliminate the temperature gradients across the secondary shield walls, the refueling pool walls, and the operating floor. The ambient temperature inside the containment varies between 105

°F and 120°F under operating conditions.

5.2.4.4.4 Differential PressuresThe differential pressure-time curves across th e primary shield wall and the annular space between the reactor coolant pipe and the pipe sleeve extending through the reactor cavity wall (biological shield) have been ex cluded from the design basis, as all high ener gy lines within the reactor vessel cavity have s upporting NRC approved leak before break analyses. The Bechtel COPRA computer program (NS731-NE576) is used to calculate the differ ential pressure-time curves across the secondary shield walls. The calculations are based on conservation of mass, momentum, and energy.The ensuing flow from the compartment follows the orifice flow relations with the entrance and friction losses included in the flow coefficient for each case.

The following is a summary for the input para meters used for the computer analysis of steam generator compartment pressurization:

Containment free volum e (cubic feet) 1.899 x 10 6 Initial containment temperature (°F) 120Initial containment pressure (psia) 14.7Initial containment humidity (% 30 East Steam Generator CompartmentVolume (cubic feet) 62,000 Vent Area (square feet) 2,800West Steam Generator CompartmentVolume (cubic feet) 54,100 Vent Area (square feet) 2,620 Neither steam line nor feedwater line breaks were analyzed in the steam generator compartments.

Therefore a double-ended guillotine break in the hot leg, with a restrict ed break area of 10.78 square feet, is considered, which provides the bounding rate of energy and mass releases.The Pressurizer Compartment was originally designed for a 22 psi differential pressure based on its contiguous boundary with the east steam generator cavity. However, due to a modified, semi-open blockhouse design that was implemented to support the re placement of the original MPS2 UFSAR5.2-34Rev. 35 pressurizer and the adoption of Leak-Before-Break methodology to eliminate pressurization effects due to the primary coolant piping, the design differential pressure for this structure is currently based on a double-ended feedwater break. Util izing a break size comparison between the less energetic feedwater brea k case (2.97square feet) and th e previously analyzed hot leg break case (10.78 square feet) provi des a bounding estimate for the differential pressure effects from the feedwater break.Results of compartment pressurization analyses are listed below. Conservative estimates of compartment geometries, combined with the conservative calculational model assumed in COPRA, result in differential pressures across compartment walls that are inherently larger than can actually occur. Consequently, no additional safety margins are necessary.

5.2.5 SPECIFIC

DESIGN TOPICS 5.2.5.1 Missile Protection 5.2.5.1.1 Design Criteria Inside the Containment High pressure reactor coolant system components, which could be the source of missiles, are screened either by the concrete shield walls enclosing the reactor coolant loops, by the concrete operating floors, or by special missile shields to block the passage of any missiles and prevent them from striking the wall a nd dome of the containment. All potential missile sources are oriented so that the missiles are intercepted by the shields or structures provided. A shield is provided over the control rod driving mechanism to block the passage of any missiles generated as a result of a postula ted fracture of the nozzle.

Missile protection inside the containment is pr ovided to comply with the following criteria:a.The containment liner is protected from a loss of function due to damage by missiles as might be generated in a LOCA for piping brea k sizes up to and including the double-ended severance of the lar gest reactor coolant pipe.COMPARTMENTPRESSURESDIFFERENTIAL (PSI)DESIGN DIFFERENTIAL (PSI) Steam Generator Cavity (East)8.722Steam Generator Cavity (West)9.9522 Pressurizer2.43 MPS2 UFSAR5.2-35Rev. 35b.The engineered safety feat ures, systems, and components required to maintain the integrity of the containment are protected from a loss of function due to damage by the following missiles:1.Valve stems2.Valve bonnets 3.Instrument thimbles 4.Various types and sizes of nuts and boltsTable 5.2-10 lists the spectru m of potential missiles from insi de the containment, their kinetic ener gies, weights and leading cross-section configurations:

The following methods are used to impl ement the missile pr otection criteria:a.Components of the reactor coolant system are examined to identify and classifymissiles according to the sizes, shapes, and kinetic energy so as to analyze theireffects.b.Missile velocities are calculated consider ing both the fluid and mechanical driving forces that exist during missile generation.c.The reactor coolant syst em is surrounded by reinfor ced concrete and steel structures which are designed to withstand the forces associated with the double-ended rupture of a reactor cool ant pipe and to stop the missiles.

The structural design of the missile shields takes into account both the static and the impact loads and is based upon the state-of-the-art of missile penetration data.

Leak Before Break (LBB) an alyses of the reactor coolant system (RCS) main coolant loops, the pressurizer surge line, and uniso lable RCS portions of the safety injection and shutdown cooling piping allows the exclusion of the dynamic effects associ ated with pipe rupt ures in the above piping segments from the design basis. Dynamic effects of pipe rupture include the ef fects of pipe whipping, subcompartment pressurization and discharging fluids.Certain postulated incidents such as the massiv e, rapid failure of th e reactor vessel, steam generators, pressurizers, and the main coolant pump flywheels and casings are considered incredible because of the material characteristics, inspections, quality c ontrol during fabrication, and the conservatism in design as applied to the particular components. Th ese same factors also apply to the stems and bonnets of both motor-operated shutdown cooling suction valves located inside containment. Both valves have been s ubjected to detailed st ructural and functional analysis, and the stem and bonnets have been found to not be credible missiles.

MPS2 UFSAR5.2-36Rev. 35 In establishing the credibi lity of any missile source, the use of redundancy of load paths, such that no single failure could lead to a missile ejection, has been credited as th e basis for adequate protection from missile generation.

In the case of missiles originati ng from valves, the valve stem is considered a potentia l missile only when it is not back seated and where no air or motor operator exists that would interfere with the ejection of the valve stem. Valve bonnets are not considered as a source of missiles when the fl anges and bolts are designed in accordance with ASME Section III and the torque is controlled during the tight ening process by approved plant procedures. Valve bonnet missiles ar e also not considered credible when the bonnet is welded to the valve body or in cases where the bonnet is in tegral with the body of the valve. While the failure of single bolts and nuts is considered credible, they are considered a negligible concern due to the small amount of stored elastic energy that they process.

5.2.5.1.2 Design Criteria Outside the ContainmentMissile protection outside the containment is provided to comply with the following requirements:a.The containment steel liner plate and pene trations are protected from the loss of function due to damage by tornado borne missiles.b.All engineered safety feat ures piping which penetrates the containment, and which is required to maintain the containment in tegrity , is protecte d from a loss of function due to tornado borne missiles.c.All components required to maintain the containment integrity , or whose failure would result in the uncontrolled release of radioactivity, are protected from a loss of function due to damage by tornado borne missiles.

Protection is provided for the following three types of torn ado borne missiles:a.A fir plank, 4 inches by 12 inches by 12 feet., weighing 105 pounds and traveling end-on at a speed of 250 mph.b.A passenger auto (4,000 lb.) impact velo city of 50 mph not more than 25 feet above grade with a contact area of 20 square feet.c.A 3 inch by 10 foot long (ASA Schedule 40) pipe (72 pounds) traveling end-on at a speed of 100 mph at any elevation on the structure.Appendix 5.D addresses an expa nded spectrum of tornado miss iles which are additionally considered in the design of T ornado Missile Protection that was requested by the NRC. The design criteria presented in Appendix 5.D is an expansion of the tornado missile protection criteria of this Section and does not delete any previous requirements. The fir pla nk of this Section and the wooden beam of Appendi x 5.D are the same missiles.

MPS2 UFSAR5.2-37Rev. 35Analysis of the effect of the impact of the missiles on structures is based on the methods presented in the NavDocks P-51, "Design of Protective Struct ures-a New Concept of Structural Behavior," published by U.S. Bureau of Yards and Docks, August 1950, Washington, D.C.

Provisions to tie down all slabs, blocks, or partitions outside of containment which are potential seismic or tornado missiles are described as follows:

1.Slabs and Blocks - Slabs and blocks which are potential seismic or tornadomissiles are those items which fall into th e category of hatch covers or removablepartitions and lie within the Class I structures in areas containing Class I equipment or components.All removable wall panels are tied st ructurally to the building by retaining members and reinforcing within the wall panel. In all ca ses, removable wall panels are designed to remain in pl ace and intact, sustaining seis mic or pressure loadings appropriate to the elevation within the buildings. Hatch covers which do not serve as vents during build-up and decay of pressures which would possibly occur during a tornado, are secured with fasteni ng devices which will resist all design forces due to such loading. Hatch covers which serve as vents are designed to open to relieve internal pressures, but are pr ovided with mechanical retaining deviceswhich prevent the element from becomi ng a missile during se ismic or tornadooccurrences.

2.Partitions - The partitions and walls that are located with in areas housing Class I equipment or components are reinforced vertically and hor izontally and are anchored around the perimeter of the elem ents to the building structure. All partitions within these areas are constructed of either reinforced concrete or reinforced concrete masonry units. The design provides structural adequacy tosustain appropriate seismic or differenti al pressures resulting from a tornado occurrence.

Earthquake loads are defined in Sections 5.2.2 and 5.8 of the FSAR.Tornado pressure design criteria is defined in Section 5.2.2 of the FSAR.

5.2.5.1.3 Turbine Missile Consideration The provisions to control turbine overspeed for the Millstone Unit N umber 2 turbine generator are documented in Amendment 11 to the Millstone Unit Number 2 Preliminary Safety Analysis Report. Amendment 11 was filed with the Commission on J une 12, 1970. Based on the overspeed protection and controls provided, the applicants conclude that the probability of destructive overspeed as a possible cause of turbine failure is extremely low.Turbine missiles were discussed in Amendment 7 to the Millstone Unit Number 2 Preliminary Safety Analysis Report filed with the Commission on April 24, 1970.

MPS2 UFSAR5.2-38Rev. 35The MP2 LP rotors, which were of the original shrunk-on wheel design, were replaced during 2R15 with monoblock rotors. Th e monoblock design eliminates th e keyway between the rotor shaft and the shrunk-on wheels. In accordance with NRC approved GE methodology (ref.

NUREG-1048), the dominant mode of wheel fail ure and resulting missile generation was identified to be brittle fracture, due to keyway stress corrosion cracking occurring at or near normal operating speed. The requirement for the unfavorably oriented turbine (the case of MP2), in NUREG-1048 is that the pr obability be less than 10

-5 per year. Since the monoblock rotor design eliminates the br ittle fracture mode, the probability for a burst and a missile at normal operating speed is negligible. The remaining probability is a functio n of a ductile failure that is dependent upon the probability of a turbine overspeed event. The probability of a complete control system failure was determined to be 1.7x10

-6 with a GE Mark I control system (reference DCR M2-03001, Rev. 0, Attachment 2). As part of the GE Mark VIe turbine controls digital upgrade (reference Design Change MP2-10-01016, At tachment 15), GE determined that the probability of an overspeed event is less with a Mark VIe c ontrol system than with a Mark I control system.Refer to Figure 1.2-15 of the FSAR, Section E-E through the turbine building. When viewed from the south, the turbine generator unit rotates in a counter-clockwise direction. As can be seen in this figure, the safety-related structures such as the contai nment, diesel generator rooms, auxiliary and control bui ldings, are protected from low angl e missiles by the massive turbine generator pedestal. The probability of a high angle missile returning under gr avity forces to strike any portion of the plant is extremely low. This coupled with a review of the plant layout containing the components and systems required to bring the plant to a safe shutdown condition without off site power available i ndicates that turbine generated mi ssile damage will not preclude the safe shutdown of the plant.

5.2.5.2 Post-Tensioning SequenceThe detailed stressing sequen ce is based on the design require ments to limit the membra ne tension in the concrete to 1.0(fci)1/2 and to minimize unbalanced loads which would producedifferential stresses in the structur

e. Finite element mesh of the c ontainment shell used to establish the post-tensioning sequence is shown on Figure 5.2-18.

Bechtel provides the post-tensioni ng system vendor with the pres tressing force requirements, the anticipated concrete elastic shri nkage and creep, and th e numerical order in which the tendons are to be stressed. The vendor then incorporates al l this information, along with losses due to tendon relaxation, friction, and anchorage losses, if any, to establish the initial jacking force for each sequential operation.

Force measurements are obtaine d by measuring the elongation of the prestressing tendons and comparing it with the calculated forces indicated by th e jack-dynanometer or pressure gauge. The latter represents the pressure in the jack with a tolerance of

+/- 2 percent. The ca libration of the force-jack pressure gauge or dyn anometer combination is traceable to the National Bureau of Standards and is so certified pr ior to the application of prestr essing forces. Pressure gauges and jacks so calibrated are always used together.

MPS2 UFSAR5.2-39Rev. 35During stressing, records are kept on the pr essures applied and th e corresponding elongations obtained. Jack-dynanometer or gauge combinations are checked against elongation of the tendons and any discrepancy exceeding

+/- 5 percent of the computed values utilizing the average load elongation curve is corrected and documented.

5.2.5.3 Differential Displacement Between StructuresA differential settlement of one-eighth inch between the containment a nd the auxiliary building foundations is assumed for design. Effects of the dynamic displacement of adjacent structures due to seismic disturbances are included in the analysis described in Section 5.8. It also includes the rocking of structures on dynamic elasticity of the foundations. The maximum and minimum values of displacement are taken as the separation of structures due to movement in opposite directions, both vertically and horizontally. The maximum differential movement at the level of the auxiliary building roof is expected to be in the order of

+/- 1.5 inches. The maximum displacements at the level of the auxiliary building roof and the containment structure at the same elevation were calculated to be three-eighth and one-eighth inches, respectively, when subject to a design-basis earthquake. Provisions for 1.5 inches at all junctions between the containment structure and the auxiliary building were considered to be a conservative value. Provisions are made at all junctions be tween the containment and the auxiliary building to permit the differential movement to take place with no significan t transfer of loads to the containment.Piping flexibility analyses include the effect of the differential movement between structures, as well as the effect of seismic acceleration on the piping and its contained masses.

5.2.5.4 Polar Crane for the ContainmentThe polar crane is designed to meet the loading requirements of the applicable portions of the Electric Overhead Crane Institute (EOCI) "Specification Number 61 for Electric Overhead Traveling Cranes," except that the earthquake loading is the seismic response of the containment at the crane supports. In addition, the crane bridge and trolley are provided with mechanical guides to prevent possible derailme nt at the design ba sis earthquake. Furtherm ore, the polar crane is designed so that even in the unlikely event of the failure of a rail, the crane will remain on the supports.Typical details for the polar crane s upports are shown in Figures 5.2-9 and 5.2-15.

5.2.5.5 Containment Maintenance TrussA maintenance truss is provided in the containment for use in the maintenance of containment spray piping and ease of inspection of the interior of the dome liner plate.It is supported at the top by a large pin embedded in the containment dome. The bottom of the truss rests on the polar crane runw ay rail. The truss is moved ar ound the containm ent by the polar crane.

MPS2 UFSAR5.2-40Rev. 35 The truss is a Class I item designed for all postulated load conditions that are used for the containment design.

5.2.5.6 Unit 2 Stack The Unit 2 stack extends approxi mately 12 feet above the encl osure building and serves as a ventilation discharge duct. It is designed to the following factor ed load equations. The seismic response of the stack is taken as that of the en closure building in which the stack is attached:

C = 1/ [(1.00 + 0.05) (D) + 1.25 E]

C = 1/ [(1.00 + 0.05) (D) + 1.25 W]

C = 1/ [(1.00 + 0.05) (D) + 1.0 E]where: C = required capacity of the stru cture to resist factored loads= capacity reduction factor D = dead loads of structure

E = operating basis earthquake

E = design basis earthquake W = wind or tornado loads 5.2.5.7 Pipe Whip Protection Criteria Details may be found in Section 6.1.4.1.1.1.

5.2.5.7.1 Methods of Protection Against Pipe Whip Protection against critical pipe failures as defined in Section 6.1.4.1 of critical safety-related targets is assured by one of the following means:a.Plant layout is arranged such that the tar gets are physically separated from theeffects of potential pipe failures. (See Section 6.1.4.1.1.2

.)

MPS2 UFSAR5.2-41Rev. 35b.Either functional structure (such as walls, floors, et c.) or specially designed barriers are provided. Such ba rriers are also used to protect against the effects of jet impingement forces.c.In areas where unrestrained motion of a pipe failure as defined in Section 6.1.4.1.1.2 could hit a safety-related target , pipe restraints are employed.

Spacing of the restraints is as follows:(i)Along a continuous run of restraints the spacing of restraints shall be:

L = (4M p/F j) where:L = center-to-center span of restraint M p = plastic moment of the pipe, considering the effect of longitudinal stresses resulting from the internal pipe pressu re. Allowable stress is taken 1.2 times the lower limit yield stress as defined in ASME Section III, "Nuclear Power Plant Components," Paragraph NB-3225.

F j = jet impingement force as defined in Subsection d.(ii)The maximum distance of a restraint from the working point of an elbow for a circumferential break is:

L = (M p/F j) d.If an analysis demonstrates a component can withstand the loading generated by either the jet impingement forc e, or the effect of a pipe whip impact, protection isassured.The jet impingement load acting on a target shall be taken as:

F j = (DLF) PKA TE where: F j = jet impingement force DLF 2.0 , Dynamic Load Factor to account for the amplification resulting from the sudden impulse nature of the jet force. The use of DLF values lower than 2.0 require justification.

P = the steady state blowdown pressure establ ished for the specific break location, with consideration of internal fluid paramete rs based on the maximum Normal Operating Condition and piping internal friction, as appropriate.

K = 1.0 , for cold water and non-flas hing/subcooled fluid blowdown.

MPS2 UFSAR5.2-42Rev. 35 K = jet dispersion correct ion factor for steam a nd steam/water mixtures.

= [1 + (2x/D e) tan ]-2 , for x < 5 D e= 0.131 , for x 5 D e x = distance from pipe break to target D e = effective diameter of break taken as internal area of pipe = dispersion half angle-taken as 10

°A TE = effective impingement area of target; i.e., area perpendicular to axis of jet spray.

The value depends upon the rela tive size and orientation of the jet and the target. For pipes and targets with curved surfaces, an appropriate shape factor may be used.

5.2.5.7.2 Design Procedures for Re straints and Barriersa.Pipe Restraints:Reaction forces on restraints resulting from pipe breaks are taken to be:

F r = 2.0 P x A where P = maximum normal operating pressure

A = internal cross-sectional area of pipe The factor of two account s for the dynamic amplification resulting from the sudden impulse nature of the jet force and its ef fect on supporting restraints. A lower value may be used if justified.

All restraints are designed using the working stress method. Allowable bending and tension stresses are ta ken as 1.2 times the lower li mit yield stress, after the ASME Section III, "Nuclear Power Plant Components," Paragraph NB-3225.

Other stresses are based upon AISC, "Sp ecification for the Design, Fabrication, and Erection of Structural St eel for Buildings," 1963, Section 2.0. However, allowable stresses for welds and bolt load s are reduced to 90 percent the specified allowable values.

The structures supporting th e pipe restraints are desi gned for the reaction load (F r) as described in Section 5.2.2 for the Containment, Section 5.2.4 for the Containment Internals, and Section 5.4.3 for the Auxiliary Building.b.Pipe Impact Impact from unrestrained pipe motion is analyzed as follows:

MPS2 UFSAR5.2-43Rev. 35 The pipe is assumed to swi ng about its nearest restrain t in a configuration that produces the worst analytical conditi on. Impact ener gy is taken to be:

E I = KE - E H where: KE = (jet force) x (arc of swing)

E H = (plastic moment of pipe) x (angle of swing) This information is then utilized to comp ute the structural effects on barriers. To account for local deformation the methods presented in the NAVDOCKS P-51, "Design of Protective Structures - a New Concept of Structural Behavior," published by the U.S. Bureau of Yards and Docks, August 1950, Washington, D.C., and the Stanford Research In stitute Formula as presented in Reference 5.2-5.Design criteria for barriers ar e based upon ener gy methods, utilizi ng ductility ratios of 10 and 5, respectively, for steel and concrete in tension or flexure. The method of analysis is similar to that presented in Reference 5.2-6. Allowable stresses ar e taken as defined in AISC, "Specification for the Design, Fabrication, and Erection of Structural Steel for Buildings," Section 2.0 and ACI 318-63, Part IV-B. In those inst ances where functional structure is utilized as a barrier, the loading condition is as determined in either Section 5.2.2 for the Containment, Section 5.2.4 for the Containment Internals, and Sect ion 5.4.3 for the Auxiliary Building.

5.2.5.8 Jib Crane for Containment The Jib Crane for Containment is designed and fabricated in accordance with the requirements of ASME NOG-1 "Rules for Constr uction of Overhead and Gantry Cranes (T op Running Bridge, Multiple Girder)", 2004 Section 4100 and 4300 for structural and seismic analysis, Section 4200 for materials, welded and bo lted connections, and Section 7000 for inspection and nondestructive examination testing. Areas not covered by ASME NOG-1-2004 conform to the requirements of CMM 70-2010 to the extent applicable to a jib crane.

The mounting structure atta ching the crane to the pressurizer c ubicle Is designed to meet specific seismic requirements (Seismic II/I) such that in the event of a design basis earthquake, the crane will retain its structural integrity. A boom support structure, al so designed to meet seismic criteria (Seismic II/I), provides the suppor t to secure the crane boom in th e stored position to the top of the pressurizer cubicle In the event of a design basis earthqua ke. The design of the Jib Crane for Containment on the pressurizer cubicle is based on the following criteria. *The crane is only operated during outage conditions. This dictates that the 3 psi accident condition for which the pressurizer cubicle is designed will not occur concurrently withthe crane operation of the Jib Crane.*During plant operation, the crane is in a st ored position, tied down, and that seismic considerations are accounted for

.

MPS2 UFSAR5.2-44Rev. 35*The crane is operated only during outage condi tions and utilizes predefined safe loadpaths approved in station heavy load procedures which were developed to meet NUREG 0612 requirements. Components/parts need not be operational followi ng a seismic event,but are designed to retain structural integrity during an OBE or SSE.

5.2.6 CONTAINMENT

PENETRATIONS 5.2.6.1 Types of PenetrationsAll penetrations are pressure resistant, leak-t ight, welded assemblies, which are fabricated, installed, inspected, and tested in accordance with the ASME Nuclear Vessel Code,Section III, 1971 and the ANSI Nuclear Piping Code B 31.7.

5.2.6.1.1 Electrical Penetrations The electrical penetration assemblies through the wall of the containment structure form part of the containment pressure boundary and carry the (NPT) stamp in accordance with ASME Section III (1971). The low voltage power and control modules are mounted in a stainless steel header plate and are designed to meet or exceed all requirements of IEEE Standard 317, 1976.

The medium voltage electrical pe netration assemblies are double sealed modules mounted in a stainless steel binder plate and are designed to meet or exceed all requirements pursuant to IEEE 317, 1971, "Electrical Penetrat ion Assemblies in Containment Structures for Nuclear Fueled Power Generating Stations." In addition to complete electri cal prototype tests as described in Section 8.7.2.2, prototype tests are performed which include leakage integrity of 1 x 10

-6 standard cc/second of dr y helium under post-accident environmental conditions, seismic integrity, thermocycling, and simula ted field installation.

Electrical aspects of these penetrat ions are described in Section 8.7.2.2.

5.2.6.1.2 Piping Penetrations Single barrier piping penetrati ons are provided for all piping passing through the containment walls. Carbon steel pipe sleeve s of adequate diameter to allo w passage of pipe and insulation where required are supplied.

The closure, forming the single ba rrier , consists of modified pi pe caps, double-flued heads, or closure plates welded to the wall sleeves. Th e applicable closure types are shown on Figure 5.2-8.

The design data for the containment wa ll sleeves are included in Section 5.2.3.

5.2.6.1.3 Equipment Hatch and Personnel Lock An equipment hatch, 19 feet in di ameter , is provided to permit the transfer of equipment up to and including the size of the reactor vess el head, into and out of the containment. It is fitted with a double-gasketed flange around the di shed door to minimize leakag e in the unlikely event of a LOCA. Typical details of the equipmen t hatch are shown in Figure 5.2-4 and 5.2-10.

MPS2 UFSAR5.2-45Rev. 35In addition to the (20) internal bolting assemblies used to secure the equipment hatch during normal operating modes, the equipment hatch has also been outfitted with four external swing bolt attachments which are welded to the equipment hatch ring flange and ha tch barrel liner plate. The external attachments provide a method of securing the hatch from the outside during non-power operation.A personnel lock is also provided for access into and out of the containment. The personnel lock is equipped with double doors and a quick acting type, equalizing valve whic h connects the lock with the interior and exterior of the containment to equalize the pressure in the two systems when personnel are either entering or leaving the containment.

The two doors in the personnel lock are interlocked to prevent both being opened simultaneously, and to ensure that one door is completely closed before the opposite door can be opened. Remote indicating lights and annunciators in the control room indicate the operational status of the door. Provision is made to bypass the interlock system and leave the doors open during plant cold shutdown. The lock interior is provided with lighting and a comm unication system, each operating from an external supply.The doors on the Personnel Lock and Equipment Hatch are provided with double gaskets along the closure surfaces. Using the pressure taps furnished, the air space between these two gaskets may be pressurized and checked to assure leak tightness in accordance with the Technical Specifications.In addition, the Personnel Lock has been designed to withstand the pressurization of the lock chamber to the pressure of 54 psig. During the test, the door on the containment side of the chamber is held closed by a special yoke installed only for the test. This pressurization of the chamber assures the leak-tightness of the door penetrations and the outside lock door under the peak pressure conditions.Typical details of the personnel lo ck are shown on Figures 5.2-5 and 5.2-10.

5.2.6.1.4 Fuel Transfer TubeA fuel transfer tube is provided for fuel movement between the refueling canal in the containment and the transfer canal in the auxiliary building.The penetration consists of a 36 inch diameter stainless steel tube installed inside a 42 inch sleeve. The transfer tube is fitted with a double-gasketed blind flange in the refueli ng pool and a standard gate valve in the transfer canal. This arrangement prevents leakage through the transfer tube in the event of an accident. The 42 inch sleeve is welded to the containment liner. A bellows expansion joint is provided on the 42 inch sleeve to compensate for differential movement. Typical details of the fuel transfer tube are shown in Figure 5.2-10.

MPS2 UFSAR5.2-46Rev. 35 5.2.6.2 Design of Penetrations 5.2.6.2.1 Design CriteriaAll piping passing through the containment walls are permanently welded to the wall sleeves, forming an extension of the containment:To preserve the integrity of the containment, provisions are incorporated to prevent internal and external forces exerted by connecting piping on the wall sleeves from fracturing or breaching the containment pressure boundary. Additionally, pr otection against missiles is provided for the penetration piping and valving insi de and outside the containment.Further protection of each line, necessary to preclude the loss of pipe structural integrity between penetration and the first valve, is accomplished by shortening the exposed length of pipe and installing the first valve as close as possible to the internal or external wall of the structure, depending upon valve operating and maintenance clearances. Design bases which apply to the provision of automatic and manual isolation valves in the penetr ation lines are contained in Section 5.2.6.2.4.

5.2.6.2.2 Design of High-Temperature PenetrationsHigh-temperature piping penetrations consist of two for feedwater, two for main steam, and two for steam generator blowdown. These have a maximum operating temper ature range between 435°F and 550°F. Thermal insulation is provided in the air gap between the pipe and penetration liner sleeve. The combination of insulation and penetration cooling is designed to restrict maximum temperature in the concrete to 150

°F.For the condition created by loss of penetration cooling, the maximum steady state temperature in the concrete is 300

°F at the penetration surface and decreases to 120

°F at a maximum radial depth of 48 inches in the containmen t wall (Section 9.9.4.4.1). This therma l gradient produces localized compressive stresses in the concrete immediately surrounding the penetrat ion and low tensile stresses distributed some distances from the sleeve. These compressive stresses plus the restraint provided by the prestress loads minimize the effect of elevated temperatures on the concrete (Reference 5.2-4).In addition, the normal operating temperature of 150

°F continues to cure and dry concrete near the high-temperature penetrations. Since dry concrete is only slightly affected by high temperatures, normal operation is beneficial and reduces strength lo sses from a temperature rise.On this basis, the concrete in the localized area around the penetrations can withstand 300

°F without significant strength loss.

MPS2 UFSAR5.2-47Rev. 35 5.2.6.2.3 Penetration MaterialsThe materials for containment pe netrations, which include mech anical, electrical, and acces s penetrations, conform to the requirements of the ASME Nuclear Vessel Code and ANSI B31.7-68 including Code Case 1427.

As required by these codes, car bon steel penetration materials, which form the containment pressure boundary meet the necessary Charpy V-not ch impact test values at a temperature 30

°F below the lowest service temperature. Impact testing for mechanical pipi ng systems is performed at + 20°F, for uniformity.a.Mechanical Penetrati on Material SpecificationPenetration Sleeve (Pipe) SA-333, Grade 6 (Rolled Plate)

SA-516, Grade 60 Penetration Reinforcing Rings ASTM A-516, Grade 60 Penetration Sleeve Reinfo rcing ASTM A-516, Grade 60 Bar Anchoring Rings and Pl ates ASTM A-516, Grade 60 Rolled Shapes (Nonpressure Boundary) ASTM A-36 System Piping ASTM A-333, Grade 6 SA 335 GR P22 ASTM A-312 TP 304 SA 234 GR WP22 ASTM A-376 TP 316

ASTM A-376 TP 304

ASTM A-155 Gr KCF 70

ASTM A-106, Grade B Isolation Valves ASTM A-182, Grade F316 ASTM A-105, Grade II

ASTM A-351, Grade CF8, CF8M

ASTM A-216, Grade WCB

ASTM A-350, Grade LFI

ASTM A-516, Grade 70

ASTM A-515, Grade 70 b.Electrical PenetrationsThe penetration sleeves to accommodate the electrical penetration assembly canisters are SA-333 Grade 6 car bon steel, pipe schedule 80.

MPS2 UFSAR5.2-48Rev. 35c.Access Penetration Materials The containment equipment hatch insert, flanges, and head are fabricated of ASTM A-516 Grade 60 carbon steel plate.

The personnel lock is fabricated on ASTM A-516 Grade 60 carbon steel plate.

5.2.6.2.4 Provisions for Isolation Valves Those piping systems which penetr ate the co ntainment are provided with isolation valves which conform with the requirements of 10 CFR Part 50, General Design, Crit eria 54, 55, 56, and 57.

These provisions are describe d in detail in Section 5.2.7.

5.2.6.3 Installation of PenetrationsPenetration sleeves are welded to the liner plate and embedded in the concrete containment wall as shown in Figure 5.2-8. All welding and approved welding procedures used are in conformance with the requirements of ASME Section IX and ASME Section III, 1971, Nuclear Vessels.

Piping systems passing through the sleeves are in stalled as shown in Figure 5.2-8. The single barrier closure provided is welded to the sleeve, using the same requirements noted previously.

5.2.6.4 Testability of Penetrations All containment penetrations are subject to an initial leak rate test and periodic leak rate testing in accordance with the requirement s of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix J.

Provisions have been made to pressurize the c ontainment pressure boundary for leak rate testing as described in Section 5.2.8.1.

Valve arrangements incorporate provisions for leak testing of the piping systems penetrations, the containment and the isolation valves for these systems, in accordance with Criterion 54 of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix A, as necessary to perform the leak rate testing required by 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix J.

These provisions are define d in Sections 5.2.7.1 and 5.2.7.2.

MPS2 UFSAR5.2-49Rev. 35

5.2.7 CONTAINMENT

ISOLATION SYSTEM 5.2.7.1 Design Bases 5.2.7.1.1 Functional Requirements The containment isolation system functions to provide a double ba rrier to prevent leakage through all containment fluid penetrations. As a result, no single, credible failure, or malfunction of an active component can result in loss-of-iso lation capabilities or intolerable leakage.

5.2.7.1.2 Design Criteria The following criteria have been used in the de sign of the containment is olation system according to 10 CFR Part 50:a.Piping systems penetrating primary reactor co ntainmen t shall be provided with leak detection and isolation.b.Pipi(PICKME)ng systems shall be designed with a capability to test periodically the operability of the isolat ion valves and associated apparatus and to determine if valve leakage is within acceptable limits as necessary per the testing requirements of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix J.c.Each line that is part of the reactor coolant pressu re boundary and penetrates primary reactor containment shall be provided with cont ainment isolation valves unless it can be demonstrated that th e containment isola tion provisions for a specific class of lines, such as instrument lines, ar e acceptable on some other defined basis. The valves are:1.One locked closed isolation valve in side and one locked closed isolation valve outside the containment; or2.One automatic isolation valve inside and one locked closed isolation valve outside the containment; or3.One locked closed isolation valve in side and one automatic isolation valveoutside the containment. A simple check valve may not be used as the automatic isolation valve out side the containment; or4.One automatic isolation valve inside and one automatic isolation valveoutside the containment. A simple check valve may not be used as the automatic isolation valve outside the containment.d.Each line that connects directly to th e containment atmosphe re and penetrates primary reactor containment shall be provided with cont ainment isolation valves unless it can be demonstrated that th e containment isola tion provisions for a MPS2 UFSAR5.2-50Rev. 35specific class of lines, su ch as instrument lines, ar e acceptable on some other defined basis. The valves which are used are:1.One locked closed valve inside a nd one locked closed isolation valve outside the containment; or2.One automatic isolation valve inside and one locked closed isolation valve outside the containment; or3.One locked closed isolation valve in side and one automatic isolation valveoutside the containment. A simple check valve may not be used as the automatic isolation valve out side the containment; or4.One automatic isolation valve inside and one automatic isolation valveoutside the containment. A simple check valve may not be used as the

automatic isolation valve outside the containment.e.Each line that penetrates the primary reac tor containment and is neither part of the reactor coolant pressure boundary nor c onnected directly to the containmentatmosphere shall have at least one containment isolat ion valve which shall be either automatic, or locked closed, or capable of remote manual operation. This valve shall be outside containment and lo cated as close to the containment as practical. A simple check valve may not be used as the automatic isolation valve.f.Isolation valves outside of the containment shall be located as close to the containment as practical. The automatic isol ation valves shall be designed to take the position that provides greater safety upon loss of actuating power

.g.Other appropriate requireme nts to minimize the probabilit y or consequences of an accidental rupture of these li nes or of lines connected to them shall be provided as necessary to assure adequate safety. Determination of the appropriateness of these requirements, such as highe r quality in desi gn, fabrication, and testing, additional provisions for in-service inspection, prot ection against most severe natural phenomena, and additional isolation valv es and containment, shall include consideration of the population density, use charac teristics, and physical characteristics of the site environs.

5.2.7.2 System Description 5.2.7.2.1 System Containment isolation data is li sted in Table 5.2-11. The containm ent isolation system is shown schematically in Figures 5.2-27 through 5.2-34.

The containment isolation system closes all fluid penetrations not required for operation of the engineered safety feature systems, to prevent the leakage of radioactive materials to the MPS2 UFSAR5.2-51Rev. 35environment. Fluid penetrations serving engineered safety feature systems also meet the design basis double barrier criteria , but are not closed by the containment isolation signal.The location and types of contai nment isolation valves meet the requirements of Appendix A of 10 CFR Part 50, Gene ral Design Criteria 54, 55, 56, and 57 as noted below in parentheses.

The fluid penetrations which may re quire isolation after an accident are categorized (and listed in Table 5.2-11 under the column heading "Pene. Category type") as follows:Type P - Lines that connect to the reactor coolant pr essure boundary (Criteri on 55 of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix A).These lines are provided with two isolation valves. One valve is inside the containment and the other is outside, located as close as practical to the containment structure. For safety injection/shutdown cooling where flow direction is inward, the inside valve is a check valve and the outside isolation valve is capable of remote operation. Otherwise, the inside valves are either remotely operated or locked closed valves. The outside valves are always either remotely operated or locked closed.Type O - Lines that are open to the containment internal atmosphe re (Criterion 56 of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix A).These lines are provided with similar containmen t isolation valve arrangements as described for Type P penetrations.Type N - Lines that are neither connected to the reactor coolant pressure boundary nor open to the containment atmosphere but do form a closed system within the containment structure (Criterion 57 of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix A).These lines are provided with single isolation valves located outside the containment as close to the containment structure as practical. These valves are either remotely operated or are locked closed manual valves.Prior to and during the construction and licensing of Millstone Unit 2, a system inside containment was defined as a closed system if the system neither communicated with the primary coolant nor the containment atmosphere. All Type N penetrations listed in Table 5.2-11 are categorized based on this definition and are GDC compliant. However, some of the systems associated with Type N penetrations (primary make-up water system, nitrogen supply system, waste gas header, and RBCCW system) are not in strict compliance with the criteria for a closed system as defined by the current standards (SRP 6.2.4 and ANS 56.2/ANSI N271-76). The current standards for a closed system inside containment call for them to be Class 2. The RBCCW system is fabricated to Safety Class 3 requirements in accordance with th e acceptance criteria for the systems in effect at the time it was designed. NRC has accepted that for a low energy system such as RBCCW, the differences in safety classes 2 and 3 in terms of fabr ication and surveillance requirements is sufficiently small that there is good likelihood that the system will remain intact during an accident (NRC Letter from John F. Stolz to Edward J. Mroczka, dated January 15, 1991, MPS2 UFSAR5.2-52Rev. 35"Issuance of Exemption to 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix J, Sections II I.A and III.C for the Millstone Nuclear Power Station, Unit Number 2 (TAC Number 75970)").Due to the various acceptable options in arranging containment isolation valves, the specific valve arrangements have been given for each penetration in Figures 5.2-27 through 5.2-34. Complete descriptions of these isolation valve arrangements are summarized in Table 5.2-11 indicating each penetration by number, the valve arrangement identification, the penetration category, the testing requirements, the size and type of the valves, the mode actuation, and the valve positions in respect to normal and/or isolat ion conditions including the positi ons during air or power failure.

The piping penetrations forming an extension of the containment are desi gned in accordance with ANSI B-31.7, Nuclear Piping Code, Class I or II as a minimum and are installed in accordance with ASME Section III, Nucl ear Power Plant Components Code. These penetrations are described in Section 5.2.6.1.2 and 5.2.6.3. The piping is subjected to a stress report as prescribed in ASME,Section III, which includes its being subjected to a seismic analysis in accordance with the State of Connecticut Building Code, Class I, as described in Section 5.2.4.3.3. The penetration is subjected to the missile and whip prot ection criteria descri bed in Section 5.2.5.Containment isolation valves are designed in accordance with the Draft ASME Code for Pumps and Valves for Nuclear Power or ASME Section II I (1971 Edition). Isolati on valves are subjected to a stress report or analysis which includes seismic analysis as prescribed in Section 5.2.4.3.3. Installation of these valves is subjected to the same requirements imposed on the containment penetration piping as described above.There is sufficient redundancy in the instrumentation circuits of the engineered safety features protection system to minimize the possibility of inadvertent tripping of the isolation system. Further discussion of this redundancy and the instrumentation signals which trip the isolation system is presente d in Section 7.3.The containment pressure instrumentation is physically located close to the containment and installed using short couplings between the containment penetrations and instrumentation provided. All instrumentation provided is designed as a pressure containing device, whereby rupture of the sensing bellows will not release radioactivity to the environment but will be contained within the housing of the instrument itself. The instrument lines are sized or orificed on the inside of the containment such that the response time of the transmitters remains within an acceptable level while in the unlikely event of instrument line or transmitter housing failure, the leakage is reduced to the minimum extent practical. One shutoff valve is pr ovided in each line for test purposes.The instrument lines, up to and including the pressure retaining parts of instruments, are Seismic Class I, subject to quality assurance surveillance, and conservatively designed to a quality equivalent to the containment penetrations or better. All containment pressure instrumentation equipment is located in an enclosed area and protected against physical damage due to pipe whip or missiles. Provisions are included in plant design for periodic visual in-service inspection of lines from the outside of containment up to an including the pressure instruments. The single manual shutoff valve in each line will enable periodic pressurization of the impulse line from the MPS2 UFSAR5.2-53Rev. 35shutoff valve up to and including the pressure transmitter for leak testing and instrument calibration.All containment atmosphere samp ling lines are designed in accordance with Regulatory Guide 1.11.All containment penetrations except the containment sump recirculation lines, Numbers 12 and 13, and the containment pressure transmitter penetration lines, Numbers 47, 69, 70, and 71, comply with NRC General Desi gn Criteria 55, 56, and 57 or to Regulatory Guide 1.11. Valving inside the containment is eliminated on these penetrations because of the critical nature of these penetrations.The containment sump recirculation lines are embedded in concrete inside the containment and protected by a guard pipe outside the containment to maintain the containment boundary and system integrity. The system is required to function during the post-accident condition; therefore, if valving inside the containment exis ted, it would be required to be open.The containment pressure transmitter installation is described in Table 5.2-11 and is illustrated in Figure 5.2-34 (Arrangement 30).

5.2.7.2.2 ComponentsThe major system components and materials of fabrication for th e containment isolation system are indicated in Tables 5.2-12 and 5.2-13 for piping and valves, respectively.

5.2.7.3 System Operation 5.2.7.3.1 Emergency OperationIn the unlikely event of a LOCA , containment isolation system automatically isolates the nonessential process lines coincident with the c ontainment isolation actuation signal (CIAS) as described in Section 7.3. Containment penetrations that are opened directly to the containment, such as the normal sump drain, are also automatically isolated by the CIAS as described in Section 7.3. Other process lines which are not opened directly to the containment, such as the steam generator bottom blowdown and demineralized water, are also automatically isolated by the CIAS.Process lines which are essential for post-accident operation, such as the safety injection, are automatically opened by the Safety Injection Actuation Signal (SIAS). The only lines that automatically open on Containmen t Spray Actuation Signal are th e containment spray headers. The only lines that automatically open on Sump Recirculation Actu ation Signal are the containment sump recirculation lines.

MPS2 UFSAR5.2-54Rev. 35 5.2.7.4 Availability and Reliability 5.2.7.4.1 Special FeaturesAll containment isolation valves are designed to ensure leak-tightness and reliability of operation. Gate, globe, ball and check valves used for c ontainment isolation meet the leak tightness requirements of MSS-SP-61 except that the maximum seat leakage rate is less than 2.0 cc/hour per inch of seat diameter. Butterfly valves used for isolation are purchased and tested to ensure essentially zero seat leakage preinstallation under the test pressure conditions. Subsequent to installation, leak tightness is confirmed by testing as described in Section 5.2.7.1.2.b. The required valve closing times are achieved by appropriate selection of the valve operator type and size.Containment isolation valve operators that receive the automatic CIAS, and are of the piston (air cylinder) or diaphragm operator type are selected based on the design of the operators being capable of meeting a closure time of 5 seconds. The MSIVs (2-MS-64A and 64B) closure times are described in Section 10.3.2.The four containment air purge supply and exhaust valves (2-AC-4, -5, -6 & -7) do not receive a CIAS signal but receive a signal to close in response to a high containment radiation when the plant is in modes 5 and 6. These valves are locked closed, pneumatically isolated and electrically disconnected when the plant is in modes 1 through 4. This is accomp lished by closing the instrument air isolation valves and pulling the control power fuses for each of the valves. The associated instrument air isolation valves and fuse blocks are then locked. By locking them closed in this manner, these valves are consid ered sealed closed isolation valves.Motor-operated containment isolation valves have no closing stroke time requirements assumed in the accident analysis. The containment spray header and LPSI Injection Header motor-operated isolation valves have opening stroke time requirements that support the system response times assumed in the accident analysis. Refer to the Technical Requirements Manual for the listed system response times. Stroke time requirements are established for motor-operated containment isolation valves in accordance with the Inservice Test Program to ensure the valve operation is monitored for degradation.Containment penetrations which form closed systems (as defined in GDC 57 inside containment) are not exposed to the c ontainment environment and, therefore, do not constitute a potential leakage path.The containment penetrations which are open to the atmosphere are listed in Section 5.3.4. For those connected piping systems which will withstand and contain the post-accident atmosphere outside containment, the closure time of the associated isolation valves is not dictated by potential containment leakage to the site boundary. Any leakage from the Containment Air Purge, Hydrogen Purge, Hydrogen Samp le, and Containment Air Monitoring lines is contained within the Enclosure Building Filtration Sy stem as stated in Section 5.3.4.

MPS2 UFSAR5.2-55Rev. 35The closure time for the containment purge valves is based on 5 seconds. This was demonstrated by testing by the valve manufacturer.The position of greatest safety for air-operated valves is the position the valve will assume upon loss of air instrument supply.Motor-operated valves on the shutdown cooling line fail "as is" in the event of loss of electrical power supply. Since these valves are closed during operation (reactor coolant system pressure greater than 300 psig), the "as is

" position is the safest position.In the event of electrical power loss to the motor-operated cont ainment isolation valves, the valves are supplied by emergency power to achieve the greatest safety position.

The assigned locations of containment penetrations are designed to ensure adequate separation of redundant piping and valving. The penetrations leaving the contai nment below grade are located in the penetration rooms of the auxiliary building while the penetrations above grade are located in the enclosure building. The applicable portions of these structures are designed to protect internal equipment from poten tial tornadoes and missiles.Most remotely operated containment isolation valves have provisions for remote manual operation from the main control room. Valves 2-MS-65A, 2-MS-65B, 2-MS-202, and 2-SI-651 have disconnect switches in their power circuits to ensure the valves are in their proper position in the event of an Appendix R fire, and to prevent spurious movement during specific operational modes as shown and detailed in Table 5.2-11. Position indicators (open or closed) are also provided in the control room to assure valve position during an emergency.The isolation valves which are not required to maintain their full operational capabilities during and after a LOCA or Seismic event are designed to fail in the safe position. These valves are provided with air operators and a spring return to the safe position.

The reliability of these valves is proven by seismic analysis and/or testing of the valve, operator, so lenoid, and limit switches under the seismic loadings described in Section 5.8. To assure that the valves will operate under the system flow conditions, th e air operator and spring are sized to operate at maximum differential pressure across the valve.The isolation valves in vital service which must be capable of full oper ation during and after a LOCA are provided with motor operators or air accumulator tanks. Electrical power is supplied to the motor-operated valves from the emergency diesel generators during an onsite and/or offsite power-loss to assure that these valves are always capable of full operation. The reliability of the motor-operated valves to function during the seismic disturbance or LOCA is proven by seismic analysis and testing. To demonstrate that the motor operator has sufficient torque to operate the valves, the valves are open and/or closed under full disc differential pressure.Manually-operated containment isolation valves are positioned using approved operating procedures, a portion of which is a Valve Check List which states the required position(s) of the valve for various plant conditions such as startup or shutdown. As appropriate, the lis t indicates if the valve is locked open or locked closed. The position of manually-operated containment MPS2 UFSAR5.2-56Rev. 35isolation valves is verified using appropriate valve list(s) before the plant leaves the cold shutdown condition.The isolation valves required for essential post-accident processes having air operators are provided with emergency reserve air supply tanks which are capable of actuating the valves several times. This is necessary because of the postulated failure of the station and instrument air system during an emergency. However, the twelve RBCCW CAR cooler inlet and outlet containment isolation valves are not equipped with reserve air supply tanks. The RBCCW System was designed (back fitted) with th e 12 containment isolation valves as a defense in depth design feature for containment integrity to meet the requirements of GDC 57. These valves fail open (which is their accident position) on loss of air. They are located outside containment and are equipped with a hand wheel as a secondary mode of operation.

Upon receiving a manual CIAS or SIAS (either manual or automatic) actuation signal, isolation valves required to isolate the containment fro m the surrounding environm ent and other systems within the station, close automatically. Valve operators are sized to close these isolation valves before any significant amount of radioactivity can be released from the containment. In most systems, standard valve operators are sufficient.

The containment isolation valve operators have a certified proven record of reliability under operating conditions similar or more severe than those to which exposed during unit operation. These have been tested by the manufacturer to ensure the integrity in the event of inadvertent closure under operating conditions.The worst environment to which containment isolation valves may be subjected is that described in Section 14.8.2 Containment Analysis. In addition, static, dynamic, and seismic loads, as described in Section 5.8 and exposure to physical damage are taken into account. Valves have been designed to perform their intended function under these conditions and this forms their design basis.Damage due to severe natural environment such as freezing is not considered credible since all areas which house containm ent isolation valves are maintained at temperatures above freezing.Relief valves are required to prevent over-pressuring lines for low-pressure service but subject to possible valve leakage from lines transporting fluids of potentially high temperature and pressure. Relief valves are also required to prevent over-pressuring lines due to uncontrolled thermal expansion of the process fluid.Penetration Number 10, Figure 5.2-29, transports reactor cool ant during shutdown cooling, normally at 300 psig, but it is also subject to the maximum pressure of reactor coolant system during normal plant operation. To prevent over-pressuring the piping external to the containment due to isolation valve leakage, a relief valve set at 300 psig is required. This relief valve is inside the containment and discharges to the liqui d radwaste system, as shown in Figure 6.1-1.Penetration Number 11, Figure 5.2-31, is for the Safety Inject ion tank testing and RCS check valve leakage bleed. The relief valve is set at 450 psig to protect the piping from over-pressure.

MPS2 UFSAR5.2-57Rev. 35This relief valve is also inside the containment and discharges to the Quench Tank, as shown in Figure 6.1-1.The safety injection test line, penetration Number 11, conforms to General Design Criteria Number 57 of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix A. This line is isolated from the re actor coolant pressure boundary by two valves, both closed, as allowed by 10 CFR 50.55a (January 1972 edition), footnote 1(b) for exclusion from the reactor coolant system. Therefore, the safety injection test line is neither open directly to the containment atmosphere nor part of the reactor coolant pressure boundary, as provided by Criterion Number 57.

Penetration Numbers 19 & 20, Figure 5.2-33, are for the main steam lines with relief valves required to protect the steam generator from over-pressure. There are 8 relief valves per main steam line for a total of 16 relief valves with nominal set points at 985 psig and the maximum pressure settings at 1,035 psig. A detailed description of these valves is given in Section 4.3, Table 4.3-3 of the FSAR. The relief valves are located outside the containment to facilitate inspection, testing, and maintenance and to protect the containment from over-pressure due to relief discharge.Penetration Numbers 12 & 13, Figure 5.2-30, provide containment sump recirculation for long-term operation of ECCS and containment spray post accide nt. Piping equipped wi th rupture disks are connected to the body drains of containment isolation valves 2-CS-16.1A & B. The rupture disks discharge is contained within the closed piping system.

The rupture disks prevent the possibility of the motor-operated valves becoming pressure locked in the closed position due to thermal expansion of trapped flui d in the valve bodies prior to in itiation of sump recirculation.

5.2.7.4.2 Tests and InspectionsAll isolation valves are shop tested and examined by the manufacturer in accordance with the governing code requirements to assure the integrity of the pressure retaining boundary. In addition, all valves are performance tested for seat leakage on an individual valve basis to assure reliability.Each valve is tested after installation to ensure its leak tightness and performance. The valve operators specified have a proven record of a number of years of reliability in respect to the method of operation and material used. Throughout the plant life, these valves are tested periodically as required per 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix J and those which cannot be tested during operation (those which must remain open or closed) are tested during the scheduled shutdowns and plant outages.

Containment fluid penetration isolation valves are incorporated with provisions for periodic leak rate testing provided they are required to be tested per 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix J.

RBCCW CAR cooler inlet outlet c ontainment isolation valves (2-R B-28.1A to D, 2-RB-28.2A to D and 2-RB-28.3A to D) are exempt from Appendix J Type C testing (NRC Letter from John F. Stolz to Edward J. Mroczka, dated January 15, 1991, "Issuance of Exemption to 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix J, Sections III.A and III.C for the Millstone Nuclear Power Station, Unit Number 2 MPS2 UFSAR5.2-58Rev. 35(TAC Number 75970)"). They do not have leakage criteria. The leakage criteria for CIVs on closed systems that are exempt from Appendix J testing and whose primary safety function is to remain open or open is based on th e functional leakage requirements, which is limited to "as low as reasonably attainable."The containment isolation valves located outside the containmen t are accessible for maintenance and inspection during norma l plant operation. The isolation valves located within containment are accessible during normal plant shutdow n for maintenance and inspection.On-line testing procedures and preoperation or acceptance testing of isolation valves are discussed with the respective pro cess systems in Chapters 6, 9, and 10.

5.2.8 CONTAINMENT

TESTI NG AND SURVEILLANCE 5.2.8.1 Integrated Leak-Rate Surveillance Test ProgramA containment test program has been established to assure re actor containment building will adequately protect the public from core damage accidents and achieve compliance with 10 CFR 50, Appendix J, of the C ode of Federal Regulations.

Containment leak tests are performed periodically per th e requirements of Appendix J.The objective of these tests is to demonstrate that leak age through the primary reactor containment and systems, and components penetrat ing the primary containment, do not exceed the allowable leakage rate specified in the Plant Technical Specificat ions (less than 0.75 L a).The containment penetrations are aligned in a post-LOCA configuration (i.e., plant systems penetrating the containment boundary isolated, via normal closure modes, drained of water and vented inside and outside of isolation valves) to the extent practical. A pressurization system is set up and connected to the containment through a te mporary piping path. The pressurization system consists of a group of oil-free air compressors, dryer units, after-coolers, interconnecting spool pieces, and valves.Refer to Table 5.2-14 for details of the leak-rate measurement system instrumentation.A data acquisition system (with backup capability) is used to record ILRT containment-related test parameters, e.g., containmen t air pressure, temperatures, and dew point temperatures. The data acquisition system t ypically consists of a portable computer, a data logger, and a printer. The test data is processed via a quality related ILRT computer program.When test prerequisites and initial conditions are satisfie d, the containment is pressurized to slightly greater than accident pressure with external leak checks performed to identify any containment leakage. When test pressure is reached, containment pressurization is stopped and isolated. The containment air mass system is then allowed to thermodynamically stabilize. Once stabilization is attained, the data acquisition system records the test data and computes the ILRT leakage rate, L am.

MPS2 UFSAR5.2-59Rev. 35The Type A test and the supplemental verification test are performed according to the requirements of the MP2 Technical Specification and 10 CFR 50, Appendix J.Two methods are available to calculate the contai nment leakage rate; mass point and total time.The mass point method uses formulas from ANS 56.8 (Reference 5.2-8) and the total time method from BN-TOP-1 (Reference 5.2-9)Quality-related software employing these techniques calculate s the least-squares fit and upper confidence limit containment leakage rate, L am. It automatically checks it against the acceptance criteria (0.75 L a).The software program contai nment model inputs ar e based upon quality-re lated engineering calculations: containment-free air volume V, Resistance Temperature Detector (RTD), and Dewcell sensor volume weight fractions (refer to Table 5.2-15 and Reference 5.2-12 for details), and the superimposed leakage rate, L o.A single failure RTD and Dewcell analysis calculation is completed and reweighted plan is established, per the guidance of EPRI (Reference 5.2-10).

Prior to depressurization of the containment, a verification test is comple ted. The verification test induces a known leakage rate, Lo, and a composite leakage calculation of L c is made to verify that the test instrument data acquisition system was operating satisfactorily (L o+ L am - 0.25 L a L c L o + L am + 0.25 L a) and yielding accurate results.Once this is verified, the containment is then slowly depressurized to normal atmospheric conditions and restoration is started.

5.2.8.1.1 Total Time Method for Calculating Containment Leakage RateThe Total Time Method of the Absolute Method consists of calculating air lost from the containment using pressure, temperature, and dew point observations made during the ILRT using the Ideal Gas Law. The measured leakage rate at any time (t) is determined by calculating the percent leakage rate based on the most recent data and the data taken at the start of the test. The calculated leakage rate is then determined by plotting the measured leakage rate as a function of time and then performing a least-squares fit of the measured leakage rate values. The calculated leakage rate is expressed as a percentage of containment mass lost in a 24 hour2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> period.This is the primary calculation (data analysis) for use during a short duration test (i.e., test duration less than 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br />). Bechtel Topical Report BN-TOP-1, Rev. 1, 1972, "Testing Criteria for Integrated Leakage Rate Testing of Primary Containment Structures for Nuclear Power Plants" (Reference 5.2-9) and ANSI N45.4-1972, Leakage Rate Testing of Containment Structures for Nuclear Reactors" (Reference 5.2-15), provide details on this method of determining the containment leakage rate.

MPS2 UFSAR5.2-60Rev. 35 5.2.8.1.2 Mass Point Method for Calculat ing Containment Leakage RateThe Mass Point analysis technique consists of calculating the air mass within the containment structure over the test period using pressure, temperature, and dew point observations made during the ILRT using the Ideal Gas Law. The leakage rate is then determined by plotting the air mass as a function of time using a least-squares fit to determine the slope. The leakage rate is expressed as a percentage of air mass in a 24 hour2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> period. This is the primary calculation (data analysis) for test durations of 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> or greater. This analysis technique is described in ANSI/ANS 56.8, "Containment System Leakage Te sting Requirements" (Reference 5.2-8).

5.2.8.2 Structural Integrity TestPrior to operation the containment was subjected to a pressure test equivalent to 115 percent of the postulated maximum accident pressure in accordance with Regulatory Guide 1.18. This test provides a direct verification of the structural integrity of the containment as a whole, i.e., it is equal to or better than that required to sustain the forces imposed by the accident loading condition.The structure was pressurized to 115 percent of the postulated accident pressure (62.4 psig) during the integrated leak rate test. Radial measurements were made along six equally spaced meridians at locations near the base, at mid-height of the cylinder, and at the spring li ne as well as the top of the dome. Radial deflections were also ta ken at 12 positions around the equipment hatch.Cracks greater than 0.005 inch were mapped near the base wall intersection, at mid-height, just below the ring girder, at the intersection of a but tress and the wall, and at the dome. At each location an area of at leas t 40 square feet was mapped.Measurements and observations were taken at 0, 14, 27, 40, 54, and 62.4 psi increments while pressurizing and depressurizing. The results of these provided de facto indication that the structure is more than adequate to withstand the design internal pressures.

5.2.8.3 Post-Operational Leakage MonitoringThe procedure deviates from the Regulatory Guide 1.18 in that the tangential deflections at 12 positions around the equipment hatch were not measured since tangential deflections were not predicted. Tangential deflections measured during test on similar structure were of minimal significance.

5.2.8.4 Tendon Surveillance 5.2.8.4.1 Program DescriptionThe primary objective of the surveillance program for the containment structure concrete and tendons during the lifetime of the plant is to ensure the strength and reliability of the post-tensioning steel and other major components such as stressing washers, shims, and bearing plates. The surveillance program is intended to provide sufficient in-service historical evidence to MPS2 UFSAR5.2-61Rev. 35 maintain a high level of confiden ce so that the integrity of th e containment structure may be preserved.

This program consists of the following operations:a.Recording lift-off pressure readings and any significant vi sual difference ofstressing washers, shims, beari ng plates, and concrete cracks.b.Checking for possible corrosion of wires and anchorage components.To accomplish this surveillance program, a total of twenty-one (21) tendons were provided in accordance with the Regulatory Guide 1.35, Revision 1 as follows:a.Horizontal (hoop): Ten (10) tendons random ly selected but a pproximately equally distributed.b.Vertical: Five (5) tendons are located in the wall, approximately equally spaced around the containment.c.Dome: Six (6) tendons, two located in each 60 degrees group.d.For the fourth surveillance (tenth year), if no signifi cant problems were indicated by the previous surveillances, the total number of surveillan ce tendons could bereduced to three from each group for a total of nine su rveillance tendons.

In July 1990, Regulatory Guide 1.35, Revision 3, was published. Revision 3 requires a random selection from all tendon groups. Under Revision 3, the third surveillance would have required a total of fourteen surveillance tendons to be insp ected, while only nine would be required for the fourth surveillance onward as suming no problems were found in the earlier surveillances.

Accordingly , from the fifth surveillance on the tendon selection, inspections, testing and sampling is being performed in accordance with Regulatory Guide 1.35, Revision 3. The sampling may be expanded for any surveillance when it is deemed desirable or necessary.

5.2.8.4.2 Compliance with Regulatory Guide The tendon surveillance program complies with the Regulatory Guide 1.35.

5.

2.9 REFERENCES

5.2-1Guyon, T., Prestressed Conc rete, Contractors Record and Municipal Engineering, Lennox House, London, 1953.5.2-2Leonhardt, F., Prestressed Concrete Design and Construction, Translated C. Van Amfrongen, Sec. Rev. Ed. Berlin, Wilhen Ernst Sohn, 1964.

MPS2 UFSAR5.2-62Rev. 355.2-3Eringen, A. C., Naghdi, A. K., and Thiel, C. C., "State of Stress in a Circular Cylindrical Shell with a Circular Hole," Welding Re search Council (WRC) Bulletin Number 102, January, 1965.5.2-4Lankard, Birkimer, et. al, "Effects of Moisture Content on the Structural Properties of Portland Cement Concrete Exposed to Temperatures up to 500

°F," Battelle Research, ACI Paper 1968.5.2-5Gwaltney, R. C., Missil e Generation and Protection in Light-Water-Cooled Power Reactor Plant, USAGC Report ORNL-NSIC-22, September, 1968.5.2-6Biggs, J. M., "Introduction to Struct ural Dynamics," Mc Graw-Hill, Inc., 1964, Chapter 5.5.2-710 CFR 50, Appendix J, Primary Reactor Containment Leakage Testing for Water-Cooled Power Reactors.5.2-8ANS 56.8, "Containment System Leakage Testing Requirements."5.2-9BN-TOP-1, Revision 1, November 1, 1972. Bechtel Corporation Testing Criteria for Integrated Leak-Rate Tests of Primary Containment Structures for Nuclear Power Plants.5.2-10EPRI Report NP-2726, "Containment Integrated Leak-Rate Testing Improvements,"

November 1982.5.2-11T2621-P, MP2 Preoperational Test, April 15, 1975.5.2-12Engineering Calculation Number 95-ENG-1184-M2, "MP2 Containment ILRT Sensor Volume Fractions."5.2-13Millstone Unit 3, Final Safety Analys is Report, Section 2.3-Meteorology.5.2-14Richard Jr., F. E., Hall Jr., J. R., and Woods, R. E., Vibrations of Soils and Foundations, Prentice Hall, Inc., NJ, 1970.5.2-15ANSI N45.4-1972, "Leakage Rate Testing of Containment Structures for Nuclear Reactors."

MPS2 UFSAR5.2-63Rev. 35TABLE 5.2-1 CONTAINMENT STRUCTURE ANALYSIS

SUMMARY

KEY ELEVATION SHOWING LOCATION OF REFERENCE SECTIONSNotes on Table Values The values shown in the following tables are ta ken from the cracked section analysis for the containment building. Earthquake forces are added to the forces from other loads and the resulting total is solved to obtain the stresses given.The allowable stresses are based on the criteria pr esented herein. The entire containment shell is constructed using 5000 psi concrete and Grade 60 bonded reinforcing steel. The liner plate has a guaranteed minimum yield strength of 24,000 psi. Values in these tables corr espond to Figures 5.2-19 to 5.2-26.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 0 11 30 10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 MPS2 UFSAR 5.2-64 Rev. 35TABLE 5.2-2 CONTAINMENT STRUCTURE ANA LYSIS

SUMMARY

- DEAD LOAD, INITIAL PRESTRESS AND LIVE LOAD (D+KF+L)PortionSectionConcrete Stress -

Flexural & Membrane:

Merdian (PSI)Concrete Stress-Flexural &

Membrane:Hoop (PSI)Concrete Stress - Membrane:

Merdian (PSI)Concrete Stress - Membrane: Hoop (PSI)Concrete Stress - Actual Shear Allowable Shear CapacityConcrete Stress - Reinforcing Stress:

Merdian (PSI)Concrete Stress -Reinforcing Stress: Hoop (PSI)Concrete Stress - Liner Plate Strain: Meridian %Concrete Stress - Liner Plate Strain: Hoop

%Allowable-3750-3750-1500-1500+30000+30000

+/-0.2%+/-0.2%DOME1-977-1497-953-1438 0.255-7482-11131-0.036-0.0562-1142-665-1098-594 0.442-8514-5246-0.043-0.0203-1820-436-784-204 0.557-11052-2705-0.068-0.016 RING GIRDER4-610-445-558-351 0.198-2302-1821-0.023-0.017WALL5-829-942-723-788 0.709-6322-7079-0.031-0.0356-1011-1629-898-1374 0.035-6581-9612-0.038-0.0617-973-773-961-663 0.394-7765-5981-0.036-0.021HAUNCH8-749

-292-569-278 0.364-5680-2313-0.028-0.011BASE SLAB9-342

-106-109-63 0.379+6781+2106-0.013-0.00410-108-61-64-42 0.138-807-466-0.004-0.00211-36-35-29-28 0.005-276-273-0.001-0.001 MPS2 UFSAR 5.2-65 Rev. 35TABLE 5.2-3 CONTAINMENT STRUCTURE ANALYSIS

SUMMARY

- DEAD LOAD, INITIAL PRESTRESS AND LIVE LOAD (D+F+L+1.15P)PortionSectionConcrete Stress -

Flexural & Membrane:

Merdian (PSI)Concrete Stress-Flexural &

Membrane: Hoop (PSI)Concrete Stress - Membrane:

Merdian (PSI)Concrete Stress - Membrane: Hoop (PSI)Concrete Stress - Actual Shear Allowable Shear CapacityConcrete Stress - Reinforcing Stress:

Merdian (PSI)Concrete Stress -Reinforcing Stress: Hoop (PSI)Concrete Stress - Liner Plate Strain: Meridian %Concrete Stress - Liner Plate Strain: Hoop

%Allowable-3750-3750-1500-1500+30000+30000

+/-0.2%+/-0.2%DOME1-70-145-24-38 0.298+1134+3855-0.003-0.005 2-139 0-88+56 0.074-355+9394-0.005-0.003 3-173-202-89-101 0.914-1101-1277-0.006-0.008 RING GIRDER 4-320-291-278-294 0.088+13653-1957+0.006-0.011 5-559-412-191-4100.114+8692-3304+0.004-0.015WALL6-318-87-265-63 0.017-1829-374-0.012-0.003 7-1762-981-319-646 0.400+11847-7212+0.014-.0012HAUNCH8-1779-580-231-386 0.357+19385-4432+0.020-0.007 9-636-626+53-3 0.585+17764+12418-0.024-0.023BASE SLAB10

-1488-613+72-18 0.154+29512+12153-.0056-0.02311-64-63-44-43 0.015-486-480-0.002-0.002 MPS2 UFSAR 5.2-66 Rev. 35TABLE 5.2-4 CONTAINMENT STRUCTUR E ANALYSIS

SUMMARY

- DEAD LOAD, INITIAL PRESTRESS AND LIVE LOAD, OPERATING TEMPERATURE AND OBE (D+F+L+T 0+E) (A)(a).Note: Values in parentheses reflect cu rrent controlling stresses/strains resulting from the revised seismic analysis perfor med in 1998-99.PortionSectionConcrete Stress -

Flexural & Membrane:

Merdian (PSI)Concrete Stress-Flexural &

Membrane: Hoop (PSI)Concrete Stress - Membrane:

Merdian (PSI)Concrete Stress - Membrane: Hoop (PSI)Concrete Stress - Actual Shear Allowable Shear CapacityConcrete Stress - Reinforcing Stress:

Merdian (PSI)Concrete Stress -Reinforcing Stress: Hoop (PSI)Concrete Stress - Liner Plate Strain: Meridian %Concrete Stress - Liner Plate Strain: Hoop

%Allowable-3750-3750-1500-1500+40000+40000+/-0.2%+/-0.2%DOME1-1400-2124-840-12760.161-1925-3360-0.063-0.0862-1745-1270-906-5190.414-281+3032-0.074-0.057 3-2737-1456-618-3020.485+29937+20938-0.111-0.063 RING GIRDER4-690-1662-491-5420.018-1371+16143-0.026-0.0685-1610-1930-615-7080.523+6967+11510-0.069-0.081WALL6-1816-2557-770-11940.028+7085+13832-0.077-0.1047(-600)-1134-1015-546(0.886)(+4492)+554-0.136-0.052

-34280.990+20208HAUNCH8(-1051)-845-601-3560.595(+14090)+4192-0.104-0.037

-2601+395549(-1142)(-274)-294+70.615(+10720)(+7443)(-0.051)(-0.018)-1098-261+10308+7089-0.049-0.017BASE SLAB10(-1064)(-628)-134-50.350(+12777)(+13656)(-0.050)(-0.032)-858-616+10304+13388-0.040-0.03111(-968)(-855)-308-2910.222(+5539)(+3911)(-0.045)(-0.040)-978-864+5595+3950-0.045-0.040 MPS2 UFSAR 5.2-67 Rev. 35MPS2 UFSARTABLE 5.2-5 CONTAINMENT STRUCTURE ANALYSIS

SUMMARY

- DEAD LOAD, PRESTRESS, LIVE LOAD, 100% ACCIDENT PRESSURE AND ACCIDENT TEMPERATURE (D+F+L+1.0P+T 1)PORTIONSECTIONCONCRETE STRESSREINFORCING STRESSLINER PLATE STRAIN FLEXURAL & MEMBRANEMEMBRANEACTUAL SHEAR ALLOWABLE SHEAR CAPACITYMER. (PSI)HOOP (PSI)MER. %HOOP %MER. (PSI)HOOP (PSI)MER. (PSI)HOOP (PSI)Allowable-3750-3750-1500-1500+40000+40000

+/-0.5%+/-0.5%DOME1-238-1312-125-2040.400+28479+33263-0.0104-0.141 2-4190-139-320.321+28276+28784-0.110-0.086 3-1089-2238-103-2840.543+23322+20642-0.136-0.177RING GIRDER 4-1283-2956-305-5150.038-3608+8183-0.155-0.201 5-2122-2716-223-5260.193+27302+5991-0.079-0.196WALL6-2115-2053-304-2060.036+14203+14712-0.173-0.171 7-1854-2420-385-6300.199+5215+1545-0.163-0.185HAUNCH 8-305-2271-264-5740.313-2402+840-0.008-0.135 9-764-853+51-750.432+22444+13189-0.027-.039BASE SLAB 10-1164-847+89-1100.119+34050+11248-0.036-0.03911-708-714-265-2660.051+2269+2272-0.034-0.035 MPS2 UFSARMPS2 UFSAR5.2-68Rev. 35TABLE 5.2-6 CONTAINMENT STRUCTURE ANALYSIS

SUMMARY

- DEAD LOAD, PRESTRESS, OPERATING TEMPERATURE, THERMAL EXPANSION FORCES OF PIPES, PIPE RUPTURE FORCES AND DBE (D+F+T 0+H+R+E 1)*PORTIONSECTIONCONCRETE STRESS REINFORCING STRESSLINER PLATE STRAINFLEXURAL & MEMBRANEMEMBRANEACTUAL SHEAR ALLOWABLE SHEAR CAPACITYMER. (PSI)HOOP (PSI)MER. %HOOP %MER. (PSI)HOOP (PSI)MER. (PSI)HOOP (PSI)ALLOWABLE-4250-4250-4250-4250+54000+54000

+/-0.5%+/-0.5%DOME1-1400-2124-840-12760.127-1925-3360-0.063-0.0862-1745-1270-906-5190.371-281+3032-0.074-0.057 3-2737-1456-618-3020.430+29937+20938-0.111-0.063RING GIRDER4-690-1662-491-5420.014-1371+16143-0.026-0.068 5-1610-1930-615-7080.442+6967+11510-0.069-0.081WALL6-1816-2557-770-11940.023+7085+13832-0.077-0.1047(-949)-1134-1091-546(0.720)(+7340)+554-0.155-0.052-39350.941+26160HAUNCH8(-1601)-845-641-3560.726(+22520)+4192-0.124-0.037-3142+501119(-1330)(-77)-314+650.562(+13639)(+11574)(-0.058)(-0.000)-1265-72+12887+10817-0.055-0.000 MPS2 UFSARMPS2 UFSAR5.2-69Rev. 35BASE SLAB10(-1230)(-710)-118-30.334(+16530)(+15531)(-0.056(-0.035)-939-657+12618+14381-0.043-0.03211-1043(-873)-306-2830.224+6958(+4664)-0.047(0.040)-891+4759-0.041*Note: Values in parentheses reflect curr ent controlling stresses/strains resulting fr om the revised seismic analysis performed in 1998-99.TABLE 5.2-6 CONTAINMENT STRUCTURE ANALYSIS

SUMMARY

- DEAD LOAD, PRESTRESS, OPERATING TEMPERATURE, THERMAL EXPANSION FORCES OF PIPES, PIPE RUPTURE FORCES AND DBE (D+F+T 0+H+R+E 1)*PORTIONSECTIONCONCRETE STRESS REINFORCING STRESSLINER PLATE STRAINFLEXURAL & MEMBRANEMEMBRANEACTUAL SHEAR ALLOWABLE SHEAR CAPACITYMER. (PSI)HOOP (PSI)MER. %HOOP %MER. (PSI)HOOP (PSI)MER. (PSI)HOOP (PSI)

MPS2 UFSAR5.2-70Rev. 35TABLE 5.2-6A DELETED BY FSARCR 04-MP2-016 MPS2 UFSAR 5.2-71 Rev. 35MPS2 UFSARTABLE 5.2-7 CONTAINMENT STRUCTURE ANALYSIS

SUMMARY

- DEAD LOAD, PRESTRESS, 100% ACCIDENT PRESSURE, THERMAL EXPANSION FORCES OF PIPES, PIPE RUPTURE FORCES AND DBE (D+F+1.0P+H+T 1+E 1) *PORTIONSECTION CONCRETE STRESSREINFORCING STRESSLINER PLATE STRAINFLEXURAL & MEMBRANEMEMBRANEACTUAL SHEAR ALLOWABLE SHEAR CAPACITYMER. (PSI)HOOP (PSI)MER. %HOOP %

MER. (PSI)HOOP (PSI)MER. (PSI)HOOP (PSI)ALLOWABLE-4250-4250-4250-4250+54000+54000

+/-0.5%+/-0.5%DOME1-238-1312-125-204+28479+33263-0.104-0.1412-4190-139-320.271+28276+28784-0.110-0.0863-1089-2238-103-2840.481+23322+20642-0.136-0.177RING GIRDER4-1283-2956-305-5150.035-3608+8183-0.155-0.2015-2122-2716-223-5260.171+27302+5991-0.079-0.196WALL6-2115-2053-304-2060.032+14203+14712-0.173-0.1717-691-2420-622-6300.921+16649+1545-0.231-0.185HAUNCH8-1972-2271-405-5740.837+17453+840-0.120-0.1359(-1638)(-511)-52+2340.816(+30071)(+33602)(-0.070)(+0.047)-1575-487+28914+32002-0.067+0.045 MPS-2 FSAR TABLE 5.2-7 CONTINUED72Rev. 35BASE SLAB10(-3825)(-803)+172+1370.328(+52609)(+32029)(-0.010)(-0.004)-1591-750+51617+29934-0.009-0.00411-948(-784)-253-2320.237+6921(+4659)-0.044(-0.037)-800+4754-0.038*Note: Values in parentheses reflect curr ent controlling stresses/strains resulting fr om the revised seismic analysis performed in 1998-99.TABLE 5.2-7 CONTAINMENT STRUCTURE ANALYSIS

SUMMARY

- DEAD LOAD, PRESTRESS, 100% ACCIDENT PRESSURE, THERMAL EXPANSION FORCES OF PIPES, PIPE RUPTURE FORCES AND DBE (D+F+1.0P+H+T 1+E 1) *PORTIONSECTION CONCRETE STRESSREINFORCING STRESSLINER PLATE STRAINFLEXURAL & MEMBRANEMEMBRANEACTUAL SHEAR ALLOWABLE SHEAR CAPACITYMER. (PSI)HOOP (PSI)MER. %HOOP %

MER. (PSI)HOOP (PSI)MER. (PSI)HOOP (PSI)

MPS2 UFSAR 5.2-73 Rev. 35MPS2 UFSARTABLE 5.2-8 CONTAINMENT STRUCTURE ANALYSIS

SUMMARY

- DEAD LOAD, PRESTRESS, 125% ACCIDENT PRESSURE, 125% THERMAL EXPANSION FORCES OF PIPES, ACCIDENT TEMPERATURE AND 125% DBE (D+F+1.25P+1.25H+T 1+1.25E)*PORTIONSECTION CONCRETE STRESS REINFORCING STRESSLINER PLATE STRAINFLEXURAL & MEMBRANEMEMBRANEACTUAL SHEAR ALLOWABLE SHEAR CAPACITYMER. (PSI)HOOP (PSI)MER. %HOOP %

MER. (PSI)HOOP (PSI)MER. (PSI)HOOP (PSI)ALLOWABLE-4250-4250-4250-4250+54000+54000

+/-0.5%+/-0.5%DOME1-233-374+51+600.359+34254+44242-0.0790.0972-910+50+920.252+44348+38368-0.033-0.0413-325-2125+26-2690.456+22511+19599-0.107-0.173RING GIRDER4-211-2903-260-5140.035-2478+5846-0.008-0.1995-699-2559-125-4680.070+14752+7094-0.117-0.190WALL6-1247-14-191+410.032+20789+39086-0.141-0.0407-2908-2361-454-6060.947+11400+1640-0.202-0.183HAUNCH8-2292-2264-93-5250.859+40726+3120.000-0.135 9(-1580)(-592)+9+1550.870(+33430)(+28651)(-0.068)(+0.014)-1463-564+30954+27287-0.063+0.013 MPS2 UFSAR 5.2-74 Rev. 35MPS2 UFSARBASE SLAB10(-1767)(-806)+67+420.277(+46578)(+23033)(-0.064)(-0.039)-1485-753+39141+21526-0.054-0.03611(-961)(-829)-279-2630.177(+5903)(+4143)(-0.044)(-.039)-933-821+5731+4102-0.0430.039*Note: Values in parentheses reflect curr ent controlling stresses/strains resulting fr om the revised seismic analysis performed in 1998-99.TABLE 5.2-8 CONTAINMENT STRUCTURE ANALYSIS

SUMMARY

- DEAD LOAD, PRESTRESS, 125% ACCIDENT PRESSURE, 125% THERMAL EXPANSION FORCES OF PIPES, ACCIDENT TEMPERATURE AND 125% DBE (D+F+1.25P+1.25H+T 1+1.25E)*PORTIONSECTION CONCRETE STRESS REINFORCING STRESSLINER PLATE STRAINFLEXURAL & MEMBRANEMEMBRANEACTUAL SHEAR ALLOWABLE SHEAR CAPACITYMER. (PSI)HOOP (PSI)MER. %HOOP %

MER. (PSI)HOOP (PSI)MER. (PSI)HOOP (PSI)

MPS2 UFSAR 5.2-75 Rev. 35TABLE 5.2-9 CONTAINMENT STRUCTURE ANALYSIS

SUMMARY

- DEAD LOAD, PRESTRESS, 150% ACCIDENT PRESSURE, AND ACCIDENT TEMPERATURE (D

+F+1.5P+T 1)PORTIONSECTIONCONCRETE STRESSREINFORCING STRESSLINER PLATE STRAINFLEXURAL & MEMBRANEMEMBRANEACTUAL SHEAR ALLOWABLE SHEAR CAPACITYMER. PSI)HOOP (PSI)MER. %HOOP %MER. (PSI)HOOP (PSI)MER. (PSI)HOOP (PSI)ALLOWABLE-4250-4250-4250-4250+54000+54000

+/-0.5%+/-0.5%DOME 1-249-366+226+324 0.359+45769+54195

-0.029-0.020 2-114 0+239+216 0.239+43842+34850

-0.039-0.058 3 0-1995+155-252 0.456+30200+18706

-0.018-0.168RING GIRDER 4-356-2856-215-512 0.028-2855+3587-0.003-0.197 5-47-2452-30-409 0.019+26249+8102

-0.092-0.186WALL 6-166 0-78+287 0.032+28588+33155

-0.100-0.065 7-895-2298-157-581 0.424+9106+1776-0.127-0.180HAUNCH 8-607-2255-145-549 0.503+9998-224 0.000-0.124 9-1121-1094+135-115 0.629+37848+15961

-0.001-0.048BASE SLAB 10-1597-1004-88-208 0.284+27145+9735

-0.068-0.04511-795-797-311-313 0.023+1981+2002-0.038-0.038 MPS2 UFSAR 5.2-76 Rev. 35TABLE 5.2-10 SPECTRUM OF POTENTIAL MISSILES FROM INSIDE THE CONTAINMENT Table 1: I. Reactor Vessel ITEM KINETIC ENERGY (ft-lb.)Weight (lb.)

LEADI NG SECTION POINT OF IMPACTA.Closure Head Nut 2,022116Annular OD = 10-9/16 inch ID = 6.8 inch Ov erhead missile shieldB.Closure Head Nut & Stud 4,932710Solid Circle 7 inch Diameter Overhead missile shieldC.Instrumentation Assembly 12,700335Solid Disk 6.5 inch Diameter and 3 in ch Thick Overhead missile shieldD.Instrumentation from Flange Up14

,000165Solid Disk 6.5 inch Diameter and 3 inch Thick Overhead missile shieldE.Instrument Flange Stud 14.36.5Solid Circle 1.5 inch Diameter Ov erhead missile shieldTable 2: II. Steam Generator ITEM KINETIC ENERGY (ft-lb.)Weight (lb.)

LEADI NG SECTION POINT OF IMPACTA.Steam Generator Primary ManwayStud and Nut 48.53 9Solid Circle 1.338 inch Diameter Containment Floor or Secondary Shield Wall B.Steam Generator Secondary ManwayStud and Nut 10.0 5Solid Circle 1.25 inch Diameter Steam Generator Blockhouse Wall C.Steam Generator Secondary HandholeStud and Nut 3.98 1.7 Solid Circle 0.82 inch Diameter Primary or Secondary Shield Wall Table 3: III. Pressurizer ITEM KINETIC ENERGY (ft-lb.)Weight (lb.)

LEADI NG SECTION POINT OF IMPACTA.Pressurizer Manway Stud & Nut

[NOTE: This missile envelops the Pressurizer vent port stud missile, which would strike the south wall.]

57.16 6.8 Solid Circle 1.0 inch Overhead missile shield Diameter U pper west wall of Pressurizer Blockhouse B.Pressurizer Temperature Element290 3 Solid Di sk 2.75 inch Overhead mis sile shield Diameter and 0.5 inch Overhead missile shield Thick Pressurizer Blockhouse wall, roof

slab or platform MPS2 UFSAR 5.2-77 Rev. 35C.Pressurizer Instrument Nozzle and Instrument (Based on V & VII Nozzle& RTD cases.)

1,125 11.1 Solid Disk 2.75 inch Over head missile shield Diameter and 0.5 inch Overhead missile shield Thick Pressurizer Blockhouse wall, roof slab or platform D.Safety Valve Flange Bolt [NOTE:

This missile enve lops stud missiles from either flange or from the bonnet

bolted connection.]

15 3.7 Solid Circle 1.25 inch Overhead missile shield Diameter Pressurizer Blockhouse Wall or Floor Table 4: IV.

ITEM KINETIC ENERGY (ft-lb.)Weight (lb.)

LEADI NG SECTION POINT OF IMPACTControl Element Drive Mechanism (Magnetic Jack 47,800 2,100Solid Circle 11 inch Overhead missile shield Diameter Overhead missile shield Table 5: V.

ITEM KINETIC ENERGY (ft-lb.)Weight (lb.)

LEADI NG SECTION POINT OF IMPACTMain Coolant Piping Temperature Nozzle with RTD 1,125 11.1 Solid Disk 2.75 inch Over head missile shield Diameter and 0.5 inch Overhead missile shield Thick Secondary shield wall Table 6: VI.

ITEM KINETIC ENERGY (ft-lb.)Weight (lb.)

LEADI NG SECTION POINT OF IMPACTSurge and Spray Piping Thermal Wells with RTD Assembly 2771/34 Solid Disk 2.75 inch Overh ead missile shield Diameter and 0.5 inch ThickSecondary shield wall Table 3: III. Pressurizer ITEM KINETIC ENERGY (ft-lb.)Weight (lb.)

LEADI NG SECTION POINT OF IMPACT MPS2 UFSAR 5.2-78 Rev. 35 The basic formulas used for the calculation of missile penetration are those presented in NavDocks P-51, "Design of Protective Structures - a New Concept of Structural Behavior," published by the U.S. Bureau of Yards and Docks, August, 1950, Washington, D.C.Table 7: VII.

ITEM KINETIC ENERGY (ft-lb.)Weight (lb.)

LEADI NG SECTION POINT OF IMPACTMain Coolant Pump Thermal Well with RTD 1,125 11.1 Solid Disk 2.75 inch Over head missile shield Diameter and 0.5 inch Overhead missile shield Thick Secondary shield wall MPS2 UFSAR 5.2-79 Rev. 35TABLE 5.2-11 CONTAINMENT STRUCTURE ISOLATION VALVE INFORMATION Penetration NumberServiceSystemPenetration Type 1Penetration Category 2Flow DirectionValve Arrangement Type C Testing Requirements 3Valve Identification Location Reference to Containment StructureValve NumberPenetration Line SizeMethod of ActuationSignalNormal Valve PositionValve Position with Power Failure Position IndicationPost Incident PositionSizeType 1 Demineralize d Water PMW IA N 12 IN 1BYes2-PMW-43Outside2 inch Globe 12 inch Diaphragm CIAS Closed ClosedYesClosed No2-PMW-165Outside0.75 inc hGlobe 1Manual-Locked ClosedAs Is NoClosedYes2-PMW-3 Inside2 inch Check 1- - -- No- 2Letdown Line

To Purification

Demineralizer CVCS IA P OUT 7Yes 42-CH-516 Inside3 inch Globe 12 inch Diaphragm CIASOpen ClosedYesClosed No2-CH-006 11 Inside2 inch Gate 1Manual----OpenAs Is NoOpenYes2-CH-089Outside2 inch Globe 1Diaphragm CIASOpen ClosedYesClosed No2-CH-763, 2-CH-658, 2-CH-

99 1 Inside1 inch Gate 3Manual----Locked ClosedAs Is NoClosed No2-CH-260, 2-CH-082, 2-CH-

08 3 Inside0.75 inc hGlobe 3Manual----Locked ClosedAs Is NoClosed No 2-CH-067Outside0.75 inch Gate 1Manual----Locked ClosedAs Is NoClosedYes 42-CH-515 Inside3 inch Globe 1Diaphragm SIASOpen ClosedYesClosed 3Reactor Coolant Charging LineCVCS IA P IN 9Yes 42-CH-518, 2-CH-519 Inside2 inch Globe 22 inch Diaphragm RemoteOpenOpenYesOpenYes 42-CH-517 Inside2 inch Globe 1Diaphragm Remote Closed ClosedYesClosedYes 42-CH-434 Inside2 inch Gate 1Manual----Locked ClosedAs Is NoClosedYes2-CH-429Outside2 inch Gate 1 MOV RemoteOpenAs IsYesOpen No2-CH-004, 2-CH-003 Inside0.75 inc hGate 2Manual----Locked ClosedAs Is NoClosed No2-CH-001, 2-CH-002 , 2-CH-443, 2-CH-714 Inside0.75 inc hGlobe 4Manual----Locked ClosedAs Is NoClosed No2-CH-710Outside1 inch Gate 1Manual----Locked ClosedAs Is NoClosedNote: When making changes to this table, also refer to the Technical Requirements Manual, Table 3.6-1, Containment Isolation Valve List

.

MPS2 UFSAR 5.2-80 Rev. 35Yes 42-RC-71 Inside0.75 inc hGlobe 1Manual----Locked ClosedAs Is NoClosed No2-CH-661 Inside1 inch Gate 1Manual----Locked ClosedAs Is NoClosed No2-CH-435 11 Inside2 inch Spring Check 1 5- - - - No- Yes2-CH-986Outside3/4 inch x 1inch Relief 1- - - - No- 4Containment

Spray Water CSS IA O IN17AYes2-CS-5A Inside8 inch Check 18 inch - - - ----No- Yes2-CS-4.1AOutside8 inch Gate 1 MOV CSAS ClosedAs IsYesOpen No2-CS-049COutside0.75 inc hGlobe 1Manual-Locked ClosedAs Is NoClosed No2-CS-049AOutside1 inch Globe 1Manual-Locked ClosedAs Is NoClosed 5Containment

Spray Water CSS IA O IN17BYes2-CS-5B Inside8 inch Check 18 inch - - -- No- Yes2-CS-4.1BOutside8 inch Gate 1 MOV CSAS ClosedAs IsYesOpen No2-CS-101Outside0.75 inc hGlobe 1Manual-Locked ClosedAs Is NoClosed 6,8 Safety Injection Low

& High Pressure SIS IB P IN10A (Penetration

6)NoPenetration 6 2-SI-645Penetration 8 2-SI-635Outside6 inch Globe 16 inch MOV SIAS ClosedAs IsYesOpen2-SI-1602-SI-1612-SI-163Outside Outside3 inch 0.75 inchGate Globe 2 1 6 inch 6 inch Manual Manual -- Locked ClosedLocked ClosedAs Is As Is No No Locked Cl osed Locked Closed 10B (Penetration

8)No2-SI-646 ,2-SI-6472-SI-636 ,2-SI-637Outside2 inch Globe 2 MOV SIAS ThrottledAs IsYesOpen No2-SI-733 ,2-SI-041EOutside(Penetra tion 8 only) 1inch Globe 2Manual-Locked ClosedAs Is NoClosedTABLE 5.2-11 CONTAINMENT STRUCTURE ISOLATION VALVE INFORMATION (CONTINUED)Penetration NumberServiceSystemPenetration Type 1Penetration Category 2Flow DirectionValve Arrangement Type C Testing Requirements 3Valve Identification Location Reference to Containment StructureValve NumberPenetration Line SizeMethod of ActuationSignalNormal Valve PositionValve Position with Power Failure Position IndicationPost Incident PositionSizeTypeNote: When making changes to this table, also refer to the Technical Requirements Manual, Table 3.6-1, Containment Isolation Valve List.

MPS2 UFSAR 5.2-81 Rev. 35 No2-SI-144 11 2-SI-134 11 Outside6 inch Check 1- - - - No- No2-SI-143 11 ,2-SI-1009 112-SI-133 11 ,2-SI-1010Outside2 inch Check 2- - - - No- No2-SI-095 ,2-SI-1734Outside(Penetra tion 6 only) 1 inch Globe 2Manual-Locked ClosedAs Is NoClosed No 2-SI-041F,2-SI-17 35,2-SI-1742D2-SI-041 D,2-SI-110 ,2-SI-742 COutside0.75 inch Globe 3Manual-Locked ClosedAs Is NoClosed No2-SI-145 11 ,2-SI-146 112-SI-135 11 ,2-SI-136 11Outside0.75 inch Globe 2Manual-OpenAs Is NoOpen No2-SI-706D2-SI-706C Inside6 inch Check 1- - - - No- No 2-SI-848S-SI-846Outside 0.75 inch Globe Manual -Locked Closed-NoClosed 7 Safety Injection Low

& High Pressure SIS IB P IN10C No2-SI-615Outside6 inch Globe 16 inch MOV SIAS ClosedAs Is YesOpen No2-SI-616, 2-SI-617Outside2 inch Globe 2 MOV SIAS ThrottledAs IsYesOpen No2-SI-114 11Outside6 inch Check 1- - - - No- No2-SI-012 11, 2-SI-113 11Outside2 inch Check 2- - - - No- No 2-SI-041A, 2-SI-107, 2-SI-

71 6,2-SI-715, 2-SI-742AOutside0.75 inc hGlobe 5Manual-Locked ClosedAs Is NoClosed No2-SI-717, 2-SI-718Outside1 inch Gate 2Manual-Locked ClosedAs Is NoClosed No2-SI-115 11, 2-SI-116 11Outside0.75 inc hGlobe 2Manual-OpenAs Is NoOpen No2-SI-706A Inside6 inch Check 1- - - - No- 9 Safety Injection Low

& High Pressure SIS IB P IN10D No2-SI-625Outside6 inch Globe 16 inch MOV SIAS ClosedAs Is YesOpenTABLE 5.2-11 CONTAINMENT STRUCTURE ISOLATION VALVE INFORMATION (CONTINUED)Penetration NumberServiceSystemPenetration Type 1Penetration Category 2Flow DirectionValve Arrangement Type C Testing Requirements 3Valve Identification Location Reference to Containment StructureValve NumberPenetration Line SizeMethod of ActuationSignalNormal Valve PositionValve Position with Power Failure Position IndicationPost Incident PositionSizeTypeNote: When making changes to this table, also refer to the Technical Requirements Manual, Table 3.6-1, Containment Isolation Valve List.

MPS2 UFSAR 5.2-82 Rev. 35 No2-SI-626, 2-SI-627Outside2 inch Globe 2 MOV SIAS ThrottledAs IsYesOpen No2-SI-124 11Outside6 inch Check 1- - - - No- No2-SI-123 11, 2-SI-011 11Outside2 inch Check 2- - - - No- No2-SI-722, 2-SI-723, 2-SI-72 0,2-SI-721, 2-SI-742BOutside0.75 inc hGlobe 5Manual----Locked ClosedAs Is NoClosed No2-SI-125 11, 2-SI-126 11Outside0.75 inc hGlobe 2Manual-OpenAs Is NoOpen No2-SI-706B Inside6 inch Check 1- - - No- 10Reactor Coolant Shutdown Cooling SIS IB P OUT 11Yes2-SI-709Outside 12 inch Gate 1 12 inch Manual-Locked ClosedAs Is NoClosedYes 42-SI-651 Inside 12 inch Gate 1 MOV Remote 7 ClosedAs Is YesClosed No2-SI-101AOutside1 inch Gate 1Manual-Locked ClosedAs Is NoClosed No2-SI-102AOutside0.75 inc hGlobe 1Manual-Locked ClosedAs Is NoClosed No2-SI-043A Inside0.75 inc hGlobe 1Manual-Locked ClosedAs Is NoClosed 11 Safety Injection Tank Test Line SIS IA N OUT 20Yes2-SI-463Outside2 inch Gate 12 inch Manual-Locked ClosedAs Is NoClosed 12 & 13Containment

Sump Recirculation Line SISSpecialSpecial OUT 16 NoPenetration 12 2-CS-16.1APenetration 13 2-CS-16.1BOutside 24 inch Gate 1 24 inch MOV SRAS ClosedAs IsYesOpen No2-CS-127 112-CS-125 11Outside0.75 inc hGate 1Manual-Locked OpenAs Is NoOpen No2-CS-1302-CS-135Outside0.75 inc hGate 1Manual-Locked ClosedAs Is NoClosed No2-CS-131 112-CS-136 11Outside0.75 inc hGate 1Manual-Locked OpenAs Is NoOpen No2-CS-1322-CS-137Outside0.75 inc hGlobe 1Manual-Locked ClosedAs Is NoClosedTABLE 5.2-11 CONTAINMENT STRUCTURE ISOLATION VALVE INFORMATION (CONTINUED)Penetration NumberServiceSystemPenetration Type 1Penetration Category 2Flow DirectionValve Arrangement Type C Testing Requirements 3Valve Identification Location Reference to Containment StructureValve NumberPenetration Line SizeMethod of ActuationSignalNormal Valve PositionValve Position with Power Failure Position IndicationPost Incident PositionSizeTypeNote: When making changes to this table, also refer to the Technical Requirements Manual, Table 3.6-1, Containment Isolation Valve List.

MPS2 UFSAR 5.2-83 Rev. 35 No2-CS-1332-CS-138Outside0.75 inc hGate 1Manual-Locked ClosedAs Is NoClosed No2-CS-1342-CS-139Outside0.75 inc hGlobe 1Manual-Locked ClosedAs Is NoClosed No2-CS-140 112-CS-141 11Outside0.75 inc h Check 1- - ClosedAs Is NoClosed 14Containment

Sump to Aerated Drain Tank RWS IA O OUT13AYes2-SSP-16.2Outside3 inch Globe 13 inch DiaphragmCIAS Closed ClosedYesClosedYes2-SSP-16.1 Inside3 inch Globe 1DiaphragmCIAS Closed ClosedYesClosed No2-SSP-51Outside0.75 inc hGlobe 1Manual-Locked ClosedAs Is NoClosed No2-SSP-73Outside1 inch Gate 1Manual-Locked ClosedAs Is NoClosed 15 & 16Feedwater &

Auxiliary

Feedwater FW II N IN15A NoPenetration 15 2-FW-5APenetration 16 2-FW-5BOutside18 inch Positi ve Acting Check Valve 118 inch Backflow-Open ClosedYesClosed for Penetration 15 No2-FW-12A2-FW-12BOutside6 inch Positi ve Acting Check Valve 1 Backflow-Closed ClosedYesClosed15B for Penetration 16 No2-FW-16A 112-FW-16B 11Outside1 inch Check 1- - - - No- No2-FW-15A2-FW-15BOutside1 inch Globe 1Manual-Locked ClosedAs Is NoClosed No2-FW-862-FW-182Outside1 inch Globe 1Manual-Locked ClosedAs Is NoClosed No2-FW-261AOutside(Pene.

15 only) Globe 1Manual-Locked ClosedAs Is NoClosedTABLE 5.2-11 CONTAINMENT STRUCTURE ISOLATION VALVE INFORMATION (CONTINUED)Penetration NumberServiceSystemPenetration Type 1Penetration Category 2Flow DirectionValve Arrangement Type C Testing Requirements 3Valve Identification Location Reference to Containment StructureValve NumberPenetration Line SizeMethod of ActuationSignalNormal Valve PositionValve Position with Power Failure Position IndicationPost Incident PositionSizeTypeNote: When making changes to this table, also refer to the Technical Requirements Manual, Table 3.6-1, Containment Isolation Valve List.

MPS2 UFSAR 5.2-84 Rev. 35 19 & 20Main Steam MSSIII N OUT 23 NoPenetration 19 2-MS-64APenetration 20 2-MS-64BOutside0.75 inc hStop check 1 34 inch Air Cylinder MSIOpen ClosedYesClosed 6 No2-MS-3712-MS-369Outside0.75 inc hGlobe 1Manual-Locked ClosedAs Is NoClosed No2-MS-2012-MS-202Outside4 inch Gate 1 MOV Remote 7 OpenAs IsYesOpen No2-MS-3A 112-MS-3B 11Outside 12 inch Gate 1Manual-OpenAs Is NoOpen No2-MS-190A2-MS-190BOutside8 inch Globe 1DiaphragmSteam Generator Pressur e Closed ClosedYesClosed No2-MS-265B2-MS-266BOutside1 inch Globe 1Diaphragm MSIOpen ClosedYesClosed No2-MS-2 47,2-MS-2 48,2-MS-2 49,2-MS-2 50,2-MS-2 51,2-MS-2 52,2-MS-2 53,2-MS-2542-MS-239 ,2-MS-240 ,2-MS-241 ,2-MS-242 ,2-MS-243 ,2-MS-244 ,2-MS-245 ,2-MS-246Outside6 inch Relief 8- - - - No- No2-MS-65A2-MS-65BOutside3 inch Globe 1 ***MOV MSI 7 ClosedAs IsYesClosed No2-MS-2972-MS-296Outside1 inch Globe 1Manual-Locked ClosedAs Is NoClosed No2-MS-26 5A 112-MS-266C 11Outside1 inch Gate 1Manual-OpenAs Is NoOpen No2-MS-255Outside(Penetra tion 19 only) 0.75 inchGlobe 1Manual-Locked ClosedAs Is NoClosed No2-MS-258Outside(Penetra tion 20 only) 1 inch Globe 1Manual-Locked ClosedAs Is NoClosedTABLE 5.2-11 CONTAINMENT STRUCTURE ISOLATION VALVE INFORMATION (CONTINUED)Penetration NumberServiceSystemPenetration Type 1Penetration Category 2Flow DirectionValve Arrangement Type C Testing Requirements 3Valve Identification Location Reference to Containment StructureValve NumberPenetration Line SizeMethod of ActuationSignalNormal Valve PositionValve Position with Power Failure Position IndicationPost Incident PositionSizeTypeNote: When making changes to this table, also refer to the Technical Requirements Manual, Table 3.6-1, Containment Isolation Valve List.

MPS2 UFSAR 5.2-85 Rev. 35 No2-MS-41A 112-MS-41B 11Outside0.75 inch Globe 1Manual-OpenAs Is NoOpen No2-MS-461 112-MS-462 11Outside0.75 inch Globe 1Manual-ClosedAs Is NoClosed No2-MS-4592-MS-458Outside0.75 inch Globe 1Manual-Locked ClosedAs Is NoLocked Cl osed 21Reactor Coolant & Pressurizer

Sampling SS IA P OUT 19 No2-LRR-265 11 Inside0.5 inch Check 10.5 inch- - -- No- Yes2-LRR-61.1 Inside0.5 inchGlobe 1Diaphragm CIAS Closed ClosedYesClosedYes2-RC-45Outside0.75 inch Globe 1Diaphragm CIAS Closed ClosedYesClosedYes2-RC-001, 2-RC-002 Inside0.75 inch Globe 2Diaphragm CIAS Closed ClosedYesClosedYes2-RC-003 Inside0.75 inch Globe 1Diaphragm CIAS Closed ClosedYesClosed No2-RC-65 11 Inside3/8 inch Globe 1Manual-OpenAs Is NoOpen No2-RC-434, 2-RC-435 Inside3/8 inchGlobe 2Manual-Locked ClosedAs Is NoClosed 22 & 23Steam Generator Bottom Blowdown SGBS IA N OUT 14 NoPenetration 22 2-MS-220APenetration 23 2-MS-220BOutside2 inch Globe 12 inch DiaphragmAFAIS, CIAS & High Contain ment Radiati on High Radiati onOpen ClosedYesClosedTABLE 5.2-11 CONTAINMENT STRUCTURE ISOLATION VALVE INFORMATION (CONTINUED)Penetration NumberServiceSystemPenetration Type 1Penetration Category 2Flow DirectionValve Arrangement Type C Testing Requirements 3Valve Identification Location Reference to Containment StructureValve NumberPenetration Line SizeMethod of ActuationSignalNormal Valve PositionValve Position with Power Failure Position IndicationPost Incident PositionSizeTypeNote: When making changes to this table, also refer to the Technical Requirements Manual, Table 3.6-1, Containment Isolation Valve List.

MPS2 UFSAR 5.2-86 Rev. 35 24Reactor Bldg.

Closed Cooling Water Inlet to Reactor Coolant Pumps and Other Components 8 RBCC W IA N IN 24Yes2-RB-30.1AOutside8 inch Gate 18 inch MOV RemoteOpenAs IsYesOpen No2-RB-289Outside1 inch Gate 1Manual-Locked ClosedAs Is NoClosed No2-RB-173A 11Outside0.75 inch Globe 1Manual-OpenAs Is NoOpen 25 & 26Reactor Building Closed Cooling Water to Containment

Air Recirculation UnitsRBCC W IA N IN21A NoPenetration 25 2-RB-28.1DPenetration 26 2-RB-28.1BOutside10 inch Butter fly 1 10 inch Air Cylinder.RemoteOpenOpenYesOpen No2-RB-2822-RB-283Outside0.75 inch Globe 1Manual-Locked ClosedAs Is NoClosed No2-RB-345Outside(Penetra tion 26 only) 1 inch Gate 1Manual-Locked ClosedAs Is NoClosed 27 & 28Reactor Bldg.

Closed Cooling Water to Containment

Air Recirculation UnitsRBCC W IA N IN21B NoPenetration 27 2-RB-28.1APenetration 28 2-RB-28.1COutside 10 inch Butter fly 1 10 inch Air Cylinder RemoteOpenOpenYesOpen No2-RB-2362-RB-237Outside1 inch Gate 1Manual-Locked ClosedAs Is NoClosedTABLE 5.2-11 CONTAINMENT STRUCTURE ISOLATION VALVE INFORMATION (CONTINUED)Penetration NumberServiceSystemPenetration Type 1Penetration Category 2Flow DirectionValve Arrangement Type C Testing Requirements 3Valve Identification Location Reference to Containment StructureValve NumberPenetration Line SizeMethod of ActuationSignalNormal Valve PositionValve Position with Power Failure Position IndicationPost Incident PositionSizeTypeNote: When making changes to this table, also refer to the Technical Requirements Manual, Table 3.6-1, Containment Isolation Valve List.

MPS2 UFSAR 5.2-87 Rev. 35 29Reactor Building Closed Cooling Water Outlet from Reactor Coolant Pumps and Other Components 8 RBCC W IA N OUT 2Yes2-RB-37.2AOutside8 inch Gate 18 inch MOV RemoteOpenAs IsYesOpen No2-RB-297AOutside0.75 inch Globe 1Manual-Locked ClosedAs Is NoClosed No2-RB-298Outside1 inch Gate 1Manual-Locked ClosedAs Is NoClosed30, 31, 32 &

33Reactor Bldg.

Closed Cooling Water From Containment

Air Recirculation

Cooling RBCC W IA N OUT 22 NoPenetration 30 2-RB-28.3DPenetration 32 2-RB-28.3AOutside 10 inch Butter fly 1 10 inch Air Cylinder SIAS ClosedOpenYesOpenPenetration 31 2-RB-28.3BPenetration 33 2-RB-28.3C NoPenetration3 0 2RB-28.2DPenetration 32 2RB-28.2AOutside6 inch Butter fly 16 inch Air Cylinder RemoteOpenOpenYesOpenPenetration 31 Penetration 33 2RB-28.2B2RB-28.2C 34Nitrogen Supply NS IA N 12 IN 18Yes2-SI-312Outside0.75 inch Globe 11 inch Diaphragm CIASOpen ClosedYesClosed No2-SI-045Outside0.75 inch Globe 1Manual-Locked ClosedAs Is NoClosed 35Drain from

Primary TankRWS IA O OUT13BYes2-LRR-43.2Outside3 inch Globe 14 inch Diaphragm CIAS Closed ClosedYesClosedTABLE 5.2-11 CONTAINMENT STRUCTURE ISOLATION VALVE INFORMATION (CONTINUED)Penetration NumberServiceSystemPenetration Type 1Penetration Category 2Flow DirectionValve Arrangement Type C Testing Requirements 3Valve Identification Location Reference to Containment StructureValve NumberPenetration Line SizeMethod of ActuationSignalNormal Valve PositionValve Position with Power Failure Position IndicationPost Incident PositionSizeTypeNote: When making changes to this table, also refer to the Technical Requirements Manual, Table 3.6-1, Containment Isolation Valve List.

MPS2 UFSAR 5.2-88 Rev. 35Yes 42-LRR-43.1 Inside3 inch Globe 1Diaphragm CIAS Closed ClosedYesClosed No2-LRR-291Outside1 inch Gate 1Manual-Locked ClosedAs Is NoClosed No2-LRR-293, 2-LRR-295Outside0.75 inch Globe 2Manual-Locked ClosedAs Is NoClosed 36Instrument Air IA IA O IN 33Yes2-IA-566Outside0.5 inchGate 1Manual-Locked ClosedAs Is NoClosed 9Yes2-IA-569 Inside0.5 inch Check 1- - -- No- No2-IA-572 Inside0.5 inchGate 1Manual-Locked closedAs Is NoClosed 37Instrument Air IA IA O IN 1AYes2-IA-27.1Outside2 inch Globe 12 inch Diaphragm RemoteOpen ClosedYesOpen 9 No2-IA-40Outside1 inch Globe 1Manual-Locked ClosedAs Is NoClosedYes2-IA-43 Inside2 inch Check 1- - -- No- 38Station Air SA IA O IN 3Yes2-SA-19Outside2 inch Gate 12 inch Manual-Locked ClosedAs Is NoClosed No2-SA-28 Inside1 inch Gate 12 inch Manual-Locked ClosedAs Is NoClosedYes2-SA-22 Inside2 inch Check 1- - -- No- 39 Purge Air

Inlet PA IC O IN 4Yes2-AC-4Outside 48 inch Butter fly 1 48 inch Air Cylinder High Cont ainment Radiati on Locked Closed ClosedYesClosedYes 42-AC-5 Inside 48 inch Butter fly 1Air Cylinder High Cont ainment Radiati on Locked Closed ClosedYesClosed No2-AC-21Outside0.75 inch Globe 1Manual----Locked ClosedAs Is NoClosedTABLE 5.2-11 CONTAINMENT STRUCTURE ISOLATION VALVE INFORMATION (CONTINUED)Penetration NumberServiceSystemPenetration Type 1Penetration Category 2Flow DirectionValve Arrangement Type C Testing Requirements 3Valve Identification Location Reference to Containment StructureValve NumberPenetration Line SizeMethod of ActuationSignalNormal Valve PositionValve Position with Power Failure Position IndicationPost Incident PositionSizeTypeNote: When making changes to this table, also refer to the Technical Requirements Manual, Table 3.6-1, Containment Isolation Valve List.

MPS2 UFSAR 5.2-89 Rev. 35 40 Purge Air Dis charge PA IC O OUT 5Yes2-AC-7Outside 48 inch Butter fly 1 48 inch Air Cylinder High Cont ainment Radiati on Locked Closed ClosedYesClosedYes 42-AC-6 Inside 48 inch Butter fly 1 Air Cylinder.High Cont ainment Radiati on Locked Closed ClosedYesClosed No2-AC-31Outside0.75 inch Globe 1Manual-Locked ClosedAs Is NoClosed 42Fuel Transfer

Tube FTSSpecial OIN/OUT 8No, Type BN/A InsideSpecial Closure 36 inch - - Closed- - Closed No2-RW-291 Inside0.5 inchGate 1Manual-Locked ClosedAs Is NoClosed No2-RW-31 Inside0.75 inch Globe 1Manual-Locked ClosedAs Is NoClosed No2-RW-292 Inside0.5 inchGate 1Manual-Locked ClosedAs Is NoClosed 43Reactor Coolant Pump Seals

Controlled Bleed OffCVCS IA P OUT 6Yes2-CH-506 Inside0.75 inch Globe 10.75 inch Diaphragm CIASOpen ClosedYesClosedYes2-CH-198Outside0.75 inch Globe 1Diaphragm CIASOpen ClosedYesClosedYes2-CH-505Outside0.75 inch Globe 1Diaphragm CIAS Closed ClosedYesClosed No2-CH-758, 2-CH-768, 2-CH-

70 1Outside0.75 inch Globe 3Manual-Locked ClosedAs Is NoClosed No2-CH-767 11, 2-CH-766 11Outside0.75 inch Globe 2Manual-Locked OpenAs Is NoOpen No2-CH-744Outside0.75 inch Gate 1Manual-Locked ClosedAs Is NoClosedTABLE 5.2-11 CONTAINMENT STRUCTURE ISOLATION VALVE INFORMATION (CONTINUED)Penetration NumberServiceSystemPenetration Type 1Penetration Category 2Flow DirectionValve Arrangement Type C Testing Requirements 3Valve Identification Location Reference to Containment StructureValve NumberPenetration Line SizeMethod of ActuationSignalNormal Valve PositionValve Position with Power Failure Position IndicationPost Incident PositionSizeTypeNote: When making changes to this table, also refer to the Technical Requirements Manual, Table 3.6-1, Containment Isolation Valve List.

MPS2 UFSAR 5.2-90 Rev. 3547, 69 70, 71 Pressure Monitoring IASpecialIN/OUT 30 NoPenetration 47 2-AC-97 11Penetration 70 2-AC-98 11Outside0.5 inchGlobe 10.5 inchManual-OpenAs IsYesOpenPenetration 69 2-AC-99 11Penetration 71 2-AC-96 11 51Waste Gas

Hea derRWS IA N 12 OUT 12Yes2-GR-11.2Outside3 inch Globe 13 inch Diaphragm CIAS Closed ClosedYesClosedYes 42-GR-11.1 Inside3 inch Globe 1Diaphragm CIAS Closed ClosedYesClosed No2-GR-63Outside0.75 inch Globe 1Manual-Locked ClosedAs Is NoClosed 49Fire ProtectionFire IA O IN 34Yes2-Fire-108Outside6 inch Butter fly 16 inch Manual-Locked ClosedAs Is NoClosed No2-Fire-125Outside1 inch Gate 1Manual-Locked ClosedAs Is NoClosedYes2-Fire-109 Inside6 inch Check 1- - -As Is NoClosed 53Reactor Building Closed Cooling Water Inlet to Reactor Coolant Pumps and Other Components 8 RBCC W IA N IN 24Yes2-RB-30.1BOutside6 inch Gate 16 inch MOV RemoteOpenAs IsYesOpen No2-RB-291Outside1 inch Gate 1Manual-Locked ClosedAs Is NoClosed No2-RB-173B 11Outside0.75 inch Globe 1Manual-OpenAs Is NoOpenTABLE 5.2-11 CONTAINMENT STRUCTURE ISOLATION VALVE INFORMATION (CONTINUED)Penetration NumberServiceSystemPenetration Type 1Penetration Category 2Flow DirectionValve Arrangement Type C Testing Requirements 3Valve Identification Location Reference to Containment StructureValve NumberPenetration Line SizeMethod of ActuationSignalNormal Valve PositionValve Position with Power Failure Position IndicationPost Incident PositionSizeTypeNote: When making changes to this table, also refer to the Technical Requirements Manual, Table 3.6-1, Containment Isolation Valve List.

MPS2 UFSAR 5.2-91 Rev. 35 54Reactor Building Closed Cooling Water Outlet from Reactor Coolant Pumps and Other Components 8 RBCC W IA N OUT 2Yes2-RB-37.2BOutside6 inch Gate 16 inch MOV RemoteOpenAs IsYesOpen No2-RB-300Outside1 inch Gate 1Manual-Locked ClosedAs Is NoClosed No2-RB-299AOutside0.75 inch Globe 1Manual-Locked ClosedAs Is NoClosed 85Containment

Leak Rate Pressurizatio

n IA OIN/OUT 29No, Type BN/A Inside6 inch Blind Flang e 1- - -- No- No, Type B SF-01Outside6 inch Spect acle Flang e 16 inch - - - - No- No2-AC-107Outside0.75 inch Globe 1Manual-Locked ClosedAs Is NoClosed 61 & 86Containment

Air Sample CAS IC O OUT 26YesPenetration 61 2-AC-12Penetration 86 2-AC-47Outside1.5 inch Butter fly 11 inch Diaphragm CIASOpen ClosedYesClosed 10Yes2-EB-882-EB-89 Inside1.5 inch Butter fly 1Diaphragm CIASOpen ClosedYesClosed 10 No2-AC-1012-AC-102Outside0.75 inch Globe 1Manual-Locked ClosedAs Is NoClosed 62 & 87Containment

Air Sample CAS IC O IN 28YesPenetration 62 2-AC-54Penetration.

87 2-AC-55 Inside0.5 inch Check 11 inch - - -- No- Yes2-AC-152-AC-20Outside1.5 inch Butter fly 1Diaphragm CIASOpen ClosedYesClosed 10TABLE 5.2-11 CONTAINMENT STRUCTURE ISOLATION VALVE INFORMATION (CONTINUED)Penetration NumberServiceSystemPenetration Type 1Penetration Category 2Flow DirectionValve Arrangement Type C Testing Requirements 3Valve Identification Location Reference to Containment StructureValve NumberPenetration Line SizeMethod of ActuationSignalNormal Valve PositionValve Position with Power Failure Position IndicationPost Incident PositionSizeTypeNote: When making changes to this table, also refer to the Technical Requirements Manual, Table 3.6-1, Containment Isolation Valve List.

MPS2 UFSAR 5.2-92 Rev. 35 No2-AC-1032-AC-104Outside0.75 inch Globe 1Manual-Locked ClosedAs Is NoClosed 67 Refueling

Water PurificationRPCS IA O OUT27AYes 42-RW-232 Inside4 inch Gate 14 inch Manual-Locked ClosedAs Is NoClosedYes2-RW-21Outside4 inch Gate 1Manual-Locked ClosedAs Is NoClosed No2-RW-158Outside0.75 inch Gate 1Manual-Locked ClosedAs Is NoClosed 68 Refueling

Water PurificationRPCS IA O IN27BYes 42-RW-154 Inside4 inch Gate 14 inch Manual-Locked ClosedAs Is NoClosedYes2-RW-63Outside4 inch Gate 1Manual-Locked ClosedAs Is NoClosed No2-RW-159Outside0.75 inch Gate 1Manual-Locked ClosedAs Is NoClosed 82Hydrogen Purge HC IA O OUT25AYes 42-EB-91 Inside6 inch Butter fly6 inch Air CylinderCIAS &

High Cont ainment Radiati on ClosedAs IsYesClosedYes2-EB-92Outside6 inch Butter fly 1DiaphragmCIAS &

High Cont ainment Radiati on Closed ClosedYesClosedYes 42-EB-86 Inside0.75 inch Gate 1Manual-Locked ClosedAs Is NoClosed No2-EB-120Outside0.75 inch Globe 1Manual-Locked ClosedAs Is NoClosed 83Hydrogen Purge HC IA O OUT25BYes 42-EB-100 Inside6 inch Butter fly 16 inch Air CylinderCIAS &

High Cont ainment Radiati on ClosedAs IsYesClosedTABLE 5.2-11 CONTAINMENT STRUCTURE ISOLATION VALVE INFORMATION (CONTINUED)Penetration NumberServiceSystemPenetration Type 1Penetration Category 2Flow DirectionValve Arrangement Type C Testing Requirements 3Valve Identification Location Reference to Containment StructureValve NumberPenetration Line SizeMethod of ActuationSignalNormal Valve PositionValve Position with Power Failure Position IndicationPost Incident PositionSizeTypeNote: When making changes to this table, also refer to the Technical Requirements Manual, Table 3.6-1, Containment Isolation Valve List.

MPS2 UFSAR 5.2-93 Rev. 35 NOTES:1.See Figure 5.2-8.2.See Section 5.2.7.2.1.3.Containment Isolation Valve Test (Type C) per 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix J.4.Valve tested with pressure applied opposite to that applied during LOCA.5.Valve 2-CH-435 no longer functions as a check valve; it s internal disk and piston spring have been removed.6.If steam generator pressure drops to

< 572 psia.7.Valves 2-MS-65A, 2-MS-65B, 2-MS-202 and 2-SI-651 have disconnect switches in their power circuits to ensure the valves are in their proper position in the event of an Appendix R fire (hot short issue). Once these valves have been positioned and the disconn ect switch is placed in the "off" position, the valves will not respond to automated signals. See FSAR Section 9.10.6.3, item (2), and Appendix R Compliance Report.8."Other components" include Reactor Vessel Support Cooling Coils , CEDM Coolers, and the Quench Tank & PDT Heat Exchanger.9.The post incident position 2-IA

-566 and 2-IA-27.1 is the same as their normal position unless changed in accordance with plant procedures.10.Valves 2-EB-88, 2-EB-89, 2-AC-12, 2-AC-15, 2-AC-20, 2-AC-47 may be opened to permit post-accident hydrogen sampling of the Containment atmosphere. Thus, the sample systems, excluding the Radiation Monitor skids RM8123 & RM8262, are included in th e 10 CFR 50, Appendix J testing at the accident pressure.11.Valves within containment boundary that are instrument isolation valves or valves not required to go closed or be closed for isolation of the penetrati on.The allowed outage time of 72 hours8.333333e-4 days <br />0.02 hours <br />1.190476e-4 weeks <br />2.7396e-5 months <br /> as specified in Technical Specification action statement 3.6.3.1.d is applicable for all 'N' Type penetrations except penetration numbers 1, 34, 51.Note: When making changes to this table, also refer to the Technical Requirements Manual, Table 3.6-1, Containment Isolation Valve List

.Yes2-EB-99Outside6 inch v 1DiaphragmCIAS & High Cont ainment Radiati on Closed ClosedYesClosed No2-EB-121Outside0.75 inch Globe 1Manual-Locked ClosedAs Is NoClosed 65 & 72Steam Generator Blowdown Sample SGBS IA N OUT 14 NoPenetration 65 2-MS-191APenetration 72 2-MS-191BOutside0.5 inchGlobe 10.5 inchDiaphragm CIASOpen ClosedYesClosed 63 & 64Containment

Pressure Test Connection ILRT IC O OUT 31Yes Penetration 63 2-AC-114Penetration.

64 2-AC-112Outside1 inch Globe 11 inch Manual-Locked ClosedAs Is NoClosedYes 2-AC-1172-AC-116 Inside1 inch Globe 1Manual-Locked ClosedAs Is NoClosedNo, Type B1 inch -Blind

Flange TC 1 inch -Blind

Flan ge TCOutside1 inch Blind Flang e 21 inch - - -- No- TABLE 5.2-11 CONTAINMENT STRUCTURE ISOLATION VALVE INFORMATION (CONTINUED)Penetration NumberServiceSystemPenetration Type 1Penetration Category 2Flow DirectionValve Arrangement Type C Testing Requirements 3Valve Identification Location Reference to Containment StructureValve NumberPenetration Line SizeMethod of ActuationSignalNormal Valve PositionValve Position with Power Failure Position IndicationPost Incident PositionSizeTypeNote: When making changes to this table, also refer to the Technical Requirements Manual, Table 3.6-1, Containment Isolation Valve List.

MPS2 UFSARMPS2 UFSAR5.2-94Rev. 35TABLE 5.2-12 CONTAINMENT PENETRATION PIPING Penetration NumberSystem PIPEMaterialClassCodeFittingsSizeScheduleLine Designation1DWS2 inch 40SHCB-4A-312 TP 304 2 B31.73000 pound Socket Weld2CVCS2 inch 160CCB-5A-376 TP 316 2 B31.76000 pound Socket Weld3CVCS2 inch 160CCB-6A-376 TP 316 2 B31.76000 pound Socket Weld4CSS8 inch 20GCB-11A-312 TP 304 2 B31.7Butt welded5CSS8 inch 20GCB-11A-312 TP 304 2 B31.7Butt welded6SIS6 inch 120CCA-6A-376 TP 316 2 B31.7Butt welded7SIS6 inch 120CCA-6A-376 TP 316 2 B31.7Butt welded8SIS6 inch 120CCA-6A-376 TP 316 2 B31.7Butt welded9SIS6 inch 120CCA-6A-376 TP 316 2 B31.7Butt welded10SIS12 inch 20GCB-1A-376 TP 316 2 B31.7Butt welded MPS2 UFSARMPS2 UFSAR5.2-95Rev. 3511SIS2 inch 40SGCB-14A-312 TP 304 2 B31.73000 pound Socket Weld 12SIS24 inch 10SHCB-1A-312 TP 304 2 B31.7Butt welded 13SIS24 inch 10SHCB-1A-312 TP 304 2 B31.7Butt welded 14RWS3 inch 10SHSB-1A-312 TP 304 2 B31.7Butt welded 15FW18 inch 60EBB-6A-106 GR B2 B31.7Butt welded 16FW18 inch 60EBB-6A-106 GR B2 B31.7Butt welded 19MSS34 inch 0.977 inch wallEBB-2A-155 GR KCF70 2 B31.7Butt welded 20MSS34 inch 0.977 inch wallEBB-2A-155 GR KCF70 2 B31.7Butt welded 21SS0.75 inch 160CCB-10A-376 TP 316 2 B31.76000 pound Socket Weld 22SGBS2 inch 80EBB-5A-106 GR B2 B31.73000 pound Socket Weld 23SGBS2 inch 80EBB-5A-106 GR B2 B31.73000 pound Socket WeldTABLE 5.2-12 CONTAINMENT PENETRATION PIPING (CONTINUED)

Penetration NumberSystem PIPEMaterialClassCodeFittingsSizeScheduleLine Designation MPS2 UFSARMPS2 UFSAR5.2-96Rev. 35 24RBCCW8 inch 40HBB-5A-333 GR 62 B31.7Butt welded 25RBCCW10 inch 40HBB-3A-333 GR 62 B31.7Butt welded 26RBCCW10 inch 40HBB-3A-333 GR 62 B31.7Butt welded 27RBCCW10 inch 40HBB-3A-333 GR 62 B31.7Butt welded 28RBCCW10 inch 40HBB-3A-333 GR 62 B31.7Butt welded 29RBCCW8 inch 40HBB-3A-333 GR 62 B31.7Butt welded 30RBCCW10 inch 6 inch 40HBB-3A-333 GR 62 B31.7Butt welded 31RBCCW10 inch 6 inch 40HBB-3A-333 GR 62 B31.7Butt welded 32RBCCW10 inch 6 inch 40HBB-3A-333 GR 62 B31.7Butt welded 33RBCCW10 inch 6 inch 40HBB-4A-333 GR 62 B31.7Butt welded 34NS1 inch 40SGCB-12A-312 TP 304 2 B31.73000 pound Socket WeldTABLE 5.2-12 CONTAINMENT PENETRATION PIPING (CONTINUED)

Penetration NumberSystem PIPEMaterialClassCodeFittingsSizeScheduleLine Designation MPS2 UFSARMPS2 UFSAR5.2-97Rev. 35 35RWS4 inch 10SHSB-2A-312 TP 304 2 B31.7Butt welded 36IA0.5 inch 40SHCB-31A-312 TP 304 2 B31.73000 pound Socket Weld 37IA2 inch 80HBB-13A-333 GR 62 B31.73000 pound Socket Weld 38SA2 inch 80HBB-12A-333 GR 62 B31.73000 pound Socket Weld 39PA48 inch 0.375 inch wallHBB-7A-333 GR 62 B31.7Butt welded 40PA48 inch 0.375 inch HBB-8A-333 GR 62 B31.7Butt welded 43CVCS0.75 inch 160CCB-9A-376 TP 316 2 B31.76000 pound Socket Weld49Fire Protection6 inch 40HBB-19SA-106 GR B2ASMEButt welded 51RWS3 inch 40HRB-1A-106 GR B2 B31.7Butt welded 53RBCCW6 inch 40HBB-5A-333 GR 62 B31.7Butt welded 54RBCCW6 inch 40HBB-6A-333 GR 62 B31.7Butt weldedTABLE 5.2-12 CONTAINMENT PENETRATION PIPING (CONTINUED)

Penetration NumberSystem PIPEMaterialClassCodeFittingsSizeScheduleLine Designation MPS2 UFSARMPS2 UFSAR5.2-98Rev. 35 61CAS1 inch 40SHCB-9A-312 TP 304 2 B31.73000 pound Socket Weld 62CAS1 inch 40SHCB-9A-312 TP 304 2 B31.73000 pound Socket Weld 65SBGS0.5 inch 80EBB-8A-106 GR B2 B31.73000 pound Socket Weld 67SFPCS4 inch 10SHCB-10A-312 TP 304 2 B31.7Butt welded 68SFPCS4 inch 10SHCB-11A-312 TP 304 2 B31.7Butt welded 72SGBS0.5 inch 80EBB-8A-106 GR B2 B31.73000 pound Socket Weld 82 H 2 Purge6 inch 40HBB-10A-333 GR 62 B31.7Butt welded 83 H 2 Purge6 inch 40HBB-10A-333 GR 62 B31.7Butt welded85Leak Rate Test6 inch 40HBB-1A-333 GR 62 B31.7Butt welded 86CAS1 inch 40SHCB-9A-312 TP 304 2 B31.73000 pound Socket Weld 87CAS1 inch 40SHCB-9A-312 TP 304 2 B31.73000 pound Socket WeldTABLE 5.2-12 CONTAINMENT PENETRATION PIPING (CONTINUED)

Penetration NumberSystem PIPEMaterialClassCodeFittingsSizeScheduleLine Designation MPS2 UFSARMPS2 UFSAR5.2-99Rev. 35 Penetration 17 - Personnel Airlock.

Penetration 18 - Equipment Hatch.Penetration 42 - Fuel Transfer Tube.

Penetrations 41, 46, 48, 50, 52, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 66, 73, 74, 78, 79, 80, 81, 84, 88, 89 - SPARE.

Penetrations 47, 69, 70, 71 - Containment Pressure Transmission.

Penetration 75 - Electrical Penetrations 63, 64 - Test Connection.

Penetrations 6, 7, 8, 9 were constructed to Class 1 requirements but are considered Class 2 piping upstream of valves 2-SI-706A , B, C, D.

MPS2 UFSAR 5.2-100 Rev. 35MPS2 UFSARTABLE 5.2-13 MAJOR (1) CONTAINMENT ISOLATION VALVES VALVE ID NUMBERPENETRATION NUMBERSIZEVALVE TYPEBODY MATERIAL (2)CODENUCLEAR CLASSRATING2-PMW-4312 inch GlobeA351, GR CF8M*II 150 pound 2-PMW-312 inch CheckA182, GR F-316*II 600 pound 2-CH-00622 inch GateA182, GR F-316*II 1500 pound 2-CH-51623 inch GlobeA182, GR F-316*II 1500 pound 2-CH-08922 inch GlobeA182, GR F-316*II 1500 pound 2-CH-51523 inch GlobeA182, GR F-316*II 1500 pound 2-CH-43432 inch GateA182, GR F-316*II 1500 pound 2-CH-42932 inch GateA182, GR F-316*II 1500 pound 2-CH-51832 inch GlobeA351, GR CF-8*II 1500 pound 2-CH-51932 inch GlobeA351, GR CF-8*II 1500 pound 2-CH-51732 inch GlobeA351, GR CF-8*II 1500 pound MPS2 UFSAR5.2-101Rev. 35MPS2 UFSAR2-CH-43532 inch CheckA182, GR F-316*II1500 pound 2-CS-5A48 inch CheckA351, GR CF-8*II300 pound 2-CS-4.1A48 inch GateA351, GR CF-8*II300 pound 2-CS-5B58 inch CheckA351, GR CF-8*II300 pound 2-CS-4.1B58 inch GateA351, GR CF-8*II300 pound 2-SI-6456 6 inch GlobeA182, GR F-316*II1500 pound 2-SI-14466 inch CheckA182, GR F-316*II 1500 pound 2-SI-64662 inch GlobeA182, GR F-316*II 1500 pound 2-SI-64762 inch GlobeA182, GR F-316*II 1500 pound 2-SI-00962 inch CheckA182, GR F-316*II 1500 pound 2-SI-14362 inch CheckA182, GR F-316*II 1500 pound TABLE 5.2-13 MAJOR (1) CONTAINMENT ISOLATION VALVES (CONTINUED)VALVE ID NUMBERPENETRATION NUMBERSIZEVALVE TYPEBODY MATERIAL (2)CODENUCLEAR CLASSRATING MPS2 UFSAR5.2-102Rev. 35MPS2 UFSAR2-SI-706D66 inch CheckA351, GR CF-8*I1500 pound 2-SI-16063 inchGateSA351, GR CF8M*II1500 pound 2-SI-16163 inchGateSA351, GR CF8M*II1500 pound 2-SI-61576 inch GlobeA182, GR F-316*II1500 pound 2-SI-11476 inch CheckA182, GR F-316*II 1500 pound 2-SI-61672 inch GlobeA182, GR F-316*II 1500 pound 2-SI-61772 inch GlobeA182, GR F-316*II 1500 pound 2-SI-01272 inch CheckA182, GR F-316*II 1500 pound 2-SI-11372 inch CheckA182, GR F-316*II 1500 pound 2-SI-706A76 inch CheckA351, GR CF-8*I1500 pound 2-SI-63682 inch GlobeA182, GR F-316*II 1500 pound TABLE 5.2-13 MAJOR (1) CONTAINMENT ISOLATION VALVES (CONTINUED)VALVE ID NUMBERPENETRATION NUMBERSIZEVALVE TYPEBODY MATERIAL (2)CODENUCLEAR CLASSRATING MPS2 UFSAR5.2-103Rev. 35MPS2 UFSAR2-SI-63782 inch GlobeA182, GR F-316*II 1500 pound 2-SI-01082 inch CheckA182, GR F-316*II 1500 pound 2-SI-13382 inch CheckA182, GR F-316*II 1500 pound 2-SI-706C86 inch CheckA351, GR CF-8*I1500 pound 2-SI-63586 inch GlobeA182, GR F-316*II1500 pound 2-SI-13486 inch CheckA182, GR F-316*II 1500 pound 2-SI-62596 inch GlobeA182, GR F-316*II1500 pound 2-SI-12496 inch CheckA182, GR F-316*II 1500 pound 2-SI-626, 2-SI-62792 inch GlobeA182, GR F-316*II 1500 pound 2-SI-12392 inch CheckA182, GR F-316*II 1500 pound 2-SI-01192 inch CheckA182, GR F-316*II 1500 pound TABLE 5.2-13 MAJOR (1) CONTAINMENT ISOLATION VALVES (CONTINUED)VALVE ID NUMBERPENETRATION NUMBERSIZEVALVE TYPEBODY MATERIAL (2)CODENUCLEAR CLASSRATING MPS2 UFSAR5.2-104Rev. 35MPS2 UFSAR2-SI-706B96 inch CheckA351, GR CF-8*I1500 pound 2-SI-7091012 inch GateA351, GR CF-8*I1500 pound 2-SI-6511012 inch GateA182, GR F-316*I1500 pound 2-SI-463112 inch GateA182, GR F-316*IICL800 2-CS-16.1A1224 inch GateA351, GR CF-8*II150 pound 2-CS-16.1B1324 inch GateA351, GR CF-8*II150 pound 2-SSP-16.2143 inch GlobeA351, GR CF8M*II150 pound 2-SSP-16.1143 inch GlobeA351, GR CF8M*II150 pound 2-FW-5A1518 inch CheckA216, GR WCB*II600 pound 2-FW-12A156 inch CheckA216, GR WCB*II600 pound 2-FW-5B1618 inch CheckA216, GR WCB*II600 pound 2-FW-12B166 inch CheckA216, GR WCB*II600 pound TABLE 5.2-13 MAJOR (1) CONTAINMENT ISOLATION VALVES (CONTINUED)VALVE ID NUMBERPENETRATION NUMBERSIZEVALVE TYPEBODY MATERIAL (2)CODENUCLEAR CLASSRATING MPS2 UFSAR5.2-105Rev. 35MPS2 UFSAR2-MS-64A1934 inch CheckA216, GR WCB*II600 pound 2-MS-201194 inch GateA105, GR 2*II600 pound 2-MS-3A1912 inch GateA105, GR 2*II600 pound 2-MS-190A198 inch GlobeA216, GR WCB*II600 pound 2-MS-265B191 inch GlobeA182, GR F-316*II600 pound 2-MS-65A193 inch GlobeA105, GR 2*II600 pound 2-MS-64B2034 inch CheckA216, GR WCB*II600 pound 2-MS-202204 inch GateA105, GR 2*II600 pound 2-MS-3B2012 inch GateA105, GR 2*II600 pound 2-MS-190B208 inch GlobeA216, GR WCB*II600 pound 2-MS-266B201 inch GlobeA182, GR F-316*II600 pound TABLE 5.2-13 MAJOR (1) CONTAINMENT ISOLATION VALVES (CONTINUED)VALVE ID NUMBERPENETRATION NUMBERSIZEVALVE TYPEBODY MATERIAL (2)CODENUCLEAR CLASSRATING MPS2 UFSAR5.2-106Rev. 35MPS2 UFSAR2-MS-65B203 inch GlobeA105, GR 2*II600 pound 2-LRR-61.1210.5 inch GlobeA351, GR CF8M*II2500 pound 2-RC-001210.75 inch GlobeA351, GR CF8M*II2500 pound 2-RC-002210.75 inch GlobeA351, GR CF8M*II2500 pound 2-RC-003210.75 inch GlobeA351, GR CF8M*II2500 pound 2-RC-45210.75 inch GlobeA351, GR CF8M*II2500 pound 2-MS-220A222 inch GlobeA216, GR WCB*II600 pound 2-MS-220B232 inch GlobeA216, GR WCB*II600 pound 2-RB-30.1A248 inch GateA350, GR LF1*II150 pound 2-RB-28.1D2510 inch ButterflyA516, GR 70*II150 pound 2-RB-28.1B2610 inch ButterflyA516, GR 70*II150 pound TABLE 5.2-13 MAJOR (1) CONTAINMENT ISOLATION VALVES (CONTINUED)VALVE ID NUMBERPENETRATION NUMBERSIZEVALVE TYPEBODY MATERIAL (2)CODENUCLEAR CLASSRATING MPS2 UFSAR5.2-107Rev. 35MPS2 UFSAR2-RB-28.1A2710 inch ButterflyA516, GR 70*II150 pound 2-RB-28.1C2810 inch ButterflyA516, GR 70*II150 pound 2-RB-37.2A298 inch GateA350, GR LF1*II150 pound 2-RB-28.3D3010 inch ButterflyA516, GR 70*II150 pound 2-RB-28.2D306 inch ButterflyA516, GR 70*II150 pound 2-RB-28.3B3110 inch ButterflyA516, GR 70*II150 pound 2-RB-28.2B316 inch ButterflyA516, GR 70*II150 pound 2-RB-28.3A3210 inch ButterflyA516, GR 70*II150 pound 2-RB-28.2A326 inch ButterflyA516, GR 70*II150 pound 2-RB-28.3C3310 inch ButterflyA516, GR 70*II150 pound 2-RB-28.2C336 inch ButterflyA516, GR 70*II150 pound TABLE 5.2-13 MAJOR (1) CONTAINMENT ISOLATION VALVES (CONTINUED)VALVE ID NUMBERPENETRATION NUMBERSIZEVALVE TYPEBODY MATERIAL (2)CODENUCLEAR CLASSRATING MPS2 UFSAR5.2-108Rev. 35MPS2 UFSAR2-SI-312340.75 inch GlobeA182, GR F-316*II150 pound 2-LRR-43.1353 inch GlobeA351, GR CF8M*II150 pound 2-LRR-43.2353 inch GlobeA351, GR CF8M*II150 pound 2-IA-569360.5 inch CheckA182, GR F-316ASME 1983II600 pound 2-IA-566360.5inch GateA182, GR F-316ASME 1983II600 pound 2-IA-27.1372 inch GlobeA216, GR WCB*II600 pound 2-IA-43372 inch CheckA216, GR WCB*II600 pound 2-SA-19382 inch GateA105, GR 2*II600 pound 2-SA-22382 inch CheckA105, GR 2*II600 pound 2-AC-43948 inch ButterflyA516, GR 70*II150 pound 2-AC-53948 inch ButterflyA516, GR 70*II150 pound TABLE 5.2-13 MAJOR (1) CONTAINMENT ISOLATION VALVES (CONTINUED)VALVE ID NUMBERPENETRATION NUMBERSIZEVALVE TYPEBODY MATERIAL (2)CODENUCLEAR CLASSRATING MPS2 UFSAR5.2-109Rev. 35MPS2 UFSAR2-AC-64048 inch ButterflyA516, GR 70*II150 pound 2-AC-74048 inch ButterflyA516, GR 70*II150 pound 2-CH-506430.75 inch GlobeA351, GR CF8M*II2500 pound 2-CH-198430.75 inch GlobeA351, GR CF8M*II2500 pound 2-CH-505430.75 inch GlobeA351, GR CF8M*II2500 pound 2-FIRE-108496 inch ButterflyA216, GR WCBASME 1977II150 pound 2-FIRE-109496 inch CheckA216, GR WCBASME 1977II150 pound 2-GR-11.2513 inch GlobeA216, GR WCB*II150 pound 2-GR-11.1513 inch GlobeA216, GR WCB*II150 pound 2-RB-30.1B536 inch GateA105, GR 2*II150 pound 2-RB-37.2B546 inch GateA105, GR 2*II150 pound TABLE 5.2-13 MAJOR (1) CONTAINMENT ISOLATION VALVES (CONTINUED)VALVE ID NUMBERPENETRATION NUMBERSIZEVALVE TYPEBODY MATERIAL (2)CODENUCLEAR CLASSRATING MPS2 UFSAR5.2-110Rev. 35MPS2 UFSAR2-AC-12611.5 inch ButterflyA515, GR 70*II300 pound 2-EB-88611.5 inch ButterflyA515, GR 70*II300 pound 2-AC-15621.5 inch ButterflyA515, GR 70*II300 pound 2-AC-54620.5 inch CheckA182, GR F-316*II600 pound 2-MS-191A650.5 inch GlobeA216, GR WCB*II600 pound 2-RW-232674 inch GateA182, GR F-316*II150 pound 2-RW-21674 inch GateA182, GR F-316*II150 pound 2-RW-154684 inch GateA182, GR F-316*II150 pound 2-RW-63684 inch GateA182, GR F-316*II150 pound 2-MS-191B720.5 inch GlobeA216, GR WCB*II600 pound 2-EB-91826 inch ButterflyA516, GR 70*II150 pound TABLE 5.2-13 MAJOR (1) CONTAINMENT ISOLATION VALVES (CONTINUED)VALVE ID NUMBERPENETRATION NUMBERSIZEVALVE TYPEBODY MATERIAL (2)CODENUCLEAR CLASSRATING MPS2 UFSAR 5.2-111 Rev. 35MPS2 UFSAR Notes: 1 "Major" valves are principal valves used for containment integrity and process line function (does not include test, vent, dr ain valves). 2 ASTM material for valve body indicated. Designation is 'A' or 'SA' per controlling code. *ASME Section III, 1971, or Draft ASME Pump and Valve Code Penetration numbers 41, 46, 48, 50, 52, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 66, 73, 74, 78, 79, 80, 81, 84, 88, 89 -SPARE Penetration number 85 - Leak Rate Testing Penetration numbers 63, 64 - Test Connection.2-EB-92826 inch ButterflyA516, GR 70*II150 pound 2-EB-100836 inch ButterflyA516, GR 70*II150 pound 2-EB-99836 inch ButterflyA516, GR 70*II150 pound 2-AC-47861.5 inch ButterflyA515, GR 70*II150 pound 2-EB-89861.5 inch ButterflyA515, GR 70*II150 pound 2-AC-20871.5 inch ButterflyA515, GR 70*II150 pound 2-AC-55870.5 inch CheckA182, GR F-316*II600 pound TABLE 5.2-13 MAJOR (1) CONTAINMENT ISOLATION VALVES (CONTINUED)VALVE ID NUMBERPENETRATION NUMBERSIZEVALVE TYPEBODY MATERIAL (2)CODENUCLEAR CLASSRATING MPS2 UFSAR5.2-112Rev. 35NOTE: Instrumentation listed above are typically used during an ILRT. The instrumentation parameters are obtained from ANS 56.8 and are used as guidance in selecting acceptable instruments. A ppropriate alternatives to the above instrumentation can be used for the ILRT.TABLE 5.2-14 TYPICAL LEAK RATE MEASUREMENT SYSTEM INSTRUMENTATIONQUANTITYDESCRIPTION18Temperature Monitoring System

Resistance Temperature Detector; Accuracy:

+/- 0.5°F; Sensitivity:

+/- 0.1°F.6Dewpoint Temperature Monitoring System: Accuracy:

+/- 2°F; Sensitivity:

+/- 0.5°F.2Flowmeters: Mass Flow Meters; Accuracy:

+/- 2.0% full scale; Sensitivity:

+/- 1.0% full scale.2Pressure Monitoring: Precision Pressure Gages; Accuracy:

+/- 0.02% of reading; Sensitivity:

+/- 0.001 psi.

MPS2 UFSAR5.2-113Rev. 35TABLE 5.2-15 TYPICAL CONTAINMENT RESISTANCE TEMPERATURE DETECTORS AND DEWCELL SENSOR VOLUME WEIGHT FRACTIONSRTD Elevation (feet)AZ (Degrees)Distance From Centerline (feet)Volume Fraction976915090120.127 811095220650.09197679540650.091811190310600.091 811290130600.0918084405450.071810844135600.071 810944265600.07180973095200.026809830235200.020 809420350450.029977018220550.02897711890500.028 808735320.02097653240650.02097663125650.021 8091-15330350.0529768-10115500.052TOTAL 1.000 Dewcells Elevation (feet)AZ (Degrees)Distance From Centerline (feet)Volume Fraction810110540450.2458090105220450.245545845300450.150 810245120450.150 MPS2 UFSAR TABLE 5.2-15 CONTINUED 5.2-114Rev. 358093-4220450.1055457-440450.105 TOTAL 1.000 Dewcells Elevation (feet)AZ (Degrees)Distance From Centerline (feet)Volume Fraction

MPS-2 FSARFIGURE 5.2-27ISOLATION VALVE ARRANGEMENT

MPS-2 FSARFIGURE 5.2-31ISOLATION VALVE ARRANGEMENT

MPS2 UFSAR5.2-151Rev. 35FIGURE 5.2-37 DELETED BY FSARCR 04-MP2-016 MPS2 UFSAR5.3-1Rev. 35

5.3 ENCLOSURE

BUILDING

5.3.1 GENERAL

DESCRIPTIONThe enclosure building is a limited leakage steel framed structure with uninsulated metal siding and an insulated roof deck. It also includes thos e portions of the auxiliary building adjacent to the containment, as shown in Figures 5.3-1 and 5.3-2. The enclosure building completely surrounds the containment above grade and is designed and constructed to ensure that an acceptable upper limit of leakage of radioactive materials to the environment would not be exceeded in the unlikely event of a loss-of-coolant incident.The use of a suitable formed gasket material at all joints will provide assurance that the required degree of air tightness and partial vacuum will be maintained within the enclosure building. Two continuous lines of caulking are provided at all lap joints of both siding and decking, with the exception of the east and west wall blowout panels. A single line of caulking shall be provided at the bottom end lap and side laps of the blowout pa nels. The caulking may be applied to either the interior building seam or the exterior building seam.

Principal dimensions of the en closure building are as follows:Length (feet) 153.0 Width (feet) 147.0 Height (feet) 147.0 Decking (gauge) 20 Siding (gauge) 22The enclosure building is supported partially on concrete grade beams and caissons, partially on the roof of the auxiliary and turbine buildings, and partially on the dome of the containment. The interior of the enclosure building contains permanent ladders, stairways and catwalks which provide access to the upper exterior regions of the containment and to equipment in this building. In addition, permanent work platforms are furnished for the periodic surveillance of the post-tensioned prestressing tendons.Concrete floor slabs are provided at grade between the enclosur e building and the containment, and also at Elevations 36-6 and 38-6. A waterproofing membrane is provided under the slabs at grade and is extended down a nd around the containment below grade, as shown on Figure 5.3-3. Between the waterproofing membrane and the containment wall, corrugated asbestos-cement siding is installed as shown in Figure 5.3-4, to provide a passage of least resistance for possible leakage from the containment below grade to the enclosure building.There are two stacks that exhaust radioactive effluents from the Millstone Unit 2 operations. Radioactive effluents are piped to the Millstone stack that was pr ovided for the Millstone Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1. This stack provided for future expansion to accept effluent gases from the Unit 2 plant. The physical features of the stack are provided in Section 3.8 of the FSAR for the Millstone Nuclear Power Station, Unit 3. Gas volume increase is less than one percent, resulting in an exit gas velocity of 5,723 feet per minute. Section 3.8, of the Unit 3, FSAR lists the MPS2 UFSAR5.3-2Rev. 35 Millstone stack as a Class I structure. This s ection outlines the design criteria for earthquake loading and the dynamic analysis applied to the structure. Stack failure woul d not directly impact any safety related equipment.

The only other stack that exhausts radioactive effluents to the atmos phere from Unit 2 is the stack located atop the enclosure building.

The stack is constructed of one-quarter inch steel plate and standard structural shapes. Overal l height is 13 feet. Th is is a seismic Class I stack, designed in accordance with the criteria contained in Section 5.3.3 of the FSAR. The stack has a constant rectangular cross section wh ich has dimensions of 4 feet 0 inches by 9 feet 6 inches. Exit velocity of effluents is 1,684 feet per mi nute with two fans operating and 2,526 feet per minute with three fans operating. During normal plant operation, two fans are operating.

5.3.2 CONSTRUCTION

MATERIALS The following materials are used in th e construction of the enclosure building:a.Structural steel ASTM A-36b.Concrete (psi)Grade beams and Caissons 4,000 Slabs at grade 3,000 Floor slabs 3,000c.Reinforcing steel ASTM A615, Grade 60d.Metal siding 22 gaugee.Metal roof decks 20 gauge 5.3.3 DESIGN BASES The design of the enclosure build ing provides the required features as outlined in General Design Criteria 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 60, Appendix A of 10 CFR Part 50.

5.3.3.1 Bases for Design LoadsThe following loads are considered in the design of the enclosure building:a.Dead loads b.Live loads including external pres suresc.Earthquake loads d.Wind and tornado loads MPS2 UFSAR5.3-3Rev. 35 5.3.3.1.1 Dead LoadsThe dead loads consist of the weight of the steel frame, roof, metal sidi ng, and access stairs and ladders.5.3.3.1.2 Live Loads The design live loads for the en closure building are as follows:

a. Roof, snow loads (psf) 60b.Slabs at grade Equipment hatch area AASHO H-20 truck load Other areas (psf) 500 External pressure (independent of wind and tornado loads) (psf) 10Weights of equipment as indicated on drawings supplied by th e manufacturer are included as live loads.

5.3.3.1.3 Earthquake Loads The earthquake loads are predicat ed on an operating basis earthquake (OBE) at the site having a horizon tal ground surface acceleration of 0.09 g. In addition, a design basis earthquake (DBE) having a horizontal ground surface acceleration of 0.17 g is used to check the design of the enclosure building to ensure no loss of structural function. Th e seismic design spectrum curves are given in Figures 5.8-1 and 5.8-2.

A vertical component two-thir ds of the magnitude of the horizontal ground surface component is applied at the base simultaneously.A dynamic analysis including the effects of the attachme nts to the other structures is used to arrive at the equivalent static loads for the design.

5.3.3.1.4 Wind and Tornado LoadsWinds loads for the design of the enclosure building are based on a wind velocity of 1 15 mph with gusts up to 140 mph. The ASCE Paper 3269 is used to determine the shape factors. However, the provisions in the paper for gust fact ors and variations of wind veloci ty with respect to height are not applied.

The entire enclosure building is designed to resist the effects of the 140 mph wind.Tornado loads on the enclosure building are ba sed on a tornado funnel having a peripheral tangential velocity of 300 mph a nd a translational velocity of 60 mph. These velocities are combined, resulting in a design basis tornado wind velocity of 360 mph.

The enclosure building, adjacent to structures which house safety related equipment, is designed so that its structural framing will withstand tornado winds, but the siding will be blown away.

MPS2 UFSAR5.3-4Rev. 35The wind velocity is assumed to be uniformly distributed over the height of the structure. Probable missiles in the form of siding are less critical than the design missiles as specified in Section 5.2.5.1.2 of the FSAR. The siding when blown off may induce superficial damage to the adjacent structures, but the structural integrities of the adjacent structures will be maintained. The design requirements for tornado loads for struct ures which house safety related equipment for shutdown are given in Section 5 of the FSAR.

The design of the enclosure bui lding for tornado loads assume s that tornado wind is not coincident with a loss-of-coolant accident (LOCA) or earthquake.

5.3.3.2 Design Load Combination and Structural Analysis The enclosure building is design ed to meet the performance and strength requirements of the following loading combinations: a.At design loads b.At factored loads The design of structural steel is in accordance with the AISC Ma nual of Steel Construction. The design of concrete is in accordance with the ACI Code 318-63.

5.3.3.2.1 At Design LoadsThe enclosure building is analyzed for the following specific loading conditions: a.D + L = Constructionb.D + l + E = Operating c.D + L + W = Operating WhereD = dead loads

L = live loads

E = operating basis earthquake loads (0.09 g)

W = wind or tornado loads 5.3.3.2.2 At Factored Loads The enclosure building is analyzed for the factored load combination to ensure that its structural integrity is not affected.

C 1----1.0 ()D ()E+[=

MPS2 UFSAR5.3-5Rev. 35Where C = required capacity of the structure= 0.90 for fabricated structural steelD = dead loads

E = design basis earthquake (0.17 g)

The stresses of the members of the structure at factored loads are limited to the yield stresses of the structural steels.

5.3.3.2.3 Seismic AnalysisThe seismic analysis of the encl osure building is made on a mathem atical model which consists of the lumped masses of the containment structur e and the enclosure build ing. The seismic response of the combined model is obtained in accordan ce with the procedures outlined in Section 5.8.

5.3.4 THROUGH-LINE LEAKAGE EVALUATIONTo evaluate the through-line l eakage that can bypass the encl osure building filtration region (EBFR), the fluid systems penetrating c ontainment are categorized as follows: a.Piping Systems open to the containment post-accident atmosphere.b.Piping Systems which are closed and th erefore not exposed to the containment post-accident atmosphere.

The following assumptions are made to pos tulate the maximum hypothetical conditions: a.There is either a seismic occurrence a nd all Seismic Class 2 lines are broken, or there is no seismic occurrence and a ll Se ismic Class 2 lines are intact.b.The single failure criterion applies to Seismic Class 1 components only

.The condition of a seismic occurrence is not considered. Should the pipe break within the EBFR, all potential containment leakag e would be processed by the encl osure building filtration system (EBFS) as per design. The EBFS has ample capacity for this event. From the basis formulated, systems which are not normally opened to the containment atmosphere, or normally closed systems, either do not leak (assuming no seismic event) or are vented to the EBFR (assuming a seismic event). Normally, closed syst ems which may be opened to the atmosphere during accident conditions, such as lines connected to the reactor coolant pressure boundary, are not considered. These system s are either operating at a higher pressure or form closed loops. Therefore, a ssuming a single failure, these lines either prevent leakage by the higher pressure or contain the leakage by the closed loop.

MPS2 UFSAR5.3-6Rev. 35From this basis, an evaluation was performed to establish and document those containment penetrations that have the potential for providing leakage pathways from the reactor containment to areas beyond the EBFR. These leakage pathways could result in Post-Accident Containment Atmosphere bypassing the EBFR and discharging directly to the atmosphere thereby increasing on-site and off site doses under radiological accident conditions. Leakage through these pathways is referred to as "bypass leakage."For a leakage pathway to viably result in bypass leakage, the pathway must be open to the containment atmosphere post-accident and provide a means of transporting the containment atmosphere beyond the EBFR as well as a mean s for the containment atmosphere to escape the piping or duct. For containment penetrations that are confirmed to contribute to bypass leakage, leakage rates may be based on measured values as opposed to the recommended or maximum allowable values used for testing.In cases where measured values are used, steps are taken to ensure that degradation of the valve sealing capabilities are taken into account commensurate with the severity of service and the required time intervals between valve maintenance.

The evaluation concluded the follow ing penetrations are co nsidered to qualify as systems that are open both inside containment and outside containment, extend beyond the EBFR, and could contribute to bypass leakage:The off-site and control room dose analyses are based on a calculated maximum bypass leakage (refer to Section 14.8.4). For each verified bypass leakage pathway, a recommended leak rate is provided based on the limits used to satisfy the leakage limits esta blished for the testing required by 10 CFR 50, Appendix J. Total leakage from all verified bypass leakage pathways will be Penetration System14Containment Sump Pump Discharge37Instrument Air System 38Station Air System42Fuel Transfer Tube61Hydrogen Monitoring System 62Hydrogen Monitoring System67Refueling Cavity Drain68Refueling Cavity Skimmer 85Containment Pressure Test Connection86Hydrogen Monitoring System87Hydrogen Monitoring System MPS2 UFSAR5.3-7Rev. 35summed and compared to the total limit. The control room and off-site radiological dose calculations establish the maximum limit for total bypass leakage. In the event that total bypass leakage exceeds this value, repairs will be performed to reduce bypass leakage to an acceptable level.The provisions for initial and periodic leak testing of containment penetrations and maximum allowable leakage are specified in Table 5.2-11 of the FSAR and Section 3.6.1.2.c of the Technical Specifications respectively.

MPS2 UFSAR5.4-1Rev. 35

5.4 AUXILIARY

BUILDING

5.4.1 GENERAL

DESCRIPTIONThe auxiliary building is a multistory, reinforced concrete structure with flat slabs and shear walls. Some open areas of the bui lding are supported by structural steel columns to preserve space and allow flexibility in the design. The portion of the building west of column line M.7 is founded on bedrock approximately 60 feet below the ground surface, while th e eastern end of the building is supported by compacted structural backfill. These two portions of the building are separated from each other by an expansion joint at line M.7 to allow for differential movements.The auxiliary building is separated from the containment, which is to the north, by an expansion joint and from the turbine building to the west by slotted conn ections. Although th e control rooms of Units 1 and 2 are combined in one area, the buildings are separated by Teflon lined sliding bearings. These isolation joints provide the auxiliary building with structural in dependence from the surrounding buildings in the lateral direction.General layouts at the various elevations and sections through th e auxiliary building are shown on Figures 1.2-7 and 1.2-14.

5.4.1.1 Fuel Storage Facility 5.4.1.1.1 New Fuel StorageThe new fuel storage is bounded by column lines 17.2 and 18.9 and column lines S and N.3 at Elevation 38-6.

5.4.1.1.2 Spent Fuel StorageSpent fuel storage is provided between column lines 17.2 and 18.9 and column lines H.4 and L.5 at Elevation (-)2-0. The storage area consists of a reinforced concrete pool lined with one-fourth inch thick stainless steel plate to Elevation 38-6. Normal water level is to Elevation 36-6. The spent fuel is protected from a main steam line rupture by a reinforced concrete wall which is located north of and parallel to the pool.A leak chase system consisting of channels em bedded behind the liner plate at all seams and connected to a collector system is used to monitor and control any possible leakage from the pool.

A description of the monitoring sy stem is provided in Section 5.4.3.3.4.An overhead crane with the capacity of 125 tons is employed to handle the spent fuel cask. The crane is designed to meet th e single failure requirements in accordance with NUREG-0612 and NUREG-0554. A system of interlocks is also provided on the crane that defines a safe load path.

This safe load path is indicated on Figure 5.3-5.

MPS2 UFSAR5.4-2Rev. 35 5.4.1.1.3 Compliance with Safety Guide 13 The design of the fuel storage st ructures complies with the stru ctural requirements of Safety Guide 13.5.4.2 CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS The following materials are used in th e construction of the auxiliary building.

a.Structural and miscellaneous steel Rolled shapes, plates, and bars ASTM A-36Crane rails Bethlehem Steel High strength bolts ASTM A-325 or A-490Stainless Steel ASTM A-240 Type 304b.Reinforcing steel Deformed bars ASTM A-615 Grade 60c.Concrete, 28 day strength (psi)

Lean concrete backfill 2,000 Foundation mat slab Auxiliary Building 3,000Warehouse portion of the Auxiliary Building 4,000

All other concrete 3,000d.Interior coatings (O riginal Construction) 1.Concrete and masonry surfaces Primer Keeler & Long Number 7107 epoxy white primer Finish coat (floor and wainscot)

Keeler & Long Number 7107 epoxy white enamel (tinted)

Finish coat (above wainscot)

Keeler & Long Number 7107 epoxy white enamel2.Carbon steel Primer (wainscot)Keeler & Long Number. 7107 epoxy white primer Finish coat (wainscot) Keeler & Long Number. 7475 epoxy white enamel (tinted)

MPS2 UFSAR5.4-3Rev. 35 Primer (above wainscot)

Keel er & Long Tri-Polar Primer Finish coat (above wainscot) Keeler & Long Tri-Polar Enamele.Coating materials used in the auxiliary build ing represent current day technology and comply with current day environmental requirement s regarding volatile organic compound (VOC) content and hazardous material c onstituents such as lead, asbe stos, and hexavalent chrome.

Specific products are selected to provide serv ice performance comparable to or improved overthat of the original coating materials. Coating colors are chosen to help maintain a safe working environment.

5.4.3 DESIGN

BASES The design of the auxiliary buildi ng provides the required features as outlined in General Design Criteria 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 61, 62, 63, Appendix A of 10 CFR Part 50.

5.4.3.1 Bases for Design Loads The auxiliary building is designe d for all credible combinations of loading, including loads under normal operation, loads during a steam line ruptur e, and loads due to adverse environmental conditions. The following loadings are considered: a.Dead loadsb.Live loads c.Thermal loadsd.Earthquake loadse.Lateral pressure loads f.Wind and tornado loadsg.Pipe restraint loadsh.Pipe whipping loads i.Cask drop loadsj.Fuel transfer tube bellows 5.4.3.1.1 Dead Loads These loads consist of the weight of all struct ural materials, including all partitions, hangers, trays, pads and pedestals, and e quipment dead loads. These are sp ecified on the drawings supplied by the manufacturers of the equipm ent installed within the building.

MPS2 UFSAR5.4-4Rev. 35 5.4.3.1.2 Live LoadsLive loads consist of design floor loads, pool and tank liquid weights, piping loads, and equipment live loads as specified on the drawings supplied by the manufacturers of the equipment installed within the building. A snow lo ad of 60 psf is applied on the roof.

5.4.3.1.3 Thermal LoadsThermal loads are those induced in the spent fuel pool floor and walls due to the thermal gradients across these elements. Thermal gradients may be caused by an increase in water temperature during operating conditions or by an accident. The interior temperatures of the pool are assumed to be 150°F at operating conditions and 212

°F during an accident. The ambient temperature exterior to the pool is assumed to be 55

°F for computation of stresses.

5.4.3.1.4 Earthquake Loads These loads are as define d in Sections 5.2.2.1.5 and 5.8.

5.4.3.1.5 Lateral Pressure LoadsThe static lateral soil pressure loads are as follows:Active - above water table 55 (psf/ft)below water table 95 (psf/ft)Passive - above water table 370 (psf/ft)below water table200 (psf/ft)A surcharge of 200 psf, or an 8,000 pound whee l load, is considered in all cases.

Buoyant forces resulting from th e displacement of ground water are supplied to the structure. The following water levels are considered:Ground water Elevation 5-0Flood water Elevation 18-1The dynamic soil and hydrodynamic pressures are discussed in Section 5.8.2.2 and are considered to act on the structural elements below grade, where applicable.

5.4.3.1.6 Wind and Tornado LoadsWind loads for the auxiliary building are determined on the basis of the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) Paper 3269, "Wind Forces on Structures," using the highest wind velocity at the site for a 100 year recurrence period. The ASCE Paper 3269 is used mainly to determine the shape factors. Based upon the site location and the structure classification, the design wind velocity is taken to be 1 15 mph with gusts up to 140 mph.

MPS2 UFSAR5.4-5Rev. 35 The auxiliary building has been analyzed for tornado loads (not coincident with an accident or earthquake) on the following basis: a.Differential bursting pressure between the interior and exterior of the structure isassumed to be three psi pressure occurring in three seconds (1 psi/second), followed by a calm for two sec onds and a re pressurization.b.Lateral loads on the structure ar e based on a tornado funnel which is conservatively assumed to have a periphe ral tangential veloci ty of 300 mph and a translational velocity of 60 mph. The applicable portions of the wind design methods described in the ASCE Paper 3 269 are used, particularly for the shape factors. The provisions in the paper for gus t factors and variation of wind velocity with respect to height are not applie

d. The wind velocity is assumed to be uniformly distributed over th e height of the structure.c.Tornado driven missiles as defined in Section 5.2.5.1.2.With the exception of the missile impact area, th e allowable stresses to resist the effects of tornadoes are 90 percent of the yield strength of the reinforcing steel and 85 percent of the ultimate strength of the concrete.

A discussion of the probability of tornado occurrence is presented in Section 2.3.

5.4.3.1.7 Pipe Restraint Loads These are the loads imparted to the structure from the pipe restrain ts produced by either a postulated pipe rupture or an earthquake. See Section 6.1.4 for pipe rupture criteria.

5.4.3.1.8 Pipe Whipping LoadsThese are the loads imposed on the structure due to whipping from a postula ted pipe rupture. See Section 6.1.4 for pipe rupture criteria.

5.4.3.1.9 Cask Drop Loads The upgrade of the MP2 Spent Fuel Ca sk Crane to single failure crit eria has precluded the need to postulate a Spent Fuel Cask Dr op accident. The crane upgrade will give positive control of the lifted loads even with the wors t single failure. This section ha s been retained to provide the historical background for the design and analysis of the spent fuel pool.

The following design criteri a were used in the analysis of the spent fuel pool in the event that a cask is accidentally dropped:

MPS2 UFSAR5.4-6Rev. 35a.Weight of cask in air (lb.)

200,000b.Length of cask (feet) 19c.Diameter of cask (feet) 8d.Distance of drop (feet)

In air 2.75 In water 35.5As shown on Figure 5.3-5, the only ar ea of the spent fuel pool in to which the cask could be dropped directly is the cask laydown area. The cask laydown area is isolat ed from the spent fuel storage area by two-foot thick, perm anent, reinforced concrete wall s and a temporary gate placed in the fuel transfer slot. The base slab of th e cask laydown area is composed of seven feet of reinforced concrete resting on a mass of monolithic concrete whic h, in turn, rests on bedrock.

Therefore, a cask dropped in this area would trav el vertically downward as restrained by the surrounding walls. Any damage woul d be limited to rupturing of the spent fuel pool liner and local superficial crushing of concre te in the area of im pact of the end of the cask. Leakage through the ruptured liner would be detected in the control room and would be stopped by closing the valve that connects the leak coll ection channel for the ruptured zone(s) to the leak detection instrumentation.

If during handling, the cask is dropped on or near point "A," as shown on Figure 5.3-5, there exists a possibility that the cask could fall or tumble into the sp ent fuel storage area. The fall would provide some local concre te crushing in the spent fuel pool and laydown area walls at elevation (+) 38 feet 6 inches. Th e cask would then slide into the spent fuel storage area of the pool. The cask would crush the spen t fuel rack module(s) that it landed on, but the buoyant effect of the water combined with the cr ushing of the rack woul d dissipate most of the kinetic energy of the falling cask. Therefore, the probable damage woul d be limited to rupture of the spent fuel pool liner and local crushing of concrete where the cask impacted. The dose impact of damage to spent fuel stored in the pool (both intact and consolidated) w ould be mitigated by administratively controlling the age of the stored fuel in the af fected area around the cask laydown area of the spent fuel pool. Whenever a shielded cask is on the refueling floor, all stored fuel within a specified distance of the cask laydown area shall have decayed a minimum am ount of time from subcritical reactor operation in accordance with the Technical Specifications. The seven foot thick base and six foot thick walls, of reinfor ced concrete, would remain intact. Leakage would be detected and stopped as described above.

Makeup water would be available as discussed in Section 9.5.

5.4.3.1.10 Fuel Transfer Tube Bellows The following loads were used in the design of the fuel transfer tube and bellows:

Design pressure, internal (psi) 60 Design temperature (°F)290 MPS2 UFSAR5.4-7Rev. 35Lateral movement (inches) 0.14 Axial movement, expansion or contraction (in.) 0.5Displacements are selected to accommodate an assumed differential settlement of one-eighth inch between the buildings. Since both the containm ent and auxiliary buildings are founded on rock, this motion is minimal.

5.4.3.2 Design Load CombinationsTo ensure the structural integrity of the auxili ary building, the working stress method of design is used for the various loading combinations.

For the operating conditi ons, normal allowable stresses given in the American Institute of Steel Cons truction (AISC) Manual of Steel Construction 1963, and the American Concrete Institute (ACI)-318-63, "Building Code Requirements for Reinforced Concrete" are used. These allowable stresses are increased by 33-1Ú3 percent for the 115 mph base wind loads a nd the operating basis earthquake (OBE) loads.For the tornado wind and the design basis earthquake (DBE), the allowable stresses are 90 percent of the yield strength of the reinforcing, and 85 percent of the ultimate strength of concrete.

The load combinations are listed:a.D + Lb.D + L + W wc.D + L + W td.D + L + Ee.D + L + Ef.D + L + P e + W t + H wg.D + L + T + Eh.D + L + T + Ei.D + L + P e + Ej.D + L + P e + Ek.D + L + F p + El.D + L + F cm.D + L + F r + E MPS2 UFSAR5.4-8Rev. 35Where:D = dead loads L = live loads

W w = wind loads (115 mph base)

W t = tornado loads (360 mph base E = OBE E = DBE P e = soil pressure F p = pipe whipping loads F c = cask drop loads F r = pipe restraint loads H w = hydrostatic pressure T = thermal loads These load combinations are applie d to the portions of the structur e housing or associated with the various systems as follows:

Item a.Cask crane structure a, b, c, d, e b.Chemical addition and sampling system a, c, d, e, f, i, j c.Chemical and volume control system (CVCS)a, c, d, e, f, i, j d.Containment spray pumps a, c, d, e, f, i, j e.Control room a, b, c, d, e f.Diesel generator room and day tanks a, c, d, e, f g.Electrical distribution system a, b, c, d, e h.New fuel storage a, b, c, d, e i.Reactor building cl osed cooling water (RBCCW) system a, c, d, e, f, i, j j.Safety injection systems (SIS) a, c, d, e, f, i, j k.Spent fuel cooling system a, c, d, e, f, i, j l.Spent fuel pool a, b, c, d, e, g, h, k, l m.Waste processing systems a, c, d, e, f, i, j MPS2 UFSAR5.4-9Rev. 35 The design loads and stresses for all concrete walls and columns are within the allowable values for each wall or column. Design stresses are not applicable for the columns inasmuch as the interaction diagrams are used to proportion reinforcing and concrete required to support a given load with its corresponding eccentricity. Exterior walls having vertical and lateral loads are designed for bending and axial loadings, and the resulting combined stresses are kept within the code allowables. There are numerous walls, slabs, columns, and b eams within the buildings, each element of which was designed for the pertinent loading. Design stresses in the various components are recorded in the design calculati ons. The allowable loading, or combined loading, depends on the reinforcing which was added and varies considerably depending upon the applied conditions.The maximum combined stress ratio in the steel cask crane frame is 0.904, resulting from an axial stress of 3.53 ksi and a bending stress of 31.8 ksi. This stress occurs under loading combination e., above.In addition to the various load combinations included, all Category I structures outside the containment that could be pressurized in the event of a postulated pipe rupture are designed to satisfy the following load combinations: (1)U = D + L + T + R a + 1.5P a(2)U = D + L + T + R a + 1.25P a + F r + F c + F j + 1.25E(3)U = D + L + T + R a + P a + F r + F c + F j + Ewhere: U = total design loadD = dead loads L = live loads R a = pipe reactions under thermal condi tion generated by a postulated break F r = equivalent static pipe restraint loads F c = equivalent static pipe whipping loads, including the effects of missiles F j = equivalent static jet impingement loads P a = equivalent static differ ential pressure load genera ted by a postulated pipe break E = OBE loads E = DBE loads T = thermal loads under thermal conditi ons generated by a postulated break For the above loading conditions, the allowable stresses are as follows:

MPS2 UFSAR5.4-10Rev. 35 Concrete Construction

90 percent of the yield strength for reinforcing steel 85 percent of the ultima te strength of concreteSteel Construction

Allowable stresses specified in Part 2 of the AISC "Specification for the Design, Fabrication and Erection of Structural Steel for Building," April, 1963.

5.4.3.3 Structural Analysis 5.4.3.3.1 Seismic AnalysisSeismic analysis is performed in accordance with Section 5.8.

5.4.3.3.2 Wind and Tornado Analysis The design wind loads on the auxili ary building are a function of th e kinetic ener gy per volume of the moving air mass. The product of one-half of the air density a nd the square of the resultant design velocity results in a pre ssure corresponding to the design wind.Determination of the design wind pressure on the structure is in accordance with the ASCE Paper 3269, "Wind Forces on Structures."

The pressure corresponding to th e standard air at 0.07651 pcf at 15

°C and 760 mm of mercury in terms of the velocity at the appr opriate height zone is given by:

q = 0.002558V 2 Similarly, the design pressure, including the effect of the shape coefficient (C d), is given by:

p = q x C d = 0.002558V 2 C dUsing these equations and the wind velocities given in Section 5.4.3.1.6, the wind forces are calculated for the various parts of the auxiliary building and are then applied to the structure.

The spent fuel pool is protected from the tornado missile, which is described in Section 5.4.3.1.6, by a concrete roof over the cask crane frame and missile proof metal siding, as per Section 5.4.3.3.6.

5.4.3.3.3 Cask Drop in Spent Fuel Pool The design criteria stated in Section 5.4.3.1.9 is applied using the following assumptions:

MPS2 UFSAR5.4-11Rev. 35Water density at 120

°F (lb/cubic foot) 61.7 borated water densityStrength of concrete (psi) 3,000Modulus of concrete (E) (ksf) 4.78 x 10 5 The striking velocity at collision is determined by the use of the formula as defined in the paper "Tornado Protection for the Spent Fuel Storage Pool" by Miller and Wi lliams, APED-5696 Class I, November 1968. The friction factor is ignored. A dynamic pressure factor (C q) of unity is assumed in the analysis.To determine the effects of accidentally dropping the cask on the bottom of the spent fuel pool in the cast laydown area, the kinetic energy was computed. This energy is considered to be dissipated as elastic strain energy within the bounds of the lean concrete mass supporting the laydown area. The contact area between the cask and the concrete is small.However, the actual contact stress is calculated and found to be le ss than 1,000 psi. The impact of this contact may cause some local damage to the liner plate and/or concrete. However, the extent of the damage is small and will not result in any significant structural damage to the floor. The maximum stress in the concrete occurs at Elevation (-)2-0 and diminishes rapidly as the stress profile extends downward.

5.4.3.3.4 Stainless Steel Liner Plate for Spent Fuel Pool[Note: Section 5.4.3.3.4 describes preoperational testing and repair of the spent fuel pool liner. It is retained, without change, for a historical record. The spent fuel pool leak monitoring and detection system is described in Section 9.5.2.1.]Provision is made for ensuring the leak tightness of the spent fuel pool and refueling canal liner plate.The test consists of two parts. In the first part of the test, a halogenated hydrocarbon gas is forced through the leak monitoring channels and a halogenated hydrocarbon detector is used to locate leaks in the liner plate weld seams inside the spent fuel pool. All leak indications are marked and repaired after the halogenated hydrocarbon gas is removed from the leak monitoring channels. All weld repairs are checked by a liquid penetrant test.Upon completion of the repair, the pool is filled with water to the design level and monitored for 48 hours5.555556e-4 days <br />0.0133 hours <br />7.936508e-5 weeks <br />1.8264e-5 months <br />.If no water is detected in the leak monito ring system, the pool is considered acceptable.

5.4.3.3.5 Fuel Transfer TubeOne expansion joint is installed in the fuel transfer tube. It is a bellows located in the fuel transfer canal in the auxiliary building.

MPS2 UFSAR5.4-12Rev. 35 The loads used in its desi gn are given in Section 5.4.3.1.10.

The outside of the expansion join t in the transfer canal may be visually inspected by draining the transfer canal or by remote means. A test connection on the bell ows provides a means of testing for bellows integrity. Repair would require draining the transfer canal. A detail of the fuel transfer tube is shown in Figure 5.2-10.

5.4.3.3.6 Spent Fuel Pool Missile ProtectionWithheld under 10 CFR 2.390 (d)(1)

MPS2 UFSAR5.4-13Rev. 35Although a large portion of the missile energy woul d be spent in penetrating the conventional siding (if, indeed, penetration would occur), ther e is no possible trajectory that would allow the missile to directly impact the fuel assembly elements locate d at the bottom of the spent fuel pool.Withheld under 10 CFR 2.390 (d)(1)

MPS2 UFSAR5.5-1Rev. 35

5.5 TURBINE

BUILDING

5.5.1 GENERAL

DESCRIPTIONThe turbine building is a rigid fram ed steel structure with metal sidi ng and precast concrete panels on the exterior. Blowout panels are located on th e east wall, column line "E" on the upper portion of the metal siding. The foundations for the frame are spread foot ings bearing on lean concrete backfill which extends to rock. The turbine-generator pedestal is a lo w-tuned mass concrete structure which is also foun ded on lean concrete backfill which extends to rock.

The pedestal is separated from the surrounding fl oor slabs by teflon lined sliding bearings as indicated on Figure 5.5-1. The turbine building main frame is connected to the Unit 1 turbine building by sliding connections so that it is an independent structure.

As shown on Figures 1.2-3, 1.2-4, a nd 1.2-5, the heater bay runni ng between lines E and E.5, separates the turbine building from the auxiliary building. This bay is connected to the auxiliary building for lateral support, but is separated fr om the turbine building main frame by sliding connections as indicated on Figure 5.5-2. Sections through the turbine building are shown on Figures 1.2-15 and 1.2-16.

The Unit 1 and Unit 2 turbine buildings are on the same centerline so that the crane runway system is continuous through both units. A 195 ton overhead crane operates on the runway system. The crane is designed to meet the loading requirements of the applicable portions of Crane Manufacturers Associated of America (CMAA) Specification 70.

5.5.2 CONSTRUCTION

MATERIALS The following materials are used in th e construction of the turbine building:

a.Structural and Miscellaneous Steel Rolled shapes, plates and bars ASTM A-36Crane rails Bethlehem Steel High strength bolts ASTM A-325 or A-490b.Reinforcing Steel Column ties in turbine pedestals ASTM A-615 Grade 40 All other deformed bars ASTM A-615 Grade 60c.Concrete, 28 day strength (psi)Turbine pedestals, ope rating floor slabs, and column footings 4000 All other concrete 3000 MPS2 UFSAR5.5-2Rev. 35d.Interior coatings (Original Construction)

Concrete and masonry surfaces in switchgear roomFloor Keeler & Long Number 7107 Epoxy Grey e.Interior maintenance coatings Coating materials used in the turbine bui lding represent current day technology and comply with current day environmental requirements regarding volatile organic compound (VOC) content and hazardous material constituents such as lead, asbestos, and hexavalent chrome. Specific products are selected to provide service performance comparable to or improved over that of the original coating materials. Coating colors are chosen to help maintain a safe working environment.

5.5.3 DESIGN

BASESThe design of the turbine building provides the required features as outlined in Criteria 2, 3, 4, 5, Appendix A of 10 CFR Part 50.

5.5.3.1 Bases for Design LoadsAlthough only a portion of the turbine building houses Class I equipment and components, the entire structural system is desi gned for a Seismic Class I loading.

The design loads imposed on the structure are as follows: a.Dead loadsb.Live loadsc.Thermal loadsd.Earthquake loadse.Wind and tornado loadsf.Crane loads 5.5.3.1.1 Dead LoadsThese loads consist of the weight of all structural materials, including all partitions, hangers, trays, pads, and pedestals. Equipment dead loads are those specified on the drawings supplied by the manufacturers of the various equipment instal led within the building.

MPS2 UFSAR5.5-3Rev. 35 5.5.3.1.2 Live Loads These loads consist of design floor loads, tank liquid weights, pi ping loads, and equipment live loads specified on the drawings supplied by the ma nufacturers of the vari ous equipment installed within the building.

A snow load of 60 ps f is applied to the exposed roof over the area housing Cl ass I equipment or components, and 40 psf for all other exposed roof area.

5.5.3.1.3 Thermal Loads Expansion and contraction in structural members due to cha nges in temperatur e are considered.

Provisions for normal expansion a nd contraction are made by the use of slotted connections as required.

5.5.3.1.4 Earthquake Loads Seismic analysis is as defined in Sections 5.2.2.1.5 and 5.8.

5.5.3.1.5 Wind and Tornado LoadsWind loads for the turbine building are determin ed on the basis of the ASCE Paper 3269, "W ind Forces on Structures," using the highest wind veloci ty at the site for a 100 year re currence period. The ASCE paper is used mainly to determine the shape factors. Based up on the site location and the structure classification, the desi gn wind and velocity is taken to be 115 mph with gusts up to 140 mph. The turbine building is analyzed for tornado loads on the following basis: a.Differential bursting pressure between the interior and exterior of the structure isassumed to be 3 psi pressure occurring in three seconds (1 psi/second), followed by a calm for two seconds and a re pressurization.b.Lateral loads on the structure ar e based on a tornado funnel which is conservatively assumed to have a periphe ral tangential veloci ty of 300 mph and a translational velocity of 60 mph. These velocities are added together, resulting in a design basis tornado wind ve locity of 360 mph. The a pplicable portions of the wind design methods described in the ASCE paper are used, pa rticularly for the shape factors. The provisions in the pape r for gust factors a nd variation of wind velocity with respect to he ight are not applied. The wind velocity is assumed to be uniformly distributed over th e height of the structure.c.A tornado driven missile as defined in Section 5.2.5.1.2.

MPS2 UFSAR5.5-4Rev. 35With the exception of the missile impact area, the allowable stresses to resist the effects of tornadoes are 90 percent of the yield strength of the reinforcing steel and 85 percent of the ultimate strength of the concrete.

A discussion of the probability of tornado occurrence is presented in Section 2.3.

5.5.3.1.6 Crane Loads These loads include the dead and live loads of the turbine building crane.

5.5.3.2 Design Load CombinationsTo ensure the structural integrity of the turbine building, the allowable stresses specified in the 1963 AISC "Manual of Steel Construction," and the ACI-318-63 "Building Code Requirements for Reinforced Concrete," are used. These allowable stresses are increa sed by 33-1/3 percent for the 115 mph base wind loads and the operating basis earthquake loads. For the tornado wind and the design base earthquake, the allowable stresses are 90 percent of the yield strength of the reinforcing, and 85 percent of th e ultimate strength of concrete.

The following load combinations are considered: a.D + L + C D + C Lb.D + L + C D + W wc.D + L + C D + W Td.D + C D + L + Ee.D + C D + L + EWhere D = dead loads L = live loads C D = crane dead loads C L = crane live loads W w= wind loads (115 mph base)

W t = tornado loads (360 mph base)

E = operating basis earthquake E = design basis earthquake MPS2 UFSAR5.5-5Rev. 35 The design loads and stresses for al l concrete walls and columns are within the allowable values for each wall or column. Design stresses are not applicable fo r the columns inasmuch as the interaction diagrams are used to proportion reinforcing and conc rete required to support a given load with its corresponding eccentricity. Exterior walls having vertical and lateral loads are designed for bending and axial loadings and the resulting combined stresses are kept within the code allowables. There are numerous walls, slabs, columns, and beams within the building, each element of which was designed for the pertinent loading. De sign stresses for the various components are recorded in the design calculati ons. The allowable loadi ng, or combined loading, depends on the reinforcing whic h was added and varies consid erably depending upon the applied conditions.

The following loading combinations and reinforcing ratios (of moment/axial force and shear) shown in Table 5.5-1 governed the design.

5.5.3.3 Structural Analysis The main frame of the turbine building and the turbine generator pedest al are designed for the load combinations stated in Sect ion 5.5.3.2 using working stress methods.

5.5.3.3.1 Seismic AnalysisAnalysis of the turbine building for the effects of an earthquake is perfor med in accordance with Section 5.8.

These earthquake loads are superi mposed on the other structural loads to obtain the loading combinations as stated in Section 5.5.3.2.

5.5.3.3.2 Wind and Tornado Analysis The design wind loads on the turb ine building are a function of th e kinetic ener gy per volume of the moving air mass. The product of one-half of the air density a nd the square of the resultant design velocity results in a pre ssure corresponding to the design wind. Determination of the design wind pressure on the structure is in accordance with the ASCE Paper 3269, "Wind Forces on Structures."

The pressure corresponding to th e standard air at 0.07651 pcf at 15

°C and 760 mm of mercury in terms of the velocity at the appr opriate height zone is given by:

q = 0.002558 V 2 Similarly, the design pressure, including the effect of the shape coefficient (C d), is given by:

p = q x C d = 0.002558V 2 C d MPS2 UFSAR5.5-6Rev. 35Using these equations and the wind velocities given in Section 5.5.3.1.5, the wind forces are calculated for the main frame and are then applied to the structure.

Class I systems and equipment are protected from a tornado missile by structural walls and slabs.

MPS2 UFSAR5.5-7Rev. 35TABLE 5.5-1 MAXIMUM ACTUAL STRESSES - TURBINE BUILDING Design Component Loading CombinationMoment/Axial Force As required 1.0 As provided Shear Actual 1.0 AllowableFooting slabC0.920.98Substructure wallsC1.000.84 Operating floorC0.940.80Superstructure wallsD0.810.79Roof Tornado Missile Protection Requirements

MPS2 UFSAR5.6-1Rev. 35

5.6 INTAKE

STRUCTURE

5.6.1 GENERAL

DESCRIPTION The intake structure, located west of the main plant, is a reinfo rced concrete structure founded on bedrock. It houses four circulat ing water pumps which supply wa ter from Niantic Bay to the condensers positioned under the turbine-generator. Also located in the stru cture are three service cooling water pumps for the closed cooling water system. Access to these pumps is provided through hatches with removable covers. The design of the intake structure incorporates several features which will ensure the safe, continuous operation of the circulating water system. These items are: a.Trash racks and traveling screens which protect the pumps and condensers from foreign bodies present in the water supply

.b.A cutoff wall which extends 10 feet below the minimum water level to prevent theecologically rich surface water from entering the system.c.Passages provided as exit routes for fish which enter below the cutoff wall.d.Vertical guides in the side s of each intake channel to receive stop-logs so that individual channels may be drained.e.A monorail and trolley provided to service the interior of the intake structure.

An adjacent Class II building, which houses the ch lorination equipment, is isolated from the intake structure by a joint filled with compressible material.

General layouts of the intake st ructure and circulating water system are shown on Figures 5.6-1 and 5.6-2, respectively.

5.6.2 CONSTRUCTION

MATERIALSThe following materials are used in the construction of the intake structure:

a.Structural and mi scellaneous steel Rolled shapes, plates and bars ASTM A-36 High strength bolts ASTM A-325 or A-490b.Reinforcing steel ASTM A-615 Grade 60c.Concrete, 28 day strength (psi) 4000d.Interior coatings (O riginal Construction)

Surfaces below elevation 14-0 Woolsey antifouling paint MPS2 UFSAR5.6-2Rev. 35Carbon steel Epoxye.Interior maintenance coatings Coating materials used in the intake stru cture represent current day technology and comply with current day environmental requirements regarding volatile organic compound (VOC) content and hazardous material constituents such as lead, asbestos, and hexavalent chrome. Specific products are selected to provide service performance comparable to or improved over that of the original coating materials. Coating colors are chosen to help maintain a safe working environment.

5.6.3 DESIGN

BASESThe design of the intake structure provides the required features as outlined in Criteria 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 44, 46, Appendix A of 10 CFR Part 50.

5.6.3.1 Bases for Design LoadsThe intake structure is designed for all credible conditions of loadings including loads from normal operation and those due to adverse environmental conditions. The following loadings are considered. a.Dead loadsb.Live loadsc.Earthquake loadsd.Lateral pressure loadse.Wind and tornado loadsf.Hurricane wave loads 5.6.3.1.1 Dead LoadsThese loads consist of the weight of all structural materials incl uding partitions, hangers, trays, and pads. Equipment dead loads are those specified on the drawings supplied by the manufacturers of the various types of equipment installed within the building.

5.6.3.1.2 Live LoadsThese loads consist of the design floor loads, tank liquid weights, piping loads, and equipment live loads specified on the drawings supplied by the manufacturers of the various types of equipment installed within the building.

A snow load of 60 psf is applied to the exposed roof.

MPS2 UFSAR5.6-3Rev. 35 5.6.3.1.3 Earthquake Loads These loads are as defined in Section 5.8.

5.6.3.1.4 Lateral Pressure LoadsThe lateral pressure loads include the active and the passive soil pressures where applicable. The buoyant and lateral forces of the di splaced water are also considered.

5.6.3.1.5 Wind and Tornado LoadsWind loads on the intake structure are determin ed on the basis of the ASCE Paper 3269, "W ind Forces on Structures," using the highest wind veloci ty at the site for a 100 year re currence period.

The ASCE Paper is used mainly to determine th e shape factors. Based upon the site location and the structure classification, the design wind velocity is taken to be 115 mph with gusts up to 140 mph. The intake structure is analyzed for tornado loads on the following basis: a.Differential bursting pressure between the interior and exterior of the structure isassumed to be 3 psi pressure occurring in three seconds (1 psi/second), followed by a calm for two seconds and a re pressurization.b.Lateral loads on the intake structure are based on a tornado funnel which is conservatively assumed to have a periphe ral tangential veloci ty of 300 mph and a translational velocity of 60 mph. These velocities are added together, resulting in a design basis tornado wind ve locity of 360 mph. The a pplicable portions of the wind design methods described in the ASCE Paper 3269 are used, particularly for the shape factors. The provisions in the pa per for gust factors and variation of windvelocity with respect to he ight are not applied. The wind velocity is assumed to be uniformly distributed over th e height of the structure.c.A tornado-driven missile as defined in Section 5.2.5.1.2.With the exception of the missile impact area, th e allowable stresses to resist the effects of tornadoes are 90 percent of the yield strength of the reinforcing steel and 85 percent of the ultimate strength of the concrete.

A discussion of the probability of tornado occurrence is presented in Section 2.3.

5.6.3.1.6 Hurricane Wave Loads These loads, resulting from a hurricane wave st riking the front of the intake structure, are considered.

MPS2 UFSAR5.6-4Rev. 35 5.6.3.2 Design Load CombinationsThe structural integrity of the intake structure is ensured by using the allowable stresses as specified in the 1963 AISC Manual of Steel Construc tion, and the ACI-318-63, "Building Code Requirements for Reinforced Concrete," for the various loading combinations. A 33-1/3 percent increase in the allowable stresses is perm itted for the combined stresses involving wind, earthquake, or tornado.

The following load combinations are used in the design: a.D + Lb.D + L + W tc.D + L + Ed.D + L + W + H where: D = dead loads L = live loads W t = tornado loads W = wind loads E = design basis earthquake H = hurricane wave loads The design loads and stresses for all concrete walls and columns are within the allowable values for each wall or column. Design stresses are not applicable for the columns inasmuch as the interaction diagrams are used to proportion reinforcing and concrete required to support a given load with its corresponding eccentricity. Exterior walls having vertical and lateral loads are designed for bending and axial loadings and the resulting combined stresses are kept within the code allowables. There are numerous walls, slabs, columns, and b eams within the buildings, each element of which was designed for the pertinent loading. Design stresses for the various components are recorded in the design calculati ons. The allowable loading, or combined loading, depends on the reinforcing which was added and varies considerably depending upon the applied conditions.The maximum combined stress ratio in the building frame is 0.98, resulting from an axial stress of 6.75 ksi and a bending stress of 25.1 ksi. This stress occurs under loading combination c above.

5.6.3.3 Structural Analysis The intake structure is designed and an alyzed using the working stress method.

MPS2 UFSAR5.6-5Rev. 35 5.6.3.3.1 Seismic Analysis The analysis of the intake struct ure subjected to seismic loads is performed in accordance with the method described in Section 5.8.

These earthquake loads are superi mposed on the other structural loads to obtain the loading combination as stated in Section 5.6.3.2.

5.6.3.3.2 Wind and Tornado Analysis The design wind loads on the intake structure are a function of the kinetic ener gy per volume of the moving air mass. The product of one-half of the air density a nd the square of the resultant design velocity results in a pre ssure corresponding to the design wind.

Determination of the design wind pressure on the intake structure is in accordance with the ASCE Paper 3269, "Wind Forces on Structures."

The pressure corresponding to th e standard air at 0.07651 pcf at 15

°C and 760 mm of mercury in terms of the velocity at the appr opriate height zone is given by:

q = 0.002558 V 2 Similarly, the design pressure, including the effect of the shape coef ficient (Cd), is given by:

p = q x C d = 0.002558V 2 C d Using the equations given and the wind velociti es noted in Section 5.6.3.1.6, the wind forces are calculated and then applied to the structure.

For the tornado loading condition, the hatches over the circulating water pumps and the traveling screens serve as blowout panels to relieve the pressure differential. A dditional vents are also placed in the west wall and roof.

5.6.3.3.3 Hurricane Wave AnalysisThe maximum hurricane wave is determined by the us e of the U. S. Coas ta l Engineering Research Center Paper, "Shore Protection Planning and De sign," 1966. The sta tic and dynamic forces from this wave are applied to the front of the intake structure.

MPS2 UFSAR5.7-1Rev. 35

5.7 EXTERNAL

CLASS I TANKS

5.7.1 GENERAL

DESCRIPTION The following tanks in the yard are classified as Seismic Class I structures:a.Refueling water storage tankb.Condensate storage tankThe condensate storage tank is located to the nor thwest, and the refueli ng water storage tank is located to the northeast of th e containment, respectively , as shown in Figure 1.2-2. These tanks are supported on concrete foundations which rest on co mpacted structural back fill. The backfill is compacted to 95 percent of the maximum densit y as obtained by the Modified Proctor test in accordance with ASTM D-1557. The structural concrete foundations are proportioned such that the applied contact pressure, fr om dead loads and live loads in each design loading combination which result in uniform l ong-term settlement, does not exceed 3000 psf. The underlying supporting material for the condensate storag e tank and refueling wa ter storage tank is undisturbed glacial till and compacted glacial till, respectively. Al lowable soil be aring pressures of 12000 psf for undisturbed glacial till and 5000 psf for comp acted glacial till ar e utilized in the foundation design. These allowable values may be increased by one-third for wind and seismic conditions.

5.7.2 CONSTRUCTION

MATERIALSStructural concrete for the f oundations conforms to the require ments of Section 5.9.3.1 and has a design strength of 3,000 psi at 28 days. Reinforc ing steel conforms to Specification ASTM A-615, Grade 60.

The refueling water storage tank is fabricated from stainless steel c onforming to ASTM A-240, Type 304. Design and fabrication are in accordance with Sect ion III of the ASME Code.

The condensate storage tank was originally designed in accordance with the American Water Works Association Standard, AWWA D100. It is fabricated from carbon steel which conforms to Specification ASTM A-285, Grade C. The applicable portions of API 650, "Welded Steel Tanks for Oil Storage," API 620, "Recomm ended Rules for Design and Construction of Large, Welded, Low Pressure Storage Tanks," ACI 318-89, "Bu ilding Code Requireme nts for Reinforced Concrete," ACI 349-80, "Code Requi rements for Nuclear Safety Related Concrete Structures," and 1980 ASME Section III, Division I, Subsecti on NE for Class MC were used to design the structural modifications necessary to support the addition of a nitrogen blanketing system.

5.7.3 DESIGN

BASES The design of the external Class I tanks provides the requi red features as outli ned in Criteria 1, 37, Appendix A of 10 CFR Part 50.

MPS2 UFSAR5.7-2Rev. 35 5.7.3.1 Bases for Design LoadsThe external Class I tanks are designed for all cr edible combinations of loading including loads under normal operation and loads due to advers e environmental conditions. The following loadings are considered:a.Dead loadsb.Live loads c.Earthquake loadsd.Wind and tornado loads 5.7.3.1.1 Dead Loads These loads consist of the weight of all structural materials.

5.7.3.1.2 Live Loads Live loads consist of tank liquid weights and a snow load of 60 psf applied to the roofs for the condensate storage tank, the live load included the internal operating pressure band of +1.0 psig to

-0.34 psig which resulted from the a ddition of a nitrogen blanketing system.

5.7.3.1.3 Earthquake Loads These loads are defined in Section 5.8.

5.7.3.1.4 Wind and Tornado LoadsWind loads for the external Class I tanks are determined on the basis of the ASCE Paper 3269, "Wind Forces on Structures," ba sed upon a design wind velocity of 115 mph with gusts up to 140 mph.

The condensate storage tank is analyzed for tornado loads on the following basis:a.Differential bursting pressure between the interior and exterior of the structure isassumed to be 3 psi pressure occurring in three seconds (1 psi/sec), followed by a calm for two seconds and a re pressurization.b.Lateral loads on the structure ar e based on a tornado funnel which is conservatively assumed to have a periphe ral tangential veloci ty of 300 mph and a translational velocity of 60 mph. These velocities are added together, resulting in a design basis tornado wind ve locity of 360 mph. The a pplicable portions of the wind design methods described in the ASCE paper are used, pa rticularly for the shape factors. The provisions in the pape r for gust factors a nd variation of wind MPS2 UFSAR5.7-3Rev. 35velocity with respect to he ight are not applied. The wind velocity is assumed to be uniformly distributed over th e height of the structure.c.Provision is made for pr otection of the condensate st orage tank against tornado driven missiles as de fined in Sections 5.2.5.1.2 and 10.4.5.3 so as to providesufficient water for a safe shutdown.

5.7.3.2 Design Load CombinationsThe load combinations considered in th e design of these tanks are listed below:a.D + Lb.D + L + W wc.D + L + W t (applicable to CST only)d.D + L + Ee.D + L + EWhereD = dead loads L = live loads

W w = wind loads (115 mph base)

W t = tornado loads (360 mph base)

E = operating basis earthquake

E= design basis earthquakeStresses from load combination a, b, c, and d do not exceed the allowable permitted by the ASME Code. Standard Review Plan cr iteria were used for the conde nsate storage tank modifications which resulted from the addition of a nitrogen blanketing system. Stresses from load combination e do not exceed the allowable stresses of 90 perc ent of the steel yield st rength and 85 percent of the concrete ultimate strength.

MPS2 UFSAR5.8-1Rev. 35

5.8 SEISMIC

DESIGN

5.8.1 INPUT

CRITERIAThe response spectrum technique is used to an alyze Class I structures, systems and equipment when they are subjected to seismic motion. The response spectrum technique assumes a constant damping factor for each mode of the model of the major structural elements. The input ground motion is expressed in terms of a smooth design spectrum curve associated with the damping factor. Small equipment, as well as piping and cables located within the structure, are neglected in the model due to their relatively insignificant masses.For the design of the piping systems and equipment, design spectrum curves at each of their supports are generated from a s ynthetic time hist ory ground motion.

5.8.1.1 Design Response SpectraThe operating basis earthquake (OBE) used in the design of this plant is based on a ground motion having a maximum horizontal ground acceleration of 0.09 g and a vertical ground acceleration of 0.06 g , acting simultaneously. For the safe shutdown earthquake (SSE), a maximum horizontal ground acceleration of 0.17 g and a vertical ground acceleration of 0.11 g are used. The design response spectrum curves for structures suppor ted on rock are shown on Figures 5.8-1 and 5.8-2, and the design response spectrum curves for structures supported on compacted structural backfill are shown on Figures 5.8-3 and 5.8-4.A synthetic time history whos e response spectrum curve corresponds to the design response spectrum curve is used to genera te the response spectrum curves at different elevations within the structure. These are used in an alyzing Class I equipment and piping at the respective locations. Comparisons of the response spectra derived from the time history and site seismic design response spectra for the damping values of 0.5, 1.0 , 2.0, and 5.0 in percent of critical damping are shown in attached Figures 5.8-5, 5.8-6, 5.8-7 and 5.8-8.The system period intervals at which the spectra values are calculated are as follows:

The frequency increment shown above is always less than 10 percent apart between two consecutive frequencies, except that for the first frequency range of 0.2 to 1.0 cps. To verify that the 0.05 is a sufficiently small increment for this frequency range, the 2 and 5 percent damping response spectra are computed at the smaller increment of 0.0125 cps, which is one-quarter of the original one. Figure 5.8-9 shows these spectra in comparison with those based on 0.05 cps Frequency Range (cps)Frequency Increment (cps)0.2 to 10.05 1 to 100.1 10 to 331.0 MPS2 UFSAR5.8-2Rev. 35 frequency increment, and with the design spectra, indicating that the 0.05 cps increment is indeed sufficient for engineering purposes. Comparison of the response spectrum curve generated by the synthetic time history and the de sign response spectrum with two pe rcent of critical damping is shown on Figure 5.8-5. A composite comparison of the design response spectrum curve with the N69W components of the 1952 Taft and the N-S components of the 1940 El Centro recorded earthquakes, normalized to the same ground acceleration of 0.09 g w ith two percent of critical damping, is shown on Figure 5.8-10.

5.8.1.2 Synthetic Time History The synthetic time history is generated as follows:

The response of a set of linear single degree-of-freedom systems to seis mic action is governed by the equation

Eq.(1) where = relative acceleration = relative velocityX = relative displacement= percent of critical dampingn = natural frequencyü(t) = forcing acceleration time history as a function of time tThe acceleration spectra is defined by: Eq. (2)where T = time variable If S a - is specified as an arbitrary function of and , it is desirable to determine the ü(t) that will produce the acceleration spectra.

X**2n X*2 n X++u**t ()-=X**X*S a X u+()maxd u()enwt-()d sin-t-()]max d o t[==dn 12-()12=

MPS2 UFSAR5.8-3Rev. 35 Assume that the acceleration has the form: Eq.(3)where M = number of Fourier Series terms The absolute magnitude of the response of a si ngle degree-of-freedom system to a sinusoidal acceleration is represented by: Eq.(4)Assuming that:

Eq. (5)The following is obtained: Eq. (6)Equation (6) will be satisfied by solving ü i for the unknown coefficients.

It is assumed that the maxima will occur at the same time. A matrix equation is set for frequencies:i+1 = 1.05i i = 1, 2, ...143Eq. (7) where 1 = 0.1 cps The damping values are as stated in Table 5.8-1.

Once a solution vector has been determined from:Eq.(8)u**t ()Mi0=u**ii ti+()cos=X u**i----max 12 n12 i2 n----------2 2in------2+12/--------------------------------------------------------------------

-=X**X-2 nn t cos=S a**x**u**---1+u**1 1 12 in-------

2 2in------

2+12------------------------------------------------------------------

+

u**i i0=M==u**A 1-S a=

MPS2 UFSAR5.8-4Rev. 35and substituted into Equation (3), the maximu m acceleration spectra is formed by numerically integrating Equation (1). The ma ximum acceleration spectra, Sa i , is then compared to the originally assumed spectra, . Weighting func tions are developed from the relationship: Eq.(9)Thus, from the nth iteration the following is obtained:Eq.(10)An acceleration time history has been developed using this procedure. It has been determined that for all frequencies considered, the bounds of Sa predicted by Equation (2) exceeded a 10 percent variation at certain frequencies.

5.8.2 SOIL-STRUCTURES INTERACTION 5.8.2.1 Soil-Foundation InteractionThe outlines of the foundations for Millstone Unit 2 structures are shown on Figures 5.8-1 1 to 5.8-12. These structures are supported by different materials.

The structures which are supported on bedrock are:a.Containment b.Enclosure buildingc.Auxiliary building (except as noted below)d.Intake structure e.Turbine building (except as noted below)

The following structures are supported on compacted stru ctural backfill: a.Warehouse portion of the auxiliary building.b.Auxiliary feedwater pump foundations locate d in the auxiliary bay of the turbine building.Soil-foundation interaction is considered by intr oducing equivalent springs and viscous dashpots for the supporting mediums while the foundations are assumed to be rigid. The horizontal translational and rocking effects on structures are represented by equivalent spring stiffness. The Sa**oi fi ()Sa**o Sa**i---------==u**n1c*,+u**ni ,ni ,=

MPS2 UFSAR5.8-5Rev. 35 horizontal translational and rocking modes have been checked for structures founded on rock (i.e., with dynamic soil modulus greater than 500 x 10 3 ksf). The rigidity of the rock is so much greater than the structures it supports that rocking does not occur. The deflection patterns are such that there is no slope at the bases of the structures. Hence, for st ructures supported on rock, fixed-base assumption is used in the mathematic models formulated for the structural analysis. For structures resting on compacted structural backfill, the equivalent spring stiffnesses for soil are evaluated using the formulas developed by Richart, Hall and Woods (Reference 5.2-61). Isolation joints are provided between the foundations of the main structures. The differential movement of adjacent structures due to seismic motion is evaluated, and the size of the isolation joint is based on the anticipated horizontal movement of the foundations during the operating basis earthquake and the safe shutdown earthquake. The isolation joint is filled with a compressible material to minimize the influence of the foundations of the main structures on each other. 5.8.2.2 Dynamic Soil Pressure on StructuresThe horizontal earth pressures fo r the walls are evaluated for both the static and the dynamic conditions. The rigidity of the walls and the backfill that is place d after the walls are constructed and framed at the top do not allow sufficient movement for the development of the active earth pressure case. Therefore, the at-rest condition is developed. An equivalent fluid pressure is derived for the soil subject to seismic motion. The earth pressures are determined based on the characteristics of the materials to be used for backfill from the site, grading, and pit excavation. The backfill used is sand and silty sand. The equivalent fluid unit weight above the water table is 55 lb/cubic feet. Below the water table equivalent fluid unit weight is 95 lb/cubic feet which includes both the water pressure and the lateral at-rest earth pressure. Pressure distribution is assumed to be hydrostatic. The dynamic earth pressures are considered for this plant. The analysis is based on work by Newmark, Ishii, Terzaghi, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. These references provide the pressure coefficients which depend upon the magnitude of the acceleration factor of the earthquake. Although there is uncertainty concerning the behavior of back fill during earthquakes, the dynamic earth pressures can be approximated by the methods outlined in these references. The horizontal earthquake acceleration is combined with the static earth pressure acting on the wall. The values of the dynamic pressures are dependent on the types of backfills. These references show that, for typical sandy or silty sand backfill materials, the dynamic earth pressures are equivalent to the static earth pressures plus the static earth pressures times 2 a, where "a" is the ratio between acceleration produced by an earthquake shock and gravitational acceleration. Based on this information, the dynamic earth pressure is found to be equal to 1.34 times the static earth pressure for the safe shutdown earthquake. The maximum soil reaction includes stresses due to the structural weight, the maximum overturning moment from the lateral analysis and the maximum inertia force from the vertical component of earthquake. The absolute sum of stresses due to the above effects will not exceed MPS2 UFSAR5.8-6Rev. 35 the allowable bearing pressure fo r the soil. The overturning effect of the structure in a seismic event is considered negligible.

5.8.2.3 Underground Structures Seismic analyses are performed on the following under ground structures. a.One 36 inch carbon steel off-gas pipe from the auxiliary building to the Millstone stack.b.Two 24 inch cast iron header s from the Service Water Sy stem are routed from the intake structure to the auxiliary building.c.One 10 inch carbon steel condensate wate r pipe from the condensate storage tankto the condenser.d.Two electrical ducts encased in reinforced concrete from the inta ke structure to the turbine building.The Class I underground ducts subjected to earthquake motion are analyzed biaxially , i.e., along the duct run and perpendicular to the duct run. Assu ming that the ducts disp lace with the adjacent soil, the relative movements of the ducts to their supports will be determined. With these displacements, soil duct support m odels are formulated to determ ine the induced stresses in the ducts. a.Due to wave propagationb.At the supports due to differential movements of buildings and soilc.At bends

5.8.3 SEISMIC

STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS 5.8.3.1 Methods of Analysis For seismic analysis of Class I structures, the response spectrum technique, using the design response spectrum curves, is empl oyed. For Class I equipment analys is, response spectrum curves at the equipment bases are genera ted by the time history technique.

The procedure used to account for the number of earthquake cycles dur ing one seismic event includes consideration of the num ber of significant motion peaks expected to occur during the event. The number of significant motion peaks duri ng one seismic event would be expected to be equivalent in severity to no more than 40 full load cycles about a mean valu e of zero and with an amplitude equal to the maximu m response produced during the en tire event. Based upon this consideration and the assumption th at seismic events equivalent to 5 Operating Basis Earthquakes MPS2 UFSAR5.8-7Rev. 35 will occur during the life of the plant, Class I systems, components and equipment are designed for a total of 200 full load cycles. The seismic analyses performed fo r Class I structures are based on elastic and linear behavior of all components involved, an d as such, do not include any gradua l or accidental deterioration of the structure. The blowdown forces associated wi th a concurrent loss-of-c oolant accident (LOCA) are computed separately and combined with the seismic loads.

There are removable concrete sl abs located in the containment building and auxiliary building. These slabs are placed over low pressure radwaste equipment, such as filt ers and demineralizers, and weigh approximately 4,000 pounds. The slabs will not receive a seismic acceleration in the upward direction sufficient to cause the slab to become a missile.

Removable blocks are self-locki ng and contain staggered horizontal and vertical joints. These block panels are designed to remain in pla ce by use of retainers during a safe shutdown earthquake.

5.8.3.2 Procedure for Analysis 5.8.3.2.1 Structural Responses 5.8.3.2.1.1 Response Spectrum Method The seismic loads on the containm ent are determined from a dynami c analysis of the structure.

The dynamic analysis is made on a mathemati cal model consisting of lumped masses and weightless elastic columns acting as spring restraints. It is performed in th e following two parts: a.Determination of the natural frequencies of the structure and its mode shapes.

b.Determination of the model responses of the modes to the earthquake motions by the response spectrum method.

The natural frequencies and mode shapes are computed from th e equations of motion of the lumped masses established by a stiffness or displacement method. They are solved by the interaction techniques through the use of a com puter program. The form of the equation is:

where:[K]= matrix of stiffness coefficients incl uding the combined effects of shear, flexure, rotation and horizontal translation.[M]= matrix of concentrated masses

[] = matrix of mode shape K[][]n2 M[][]n=

MPS2 UFSAR5.8-8Rev. 35The computation results in several values of w n and mode shapes ()n for n = 1, 2, 3---n, where n is the number of degrees of free dom (i.e., lumped masses) assumed in the idealized structure.

The response of each mode of vibr ation to the safe shutdown earthq uake is then computed by the response spectrum tec hnique, as follows: a.The base shear contribution of the nth mode where W n = effective weight of the structure in the nth mode where the subscript, x, refers to the levels throughout the height of the structure, and xn = mode shape for the mode under considerationan (n , n) = spectral acceleration of a single de gree-of-freedom system with a damping coefficient of n obtained from the response spectrum.n = angular frequency of the nth mode.b.The horizontal load dist ribution for the nth mode is then computed as:

Then, using the modal inertia force Fx, the shears V x at each point for each mode are calculated. The moments for eac h mode are obtained by integr ating the shear diagram of the structure from the top down if a cantilever model is used. For coupled systems, with interconnecting members between cantilever members, the modal inertia forces are applied at the mass points, and analysis is ma de to obtained shears and moments at each point. The design shears and moments for the st ructure are the absolute sums of modal shears and moments. The overturning moment of the structure is the moment obtained at the base of the model.

For structure founded on structural backfill, a rotational, a vertical and a horizontal spring are used to represent the soil properties.

Formulas for computing the equivalent spring stif fnesses for the case of rectangular base mat are based on Richart, Hall and Woods.

Reference for the above article is given in Section 5.8.2.1.V n W nan W nn ()=W nxxn W x ()2x2 xn W x------------------------------

=Fx V nxn W x ()xxn W x-----------------

---

-=

MPS2 UFSAR5.8-9Rev. 35 The smoothed ground response spectrum curves used as input for the response spectrum method are derived from the report of J.A. Blume a nd Associates. The report was presented in Appendix F of the Design and Analysis Report (AEC Docket Number 50 - 245) which is a supplement to the Millstone Unit 1 FSAR. The sp ectrum curves were derived based on a careful examination of available histori cal records in the vicinity of the site and the underlying soil condition. The spectrum curves provide maximum responses over the frequency range from 2 cps to 10 cps in which the natural frequencies of the structures fall. Therefore, modal period variation in the mathematical models for Cl ass I structures due to variati ons in material properties would not result in any significant increase in the resultant seismic loads.

5.8.3.2.1.2 Time History Method The floor response spectrum curves are generated using time hist ory modal analysis. Consider a viscosity damped, multi-degrees of freedom system subjected to the base acceleration ü(t); the equation of motion is given by: Eq.(11)whereT is the unit vector This equation can be uncoupled to a set of independent equations analogous to the equation for a single degree of freedom system. The multi-degre es of freedom system can then be defined simply in terms of its mode shapes, fre quencies and mass distribution as follows:

Any of these equations can be rearranged as:Eq.(12)This set of equations can then be integrated numerically and i ndependently. The spectrum values at any mass point can be obtained by direct applic ation of Equation 12 to the digitized earthquake record at equal time intervals of 0.01 second.

The following tabulation shows a comparison of maximum seismic accelerations at selected critical locations in Class I st ructures as computed by the res ponse spectrum and time history methods. The results based on th e methods of "sum of absolute values" and "squar e root of sum of squares" by response spectrum technique ar e both shown for comparison. From the table as M[]x**[]x*K[]x++M[]u**t()T-=M 1 x**i 211 M 1 x*12 1 M 1 x 1++M[]u**t()T 1-=M n x**n 2nn M n x*n2 n M n x n++M[]u**t()T n-=x**n 2n W n x*n2 nn++M[]T n u**t ()M n----------------

---

-=

MPS2 UFSAR5.8-10Rev. 35shown below, it can be concluded that the results obtained by response sp ectrum and time history methods are consistent wi th each other and that the Class I structures are conservatively designed since the responses by the "sum of absolute values" were used.

5.8.3.2.2 Combination of Vertical and Horizontal ResponsesThe vertical ground design spectrum curves are derived as two-thirds of the horizontal values. This two-third value is considered to be conservative based on the strong motion records from both the United States and foreign countries. Analyses for both the horizontal and vertical directions are performed using the ground design spectrum curves. The forces, moments and resulting stresses are combined directly, assuming a simultaneous occurrence of the vertical and horizontal motions. Vertical structural elements are considered vertically rigid. Horizontal structural elements of the Class I structures were further investigated for vertical respons es and were found to be rigid. The vertical ground response spectrum curve is used for equi pment design. The equipment is attached to the rigid portions of the structure which have high natural frequencies. The ground motion would not be appreciably altered. The forces, moments and stresses on the equipment from both the vertical and hor izontal motions are considered as acting simultaneously.

5.8.3.2.3 Torsional Effect ConsiderationsThe torsional effect induced by the unsymmetric nature of the building was compensated for by considering a static torsional moment acting at the elevation under consideration. The magnitude of this moment is equal to the sum of the individual products of the inertia force and the eccentricity between the center of rigidity and center of gravity on a nd above that elevation.To justify the above procedure, a torsional analysis was made on auxiliary building which is the least symmetric structure in this plant. A natural frequency of 10.4 CPS was obt ained for the STRUCTUREMASS POINTACCELERATION (g's)

Response Spectrum:

ABS Response Spectrum:

SRSSTME HISTORYContainment70.2650.1700.192Structure140.4250.3060.393 Containment 4(N-S)0.3370.2890.275Internals 6(N-S)0.4570.3560.329Auxiliary 5(N-S)0.2740.2500.296 Building 5(E-W)0.2850.2540.325 MPS2 UFSAR5.8-11Rev. 35 torsional mode compared to the natural frequencies of 4.1 CPS and 7.5 CPS obtained for the translational mode in two major axes. The torsional natural freque ncies for the other buildings are expected to be higher than the translational natura l frequencies. The justif ication of combining the uncoupled results is presented in Appendix C of the topical report BC-TOP-4, Se ismic Analysis of Structures and Equipment for Nuclear Power Plants, Rev. 1, dated September, 1972, Bechtel Corporation.

5.8.3.2.4 Natural Frequencies and Response Loads The natural frequencies, loads in the form of mode shapes and total response loads, and the response spectra at criti cal plant equipment elevations for th e following structures are presented in the forms of graphs. (See Figures 5.8-14 through 5.8-61.)1.Containment and Intervals2.Auxiliary Building3.Turbine Building 4.Warehouse5.Intake Structure 5.8.3.3 Damping ValuesMaterial damping values used in the seismic an alys es of structures a nd systems are shown in Table 5.8-1.

For structures made of a single ma terial, the damping values are se lected from values listed in Table 5.8-1 for the material under consideration. Fo r structures made up of composite materials, the damping values can be considered as a func tion of both the mass a nd the particular mode shape value to calculate the composite dampi ng values. The following Mass Mode Weighting method is used: cin=i1=M iiiin=i1=M ii--------------------

---

-=

MPS2 UFSAR5.8-12Rev. 35c composite dampingi damping associated with mass point lil absolute value of the mode shape at mass point M i mass at mass point The only structure composed of major subsystems that are made of dif f erent materials is the warehouse area of the auxiliary building. Results based on the energy method and Mass Mode Weighting method were compared and negligible difference was obtained in this case.

For a structure whose motion is pr imarily composed of translatio nal (flexural) displacement and foundation rotation (rocking), the mode shape must be broken dow n into its translational and rotational components, denoted as and f, respectively. Since the rotation is due to the fact that the structure is supported on a flexible f oundation, the foundation damping, denoted as will influence the total damping value. Denoting the damping of the structures material by f , the composite damping can be comput ed by the following equation:

Since the only Class I structure supported on a flexible foundation is the warehouse portion of the auxiliary building, the above procedure is not used. A constant damping value of 2% is used for all the modes and is a conservative approach.

5.8.4 SEISMIC

SYSTEM ANALYSISTo determine the seismic response of equipment, a time history analys is is performed on the structural model, using an ear thquake as the input ground motion.

This analysis generates the floor acceleration time- hist ories at the various mass points at which the equipment is located. The equipment response spectrum curve is then ge nerated for each of the floor acceleration time-histories at various damping values and is used in th e design of the equipment.

The equipment response spectrum curves are broadened by a smooth curve extended 10 percent each way at the peak response a ssociated with the natural freque ncies of the structure. This measure reflects the expected variations in th e natural frequencies of the structure due to variations in structural material properties. To determine the piping and inst rumentation responses to an ea rthquake, Class I seismic piping systems are analyzed dynamicall y by means of a three dimensi onal model using two-thirds horizontal ground response spectra for the vertical spectra. The valves are included in the model by means of lumped masses and eccentric moments arms to account for the torsional effects of valves in the seismic piping anal ysis. The locations of seismic supports and restraints for the piping system are determined so that the piping system will not be in resonance with the supporting structures. The induced seismic effects of Class II pi ping on Class I piping systems are cff+f+---------------------------

=

MPS2 UFSAR5.8-13Rev. 35 also considered by including the Cl ass II piping in the m odel. For each piping system, a horizontal response spectrum analysis was performed for th e north-south and for the east-west directions.

Modal responses are combined us ing the square-root-of-the-sum-of-the-squares method (except for RCS piping and components discussed in Appendix 4.A). The results of each analysis are combined with the results of excitation in the vertical direction. The de sign internal force or moment, or displacement is the larger number obtained from either of these analyses. The possible combined vertical and horizontal amplif ied response loads for the design of piping and instrumentation include the effects of the respon ses of building, floors, supports, equipment, and components.

The piping system is analyzed for the relative seismic displacements between piping supports, i.e., floors and components, at different elevat ions within a building and between buildings.Stresses in the piping system due to the most unfavorable directi ons of movements of supports are combined with thermal, seismic and oper ating stresses and us ed for piping design.

The locations of seismic supports and restraints for seismic Category I piping, piping system components, and equipment, including placement of snubbers and dampers are determined so that the resulting seismic stresses when combined with operating stresses will not exceed the allowable stresses given by governing codes.

A field surveillance is conduc ted to assure that the supports, restraints, etc.

have been installed in the designated locations. Any change in location due to interference or other factors must be approved by engineers. For 2 inch and smaller Category I piping, a field installation manual is provided so that field engineers can properly design and locate pipe supports and restraints. Upon completion the design is re viewed by the engineers.

For seismic Category I buried pipi ng, the pipe was assumed fixed at the end entering a structure and extending infinitely into th e soil. The horizontal and vertical movement s at the entry point, resulting from the seismic analysis of the structure, was then taken as end displacement in computing the stresses.

For seismic Category I pi ping outside the containment structure, extending from one structure to another, the differential movement s at support points of the two stru ctures were assumed to be out of phase. The resulting stresses when combined with thermal stresses are within allowable stresses.

5.8.5 SEISMIC

EQUIPMENT ANALYSIS For all purchased Class I equipment, the vendors ar e required to submit seismic calculations made in compliance with the equipment specification to demonstrate the capabilit y of the equipment to satisfy the functional requirement s under specified seismic conditions. Equipment is not released to operations without engineeri ng approval of the calculations.

The supports for all Cla ss I equipment are designed for the i nduced seismic forces. There are no significant gaps between the equipment and their supports, and, hence, they are not considered in the seismic analysis of the equipment.

MPS2 UFSAR5.8-14Rev. 35 The equipment hatch and personnel lock of the containment are se ismic Class I equipment and are designed for the following accelerations (OBE):

The acceleration values are multip lied by the normal operating weight of the hatch lock, or parts of the hatch lock, to obtain the horizontal and vertical components of the earthquake forces. Both horizontal and vertical earthquake components are considered acti ng simultaneously with normal operating loads, without exceeding code allowable stresses at a temperature of 120

°F of the materials.

The earthquake forces due to the safe shutdo wn earthquake are obtai ned by multiplying the aforementioned accelerations by 1.95. The equipment hatch an d personnel lock are designed to withstand the simultaneous acti on of design basis earthquake com ponents and the accident loads, as stated in Section 5.2.2.3.4, at a temperature of 289

°F, without exceeding ma terial yield stresses and without loss of function.

For certain Class I systems and equipment, where analytical m odels and normal theory do not produce results of a signi ficant confidence level, dynamic testing of prototypes or similar equipment is substituted to ensure functional integrity. Test data confor m to one of the following:a.Performance data of equipment which, under the specified conditions, have been subjected to equal or grea ter dynamic loads than those to be experienced under the specified seismic conditions.b.Test data from previously testing co mparable equipment which, under similar conditions, have been subjected to equa l or greater dynamic loads than those specified.c.Actual testing of equipment in accord ance with one of the following methods:1.The equipment is subjected to an ar tificial time history response at the elevation of interest.2.The equipment is subjected to a sinusoidal excitati on, sweeping throughthe desired range of significant frequencies, using input acceleration amplitudes for the forcing function wh ich simulates the specified seismic conditions.3.The equipment is subjected to a tr ansient sinusoidal mo tion synthesized by a pulse exciting a group of octave filt ers such that the response of the LockAccelerations: Vertical (g)A ccelerattions: Horizontal (g)

Equipment Lock 0.06 0.20 Personnel Lock 0.06 0.27 MPS2 UFSAR5.8-15Rev. 35 shaking table and the duration of load ing simulates the artificial response spectrum curve at the elevation of interest.

The certified test data and results are require d to be submitted for engineering approval. All Class II components and equipment are sufficiently separated from Class I components and equipment so that the Class II components and equipment will not damage the Class I components and equipment under seismic conditions.

5.8.5.1 Static TestsSupports for lightly loaded safety related components rely on friction to resist vertical and seismic force. These components are not subject to thermal cycling or mechanical vibration.Reliance on friction as the sole means of restraining vertical and seismic forces has been verified by testing performed on safety related accumulator tanks.

Reliance on friction is considered appropriate, provided that the frictional forces include a margin of safety consistent with the appropr iate design criteria for the structure.

5.8.5.2 STERI EvaluationsThe STERI process, Seismic Technical Evaluation of Replacement Items, EPRI TR-104871 (Reference 5.8-1) may be used to demonstrate that seismically rugged or insensitive replacement items exhibit seismic performance equivalent to origin al items. STERI evaluations document that the seismic qualification status of the original items and host equipment is maintained by the replacement items.

5.8.5.3 GIP NARE EvaluationsAs an alternative to the methods described in preceding paragraphs, the Seismic Qualification Utilities Group Generic Implementation Procedure Revision 3, "GIP-3" (Reference 5.8-2), as modified and supplemented by the U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Supplemental Safety Evaluation Reports SSER Number 2 (Reference 5.8-3) and SSER Number 3 (Reference 5.8-4), may be used as an alternative to existing methods for the seismic de sign and verification of modified, new and replacement equipment classified as Seismic Class I (NARE).Only those portions of GIP-3 which apply to the seismic design and verification of mechanical and electrical equipment, electrical relays, tanks and heat exchangers, and cable and conduit raceway systems shall be used. The other portions of the GIP are not applicable since they contain administrative, licensing, and documentation information which is applicable only to the USI A-46 program. Plant procedures provide detailed GIP-3 implementation guidance.The GIP method should not be used on equipment systems for which seismic qualifications have been imposed or committed to IEEE 344-1975 as listed below.

MPS2 UFSAR5.8-16Rev. 35*Reactor Coolant Pump Speed Sensing System (RCPSSS)*Feedwater Regulating System and Feed water Pump Speed Control System, specifically the SPEC 200 control equipment*Auxiliary Feedwater Automatic Initiation System and Component Parts, except logic power supplies and in-containment mounted sensors*Auxiliary Steam Line Break Dete ction/Isolation System (ASDI)*Alternating Current Instrumentation and Control Components, specifically the inverter and static switches

5.8.6 SEISMIC

INSTRUMENTATION PROGRAM 5.8.6.1 Conformance with NRC Requirements Seismic instrumentation for Millstone Point Unit 2 is provided on the ba sis of the existing NRC requirements specified in Regul atory Guide 1.12, Revision 1, (Instr umentation for Earthquakes), Appendix A of 10 CFR 100 and upon the best ava ilable information on th e ability of seismic instrumentation to predict plan t responses to seismic motion.

5.8.6.2 Description of Program The following instrumentation is used to measure plant response to earthquake motion: a.Five triaxial time history accelerographs.b.Four peak accelerographs.c.One triaxial response spectrum recorder.

Accelerographs Numbers 1 and 2 represent two key locations in the model used in the containment seismic analysis. They are located outside the containment structure such that they NumberAccelerograph Location 1Elevation (-)24 feet 0 inches containmen t base slab at 215 degrees outside of the containment. 2Elevation 75 feet 0 inches containment structure at 215 degrees outside of the containment. 3Elevation 14 feet 6 inches warehous e area of the auxiliary building. 4Elevation 18 feet 0 inches intake structure south wall. 5Elevation 14 feet 6 inches ground level on pad 139 degrees southeast of condenser storage tank.

MPS2 UFSAR5.8-17Rev. 35 are accessible for periodic servicing. Accelerograph Number 3 is located on the warehouse base slab founded on compacted backfill. Accelerograph Number 4 is located in the intake structure which has more than half of its structure below grade. Accelerograph Number 5 represents the free field accelerograph.The five triaxial time history accelerographs are combined within the basic accelerograph system. It features central recording on magnetic tape cassettes with remote transducer unit and a separate triggering unit. Both the transducer and the triggering unit which normally remain dormant are connected to a recording and playback system in the control room. Upon a seismic event, the system is activated within 0.1 second. Once the trigger is activated by a seismic event, the operators are alerted by visual and audible alarms. Signals from the transducer unit are fed into a multi-channel tape recording unit and recorded on a time/history basis with a common time signal. The recording system, once triggered, will continue to operate for at least five seconds beyond the last detection of a seismic signal of triggering intensity. At the end of the seismic event, the recorded tapes are transferred to a strip chart through a playback system. The entire event, from seismic trigger to visual accelerograph can be accomplished within a few minutes after an earthquake. The transducer unit contains three accelerographs mounted in a triaxial or thogonal array 90 degrees apart. Sensitivity of the accelerograph is 0.001g to 1g with a natural frequency of at least 33 Hz. The triggering unit which is located in the same area as the Number 1 accelerograph will activate all triaxial time history accel erograph and the recording system. The triggering unit generates a triggering signal by either an omni-directional horizontal or vertical component of a seismic acceleration. Trigger sensitivity is adjustable from 0.005g to 0.02g for the vertical trigger and the horizontal trigger has an adjustable gap from 0.005 inches to 0.06 inches. The trigger unit is engineered to discriminate against false starts from other operating inputs such as from traffic, elevators, people, and rotating equipment. The triggering unit is initially set to trigger at 0.01g vertical acceleration and 0.02 inch gap for the horizontal displacement. At this level no damage can be done in the plant and no spurious triggering of the recording system is expected. Triggering levels are determined on the basis of plant operating experience to ensure proper operation of this system.NumberRecorder Location 1Elevation (-)24 feet 0 inches containm ent base slab. (Outside Containment). 2Elevation (-)0 feet 7 inches Steam generator Number 1 support. 3Elevation 14 feet 6 inches Pressurizer support. 4Elevation 38 feet 6 inches Safety injection tank support.

MPS2 UFSAR5.8-18Rev. 35The peak accelerographs are all located on the major Class I equipment which has designed response spectrum readily available for comparison with the recorded acceleration level in the event of an earthquake. The peak accelerographs are the Teledyne Geotech model PRA-103. These are mechanical devices which detect and record peak amplitudes of acceleration caused by seismic disturbances. This location corresponds to the pertinent input vibratory motion assumed in the containment seismic analysis.The triaxial response recorder is an Engdahl Model PSR 1200 Peak Shock Recorder. This is a mechanical device which records the peak acceleration experien ced at each of twelve frequencies for three mutually orthogonal directions. This device contains metal reeds which vibrate when excited at their natural frequencies. The maximum excursion of each reed is scribed onto a plate by a stylus mounted at the reed end. This plate is removed after a seismic occurrence and the length of the scribed line is measured and converted to its corresponding peak acceleration. The twelve reeds are resonant at the following frequencies: NumberSpectral Recorder Location 1Elevation (-)24 feet 0 inches containm ent base slab. (Outside Containment) Reed NumberFrequency (Hertz)12.0222.54 33.204 4.025 4.92 66.0278.08810.2 912.71016.21120.61226.1 MPS2 UFSAR5.8-19Rev. 35 The above values should be considered nominal values since the resona nt frequency of these reeds may vary from calibration to calibration.

5.8.6.3 Action Following an Earthquake Activation of the seismic trigger on the accelerograph system will be annunciated in the control room.

The operator will verify the operational status of the plan t by means of Control Room instrumentation and will initiate a visual inspection of the plant.

If the operator identifies abnormal or emergency conditions, he carries out appropriate procedures.

Following an earthquake, the opera tor will retrieve the recordi ngs made by the peak recording spectral accelerograph for comparison of this data with the OBE fo r the plant site. The recordings from the strong motion accelerographs will also be analyzed to de termine accurately the actual seismic acceleration spectrum experienced. The results of this analysis will be considered accurate, will override any preliminary indication by the peak shock spectral recorder, and by comparison with the OBE will determine whether the plant s hould continue to operate, be shutdown, or resume operations, as required by Appendix A of 10 CFR 100.

Following an earthquake of sufficient magnitude to shut the plant dow n, an extensive program will then be performed to evaluate the adequacy of all safety related structures, systems and equipment. The data on the earthquake's freque ncy and amplitude record ed by the strong motion accelerographs will be translated into computer codes best available at that time. For structure and system analyses using response spectrum techniques, the designed spectrum will be compared with that developed by the recorded time history. If the measur ed responses are less than the values used in the design for the SSE, the structur e and system are considered adequate for future operations. Otherwise, the structur e and system will be analyzed to check their adequacies. For system analysis such as the NSSS system usi ng the time history techni que, the recorded time history will be used as a direct input. Time histories at different el evations will be generated using the structure model. The fundament al frequency of the containment will be verified by the two accelerographs installed on the containment struct ure. Results will be evaluated to check the adequacy of the system.

5.

8.7 REFERENCES

5.8-1Seismic Technical Evaluation of Replacement Items, Ref: EPRI TR-1048715.8-2Generic Implementation Procedure (GIP) for Seismic Verification of Nuclear Plant Equipment, Revision 3, Seismic Qual ification Utilities Group, May 16, 1997.5.8-3U.S. NRC Supplemental Safe ty Evaluation Report Number 2 (SSER Number 2) on SQUG Generic Implementatio n Procedure, Revision 2, as corrected on February 14, 1992 (GIP-2). May 22, 1992.

MPS2 UFSAR5.8-20Rev. 355.8-4U.S. NRC Supplemental Safety Evaluation Report Number 3 (SSER Number 3) on the Review of Revision 3 to the Generic Implementation Procedure for Seismic Verification of Nuclear Power Plant Equipment Updated May 16, 1997 (TAC Number M93624), December 4, 1997.

MPS2 UFSAR5.8-21Rev. 35TABLE 5.8-1 MATERIAL DAMPING VALUESCritical DampingOBE (0.09 g ground acceleration)DBE (0.17 g ground acceleration)Welded steel plate assemblies11Welded steel framed structures22 Bolted or riveted steel framed structures2.52.5 Reinforced concrete equipment Supports23Reinforced concrete frames and buildings35 Prestressed concrete structures25Steel piping0.50.5Soil (foundation)25

MPS-2 FSAR Rev. 24.10 FIGURE 5.8-28 CONTAINMENT INTERNALS ELEVATION 14 FEET 6 INCHES OBE (NORTH - SOUTH) PRESSURIZER SUPPORTNote that this ARS is retained in here for historical purpose only. The ARS for the modified pressurizer cubicle are contained in Specification SP-M2-ME-368.

MPS-2 FSAR Rev. 24.10FIGURE 5.8-29 CONTAINMENT INTERNALS ELEVATION 14 FEET 6 INCHES OBE (EAST - WEST) PRESSURIZER SUPPORTNote that this ARS is retained in here for historical purpose only. The ARS for the modified pressurizer cubicle are contained in Specification SP-M2-ME-368.

MPS2 UFSAR5.9-1Rev. 35

5.9 CONSTRUCTION

PRACTICE AND QUALITY ASSURANCE

5.9.1 APPLICABLE

CONSTRUCTION CODES The following codes of practice are used to es tablish standards for construction procedures: ACI 214-1Recommended Practice for Evaluation of Compression Test Results of Field Concrete (ACI 214-65)ACI 301-1Specification for Structural Concrete for Buildings (ACI 301-66)ACI 306-1Recommended Practice for Co ld W eather Concreting (AC 306-66)ACI 315Manual of Standard Practice for Detailing Reinforced Concrete StructuresACI 318-1Building Code Requirements fo r Reinforced Concrete (ACI 318-63)ACI 347-1Recommended Practice for Concrete Formwork (ACI 347-68)ACI 305-1Recommended Practice for Ho t W eather concreting (ACI 605-59)ACI 211-1Recommended Practice for Selecti ng Proportions for C oncrete (ACI6B-54)ACI 304-1Recommended Practice for Meas uring, Mixing and Placing Concrete (ACI 614-59)ACSManual of Concrete InspectionPCIInspection ManualAISCManual of Steel ConstructionAWSCode for Welding in Building Construction (D1.0-69)

AWSSpecifications for Welded Highw ay and Railroad Bridges (D2.0-69)ASMEBoiler and Pressure Vessel Code,Section VIII, Part UW - Requirements for Unfired Pressure Vessels. Fabricated by Welding. CRDU.S. Army Corps of Engineers Waterways Experiment Station

Dimensional tolerances for cons truction, unless otherwise stated in design drawings, are in compliance with the ACI 301-66 and ACI 318-63 for placing reinfo rcing bars and concrete, and with the AISC Code of Standard Practice for erect ion of steel.

MPS2 UFSAR5.9-2Rev. 35

5.9.2 QUALITY

ASSURANCE PROGRAMA Quality Assurance Program has been developed and implemented to assure conformance to regulatory requirements and accepted industry standards. This is generally explained in FSAR Section 12.8.

5.9.3 CONSTRUCTION

MATERIALS INSPECTION AND INSTALLATIONBasically, materials used in the construction of the structures are as follows: a.Concreteb.Reinforcing steelc.Structural and miscellaneous steeld.Prestressing steel tendons , anchorages and sheathse.Steel liner platef.Interior coatingsThe basic specifications for material inspection and installation are discussed in the following sections.5.9.3.1 ConcreteAll concrete work is done in accordance with ACI 318-63, "Building Code Requirements for Reinforced Concrete," and to AC I 301-66, "Specifications for Structural Concrete for Buildings,"

except as otherwise stated herein or in the a ppropriate job specificati ons or design drawings.The concrete is a dense, durable mixture of sound coarse aggregates, fine aggregates, cement, and water. In some areas, fly ash is substituted for portions of cement used in the concrete. Admixtures are added to improve the quality and workability of the plastic concrete during placement and to retard the set of the concrete. The sizes of aggregates, water-reducing additives, and slumps are selected to maintain low limits on shrinkage and creep.The concrete is placed in a manner which assures sound concrete, free of cold joints and defects. Careful attention is given to the placing of concrete around tendon anchorage bearing plates in the containment so that high quality concrete is obtained at these critical locations.

5.9.3.1.1 AggregatesAggregates comply with ASTM C-33, "Specifications for Concrete Aggregates." Acceptability of the aggregates is based on the User Tests listed in Table 5.9-1.

MPS2 UFSAR5.9-3Rev. 35The initial tests in Table 5.9-1 are performed by the supplier. The user tests are performed by an independent laboratory for every 5000 tons deli vered to the jobsite.

The following aggregate testing ar e performed at least once per shift, when concrete is being placed, and more frequently when required at the direction of the Contractor.

Samples are taken from weighing hoppers or the belt as directed by Contractor in the batch plant: a.Two sand samples for gradation.b.One coarse aggregate sample from each nominal size group for gradation.a.Test for flat and elongated particles as directed by Contractor

.b.One sand organic test.

5.9.3.1.2 CementCement is Type II, low-alkali cement as specified in "Standard Specification for Portland Cement," ASTM C-150, and is te sted to comply with the requirements of ASTM C-114. The inspection and testing of cement, in addition to the test performe d by the cement manufacturers, is performed in accordance with Table 5.9-2.The purpose of these tests is to ascertain conformance with ASTM C-150.

The initial tests are performed by the supplier.

The user tests are perf ormed by an independent laboratory for every 5000 cubic ya rds of concrete produced. Du ring construction, the periodic tests are made to check storage environmental effects on cement characteristics. These tests are in addition to visual inspection of material storage procedures.

5.9.3.1.3 Fly Ash Fly ash conforms to ASTM C-618 Class F , "Fly Ash a nd Raw or Calcined Natural Pozzolans for Use in Portland Cement Concrete," and is tested to comply with the requirements of ASTM C-311, "Sampling and Testing Fly Ash for Use as an Admixture in Portla nd Cement Concrete."

All tests performed on the fly ash are listed in Table 5.9-3.The user tests in Table 5.9-3 are performed by an independent laborat ory for every 100 tons delivered to the job site. Duri ng construction, tests ar e made to check storage environmental effects on properties of fly ash. These tests are in addition to visual inspection of material storage procedures.

A typical chemical analysis from each source of fly ash is presented in Table 5.9-4. Fly ash from NUSCO Devon Plant is used in th e concrete work, while the fl y ash from the RG&E Company Russell plant is a standby and has not been used to date. The anal yses on both fly ashes indicate MPS2 UFSAR5.9-4Rev. 35that sulfates and chlorines are not pr esent and that sulf ur trioxide (SO

3) content is well within the limit set by the ASTM C-618.

5.9.3.1.4 Water and IceWater and ice used in mixing concrete are free from injurious amount of acid, alkali, organic matter, and other deleterious substances as determined by AASHO-T-26. Water does not contain impurities in amounts that will cause either a change in the time of setting of Po rtland cement of more than 25 percent or a reduction in the compressive strength of mortar of more than 10 percent compared with results obtained with distilled water. In addition, mixing water (including ice for cooling) complies with the following criteria: These tests are performed quarterly.

5.9.3.1.5 AdmixturesThe selected water-reducing agent MBHC, manufactured by the Masters Builders Company, possesses a shrinkage reduction effect similar to the type prescribed by ASTM C-494, "Specifications for Chemical Admixtures for Concrete." An air entraining agent, Vinsol Resin, manufactured by the Masters Builders Company, is added to the concrete mix to increase workability.

Admixtures containing ch lorides are not used.

5.9.3.1.6 Concrete Mix DesignConcrete mixes are designed in accordance with ACI-211-1, "Recommended Practice for Selecting Proportions for Concrete," using materials qualified and accepted for this work. Only concrete mixes meeting the design requirement s specified for the structures are used.

Mixes are tested in accordance with the applicable ASTM Specifications as indicated:

(Criteria)Percent Alkalinity in terms of calcium carbonate0.025 maximumTotal organic solids0.025 maximumTotal inorganic solids0.05 maximumTotal chlorides0.025 maximum MPS2 UFSAR5.9-5Rev. 35For the containment, concrete test cylinders are cast from the basic mix de signed for the structure. The following properties were determined by Professor David Purtz at the University of California, Berkeley. a.Compressive strength (ASTM C-39)b.Thermal diffusivity (ASTM C-342 and CRD C-36)c.Autogeneous shrinkage (ASTM C-342)d.Thermal coefficient of expa nsion (ASTM C-342 and CRD C-124)e.Modulus of elasticity and Poisson's ratio (ASTM C-469)f.Uniaxial creep (ASTM C-512)g.Tensile strength (ASTM C-496)Concrete design compressive strength for the elements of the structures are defined in the respective sections under Construction Materials.

5.9.3.1.7 Concrete Production and TestingThe concrete batch plant is located on the site and operates in a fully au tomatic mode. The rated capacity of the plant is 136 cubic yards per hour. A full time inspector from an independent testing laboratory is assigned to the plant to cont inually monitor the concrete batching operation. Concrete samples are taken from the mix as prescribed in ASTM C-172, "Sampling Fresh Concrete." Cylinders for compression tests are prepared from these samples which are cured in accordance with ASTM C-31, "Making and Curing Concrete Compressive and Flexural Strength Test Specimens in the Field." Slump, air content, temperature, and unit weight are determined and recorded when the compression cylinders are cast. ASTMTestC-39Compressive strength testsC-143SlumpC-192Making and curing cylinder in laboratoryC-231Air content C-232Bleeding MPS2 UFSAR5.9-6Rev. 35Slump tests are performed in accordance with ASTM C-143, "Test for Slump of Portland Cement Concrete." In addition to the performance of a slump test when compressive cylinders are cast, slump is measured at the batch plant for every 50 cubic yards of concrete mixed for delivery. Air content tests are performed in accordance with ASTM C-231, "Test for Air Content of Freshly Mixed Concrete by the Pressure Method."

Compressive strength tests are performed in accordance with ASTM C-39, "Test for Compressive Strength of Molded concrete Cylinders." Evaluating of compressive strength tests is done in accordance with ACI 214, with the standard of control that which is re quired for "excellent" concrete.Six cylinders, three sets of two each, are prepared for each placement of concrete as shown in the following tabulation: Two cylinders are tested for compressive strength at each time internal of 7, 28, and 90 days, except that when correlation test data have been established for each design mix, test cylinders for the 90 day interval are disregarded with the exception of prestressed concrete. To provide for accurate testing and concrete production, the equipment is calibrated using the following schedule:

Equipment Calibration SchedulePlacingClass I (cubic yards)Class II (cubic yards)Conventional, Plant100200Conventional, Field300300Pumping, Plant100200 Pumping, Field100300Testing AgencyItemsCalibration IntervalPlatform Scales6 months Laboratory Scales3 monthsMeters, Air3 monthsCylinder Compression Machine12 months MPS2 UFSAR5.9-7Rev. 35 5.9.3.2 Reinforcing Steel 5.9.3.2.1 Reinforcing Steel Materials All reinforcing steel, except column ties and beam stirrups fo r some areas of the structures, is deformed billet steel bars c onforming to ASTM A-615, Grade

60. Spiral reinforcing steel conforms to ASTM A-82.

Mill test reports are obt ained from the reinforci ng steel supplier fo r each heat of steel to ensure that the physical and chemical properties of the st eel are in compliance with the applicable ASTM specifications. User tests to dete rmine the strength and ductility of the reinforcing steel are used to supplement the standard mill tests. These are witnessed by an independent testing company.

Procedures for obtaining samples for the reinforcing steel user test are defined in Section 5.9.3.2.2.

Procedures for splicing reinforc ing bars using the Ca dweld process is defined in Section 5.9.3.2.3.

5.9.3.2.2 Reinforcing Steel User Test Sampling 5.9.3.2.2.1 Procedures The following procedure is used fo r sampling and testing re inforcing bars at the supplier's plant at Steelton, Pennsylvania. All tests are performe d in accordance with ASTM A-615 except as otherwise noted herein. Only full size specimens are utilized in the user test sampling.

Thermometers 6 months Slump Cone Examine for wear and replace as necessaryConcrete Supplier ItemsCalibration Interval Pen RecordersDaily Batching System, Low-Limit and High-Limit Setpoints for Cement Aggregate and Flyash 1 monthTesting Agency ItemsCalibration Interval MPS2 UFSAR5.9-8Rev. 35a.Upon receipt of a notice from the supplie r that the stock reinforcing bars are available for sampling and testing, an in spector from an independent testing laboratory is sent to the plant to select random specimens and witness testing.b.The inspector obtains the information regarding the heat numbers and bar sizes which require sampling and testing, and ve rifies the information by the rolling marks on the bars, the sources, grades and sizes of bars being supplied.c.Specimens for tensile streng th and cold bent tests are taken from the bars which have been selected at random by the inspec tor, in accordance with Sections 11.1and 11.2 of ASTM A-615. The test sp ecimens are then properly tagged and delivered to the supplier's metallurgical laboratory.d.After test specimens are taken, the stockpiled materials are marked by tags and held until the results of the user tests are available.e.When the results of the test specimens verify that the requirements of the specification have been met, the stockpile d materials are released for fabrication.f.If during the tests, a spec imen develops flaws, it ma y be discarded and another substituted.g.If the test results of a specimen indicat e that the tensile strength does not meet the minimum requirements, a second full size specimen from the same heat is taken and tested. If the second set of test results meets the minimum strength requirements, the tensile strengths from these two tests and the mill test are combined and averaged. If the averag e result meets the minimum strength requirements, the heat is accepted.If the averaged results of all three tests do not meet the minimum strength requirements, the heat is rejected.h.Prior to shipping the fabricated materials to the site, the inspector returns to the plant for verification of the materials. Ce rtified copies of th e mill test reports, showing the physical properties and the ladle chemical analysis, are reviewed for compliance with the applic able ASTM Specifications.

The mill test reports, which accompany th e materials to the site, and the shippingnotices are initialed, dated and stamped by the inspector.

5.9.3.2.2.2 Deviation from Safety Guide 15 The procedure deviates from the Safety Guide 15 in that it allows a second tensile test to be conducted in the event that the first tensile test does not meet the minimum requirements. However, no tensile test failur e was encountered during the user test and, consequently, the second tensile test was never required.

MPS2 UFSAR5.9-9Rev. 35 5.9.3.2.3 Splicing Reinforcing BarsReinforcing bars Number 11 a nd smaller are generally lap-sp liced in accordance with ACI 318-63 except in congested areas where some bars ar e Cadweld-spliced. Reinforcing bar greater than Number 11 are Cadweld-spliced exclusively.

Reinforcing bars are not spliced by welding.

5.9.3.2.3.1 Scope These procedures cover the mechan ical splicing of deformed rein forcing bars using the Cadweld process, for full tension loadings.

All splices are made in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions as described in Erico Products Bulletin RBIS-10M269 "Cadweld Rebar Splicing," except as modified hereinafter.

A manufacturer's representative, e xperienced in Cadweld splicing of reinforcing bars, is present at the site at the outset of the wo rk to demonstrate th e equipment and techni ques used for making quality splices. He is also present for the first 50 production sp lices to observe and verify that the equipment is being used correctly and th at quality splices are being obtained.

5.9.3.2.3.2 MaterialsCadweld T-Series material s are used for full tensi on, reinforcing-to-reinforcing splices. These are used for full tension, reinforcing to structur al plates or shapes, where indicated on design drawings. C-Series splice materials are not used.

5.9.3.2.3.3 Qualifications of Operators Prior to production splicing reinfo rcing bars, each operator or crew , including the foreman or supervisor for that crew, prepares and tests a splice for each of the positi ons used in the production work. These splices are made and tested in strict accordance with these procedures, using ASTM A-615, Grade 60 and the largest size bar spliced during production work. To qualify, the completed splices shall meet the acceptance standards of Section 5.9.3.2.3.7 for workmanship, visual quality and minimu m tensile strength. A list of qualifi ed operators and their qualificationtest results are maintained at the jobsite.

5.9.3.2.3.4 Care and Handling of Splice Kits and Equipmenta.The splice sleeves, cartridge s, asbestos wicking, ceramic inserts and graphite parts are stored in a clean, dry, temperature controlled area with adequate protectionfrom the elements to prev ent absorption of moisture.b.Splice sleeves are wrapped in a special rust inhibiting paper and are not unwrapped until ready to be used in the joining procedure.

MPS2 UFSAR5.9-10Rev. 35c.Each splice sleeve is visually examined immediately prior to its being used to ensure that there is no rust or other foreign material on the inside surface.d.The graphite pouring basins and crucibles are preheated with an oxyacetylene orpropane torch to burn off moisture at the beginning of each shift when the molds are cold, when a new mold is put to use, or when the mold temperature is below ambient.e.All graphite parts (except crucible c overs) are cleaned with a whisk broom, rag,coarse brush or rolled up newspaper before reusing. A wire brush is not used on graphite parts.

5.9.3.2.3.5 Reinforcing Bar End Preparationa.The bar ends to be spliced must be in good condition with full size, undamaged deformations.b.The reinforcing bar deformations, except longitudinal ribs, which become engaged in the Cadweld splice are not ground, flame cut or altered in any way. Oversize longitudinal ribs are ground down to match the diameter of the bar deformations, but are not ground to a diameter less than the bar deformations.c.For a minimum distance of two inches beyond where the ends of the sleeve are located, the bar ends are heated with an oxyacetylene "rosebud" torch to 300

°F minimum to remove all moisture and bu rn off any organic foreign material.d.After the heating operation, the bar ends are thoroughly cleaned by power brushing or sandblasting to remove all loose mill scale, concrete, dirt and other foreign material not removed by burning.e.A reference line is painted 12 inches from the end of each bar that is to be spliced to confirm that the bar ends are properly centered in the sleeve.f.Immediately before the splice sleeve is placed in final pos ition, the previously cleaned bar ends are again surface preheated to 2 00° to 300°F minimum with an oxyacetylene rosebud torch to ensure complete removal of moisture.g.Special attention is given to maintaining the alignment of sleeve and guide tube to ensure a proper fill.h.When the temperature is below freezi ng or the relative humidity is above 65 percent, the splice sleeves are externally preheated with an oxyacetylene or propane torch after all materials and equipment are in pos ition. The Cadweld operation is suspended during any form of precipitation.

MPS2 UFSAR5.9-11Rev. 35i.A hairpin piece of soft tw isted wire may be inserted at the top of the horizontal splices between the bar and the sleeve. Th is provides an escape route for the gases generated during the casting of the filler material.j.The packing material at the ends of th e horizontal splices and at the top of the vertical splices are not hard packed. Although the materi al is held firmly in place, it has to be loose enough to allow the escape of gases.

5.9.3.2.3.6 Splice Tensile Testing Selected splices are tensile tested for each posit ion, bar size and grade of bars. The test splices consist of sister splices, each three feet long, spliced in sequenc e in position and adjacent to the production works. Production splices, cut from in-p lace reinforcement material, are included. The following schedule is used: a.Test splices, reinfo rcing-to-reinforcing:1.Production splice from the first 10 production splices.2.One production and three si ster splices from the ne xt 90 production splices.3.One production and two sister splices from the next and subsequent units of 100 splices.b.The splices to be used in reinforcing stru ctural steel shapes and plates consist of four sister splices from each unit of 100 production splices or fraction thereof.

5.9.3.2.3.7 Splice Acceptance Standardsa.All completed splices are visually inspected at both ends of the splice sleeves and at the tap hold in the center of the splice sleeves.b.Sound, nonporous filler metal should be visible at both ends of the splice sleeve and at the tap hole in the center of the spli ce sleeve. Filler metal is usually recessed one-quarter inch from the e nds of the sleeve due to the packing material, and is not considered a poor fill.c.Splices that contain slag or porous metal in the riser , tap hole or at the ends of the sleeves (general porosity) are rejected. A single shrinkage bubble, present belowthe riser, is not considered demineralize d and should be distinguishable from the general porosity described in Item b.d.There must be evidence of f iller material between the sleeve and the bar for the full360 degrees; however, the spli ce sleeves need not be exac tly concentric or axially aligned with the bars.

MPS2 UFSAR5.9-12Rev. 35e.Both horizontal and vertical Cadweld spli ces may contain voids at either or both ends of the Cadweld splice sleeve. The allo wable limits for end voids are as shown on Table 5.9-5. The area of the voi ds is assumed to be th e maximum depth of the wire probe minus 3/16 inch multiplied by the width at the inside surface of the sleeve.f.The average tensile strength of the Cadwel d spliced joints are equal to or greaterthan the minimum tensile strength for the particular grade of reinforcing steel as specified in ASTM A-615. The minimum acceptable tensile strength of any spliceis 125 percent of the specified minimum yield strength for the particular bar size.

5.9.3.2.3.8 Deviation from the Safety Guide 10 This procedure deviates from the Safety Guide 10 in that only one qualification splice is required for each crew member, including the foreman. The Safety Guide re commends that two qualification spli ces be required.

On the first 245 sister and produc tion splices tested, only one fail ed below the sp ecified minimum strength of 125 percent of the yield strength of the reinforcing bar. Th is failure was attributed to a niche in the bar which was used for identificati on purposes, and was not ca used by the failure of the splice itself.

The exceptional performance of the test splices more than justifies the omission of a second qualification splice.

5.9.3.3 Post-Tensioning System 5.9.3.3.1 Tendons The tendons are composed of stab ilized, low relaxation wires of on e-quarter inch diameter with a tensile strength of 240,000 psi in accordance with ASTM A-421. The pertinent features of the tendons are as follows:

Number of wires 186Ultimate tensile capacity (kips) 2190Design tensile capacity (kips) 1315

End anchorages Buttonheads Sampling and testing of the tendon material conform to ASTM A-421. The following procedure is used. a.One buttonhead test on each end of each reel of wire to establish the suitability andacceptance of the wire for buttonheading.

MPS2 UFSAR5.9-13Rev. 35b.One buttonhead rupture test from each reel of wire.c.Random samples test of each lot of wire in accordance with ASTM-421. With each sample of wire tested, a certificate was submitted stating the manufacturer's minimum guaranteed ultimate tensile strength of the wire sampled. Stress-straincurves were plotted for each of these tests and the yield and tensile strength of thewire was verified.

5.9.3.3.2 Anchorages The basic performance requi rements for the end anchors of the tendons are stated qualitatively by the Seismic C ommittee of the Prestr essed Concrete Institute and publ ished in their J ournal of June 1966 as follows: "All anchors of unbonded tendons should develop at least 100 percent of the guaranteed

ultimate strength of the tendon. The anchorage gr ipping should function in such a way that no harmful notching would occur on the tendon. Any such anchorage system used in

earthquake areas must be capable of mainta ining the prestressing force under sustained and fluctuating loads and the ef fect of s hock. Anchors should also possess adequate reserve strength to withsta nd any overstress to which they may be subjected during the most severe probable earthquake. Particular care should be directed to accurate positioning and alignmen t of end anchors."

The end anchors used are capabl e of developing 100 percent of th e minimum tensile strength of the prestressing steel as defined by ASTM A-421.

The end anchors are capable of maintaining integrity for 500 cycl es of loads corresponding to an average axial stress vari ation between 0.7 and 0.75 fs at a repetition rate of one cycle in 0.1 second. This requirement sets mi nimum acceptable limits on fatigue effects due to notching by the end anchor and tendon performanc e in response to earthquake loads.

The number of cycles was set by increasing to 500 from the 100 predicted. The stress variation was increased from a conservati vely predicted 0.6 to 0.64 fs to the 0.7 to 0.75 fs. Further, the number of cycles caused by the ea rthquake loads was predicted as only 30 of the total of 100 resulting from using all the strong ground motions which exceed one/half of the peak ground motion of the earthquake.

The stress variations due to the earthquake motion alone were pred icted as being 10 percent of the total of the predicted st ress variations of 0.04 fs. The predicted 0.04 fs stress variation, in turn, resulted from the combinations of earthquake, wind, and incident loadings. Analyses made during the investigation included consid eration of tendon excitation, both pa rallel and perpendicular to the tendon axis.

MPS2 UFSAR5.9-14Rev. 35The anchorage assemblies, including the bearing plates, are capable of transmitting the ultimate loads of the tendons into the structure without brittle fracture at an anticipated lowest service temperature of -30

°F. The anchorage assemblies used are capable to prelude brittle fracture at a design temperature of -50°F. 5.9.3.3.3 SheathingSheaths for the tendons are classified as concrete forms and are not subjected to any standard codes. They provide a void in the concrete wherein the tendons were installed, stressed and greased after the concrete was placed. The sheaths are made from 22 gauge, galvanized ferrous metal, and have an internal diameter of five inches clear of corrugations. Couplers are provided at all fi eld splices and sealed by tape. After sheathing installation, and prior to concrete placement, the sheathing is surveyed to assure accurate alignment. An inspection is also performed to ascertain that all sheaths are continuous and unblocked by obstructions. Before installation of the tendons, the sheathing is carefully cleaned to remove all water and debris. Vent tubing and temporary valves were provide d to permit drainage at all low points. Splash caps at the ends of all sheaths, to prevent concrete and laitance from entering into the sheaths during construction, were provided.

5.9.3.3.4 Corrosion ProtectionSuitable atmospheric corrosion protection was maintained for the tendons from the point of manufacture to the installed lo cations. The atmospheric corrosi on protection provided assurance that the tendon integrity was not impaired due to exposure to the environment. Prior to shipment, they were all coated with a thin film of petroleum that contained rust inhibitors. After the tendons were installed in the sheaths and stressed, the interior of the sheathing was pumped full of a modified, thixotropic, refined petroleum oil-based product to provide corrosion protection. The tendons and end anchors were also surrounded with the corrosion-protection material which was encapsulated in the sheathing and gasketed end caps that were sealed against the bearing plates. When the sheaths and end caps are filled, th e corrosion-protection material displaces air and water vapor before thickening to a soft gel. Once the filler material had cooled, contracted, and gelled, the vertical tendons were topped-off by injec ting additional filler material through the upper grease cap fittings. As a result of the Millstone Unit Number 2 tendon surveillance program, sixteen horizontal tendons have been identified as subject to ground water intrusion. To prevent ground water MPS2 UFSAR5.9-15Rev. 35 intrusion, the corrosion protection material is continuously supplie d to the subject tendons at a pressure slightly above hydrosta tic pressure of the ground water. The tendons so pressurized are horizontal tendons 12H01 through 12H0 6, 12H08 through 12H10, 31H01 through 31H04, 31H01, 32H02, and 32H03. Testing of the permanent corros ion-protection material indicate s that there were no significant amounts of chlorides, sulfides, or nitrates present. However, to further verify the chemical composition of the filler material, test samples are taken from each shipment with at least one

sample per factory batch. The samp les were analyzed as follows: a.Water-soluble chlorides (C1) are dete rmined in accordance with ASTM D512-67 with a limit of accuracy of 0.5 ppm.b.Water-soluble nitrates (NO

3) are determined by the Water and Sewage AnalysisProcedure of the Hach Chemical Company, Ames, Iowa.c.Water-soluble sulfides (S) are determin ed in accordance with American Public Health Association Standards (APHA) with a limit of accuracy of 1 ppm. TheAPHA Standards methods may be modified to use standard reagents and

procedures such as those available from Hach Chemical Company.

No significant traces of the im purities are allowed. The chemical compos ition of the filler material, being about 98 percent petroleum jelly, indicates that it possesses the norma l stability of linear hydrocarbons for the site temperature ranges. NOTE: For description of water intrusion into the tendon gallery during construction and methods of repair , see Appendix 5.F.5.9.3.4 Structural and Mi scellaneous Steels All structural and miscellaneous steels conf orm to the following ASTM specifications:

Rolled shapes, plates, tubing and bars A-36Crane rails A-1 High strength bolts A-325 or A-490Anchor bolts (nonwelding) A-575, Grade 1020 Stainless steel A-240, Type 304Mill test reports are obtained for all materials used with the exceptions of hand rails, toe plates, kick plates, stairs and ladders. Detailing, fabrication, and erection of the structural and miscellaneous steels are in accordance with AISC Manual of Steel Construction.

MPS2 UFSAR5.9-16Rev. 35Welding is accomplished in accordance with AWS D1.0, "Code for Welding in Building Construction," and where applicable, AWS D2.0, "Specifications for Welded Highway and Railroad Bridges."

Quality control procedures for fiel d welding are defined in Section 5.9.4.

5.9.3.5 Steel Liner Plate and Penetration Sleeves 5.9.3.5.1 GeneralThe containment is lined with a one-quarter inch welded steel plate to ensure leak tightness. The design, construction, inspection, and testing of the liner plate are not covered by an recognized code or specification, since it is not a pressure vessel and serves only as a leak-tight membrane. However, components of the liner which must resist the full cont ainment design pressure, such as the penetration sleeves, are designed, fabricated, constructed, and tested to meet the requirements of Paragraph N-1211 of Section III, Nuclear Vessels, 1968 Edition through the summer 1969 addenda of the ASME Code, except where otherwise noted herein.The liner is designed to function only as a leak-tight membrane. It is not designed to serve as a structural element to resist the tensile loads from an internally applied pressure such as might result from a loss-of-coolant incident. Structural integrity of the containment is maintained by the pre-stressed, post-tensioned concre te. Since the principal stresses of the liner due to thermal expansion are in compression, and no significant tensile stresses are expected from the internal pressure loading, special nil ductility transition temperature requirements are not applied to the liner plate materials. However, all materials for the liner components which must resist tensile stresses resulting from internally applied pressure, such as the penetration sleeves are impact tested in accordance with the requirements of Paragraph N-1211 of Section III, Nuclear Vessels, 1968 Edition through the summer 1969 addenda of the ASME Code. Materials used in the construction of the steel liner plate and pe netration sleeves are defined in Section 5.2.3.1.

5.9.3.5.2 Fabrication and ErectionA basic requirement for th e fabrication and erection of the steel liner plate is that all welding procedures and welding operators be qualified by tests as specified in Section IX of the 1968 ASME Code.

Penetration sleeves are shop fabricated in accordance with the requirements of Paragraph N-1211 of Section III, Nuclear Vessels, 1968 Edition through the summer 1969 addenda of the ASME Code, including welding and NDT procedures and third party in spection, but excluding pressure testing. A modified code data sheet is prepared for each sleeve. The sleeves are not code stamped because they are not included as part of the vessel under the ASME Code. Quality control procedures fo r field welding and nondestructive examination are defined in Section 5.9.4.

MPS2 UFSAR5.9-17Rev. 35 5.9.3.5.3 Inspection and Testing The following inspection an d testing are performed on the steel liner plate.

5.9.3.5.3.1 Radiography For quality control purposes, co mpleted liner plate weld s eam s are spot radiographed by the subcontractor in accordance with the following schedule. a.One 12 inch film is taken during the first 50 feet of each welder's work, in each welding position.b.Thereafter, a minimum of 10 percent of the welding is progressively spot examined as welding is performed, usi ng a 12 inch film. Locations for spot radiograph are designated by the engineer in such a manner that an approximately equal number of spot radiographs is taken from each welder's work.c.If a radiograph discloses welding which does not meet the acceptance criteria, two additional spot radiographs , each 12 inches in length are taken in the same weld seam, at locations away from the original spot designated by the engineer.

If the two additional radiographs show welding which meets the acceptance criteria, the entire weld seam represente d by the three radiographs is considered acceptable except at the area of defect. This area is removed and repaired.d.If either of the two additional radiographs show welding which does not meet the acceptance criteria, the entire portion o f the weld seam represented by theseradiographs is rejected and the defective welding removed and repaired.e.The repaired weld seams are completely reradiographed to ensure compliance with the acceptance criteria.

The techniques used for radiographic examinati ons are in accord with Paragraph UW

-51 of Section VIII of the 1968 ASME Boiler and Pressure Ve ssel Code, using X-ray and fine grain films. The double film, si ngle viewing technique is used for all radiography.

The acceptance criteria for examinations are in accordance with Paragraph UW-52,Section VIII, of the 1968 ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code. All radiographic films are submitted by the subcontractor to the engineer for review, interpretation and record.

The Safety Guide 19 was not conformed with wh ere weldments could be radiographed. In these instances, 10 percent of the weldments are inspected by radiography. This exceeds the Safety Guide suggested minimum of two percent. The firs t 50 feet of welding pe rformed by each welder is inspected instead of the first 10 feet, as suggested by the Safety Guide.

When radiographic inspection is not feasible, magnetic partic le inspection is substituted.

MPS2 UFSAR5.9-18Rev. 35Leak chase channel testing is performed in accordance with the suggested Safety Guide requirements with the exception that the system is pressurized for a minimum of 25 minutes and a maximum of 30 minutes, instead of two hours as stated therein. This testing may be repeated at any time during the plant life. The limited deviations from the Safety Guide do not in any way affect the functional integrity of the steel liner plate.

5.9.3.5.3.2 Visual Examination and Dye Penetrant TestingAll weld seams are 100 percent visually examined in accordance with Section 5.9.4.5.3. Weldments which on the basis of visual examination are judged to be of questionable quality by either the subcontractor or engineer, ar e also inspected by dye penetrant testing. All dye penetrant inspection is in accordance with Section VIII, of the 1968 ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code.

5.9.3.5.3.3 Magnetic Particle Testing Where nonradiographable welds are used, magnetic pa rticle testing is substituted for radiography. A minimum of 10 percent of such welding, including splices with welded backing strips, is examined as the welding is performed. All magnetic particle testing is performed in accordance with Appendix VI of Section VIII of the 1968 ASME Code, Dry Particle, Direct Current Production Method.

5.9.3.5.3.4 Vacuum Box TestingAll liner welds which must maintain leak-tightness integrity, including pl ates, shell plates, and dome plates are tested by the subc ontractor as the work proceeds, using a vacuum box that can be placed over the test area and evacuated. A 5 psi minimum pressure differential with respect to the atmospheric pressure is maintained for a minimum of 20 seconds, and verified by a gauge. The soap suds solution is continuously observed for bubbles which indicate leaks, from the time evacuation of the box is started until 20 seconds after the required vac uum has been obtained. All leaks, regardless of size, are repaired by completely rem oving the defects and rewelding. The area needing repair and a minimum of two inches either side is reinspected by vacuum box testing. Welds which cannot be vacuum box tested due to configuration and space limitations are dye penetrant tested in accordance with Section VIII, of the 1968 ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code.

MPS2 UFSAR5.9-19Rev. 35 5.9.3.5.3.5 Halogen Testing The leak chase system over the floor liner plat e is Freon tested. A standard high sensitivity industrial halogen leak detect or capable of detecting leakage in the order of 1 x 10

-9 scc/second was used. The leak chase system is initially charged with a tr acer gas until a pressure of 15 psig is attained. It is then pressurized with air until a test pressure of 60 psig is reached. The pressurized leak chase system is allowed to stand for 25 minutes mi nimum, before starting the probe test. Pressure measurements are ta ken at the beginning and the end of the holding period. Any pressure decay greater than 2 psig on a 0 to 100 psig, 4.5 inch test gauge, is rejected.

Prior to each test, the leak detector is calibrated in accordance with the manufacturer's instruction against a standard leak of 1.0 x 10

-5 scc/second With the control uni t of the leak detector set on automatic balance, the tip of the probe is placed on the weld seam to be te sted and scanned at the rate of 1 ips. All leaks larger than 1.0 x 10

-5 scc/second are located, removed, repaired and retested.

5.9.3.5.4 Quality Control of Field Welding Electrodes The quality control procedure for the electrodes used in the field welding of the containment steel liner plate is as follows: a.Approved procedures for handling and st oring of welding electrodes are used.b.The subcontractor's welding and quality control supervisors control the welding electrodes by:

1.Performing receipt inspection and verifying the electrode identification with the certificate of compliance.2.Physically separating the various types of electrod es and ensuring that the approved storage requirements are met.3.Instructing the welders on type(s) of electrodes and weldin g procedures to be used.4.Monitoring welders at their work stations to ensure proper welding electrodes and welding pro cedures are being used.5.Surveying the work areas near the end of each work day to ensure electrodes are either discarded or returned to the proper storage facilities.

MPS2 UFSAR5.9-20Rev. 35c.Bechtel quality control inspectors moni tor the liner erection and welding on a continuous basis. Weekly in spection reports are prepared.

5.9.3.6 Interior Coatings (Original Construction)

All of the coating materials given have been tested by th eir manufactures under simulated operating and incident conditions and certified to fully comply with all the requirements of the ANSI Standard N.101.2 (1972) "Protective Coatings (Paints) for Light Water Nuclear Reactor Containment Facilities."

In addition, all shipments of these materials are accompanied by vendor certifications of compliance.

5.9.3.6.1 Containment Steel Liner Plate Coatings Surface preparation of the inte rior (exposed) surfaces of the c ontainment steel liner plate is accomplished in the shop by blast cleaning each plate from edge to edge in accordance with the Steel Structures Painting C ouncil (SSPC) Specification S SPC-SP-6-63, "Commercial Blast Cleaning." The plates are then primed with one coat of an inorganic zinc primer, Carbo-Zinc II, to within two inches of the edges of the plate. The minimum dry film thickness (dft) of the primer is 3 mils. In applying the primer to the plates, the coating manufacturer's wr itten instructions and the SSPC-SP1-63, "Solvent Cleaning" are followed explicitly.

After the liner is erected, the field weld seams and the limited burnback of the Carbo-Weld 11 coating are power tool cleaned and recoated with Carbo-Zinc 11 of 3 mils dft.

Areas which are damaged by welding, such as arc strikes, or due to th e removal of temporary attachments for erection, ar e required and recoated so that they are equiva lent to the original conditions.

Finish coats for the steel liner plate are as follows: a.WainscotTwo coats of a modified, organic phenolic s, Phenoline Number 305 finish, at 3mils dft each coat.b.Above wainscot, including:

One coat of Phenoline Number 305 at 3.0 mils minimum dft.

MPS2 UFSAR5.9-21Rev. 35 5.9.3.6.2 Containment Interior Coatings 5.9.3.6.2.1 Steel Surfaces WainscotCarbon steel surfaces, including structural and miscellaneous steels, uninsulated piping, and equipment which are located in areas subject to hard usage or ra dioactive contamination, are blast cleaned in accordance with Steel Structures Painting Council Spec ification SSPC-SP6-63, "Commercial Blast Cleaning." Within eight hours after blast clea ning, the surfaces are primed with one coat of an inorganic zinc primer, Carbo-Zinc 11, at 3 mils dft. This is followed by two coats of a modified phenolic, Phenoline Number 305 Finish, at 3 mils dft.

Insulated piping is blast cleaned and primed th e same as above, but re ceives no finish coating.

5.9.3.6.2.2 Steel Surfaces Above WainscotCarbon steel surfaces above wainscot height are blast cleaned and primed the same as in Section 5.9.3.6.2.1 except that they receive one organic finish coat of Phenoline Number 305 at 3.0 mils minimum dft.

5.9.3.6.2.3 Galvanized and Stainless Steel Surfaces are not Painted.

5.9.3.6.2.4 Concrete and Masonry SurfacesAll concrete and masonry surfaces, including floors, wainscot, walls, columns, pilasters, and ceilings are chemically cleaned by either caustic wash or acid etching, or by blasting. An organic surfacer, Keeler and Long Number 6548 Epoxy Block Filler is then applied over the surfaces at a thickness of 5.5 mils dft, and one coat of organi c Keeler and Long Epoxy En amel at 2.5 mils dft.

5.9.3.7 Interior Maintenance Coatings (first implemented during Mid cycle 13, 1997)

All maintenance coating materials applied to surfaces inside or to be installed in the reactor containment have been tested to withstand Millstone Unit 2 design basis loss of coolant accident (DBA-LOCA) conditions. The coati ng materials and their application comply with the intent of Regulatory Guide 1.54 within the fo llowing clarification and exception.ClarificationCompliance with Regulatory Guide 1.54 will not be invoked for equipment of a miscellaneous nature and all insulated surfaces. It is impracticable to impos e Regulatory Guide requirements on the standard shop process used in painting valve bodies, handwheels, electrical cabinetry, control panels, loud speakers, emergency light cases, and other miscellaneous equipment. Wrapped or rigid insulation captures and retains any coating which may come off equi pment surfaces, thereby preventing the coating material from reaching and blocking sump drains or interrupting water flow in the containment spray system.

MPS2 UFSAR5.9-22Rev. 35 ExceptionQuality Assurance Program recommendations stated in Regulat ory Guide 1.54 are followed except that inspection will be in accordance with Section 10 of ANSI N5.12-1974 in lieu of Section 7 of ANSI N5.9 as refere nced in Section 6.2.4 of ANSI N101.4.Each coating was tested in accordance with ASTM D3911, "Evaluating Coatings Used in Light-Water Nuclear Power Plants at Simulated Design Basis Accident (DBA) Conditions," to the DBA conditions represented by the pressure (70 psig) and temperature (340

°F) curve of Figure 1, therein.Prior to exposure to DBA conditions, each coating was irradiated to an accumulated dose of at least 1x10 9 Rads in accordance with ASTM D4082, "Effect of Gamma Radiation on Coatings for Use in Light-Water Nuclear Power Plants."The coating manufacturers provide certification with each shipment that the supplied coating materials are identical to the ba tches of coating materials satisf actorily tested to DBA conditions.

Maintenance coating materials applied to containment surfaces are used to repair and maintain the existing coatings, to coat existing surfaces that were intended to be, but were not previously coated, and to coat new surfaces to be installed into the containment. Application of the new coating materials requires complete prior removal of the existing coating from the surface within the repair area. Overcoating the existing coatings with the new coating materials requires prior testing of the material combinations to radiation and simulated DBA conditions in accordance with Regulatory Guide 1.54.

5.9.3.7.1 Stainless Steel SurfacesStainless steel surfaces are not painted.

5.9.3.7.2 Galvanized SurfacesGalvanized surfaces are spot repaired with a qualified organic coating material, as required, to maintain corrosion protection. Galvaniz ed surfaces are not otherwise coated.

5.9.3.7.3 Carbon Steel SurfacesExisting carbon steel surfaces are repair coated as required. New carbon steel surfaces are coated prior to or upon installation into the containment. Carbon steel surfaces may remain uncoated when substantiated by appropr iate engineering evaluation.

MPS2 UFSAR5.9-23Rev. 35

5.9.4 QUALITY

CONTROL PROCEDURES FOR FIELD W ELDING AND NONDESTRUCTIVE EXAMINATIONS 5.9.4.1 Scope These procedures outline the general quality control requirements for we lding to ensure that all field welding is performed in full complia nce with the applicable job specifications.

5.9.4.2 Qualifications for Welding Inspectors All welding inspectors who insp ect welds covered by this speci fication are qualif ied by meeting the following minimum requirements: a.Inspectors must have a thorough knowledge of the various welding processes and techniques employed in fiel d construction and be able to demonstrate the proper methods for shielded metal-arc welding, gas tungsten-arc welding, gas metal-arcwelding, and oxyacetylene welding.b.A minimum of two years previous weldi ng inspection experience or equivalent experience and training in welding fabr ication and nondestructive testing is required for all inspectors.c.Inspectors are required to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the responsible Bechtel Material, Fabricati on and Quality Control Services Representative, theirknowledge of the fundamentals, techniques, and applications of the inspection methods set forth in this standard, i.e

., visual, vacuum box, magnetic particle, dye penetrant and radiogr aphic inspections.

5.9.4.3 Welding Performed by Bech tel Construction Personnel 5.9.4.3.1 Welding Procedures All welding performed by Bechtel construction pe rsonnel is in strict accordance with the approved Bechtel Welding Proce dure Specifications. The appropriate Bechtel Welding Procedure Specifications for field welds are prepared and qualified by the Bechtel Material , Fabrication and Quality Control Services Depart ment and issued to the field by the Bechtel Project Engineer.

5.9.4.3.2 Welder Qualification All welders who are welding u nder Bechtel Welding Procedure Specifications are qualified by performing the test required in the applicable Bechtel Welder Performance Specification WQ-F-1 for ferrous materials and WQ-N F-1 for nonferrous materials.

These Bechtel specifications encompass the requirements of Section IX of th e ASME Code. Number we lder is permitted to perform production welding until he has passed the necessary tests and has the appropriate Welder Performance Qualification Test Record.

MPS2 UFSAR5.9-24Rev. 35 5.9.4.4 Welding Performed by Bechtel Subcontractors 5.9.4.4.1 Welding Procedures All welding performed by Be chtel subcontractors are in strict accordance with the applicable job specifications. All welding procedures used on th e project are submitted to Bechtel Engineering for approval. Production welding is not permitted without prior approval of th ese procedures. In all cases, field welding inspecto rs are responsible for determining that the subcontractor's welding is being performed in accordance with properly qualified and engineering approved welding procedure specifications.

5.9.4.4.2 Welder Qualification All welders are welding opera tors employed by subc ontractors who are making welds under a code or standard which require s qualification of welders are te sted and qualified accordingly before beginning production welding.

Each subcontractor is responsible for testing and qualifying his own welders. The Bechtel field welding inspect or is responsible in a ll cases for determining that the subcontractor's welders have successfully passed the necessary qualification tests and that the subcontractor has the proper qualification test records for each qualified welder on file at the jobsite. 5.9.4.5 Instructions for Field Welding InspectorsThe general instructions for fi eld welding inspectors which foll ow cover welding performed by both Bechtel construction a nd Bechtel subcontractors.

5.9.4.5.1 Welding Procedures It is the responsibility of the fi eld welding inspectors to assure th at all welding is performed in strict accordance with the appropriate qualified welding procedure specifications. Specific items to be checked follows: a.Determine that the proper welding proce dure specification has been selected to match the base materials being welded and the welding processes being employed.b.Permit only welders who are properly qua lified under the esse ntial variables of each welding procedure specification to make welds under that procedure.c.Check to see that the welding electrodes, bare filler rod, consumable insert strips, and backing strips all match t hose which have been specified.d.Inspect weld joints as necessary prior to welding to ensure proper edge penetration, cleaning, and fit up.e.Check to see that the welding machine sett ings are correct and fall within the range of current and voltage specified.

MPS2 UFSAR5.9-25Rev. 35f.Check for proper preheat and interpass temperature.g.Inspect the inprocess welding for proper techniques, cleaning between passes, and appearance of individual weld beads.

5.9.4.5.2 Postweld Heat TreatmentThe field welding inspectors inspect each postwel d heat treatment (therm al stress relieving) operation to ensure conformance with the appli cable job specifications. Specific items to be checked include the following: a.A sufficient number and proper locati on of thermocouples are selected to accurately record temperatures.b.The thermocouples are connected to temperature indicator recorders which provide a permanent record of the heati ng rate, holding temperature and time, and the cooling rate.c.Temperature charts are checked for pr oper heating rate, holding temperature, holding time, cooling rate, and to see th at the proper weld identification isrecorded on the chart.

5.9.4.5.3 Visual Inspection of Weldments The field welding inspectors are responsible for carrying out the necessary welding surveillance to ensure that all welding me ets the following requirements for visual qualify and general workmanship. Visual inspections are performed during and after welding. a.All weld beads, passes, and completed welds are free of slag, cracks, porosity

, incomplete penetration and lack of fusion.b.Cover passes are free of coarse ripples, irregular surfaces, nonuniform bead patterns, high crowns, deep ridges or valle ys between beads, and that all blend smoothly and gradually into th e surface of base metal.c.Butt welds are slightly convex, of uniform height, and have full penetration.d.Fillet welds are of specif ied size, with full throat and, unless otherwise specified, the legs are of approximately equal length.e.Repairing, chipping, or grinding of welds is done in such a manner as not to gouge, groove, or reduce the base metal thicknesses.f.Where different base metal thicknesses ar e joined by welding, the finished joint is tapered no steeper than one to four (1:4) between the thick and the thin sections.

MPS2 UFSAR5.9-26Rev. 35 5.9.4.5.4 Magnetic Particle InspectionThe field welding inspector is responsible for determining that all magnetic particle inspection is properly performed. He ensures th at the proper techniques are fo llowed and that the results properly interpreted. The field we lding inspector requires that th e subcontractor's responsible inspection personnel demonstrate their knowle dge and understanding of the applicable specifications prior to performing any pro duction testing. Special attention is given to the following items for all magnetic-particle inspection: a.Determine that surfaces to be inspected have been prope rly cleaned and are free of crevices which could produce false i ndications by trapping the iron powder

.b.Determine that the power source, current density, prod spacing and application of iron powder comply with the applicable requirements.c.Permit no arcing between th e prods and weld surfaces.d.Interpret all linear or linearly disposed indications as defects.e.Probe questionable indications by thermal cutting, chipping, gr inding, or filing to confirm the presence or absence of actual defects.

5.9.4.5.5 Dye Penetrant Inspection The field welding inspector is responsible for determining that all dye penetrant inspection is properly performed. He ensures that the proper te chnique is followed and that the results are properly interpreted. The field welding inspectors require the subcontractor's responsible inspection personnel to demons trate their knowledge and unde rstanding of the applicable specifications prior to performing any pro duction testing.

Special attention is given to the followin g items for all dye penetrant inspection: a.Determine that surfaces to be inspected have been prope rly cleaned and are free of crevices which can product false indica tions by trapping the dye penetrant.b.Check to see that cleaner, dye penetran t, and developer are properly applied and the specified time intervals for dye pe netration and developing are followed.c.Determine that indications are properly interpreted. Defects will be identified as red stains against the white developer b ackground. Red lines or linearly disposed red dots are indicative of cracks. Porosity and pinhole leaks appear as local red patches or dots.d.Examine questionable indications by a 5X or stronger hand lens, and probe by grinding or filing to confirm the presence or absence of defects.

MPS2 UFSAR5.9-27Rev. 35 5.9.4.5.6 Radiographic Inspection The field welding inspector is responsible for determining that all radiographic inspection is properly performed. He ensures th at radiographic techniques are fo llowed and that the completed films are properly interpreted. The field welding inspectors require the subcontractor's responsible inspection personne l to demonstrate their knowledge and understanding of the applicable specif ications prior to beginning the radi ographic inspection. The field welding inspector also reviews each completed radiograph.

Special attention is given to each of the following items for all ra diographic inspection: a.Check the type of film intensifying sc reens, penetrameters, and sources of radiation for conformance to the job specifications.b.Check the relative location of film, pe netrameters, identifying numbers, and radiation source for each typical exposure.c.Review all completed film for quality and interpretation of defects. Check the exposed and developed film for proper dens ity and visibility of penetrameters.

Radiographic film of un acceptable quality or with questionable indications of defects are reradiographed.

5.9.4.5.7 Other Welding Inspections The field welding inspectors are responsible fo r determining that all other types of welding inspection, where specified, are properly performed.

5.9.4.5.8 Repairs It is the responsibility of the fi eld welding inspectors to determine that all weld defects in excess of specified standards of acceptance are removed, repaired, and reinspected in accordance with the applicable job specifications.

5.9.4.5.9 Records It is the responsibility of the fi eld welding inspector to ensure th at proper records of welding and nondestructive testing are kept on file at the jobsite.

MPS2 UFSAR5.9-28Rev. 35TABLE 5.9-1 AGGREGATE TESTS ASTM NumberTitleResults To Be Achieved Initial TestUser's Test Periodic TestC-33Specification for concrete aggregatesTo conform with specification XXXC-40Organic impurities in sands for concreteTo conform with specification XXXC-87Effect or Organic Impurities in Fine Aggregate on Strength of MortarTo conform with specification XXC-88Soundness of AggregatesTo conform with specification XXC-117Materials finer than Number 200 sieveDesign mix calculationsXXC-127Specific gravity and absorption (coarse aggregates)Design mix calculationsXXC-128Specific gravity and absorption (fine aggregates)To conform with specification XXC-131Los Angeles Machine abrasionTo conform with specification XXC-136Sieve analysis of fine and coarse aggregatesTo conform with specification XXC-142Clay lumpsTo conform with specification XXC-227Potential Alkali reactivity (mortar bar)To conform with specification.

XXC-289Potential reactivity (chemical)To conform with specification XXC-295Petrographic examination of

aggregatesTo conform with specification X

MPS2 UFSAR5.9-29Rev. 35TABLE 5.9-2 CEMENT TESTSASTM NumberTYPE OF TEST INITIAL TESTUSER'S TEST PERIODIC TESTS C-109Compressive StrengthXXX C-114Chemical AnalysisXXC-115Fineness-TurbidimeterXXC-151Auto-clave expansion (soundness)XX C-183SamplingXC-185Air content of mortarXC-186Heat of hydrationX C-191Time of setting by Vicat needleXXXC-204Fineness by air permeabilityXC-266Time of setting by Gillmore needlesXC-451False set (paste)X MPS2 UFSAR5.9-30Rev. 35TABLE 5.9-3 FLY ASH TESTSASTM Number TYPE OF TEST INITIAL TESTUSER'S TEST PERIODIC TESTSC-109Compressive strengthXXX C-114Chemical analysisXXC-151Autoclave expansion (Soundness)XXC-188Specific gravityXX C-204FinenessXXC-311Sampling and testingXX MPS2 UFSAR5.9-31Rev. 35TABLE 5.9-4 TYPICAL CHEMICAL ANALYSIS OF FLY ASH USED Chemical Analysis NUSCO Devon Plant RG&E Co. Russell Plant ASTM C-618 Silicon dioxide (SiO

2) plus aluminum oxide (A1 2 O 3) plus iron oxide (Fe 2 O 3) (minimum %)93.2286.2070.0Magnesium oxide (MgO) (maximum %) 1.201.22-Sulfur trioxide (SO

3) (maximum %)0.601.165.0Moisture content (maximum %)0.130.133.0Loss on ignition (maximum %)4.015.9012.0Available alkalies as Na 2O (maximum %)0.770.731.5 MPS2 UFSAR5.9-32Rev. 35Void Area = W (D-3/16) (Normal void due to asbestos packing) NOTES:(1)The maximum allowable void area computed separately for each end of the splice sleeve asshown in the sketch.(2)This column is used for all standard splic es including vertical, hor izontal, horizontal sidefill, angled splices and B-series structure splices.(3)This column is used for vertical spli ces only with low filler metal around entirecircumference. For spot voids in vertical splices, st andard splices column is used.TABLE 5.9-5 ALLOWABLE VOID LIMITS FOR CADWELDING Bar Size NumberSplice Catalog NumberMaximum Allowable Void LimitsVoid Area Standard Splices, (1) (2) (in 2)Vertical - Full Circumference Low, (3)(inches)6-6RBT-6101-(-H)1.05-1.055/8 - 5/86-7RBT6-7101 (-H)1.05-1.035/8 - 9/167-7RBT-7101 (-H)1.03-1.039/16 - 9/167-8RBT7-8101 (-H)1.03-1.029/16 - 1/2 8-8RBT-8101 (-H)1.02-1.021/2 - 1/28-9RBT-8-9101 (-H)1.02-1.021/2 - 1/29-9RBT-9101 (-H)1.02-1.021/2 - 1/2 9-10RBT9-10101 (-H)1.02-1.031/2 - 7/1610-10RBT-1091 (-H)1.03-1.037/16 - 7/1610-11RBT10-11101 (-H)1.03-1.537/16 - 9/16 11-11RBT-11101 (-H)1.53-1.539/16 - 9/1611-14RBT-11-14101 (-H)1.53-1.529/16 - 5/811-18RBT11-18101 (-H)1.53-1.99 9/16 - 1/2 14-14RBT-1476 (-H) 2.15-2.15 5/8 - 5/8 14-14RBT-14101 (-H)2.15-2.15 5/8 - 5/8 14-18RBT14-18101 (-H)2.15-1.99 5/8 - 1/2 18-18RBT-1876 (-H) 2.64-2.64 9/16 - 9/16 18-18RBT-1891 (-H) 3.00-3.00 5/8 - 5/8 18-18RBT-18101 (-H)3.00-3.00 5/8 - 5/8 MPS2 UFSAR5.A-1Rev. 35 5.A DESCRIPTION OF FINITE ELEMENT METHOD USED IN CONTAINMENTANALYSIS 5.A.1 INTRODUCTION The initial development of the finite element method was done by Turner, et al. (Reference 5.A-1) for future application in aerospace technology. Turner, et al. later used the two-dimensional plate elements in the analysis of aircra ft structures. These first applicat ions of the method were used to analyze the plane stress problem. (References 5.A-1 and 5.A-2)

Continued development of the method has extended its applicabil ity to the plane strain problem, flat plate bending, flat plate stability studies, three dimensional axisymmetric stress analysis and for general shell analysis. (References 5.A-3 through 5.A-6) Most recently, a textbook (Reference 5.A-7) by Zienkiewicz was published which contains many examples of soluti ons to practical pr oblems using finite elements. This text also presents an excellent treatment of this powerful a pproach to the solution of problems in continuum mechanics.

5.A.2 ANALYTICAL METHOD The finite element technique is a general method of structural an alysis in which the continuous structure is replaced by a system of elements (members) connect ed at a finite number of nodal points (joints). Conventional analyses of frames and trusses, for exam ple, can be considered as the application of the finite element method using one-dimensional el ements. In utilizing the method to an axisymmetric solid (e.g., a concrete containm ent), the continuous structure is replaced by a system of rings of circumfere ntial joints. Based on the ener gy principles, a set of force equilibrium equations are formed in which the radial and axial displacements at the circumferential joints are the unknowns of the system. A solu tion of this set of equations is inherent in the solution of the finite element system.

There are many advantages to the finite element method, wh en compared to other numerical approaches. The method is completely general with respect to geometry a nd material properties.

Complex bodies composed of many different materials are easily re presented; therefore, in the analysis of the containment, c oncrete, liner plate a nd foundation material ca n be realistically considered. Also, axisymmetric thermal, mechan ical and gravity loadings can be analyzed.

It can be shown mathematically that the method converges to the exact solu tion as the number of elements in increased; therefore, any desired degree of accuracy may be obtained within the limits of computational capacity.

5.A.3 COMPUTER PROGRAM The initial development of the co mputer program used in the an alysis of the containment was conducted at the University of California at Berkeley in 1962, under a National Science Foundation Grant (G18986). Sin ce that time the progr am has been further modified and refined by Dr. Edward L. Wilson. The valid ity of the specific pr ogram used in the containment analysis has been established by the analys is of axisymmetric solids with known exact linear solutions. It MPS2 UFSAR5.A-2Rev. 35is noted that the results of a finite element analysis always sati sfy statistics, since the equations solved within the computer program are based on the force equilibrium requirements.

5.A.4 COMPARISONS WITH KNOWN SOLUTIONSAn exact analysis of the containment struct ure under consideration is impossible by classic methods. A preliminary approximate analysis of the structure was conducted based on the classical shell theory. In addition to the difficulty in representing the steel liner, thickened portions of the shell and foundation materials, shell theory neglects th e members thicknesses and shear deformations. Since the finite element approach includes the members thicknesses and shear deformation, an exact comparison with shell theory cannot be expected. However, forces obtained from the finite element method at sections not near discontinuities or the foundation do agree with the results, based on the shell theory.Figure 5.A-1(c) illustrates the comparison of stre sses from a classical problem for which an exact closed form solution exists and those obtained by the finite element method. The figure also shows the effect of the fineness of the finite element mesh on the degree of accuracy of the solution.The problem is the determination of the radial and tangential stresses in an infinitely long, thick-walled cylinder of radius r and wall thickness of r/2, which is subjected to an internal pressure, p. (see Figure 5.A-1(b)). The values of the stresses through the wall thickness can be determined by the Lame solution. (Reference 5.A-8) The solution to this problem, using the finite element method, was carried out by E. L. Wilson. (Reference 5.A-9) For the containment, comparisons have been made between the finite element method and an analysis done in accordance with the general shell theory for homogeneous surfaces of revolution. The matrix of influence coefficients (the unknown forces - defl ections, moments and rotations for the dome, ring and cylinder) has been solved for the condition of equal deflection and rotations. Similar analytical methods have been used for the intersection of the base slab and the cylinder wall. The base slab has been analyzed as an elastic plate on an elastic foundation. In general, the results thus obtained are within five percent of those obtained by the more rigorous finite element method for ring girder, dome, an d cylinder wall of a similar containment. For a typical finite element analysis, the foundation material and base slab interaction is studied by extending the mesh of the finite elements into the foundation material. Since the locations of the boundaries of the finite element mesh within the soil mass are a function of the soil properties, (Reference 5.A-10) studies are pe rformed to determine where th ese boundaries should be located. After this has been dete rmined, the final analyses of the containment by the finite element method will follow. Agreement between the results of this approach and the results of hand calculations, based on the assumption of an elastic plate on an elas tic foundation, can be expected to be only approximate due to the difficulty of representing varying soil properties in the governing boundary conditions for the hand calculations.

MPS2 UFSAR5.A-3Rev. 35Stresses in the regions of anchors have been determined using a plan e strain analysis by the finite element method. Not only have the stresses resulting from the prestressing forces been determined, but also the effects due to the thermal and pressure loadings have been studied in the anchorage regions. The plane strain analysis is a better approximation than plane stress for the three-dimensional problem. However, since the program is prepar ed for plane stress analysis, modifications must be made in the elastic constants. The modulus of elasticity, E, is modified to E/(1-v 2); Poisson's ration, v, is modified to v/(1-v) and the linear thermal coefficient of expansion , is modified to (1+v).5.A.5 REFERENCES5.A-1Turner, M. L., R. W. Clough, H. C. Martin, and L. J. Topp, "Stiffness and Deflection Analysis of Complex Structures," Journal of Aeronautical Sciences, Volume 23, No. 9, September 1956, pp 805-823.5.A-2Clough, R. W., "The Finite Element In Plane Stress Analysis

," Proceedings of the Second ASCE Conference on Electronic Computation, Pittsburgh, PA., September 1960.5.A-3Wilson, E. L., "Finite Elemen t Analysis of Two-Dimensional Structures," Structures and Materials Research, Depa rtment of Civil Engineering, Repor t Number 63-2, University of California, June 1963.5.A-4Hermann, L. R., "Finite Element Bending An alysis for Plates," Journal of Engineering Mechanics Division, ASCE, V olume 93, No. EM5, October 1967, pp 13-26.5.A-5Kapur, K. K., and B. J. Hartz, "Stability of Plates Using the Finite Element Method,"

Journal of Engineering Mechanics Divisi on, ASCE, Volume 92, Number. EM2, April 1966, pp. 177-195.5.A-6Rashid, Y. R., "Analysis of Axisymmetric Composite Structures by the Finite Element Method," General Atomic Division of Gene ral Dynamics Corporat ion, Johns Hopkins Laboratory for Pure and Applied Science, San Diego, California. USAEC Contract at (04-3)-1967, Project Agreement Number 17.5.A-7Zienkiewicz, O. C., "The Finite Element Method in Structural and Continuum Mechanics," McGraw-Hill, 1967.5.A-8Seely, F. B., and J. O. Smith, "Advanced Strength of Materials," Second Edition, JohnWiley & Sons, Inc., New York, pp 295-304.5.A-9Wilson, E. L., "Structural Analysis of Axis ymmetric Solids," Prep rint 64-443 from AIAA 2nd Aerospace Sciences Meeti ng, New York, January 25, 1965.5.A-10Hoeg, K., J. T. Christian and R. V. Whitman, "Settlement of A Strip Load on Elastic-Plastic Soil," MIT Department of Civil Engineering, July 1967.

MPS2 UFSAR5.B-1Rev. 35 5.B JUSTIFICATION FOR LOAD FACTORS A ND LOAD COMBINATIONS USED INDESIGN EQUATIONS OF CONTAINMENT 5.B.1 GENERALThe load factors and load combinations in the design equations represent the consensus of the individual judgments of a group of Bechtel engineers a nd consultants who are experienced in both structural and nuclear power plant design. Their j udgment has been influenced by current and past practice, by the degree of conserva tiveness inherent in the basic lo ads, and particularly by the probabilities of coincident occurrences in the case of incide nt, wind and tornadoes, as well as seismic loads.

The following discussions e xplain the justification for the individual factors, particularly as they apply to containment structures.

5.B.2 DEAD LOADSDead loads in a large structure such as this are easily identified and their effects can be accurately determined at each point in the structure. Fo r dead loads in combinat ion with the incident, seismic, or wind and tornado loads, a load factor representing a tole rance of five percent is chosen to account for dead load inaccura cies. The ACI Code allows a to lerance of +25 percent and -10 percent, but the code is written to cover a variety of conditions where weights and configurations of materials in and on the struct ure may not be clearly defined a nd are subject to change during the life of the structure.

5.B.3 LIVE LOADS The live loads that would be present along with the incident, seismic, or wind and tornado loads would produce a very small portion of the stress at any point. Also, it is extremely unlikely that the full live loads would be pr esent over a lar ge area at the time of an unusual occurrence. For these reasons, a low load factor is felt to be justified and the live loads are considered together with dead loads at a load factor of 1.05.

5.B.4 SEISMIC LOADS The operating basis earthquake that has been selected is considered to be the possible earthquake which could occur during the life of the plant. In addi tion, a design basis earthquake which defines the maximum credible eart hquake which could occur at the s ite, is also considered in the design. Class I structures, systems, and equipment are designed so that no loss of function would result from the design basis earthquake. Consequently , the probabi lity of an eart hquake causing a loss-of-coolant incident is very small. For this reason, the two events, eart hquake and the loss-of-coolant incident is very small.

For this reason, the two events, earthquake and the loss-of-coolant incident, are considered together, but at much lo wer load factors than those specified for each separate event.

MPS2 UFSAR5.B-2Rev. 35 The seismic load factors of 1.25 and 1.00 are conservative for, respectively, the operating basis and the design basis earthquake in combination with the fact ored loss-of-coolant incident.

5.B.5 WIND AND TORNADO LOADSWind and tornado loads are determ ined from the velocities of the design wind and design tornado, respectively. With the containment designed for the extreme wind, it is inconceivable that the wind would cause a loss-of-coolant incident. Therefore, wind loads are not considered with the incident loads.

A load factor of 1.0 is applied to the tornado loads.

5.B.6 LOSS-OF-COOLANT INCIDENT The design pressure and temperat ure are based on the operation of partial safeguards equipment using emergency diesel power.

European practice has been to us e a load factor of 1.5 on the design pressure (Reference 5.B-1). This factor is reasonable and has been adopted for this design.

In all cases the design temperature is defined as that corresponding to the unfactored pressure. At 1.5 P, the temperature will be somewhat higher than the temperature at P. It would be unrealistic to apply a corresponding temperature f actor of 1.5 since this could onl y occur with a pressure much greater than a pressure of 1.5 P.

5.B.7 REFERENCES5.B-1T. C. Waters and N. T. Barrett, "Prest ressed Concrete Pressure Vessels for Nuclear Reactors," Journal Brit ish Nuclear Society 2, 1963.

MPS2 UFSAR5.C-1Rev. 35 5.C JUSTIFICATION FOR CAPACITY REDUCTION FACTORS () USED IN DETERMINING CAPACITY OF CONTAINMENT The factors are provided to allow for variations in materials and workma nship. In the ACI Code 318-63, varies with the types of stresses or member s considered; that is, with flexure, bond or shear stress, or compression.

The factor is multiplied into the basic strength equation or, for shear, into the basic permissible unit shear to obtain the dependable strength. The basic strength equation gives the "ideal" strength assuming that materials are as strong as specified, sizes ar e as shown on the drawings, the workmanship is excellent, and th at the strength equation itself is theoretically correct. The practical, dependable strength may be something less since all these factors vary.

The ACI Code provides for these variables by suing these factors: = 0.90 for concrete in flexure= 0.85 for diagonal te nsion, bond, and anchorage= 0.75 for spirally reinforce d, concrete compression members= 0.70 for tied compression members The value is lar ger for flexure because the variability of steel is less than that of concrete and the concrete in compression has a fail-safe mode of behavior; that is, materi al understrength may not cause failure. The values for columns are lowe r (favoring the toughness of spiral columns over tied columns) because columns fail in compression where concrete strength is critical. Also, it is possible that the analysis might not combine th e worst combination of axial load and moment. Since the member is critical in the gross coll apse of the structure, a lower value is used. The additional values used represent the best j udgment of Bechtel as to how much understrength should be assigned to each material and condition not covered directly by the ACI Code. The additional values have been sel ected, based on material quality in relation to the existing values.Conventional concrete de sign of beams requires th at the design be contro lled by yielding of the tensile reinforcing steel. This st eel is generally spliced by lapping in an area of reduced tension.

For members in flexure, ACI uses = 0.90. The same reasoning has been applied in assigning a value of = 0.90 to reinforcing steel in tension, which now includes axial tension. However, the Code recognizes the possi bility of reduced bond of the bars at the laps by specifying a of 0.85.

Mechanical and welded splices will develop at least 125 percent of the yi eld strength of the reinforcing steel. Therefore, = 0.85 is recommended for this type of splice.

The only significantly new value introduced is = 0.95 for prestressed te ndons in direct tension.

A higher value than that specified for conventional reinforcing ha s been allowed because: during installation the tendons are each jacked to about 94 percent of their yield strength, so in effect each tendon has been pr oof tested; and, the method of manu facturing prestre ssing steel (cold drawing and stress relieving) en sures a higher quality product than conventional reinforcing steel.

MPS2 UFSAR5.D-1Rev. 35 5.D EXPANDED SPECTRUM OF TORNADO MISSILESThe spectrum of tornado missiles is expanded to include the following: 1.Utility pole 13.5 inch diameter by 35 feet long with density of 43 lbs/ft 32.1inch solid steel rod 3 feet long with a density of 490 lbs/ft 33.6 inch, schedule 40 pipe, 15 feet long with a density of 490 lbs/ft 34.12 inch, schedule 40 pipe, 15 feet long with a density of 490 lbs/ft 3 For each of the above tornado-borne missiles, the following information is provided: 1.The maximum velocity and height attaine

d. Ass uming in the analyses that each of the missiles originates at ground level and at the highest structural elevation on the site capable of pr oducing each missile.2.The required thickness of a reinforced conc rete missile barrier to stop the missileswithout their penetrating the missile barrier. Discussing the adequacy of all tornado missile barriers protecting syst ems and components necessary for safe shutdown.3.The required thickness of a reinforced c oncrete missile barrier to preclude the generation of secondary missiles within the structure.4.The effects that secondary missiles coul d have on safety related equipment and systems in the event that they occur.

In developing the above information, the analytical approach presented in BC-TOP-9, Design of Structure for Missile Dama ge with the following ex ceptions is used, assu ming the missiles do not tumble and are at all times oriented su ch as to have the maximum value of C dA/W while in flight. THE TORNADO MODEL

The tornado model will be patterned after the Dallas tornado of April 2, 1957, as studied by Hoecker (Reference 5.D

-1). The model is basically that given in WCAP-7897 (Reference 5.D-2) but with a more rigorous extrapolation to the parameters desired

for a design tornado than given by Bates and Swanson (Reference 5.D-3). Hoecker summarized his findings by the use of a "pressure-time profile" for an average translational velocity of 27 m ph and as a function of percenta ge of total pressure drop. In Attachment A, it is shown that when this time-pressure profile is used to solve the cyclostropic wind equation, the tangential wind ve locities correspond with the e xperimental ones when a total pressure drop of 60 mb, or 0.882 psi, and a translational velocity of 27 mph is substituted into the equation.

MPS2 UFSAR5.D-2Rev. 35When a total pressure drop of 3 psi and a 60 mph translational velocity (88 fps) is substituted into the same equation, a 304 mph maximum tangential velo city at a 300 foot radius is obtained. This corresponds closely to the assumptions which have been made in the past when describing the design tornado.

The two exponential equations used by Hoecker to determine the ti me-pressure profile cross each other at a radius of 1,240 feet instead of the 300 feet at which they cross when a translational velocity is 27 mph. Therefore, it is only necessary to use one e quation since the starting tangential velocity corresponding to this distance is 66 mph, which is less than the minimum 75 mph considered by Bates and Swanson.

By incorporating these two assumptions, namely, that the vertical component is equal to one third of the tangential and the radial component is a function of radial distan ces between minimum and maximum tangential components being considered, a complete windfield was defined by using the following equations:

(1)(2)(3)Where: V t = tangential velocity (fps)

V r = radial velocity (fps)

V v = vertical velocity (fps)

V 1 = translational velocity (fps)

D = total pressure drop (psf)

R = radius (feet)

Equation (1) has been left in a ge neral form for use in future models to predict different total pressure drops or translational velocities. However, at this time D is taken as 432 psf and V 1 = 88 fps.

The relative conservatism with reference to th e actual Dallas tornado is shown in Figure 5.D-1.

The assumption of constant veloci ties from the ground to a height of 500 feet is a degree of conservatism which is justified by the expanded view of these velocities. This information has been published by Hoecker and is reproduced in Figure 5.D-2.

V t 249Exp48.3-V 3 1 R 3()V 3 1 D R 3-------------------

---

V r1240R-()R1240300-()--------------------------------=V v13V t

MPS2 UFSAR5.D-3Rev. 35TYPES OF MISSILES

Previous studies had considered a car as a missile for low elevations and a wooden plank for high elevations. Later a small cross-section missile in the form of a pipe was added. Five missiles are now being considered. All the missiles are intended as prototypes of the many missiles genera ted by tornados.

Considering the present (1973) state of the art, a detailed physical descript ion of a missile is of little value when designing the missile proof target. Empirical form ulations have to be used in areas where impactive energy and the impactiv e area are the points to be considered.The more logical approach is to assume a gene ralized range of missiles with the required drag factors impacting at given elevations with the highest possible velocity. The impactive kinetic energy per square foot of impact area fo r each elevation would then be computed. If a table is made with C d A/W factors from 0.10 to 0.15, which is the smalle st measurement for an airborne missile, it wi ll be found that there is a drag factor that will give the highest velocity at each elevation. This is shown in Table 5.D-1.

It is interesting to show the small range and th e gap left for the maximu m drag factor proposed. Wooden plank 0.06 Utility pole 0.026Steel rod 0.031 6 inch pipe 0.029 12 inch pipe 0.021Impactive energy per unit area measured in lb/ft as shown on Table II is readily found as follows:Where: K = impactive factor (lb/ft)

V = velocity at impact (fps)

A = area of impact (ft 2)F = C d A/W for C d = 1 W = weight of missile (pounds) g = acceleration of gravity (ft/sec 2)K WV 22gA------------

V 22gF----------==

MPS2 UFSAR5.D-4Rev. 35As expected, this impactive factor is much higher at lower elevations: it varies from 49,640 lb/ft for a 10 foot elevation to 22,070 lb/ft for a 110 foot elevation. Penetrations can be computed by the required empirical formulation which is workable in terms of these impactive factors. METHODS OF INJECTION AND PROPULSION: Bates and Swanson propose three methods of injection: a.Explosive injectionb.Aerodynamic injectionc.Ramp injectionThese are intended to limit the height at which a given object may be injected into a tornado. So many considerations and assumptions have to be made that they become of no practical value when it is to be assumed that the object will reach the highest point of a structure even if the missile has to be held at a convenient elevation for injection to occur. If an explosive injection occurs some distance away from a structure, it is concluded that the object could clear the structure, if such an injection could occur. Aerodynamic injection will require aerodynamic objects or else the injection is overestimated. Likewise, a ramp injection will depend on the given ramp, a factor that is hard to generalize. All three methods of injection required many assumptions which make it difficult for generalization. A fourth method which would be called the "Uplift Injection" offers the advantages of simplicity and applicability. In the uplift injection it is assumed that the wind finds its way beneath a surface and the object will become airborne at the time when the vertical component of the wind produces an upward force equal to the weight of th e object. While on the ground the object is assumed to be free to move on the horizontal plane in a frictionless manner as the tangential and radial components of the wind act on it. When a missile flight is to be ascertained by applying the three components of the wind (tangential, radial and vertical) simultaneously, a random surface is assumed to be facing all three components. This random surface will produce what is called in WCAP-7897 an "effective drag factor" to be applied in all directions and which is computed as follows:

Cylinder:

C e0.389h0.66D

+()Pobj hD---------------

---

---

-=

MPS2 UFSAR5.D-5Rev. 35 Parallelpiped:

where: C e = effective drag factor h = length, feetD = diameter, feet P obj = density, lb/ft 3 w = width, feet d = depth, feetTo date, this is the best method of computing an ef fective drag area for an object thrown into a tornado. Using these effective drag areas in the com puter program, DALLAS MISS GEN, the following results (velocities in ft/sec) were obtained: These results show that only the wooden plank type missile could be sust ained in the air. It supports WCAP-7897, Chapter 5:

"Investigation of Some Specific Missiles" which clearly states: "The results of Figure 3 in dicate that objects with a C d A/W less than 0.012 ft 2/lb will not be sustained by the vertical wind ev en if injected above immediat e obstructions." (Figure 3 is contained in WCAP-7897.)

ElevationWooden Plank C e = 0.03 Utility Pole C e = 0.0082Steel Rod C e = 0.0097 6 inch Pipe C e = 0.0015 12 inch Pipe C e = 0.000781022318219298---20264-----------

30279-----------

40270-----------

50261-----------

60258-----------

C e0.483whd+()P obj whd-------------------------------------

=

MPS2 UFSAR5.D-6Rev. 35It appears then that instea d of assuming impossible C d A/W factors for a given se t of missiles, it is best to assume an infinite number of missiles, all with possible effective drag factors.

The required thickness of a concrete element that wi ll just be perforated by a missile is given by:

where: T = Thickness of concrete element to be just perforated (inches)W = Weight of missiles (pounds)

D = Diameter of missiles (inches)Note: For irregularly shaped missiles, an e quivalent diameter is used. The equivalent diameter is taken as the diameter of a circ le with an area equal to the circumscribed contact, or projected frontal area , of the non-cylindrical missile.

V s = Striking velocity of missile (ft/sec) fc = Compressive strength of concrete (psi)This formula is known as the Ballistic Research Laboratory (BRL) formula as presented in Reference 5.D-5. The thickness, t p, of a concrete element required to prevent perforation must be greater than T. It is recommended to increase T by 25 percent, but not more than 10 inches, to obtain the t p , required to prevent perforation.

t p = 1.25T T + 10 (in inches)The results obtained by using the above formula are presented in Table 5.D-5. The concrete barriers furnished to protect systems and components necessary for safe shutdown exceed the required thickness to prevent perforation by the missiles.Spalling of concrete from the side opposite the impact surface of the element is considered as a secondary missile. For an estimate of the thickness that will just start spalling, it is recommended that the following equation be used: Ts = 2T where: T s = Concrete element thickness that will just start spalling (inches)

T427W fc D1.8----------------------

V s 1000-----------

-1.33=

MPS2 UFSAR5.D-7Rev. 35T = Concrete thickness to be just perforated (inches). The thickness, t s , of a concrete element required to prevent spalling must be greater than T

s. It is recommended to increase T s by 25 percent, but not more than 10 inches, to prevent spalling.

t s = 1.25T s T s + 10 (in inches)

The results obtained by using the above formula are presented in Table 5.D-5.

The BRL formula was selected afte r a thorough study of all available formulae in the literature for concrete perforation and spalling due to missile impact. As with al l other available formulae, the BRL formula represents an empirical expression based upon high velocity test data and was developed for use in the high velo city range (i.e., missile impact velocity in excess of 1,000 ft/

sec). The range of missile velocities considered in a nuclear facility is generally below 500 ft/sec. In order to provide a confidence margin for the lo wer velocity range, and to assure that barrier thickness would exceed that at which perforation or spalling impends, the design thickness was increased. Test data on the impact of a one-inch diameter steel rod having a velocity from 150 ft/sec to 320 ft/sec on concrete barriers of 3 inches, 6 inches and 9 inches in thickness indicate that these formulae provide conservative re sults for both concrete perforation and spalling in the velocity range as stated. A summary of the test results is presented in Table 5.D-6.

A procedure for determining thickness of spalling is presented in Reference 5.D-4. The spalling effects on concrete wall due to the impacts of wooden plank and utility pole were investigated and, in both cases, no spalling of concrete wall was indicated. Therefore, the secondary missiles are not considered credible.

The thickness, t s , of a concrete element re quired to prevent spalling is more than the thickness, T m , of a concrete element furnished in the cases of wooden plank and utility pole, as indicated in Table 5.D-5. The thickness, t s , provides a simplified approach of determining a thickness required for a concrete barrier to stop a missile. A margin of safety, an increase of 25% of the calculated values with an upper limit of 10 inches, is a logi cal safety factor against spalling or perforation and is further reinforced by the test data presented in Figure 5.D-3. The formula used to determine the thickness of spalling does not consider reinforcing steel wh ich tends to reduce the amount of spalling. If t s is less than T m, as in the case of 3 inch steel rod and 6 inch pipe, no additional analysis is required. To determine the thickness of sp alling, the following formula is presented in Reference 5.D-4.

Xmax282NW fc d 1.8---------------------

-V 1000-----------

-1.8=

MPS2 UFSAR5.D-8Rev. 35 where: V = velocity of missile, ft/sec W = weight of missile, pounds T = target thickness, inches

d = diameter of missile, inches

f'c = concrete strength, psit(initial)

= thickness of initial spall, inches N = nose factor = 0.845 for hemi-spherical nose

C 2 = coefficient from Figure 4.10 of Reference 5.D-4 C s = dilational velocity in concrete = 9,800 ft/sec X max = concrete thickness to just perforate, inches By substituting the following values into the equations, the value of t, total thickness of all spalling, for the wooden plank and the utility pole was determined to be insignificant.

<parameter> Wooden Plank Utility Pole Weight105 pounds1,500 poundsVelocity280 fps182 fps Target Thickness 12 inches 24 inches Diameter of Missile 7.82 inches 13.5 inchesConcrete Strength 3,000 psi 3,000 psi C 1 T X max------------C 3 1-+C s V-----

13=C 30.877W 13X max----------------------------

tinitial ()C 2 X max V C s-----13=t 1 8---T0.877W 13tinitial ()Xmax-++[]

MPS2 UFSAR5.D-9Rev. 35 5.D.1 REFERENCES5.D-1W. H. Hoecker, Jr., "Three Dimensional Pre ssure Pattern of the Dallas Tornado and Some Resultant Implications," Monthly Weather Review, 89, 12, 533, 1961. 5.D-2D. F. Paddleford, "Characteristics of Torn ado Generated Missiles,"

Westinghouse Electric Corporation, WCAP-7897, April 1969. 5.D-3F. C. Bates and A. E. Swanson, "Torna do Design Considerations for Nuclear Power Plants," ANS Trans actions, November 1967. 5.D-4"Industrial Engineering Study to Establish Sa fety Design Criteria fo r Use in Engineering of Explosive Facilities and Operations W a ll Response," a Report Submitted to Process Engineering Branch, A.P.M.E.D. Picatinny Arsenal, Dover, N. J., Ammann & Whitney Consulting Engineers, April 1963. 5.D-5"Topical Report: Design of St ructures for Missile Impact," Bechtel Corporation, BC-TOP-9, Revision 1, July 1973.5.D-6G. W. Reynolds, "Report to Bech tel Power Corporation," August 29, 1973.5.D-7R. C. Gwaltney, "Missile Generation in Light Water Cooled-Power Reactor Plants,"

ORNL-NSIC-22, September 1968.5.D-8D. A. Miller and W. A. Williams, "Torna do Protection for the Spent Fuel Storage Pool,"

APED 5696, November 1968.5.D-9E. M. Brooks, "Quantitative Models of Wi nd Velocity Components in a Tornado Vortex,"St. Louis University Report No. 1 to the U.S. Weather Bureau, 1957.

MPS2 UFSARMPS2 UFSAR5.D-10Rev. 35TABLE 5.D-1 IMPACTIVE VELOCITIES (fps) OF MISSILES OF DIFFERENT C dA/W FACTORS AS PICKED FROM THE GROUND BY THE DESIGN TORNADO Elevation C d A/W0.10.090.080.070.060.050.040.030.020.0151014214815316117118320022324421920167175184194206226244264246---

30194203214226241259278279238---40223233246259274291300270 238 (a)---50253263276290305313301261---60283294307317327321290 258 (a) ---70312322333339336313279---80339347352349331300273---90361364360346318290 271 (a)100375369355331304283---110377363341316294280---

120367346324303287 280 (a)130349327309293284---140330312298287 283 (a)---150311298290285---160297290284 285 (a)---170287283 283 (a)---

MPS2 UFSARMPS2 UFSAR5.D-11Rev. 35180279280---190276 280 (a)---200275---(a)Missile reached the condens ation funnel at some elevation above the previous one.TABLE 5.D-1 IMPACTIVE VELOCITIES (fps) OF MISSILES OF DIFFERENT C dA/W FACTORS AS PICKED FROM THE GROUND BY THE DESIGN TORNADO Elevation C d A/W0.10.090.080.070.060.050.040.030.020.015 MPS2 UFSAR5.D-12Rev. 35Use the last figures for elevations above 110 feet.TABLE 5.D-2 KINETIC ENERGY PER FT 2 OF IMPACT AREA C d A/WMax Impact Velocity (fps)At Elevation (ft)Kinetic Energy/Ft 2 (lb/ft)0.0152191049,6400.022462044,747 0.032793040,2900.043014035,1710.043015035,171 0.053216032,0000.063367029,2170.073498027,019 0.083609025,1550.0936910023,4920.1037711022,070 MPS2 UFSAR5.D-13Rev. 35TABLE 5.D-3 RADIUS VS. VELOCITY FPS/MPH (D=0.882 PSI/V 1 = 27 MPH) RADIUSVELOCITY FPSVELOCITY MPH150032.6322.25140033.7523.01 130035.0023.86120036.3924.81110037.9625.88 100039.7627.1190041.8528.5380044.2930.20 70047.2232.2060050.8334.6550055.4037.77 40061.4841.92300127.3086.80290133.1590.78 280139.3995.04270146.0599.58260153.15104.42 250160.71109.58240168.74115.05230177.22120.83 220186.14126.91210195.43133.25200204.97139.75 190214.57146.29180223.90152.66170232.49158.52160239.58163.35150244.08166.42 MPS2 UFSAR5.D-14Rev. 35 Where: D = 0.882 psi V 1 = 27 mph140244.40166.63130238.39162.53120223.34152.27 110196.44133.93100156.08106.4190104.6871.37 8052.2335.617015.0710.27601.45.99 50.01.0140003000 20001000TABLE 5.D-3 RADIUS VS. VELOCITY FPS/MPH (D=0.882 PSI/V 1 = 27 MPH) RADIUSVELOCITY FPSVELOCITY MPH MPS2 UFSAR5.D-15Rev. 35TABLE 5.D-4 RADIUS VS. VELOCITY FPS/MPH (D=3 PSI/V 1 = 60 MPH) RADIUSVELOCITY FPSVELOCITY MPH150088.6360.43140091.5962.45 130094.8864.69120098.5467.191100102.6770.00 1000107.3573.19900112.7476.87800119.0381.16 700126.5086.25600135.5692.42500146.86100.13 400161.49110.10300446.95304.74290440.56300.38 280430.85293.76270417.34284.55260399.52272.40 250376.98257.03240349.39238.22230316.68215.92 220279.11190.30210237.44161.89200193.06131.63 190148.07100.96180105.2471.7517067.6346.1116037.9725.8915017.7312.09 MPS2 UFSAR5.D-16Rev. 35Where: D = 3 psi V 1 = 60 mph1406.404.361301.601.09120.23.16 110.02.01100009000 800070006000 500040003000 20001000TABLE 5.D-4 RADIUS VS. VELOCITY FPS/MPH (D=3 PSI/V 1 = 60 MPH) RADIUSVELOCITY FPSVELOCITY MPH MPS2 UFSAR5.D-17Rev. 35 t m = Minimum concrete thickness furnished.TABLE 5.D-5 VELOCITIES OF VARIOUS MISSILES Missiles Maximum Velocity (fps)

Maximum Height (ft.)

t p (in.)t s (in.)t m (in.)Wooden Plank280606.513.012.0Utility Pole1821014.028.124.01 inch Steel Rod192108.717.424.0 6 inch Pipe98105.110.124.012 inch Pipe-----

MPS2 UFSARMPS2 UFSAR5.D-18Rev. 35*Rounded end.

• • Believed to be bad reading due to rounded missile end.

• • • No reinforcing in slab.

TABLE 5.D-6 TEST DATA

SUMMARY

Test NumberTest Date (July)Target Thickness (inches)MissileVelocityPenetration SpallingLength (feet)Weight (lbs)Electronic (ft/sec)Movies (ft/sec)Depth (inches)Volume (in 3)12938.052031.7121None23638.042132111.6011.6Small & cracks33338.05218213Perforated6.1/30.5 front/backMaximum travel of 144 ft.44638.052202141.9817.4Large & cracks5461.43.783223121.6821.6Moderate & cracks6493 *8.01235 **2142.3422None 759 ***38.042172161.8419.9None85638.041501511.237.6Small & cracks

MPS2 UFSAR5.D.A-1Rev. 35 5.D.A THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE WIND-FIELD, TANGENTIAL VELOCITY A wind-field may be generated by using the experi mental findings of Hoecker (1) in the Dallas Tornado of April 1954, which was e xpressed in mathematical form as a "pressure-time profile" as follows: p = [1 - Exp(-0.755/t)] D for 7.6 to 37.9 seconds (1)p = [1 - Exp(-48.3/t 3)] D for 0 to 7.6 seconds (2)(Intended only for all positive values of the time t)Where: t = time of arrival D = total pressure drop in psfIn this publication it is clearly established that the dist ance from axis (R) vari ed from a radius of 1,500 ft at 37.9 seconds to 300 ft at 7.6 seconds, in other word s for a translational velocity (V

1) of 27 mph. That is to say a relation betwee n t and R is readily found as follows:

t = (R/V 1)(3)Therefore equations 1 and 2 may be written in terms of radius as follows:

p = [1-Exp(-0.775V 1/R)]D(4)p = [1-Exp(-48.3V 3 1/R 3)]D(5)The wind cyclostrophic equation was defined in the sa me publication as dp/dR = V 2/R (6)Where the partial differentiation of pressure to radius is equated to th e mass density of the wind

() times the square of the tangential ve locity (V) divided by the radius (R).

By differentiating equations 4 and 5 it is found dp/dR = -[Exp(-0.755 V 1/R)](0.755V1/R 2)(D)(7)(8)And substituting in equation 6 the following expres sions are obtained which will relate tangential velocities to radius.

dp dR-------Exp48.3V 3 1 R 3-()[]144.9V 3 1 R 4()D ()-=

MPS2 UFSAR5.D.A-2Rev. 35Introducing these differentiations in the cyclostrophic equation:

(9)(10)By assigning a constant value of 0.075/g for the mass density of air and solving for V , the following expressi ons are obtained: (11)(12)This equation will give us the tangential velocities as a function of the radius. Equation 11 and 12 are applied, first to the Dallas Torn ado where D = 60 mb = 0.882 psi and V 1 = 27 mph; then to the Design Tornado where D = 3 psi and V 1 = 60 mph. The results are shown in Tables 5.50-3 and 5.50-4. Equations 11 and 12 coverage where R* = 1,240 feet when both equations give a tangential velocity of about 97 ft/sec about 66 mph which could be taken as the initial wind velocity to be considered at a radius of 1,240 feet. This will a dd some conservatism to our computations while obviating the use of two equations. In other words: Starting at 1,240 f oot radius with 66 mph wind is mo re conservative than starting at 600 foot radius with 75 mph winds, as done by WCAP 7897.

RADIAL WIND VELOCITY The radial component of the wind will be computed using the same expression as that of WCAP except that the radius of 66 mph instead of 75 mph is chosen. So that:

Where 300 is the radius of the maximum tangential velocity. Exp0.755V 1 R-()[]0.755V 1 R 2()D ()-V 2 R--------=Exp48.3V 3 1 R 3-()[]144.9V 3 1 R 4()D ()-V 2 R--------=V18Exp0.755V 1 R-()[]V 1 ()D ()R----------------------------------------------------------

---

=V249Exp48.3V 3 1 R 3-()[]V 3 1 ()D ()R 3-------------------------------------------------------------------------

-=V 21240R-1240300---------------------------

-R-=

MPS2 UFSAR5.D.A-3Rev. 35VERTICAL COMPONENT The vertical wind component will be taken as one third of the tangential as done previously.

V 3 = 1/3(V 1) CONSERVATISM A.CONSERVATISM IN THE WINDFIELDa.Three (3) psi Total Pressure DropThe equation of maximum tangential velocity was presented as follows:

(1)Where: V 1 = translational velocity (fps)

D = total pressure drop (psf)

R = radius (ft)

Substituting R/V 1 = t, Equation (1) becomes (2)The last term in Equation (2) maximizes at t = 3.64 seconds when its value is equal to 0.08727. Therefore:

(3)From Equation (3), we relate the maximu m velocities to the total pressure drops. Pressure Drop (psi)Pressure Drop (psf)Maximum Tangential Velocity (fps)Maximum Tangential Velocity (mph) 0.50 72 184.4 126 1.00 144 260.8 178 1.50 216 319.4 218 2.00 288 368.8 251 V t249Exp48.3V 1 R()3-[]V 1 R()3 D=V t249D 1 e48.3t 3t 3 ()-------------------------

-=Vtmax ()249 ()0.08727 ()D=

MPS2 UFSAR5.D.A-4Rev. 35 The tornado model, as described above, is appl icable only to the Dallas Tornado as studied by Hoecker (Reference 5.D-1). Nevertheless, E. M. Brooks (Reference 5.D-9) submitted to the U.S. Weather Bureau a report in whic h he equated kinetic ener gy per unit volume to one-half the work done on th e unit volume. He computed the following values:

There is exceptionally good agreement betw een these figures and those previously presented. One set is computed by extrapolating experimental evidence, and the other is computed theoretically. The 308 mph and the 3 psi are the result of extrapolating Hoecker's pressure profile which shows a good agreement with experiments. Therefore, the most important parameter, the tangential velocity, is validated by both experiment and theory. The degree of conservatism of this windfield should be recognized since the pressure drops recorded are less than th e 3 psi proposed here. Dr. Reynolds, in his report (Reference 5.D-6), stated, "As far as I know, no pressure drop of as much as an inch of mercury (about 0.5 psi) has been of ficially recorded. Although unofficially made, spectacular atmospheri c pressure measurements have been reported for tornadoes."b.Translational Velocity of 60 mph The conservatism of assuming a three (3) ps i total pressure drop is presented above and shows that the maximum tangential velo city of 308 mph with respect to three(3)psi total pressure drop is obtained.

The same tangential velocity can be obtained for tornadoes with various translat ional velocity by vary ing the radius of a tornado. If 60 mph translati onal velocity is used, as in the case for Millstone Unit

2, the maximum tangential velocity for a missile is more than that associated with27 mph translational velocity, as in the ca se of the Dallas tornado. Therefore, the translational velocity of 60 mph, as assume d in the analysis for Millstone is more conservative than the actual record as illustrated in the following table.

2.50 360 412.3 281 3.00 432 451.7 308Pressure Drop (inches Hg)Pressure Drop (psi)Tangential Velocity (mph) 5 2.5 285 6 3.0 316 7 3.5 348Pressure Drop (psi)Pressure Drop (psf)Maximum Tangential Velocity (fps)Maximum Tangential Velocity (mph)

MPS2 UFSAR5.D.A-5Rev. 35 Assume a flight parameter = 0.10B.CONSERVATISM IN THE COMPUTATIONAL PROCEDUREMaximum velocity and height associated with a flight parameter are obtained from the following procedures:a.Relative Wind Velocity It has been customary for WCAP (Reference 5.D-2) and others to consider therelative wind velocity with respect to th e velocity of the flying object in the following manner:

(4)Where: Vx,y,z = Wind velocities in the three coordinates V r = Relative wind velocity Ux,y,z = Object velocities in the three coordinates X = AccelerationHeightTangential Velocity with 60 mphTangential Velocity with 27 mph 10 142 142 20 167 214 30 194 276 40 223 296 50 253 285 60 283 276 70 312 27380339---90366---110377---X**C d A W---------- --V r V x U x-()=V r V x U x-()2 V y U y+()2 V z U z-()2++=

MPS2 UFSAR5.D.A-6Rev. 35 C d = 1 A= Projected area of missile in flightW = Weight of missile

= Density of missile It should be apparent that, as the object reaches the wind velo cities, not only will the terms in parentheses in Equati on (4) decrease, but the value of V r also will decrease. b.Asolute or Actual Wind Velocities It isn't quite clear that the relative veloc ity of the fluid should be used when the moving body is assumed to be immersed in the fluid propelling it. Gwaltney (Reference 5.D-7), when considering an object propelled by steam, uses the absolute or actual velocity of the steam in the following manner:

(5)Where: V a = Absolute wind velocity V a = (V 2 x + V 2 y + V 2 x)1/2 Here, the absolute or actual velocity of the wind obviously will increase to its actual maximum value irrespective of the missile velocity. Consequently, the accelerations are greater. c.Missile is Assumed to Stay in the WindfieldIn the windfield presented by WCAP, at a time when the tangential velocity increases and the radial velocity decreases rapidly, the missile may leave thewindfield. An analysis shows that the velocity at which the missile leaves thewindfield is less than that calculated above by assuming the mi ssile stays in the windfield. Therefore, it is more conservative to assume a missile strikes a target at its maximum velocity while it is within a windfield.C.CONSERVATISM IN FLIGHT PARAMETER The magnitude of the flight parameter depends essentially on the missile area projected to the wind. Accelerations and velocities ar e directly proportional to this area.However, the governing parameter, as far as pe netration is concerned, is a function of the weight, velocity, and impactive area of a missile.

X**C d A W---------- --V a V x U x-()=

MPS2 UFSAR5.D.A-7Rev. 35P = f(W,V/A)

(6)Where: P = PenetrationW = Weight of missile A = Impactive area This function in most penetration formulae ca n be identified as the ener gy/area ratio.

When a flying object is following a spiral trajec tory, it is difficult to calculate its velocity unless a common area is used. Dr. Bates (Reference 5.D-3) produced what he called the "effective area" to solve this problem. Justif ication for using the ef fective area in our computation is as follows:

The important thing to consider here is the si gnificance of assuming one area for the flight parameter (even if it is the effective area) and another for impact. This situation is maximized in the following table:

It is hypothetical to consider that a missile can maintain it s maximum projec ted area flight and strike a tar get with its minimum area. Th erefore, it is indicated from the above table that the assumption of using effective area in flight and minimum area on impact is a very conservative approach. D.CONSERVATISM IN THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT A distinction should be made between the hei ght that a tornado missile could reach before its velocity is zero and the height at which it obtains maximum tangential velocity. The damaging effect of a missile depends on its impactive velocity and not the height it may reach.The heights reported for Millstone are those at which the missiles are traveling at theirmaximum velocities.

<object>Effective area in flight Minimum area on impactMaximum area in fli ght Maximum area on impactPlank 711,000 lb/ft 29,200 lb/ft Pole 771,500 lb/ft 30,800 lb/ft Rod 848,000 lb/ft 24,900 lb/ft 6 inch Pipe 732,900 lb/ft 25,700 lb/ft 12 inch Pipe 414,800 lb/ft 27,800 lb/ft MPS2 UFSAR5.D.A-8Rev. 35 From the analyses, we indica ted that only the wooden plank would attain such a height conincident with the height of the missile proof siding. However, from a hypothetical viewpoint, should a missile be assumed to enter the spent fuel pool area through the missile proof siding, the following analysis is performed. E.Energy Taken by Metal SidingThe formula used to determine the energy (ft-lb) taken by metal siding is given by Reference 5.D-7.(7)Where: D = Diameter of missile (inches)S = Yield strength of target (lb/in²)

t = Target thickness (inches)

W/W s = Window factor = length of square side between rigid supports/length of a standard width (4 inches)F.Striking Velocity of Missile at Water Surface E = E i - E, V 1 = (2E r/m)1/2 (9)Where: E = Residual energy of a missile E i = Initial energy of a missile m = Mass of a missileG.Impactive Energy on Fuel Rack The method used to determine the impactive energy on fuel rack is given in Reference 5.D-8.(10)where: E F = Kinetic energy at fluid depth H E DS 46500--------------

-16000t 2 1500 W W s-------t+,=E f W-----1w---------w V 2 1 2g-----------------1

-ew H-1+=

MPS2 UFSAR5.D.A-9Rev. 35W = Weight (lb)

A = Projected area (ft 2)w = Fluid density (lb/ft 3)C d = Drag coefficient g = Gravity (ft/sec 2)H = Fluid depth (feet)

The assumed missile, namely the 1 inch r od with impactive ener gy of 4600 ft-lb, is analyzed with various possible trajectories entering the spent fuel pool through the missile-proof siding as shown in Figures 5.D-1A and 5.D-2A. By substituting the following values into Equation 7, D = 1 inches S = 50,000 lb/in 2 t = 0.2092 inches W/W s = 2 then (11)where = angle of entry as demonstrated in Figure 5.D-3A. The values of energy taken by the metal sidi ng, E, and the residual ener gy of the missile, E r, with corresponding angles of entry, , are given in Table 5.D.A-2A , from which the following summary is drawn: (a)At 0° entry.The assumed missile would have no direct impact on the fuel pool. Free falling of the assumed missile is less critical than the trajectories considered below. (b)At 45° entry.E C d A W----------

-ft 2 lb()=E 1.075cos-------------

700.2342 cos-------------------

627.6cos-------------

+=

MPS2 UFSAR5.D.A-10Rev. 35 From Table 5.D.A-2A, the residual energy for the missile is equal to 1,120 ft-lb. The missile velocity at impacting the wa ter surface as obtained by Equation 9 is calculated to be 95 fps. Assuming the missile impacts with its minimum cross sectional area on the pool and travels ve rtically downward, the kinetic energy per pound impactive at the fuel rack is calculated from Equation 10 to be E÷W = 66 Therefore E = 66(8) = 528 ft-lb for the impactive area of the rod. The kinetic energy per impactive unit area thus obtained (528 ft-lb/0.785 in 2 = 672.6 ft-lb/in²)

is the same as the design capability of fuel rack. The fuel racks are designed to withstand a fuel assembly weighing 1,300 pounds dropped from approximately 26 feet (assuming no drag resistance from the water). The resulting impactive energy thus obtained is approximately 33,800 ft-lb which when applied over an eight inch diameter area atop of the fuel rack gives the same impactive energy per unit area as the rod. (c)At angles greater than 45

°.The residual energy of the missile impacting the siding at angles greater than 45

° is less than that discussed in Item b above. As indicated in Table 5.D.A-2A , the missile would not penetrat e the missile proof siding at an angle of about 55

° or greater. It is therefore concluded that even if the missile could attain such a height as to enter the spent fuel area through the missile proof siding, no possible damage to the fuel element could occur.

MPS2 UFSAR5.D.A-11Rev. 35 APPENDIX 5D ATTACHMENT A (a)Relative wind velocity.(b)Absolute wind velocity. Missile on own path.(c)Absolute wind velocity. Missile following windfield.TABLE 5.D.A-1A RELATIVE CONSERVATISM IN STEPS A, B, AND CF.P.Maximum Velocities (fps)Maximum Heights (feet)(a)(b)(c)(a)(b)(c)0.1025032337740.779.9194.80.0924331436936.874.4181.20.0823630336030.069.0166.8 0.0722929134928.261.8150.10.0622027833623.754.6131.40.0520926232118.845.7110.5 0.0419624330113.335.6 86.70.03180220279 7.824.4 59.10.02159189246 2.111.4 27.8 0.015144170219 0.005 4.9 6.16 MPS2 UFSAR5.D.A-12Rev. 35 APPENDIX 5D ATTACHMENT A TABLE 5.D.A-2A ANGLE OF ENTRY RESISTANCE ENERGY BY SIDING, E (FT-LB) RESIDUAL ENERGY, E r(FT-LB)014303170201670293030206025404534801120 504460140556030-608720-MPS2 UFSAR5.D.A-13Rev. 35 APPENDIX 5DATTACHMENT ATABLE 5.D.A-3A ANGLE OF ENTRY RESISTANCE ENERGY BY SIDING, E (FT-LB) RESIDUAL ENERGY, E r (FT-LB)014303170 201670293030206025404534801120 504460140556030-608720-

MPS2 UFSAR5.E-1Rev. 35 5.E COMPUTER PROGRAM LIST AND DESCRIPTIONS I.BLOWDOWN LOADS The following codes provide the basis for the hydraulic forces ac ting on the structures during the subcooled and two phase periods of blowdown. WATERHAMMERa.Description

Fundamental to the determination of the mechanical loads duri ng blowdown is the hydrodynamic solution of the fluid decompre ssion. The major loads imposed on the reactor vessel internals occur during the subcooled period of decompression. The digital computer program WATERHAMMER (1) is used to describe this subcooled response. The WATERHAMMER code is a di gital computer progr am developed under contract to the AEC for use on the LOFT program. It is based on assumptions of one dimensionality and ignores fl uid friction at the walls.

These assumptions result in simplified forms of the equations of mass and momentum. These equations are transformed to their wave conjugate form and solved by the supe rposition method. Details of the method of solution are presented in Reference 1. The basic assumptions, which provide for convenient solution by the wave equations (Hookes' law treatment of fluid properties and neglect of conservation of ener gy) limit the extent of applicability of the solution to subcooled fluid conditions only. b.Reference1.65-28-RA, "EARLY BLOWDOWN (WATERHAMMER) ANALYSIS FOR LOSS OF FLUID TEST FACILITY", by Stanislav Fabic, dated June 1965 and revised April 1967.CEFLASH-4a.Description

CEFLASH-4, is employed to provide informat ion during the Two-phase transition period. CEFLASH-4 is a C-E modified version of the FLASH-4 (1) code. This code, as shown in References 2 and 3 , has demonstrated applicability for the two-phase transient. It is a multinode-multiflowpath code which simultane ously solves the finite difference form of the equations of mass, momentum, and energy conservation in conjunction with tabularized values of the fl uid properties. The numerical solution technique employs a backward difference integration scheme which leads to numerically stable results for the depressurization predictions.

MPS2 UFSAR5.E-2Rev. 35 The two codes described above provide the basis for determination of the hydraulic forces acting on the structures during the subcooled and two-phase periods of blowdown. b.References1.WAPD-TM-840, "FLASH-4: A FULLY IMPLICIT FORTRAN IV PROGRAMFOR THE DIGITAL SIMULATION OF TRANSIENTS IN A REACTORPLANT", by T. A. Porsching, J. H. Murphy, J. A. Redfield, and V. C. Davis, dated March 1969.2.CENPD-26, Combustion Engineering Repor t, "Description of Loss-of-Coolant Calculational Procedures", August 1971 (Proprietary).3.CENPD-42, Combustion Engineering Report, "Topical Report on Dynamic Analysis of Reactor Vessel Internals Under Loss-of-Coolant Accident ConditionsWith Application of Analysis to CE 800 Mwe Class Reactors", August 1972 (Proprietary).

II.REACTOR VESSEL INTERNALS The following codes were used in the analysis of the reactor vessel internals. MRI/STARDYNEa.Description and Assumptions The program uses the finite-element method for the static and dynamic analyses of two and three dimensional solid stru ctures subjected to any arbitr ary static or dynamic loading or base acceleration. In addition, initial disp lacements and velocities may be considered.

The physical structure to be analyzed is modeled with finite elements which are interconnected by nodes. Each element is constr ained to deform in accordance with an assumed displacement field that is required to satisfy continuity across element interfaces.

The displacement shapes are evaluated at nodal points. Th e equations relating the nodal point displacements and their a ssociated forces are called the element stiffness relations and are a function of the element geometry and its mechanical properties. The stiffness relations for an element are developed on the basis of the theorem of minimum potential energy. Masses and external forces are a ssigned to the nodes. The general solution procedure of the program is to formulate the total assemblage stiffness matrix [K] and apply it to either of the following equations: [k]() = (p)(1)W 2[m](q) - [k](q) = 0 (2)

MPS2 UFSAR5.E-3Rev. 35 where: () = the nodal displacement vector (p)= the applied nodal forces[m]= the max matrix

w = the natural frequencies (q)= the normal modes Equation (1) applies during a static analysis which yields the nodal displacements and finite elements internal fo rces. Equation (2) applies duri ng an eigenvalue/eigenvector analysis, which yields the natural frequencie s and normal modes of the structural system. Using the natural frequencies and normal modes together with related mass and stiffness

characteristics of the structure, appropriate equations of motion may be evaluated to determine structural response to a prescribed dynamic load. The finite element used to date in CE analyses is the elastic beam member. The assumptions governing its use are as follows: small deformation, linear-elastic behavior, plane sections remain plane, no coupling of axial, torque and bending, geometric and elastic properties constant along length of element. b.Extent of Program's Applications The program is used to obtain the response of the reactor vesse l internals due to prescribed seismic excitation. The struct ural components are modeled with beam elements. The geometric and elastic properties of these el ements are calculated such that they are dynamically equivalent to the or iginal structures.

The response analysis is then conducted using both model response spectra and modal ti me history techniques. Both methods are compatible with the program.c.Reference "MRI/STARDYNE-Static and Dynamic Structur al Analys is System: User Information Model", Control Data Corporation, June 1, 1970.

ASHSDa.Description and Assumptions

The program uses a finite-e lement technique for the dyna mic analysis of complex axisymmetric structures subjected to any arbitrary static or dynamic loading or base acceleration. The three-di mensional axisymmetric continuum is represented either as an axisymmetric thin shell or as a solid of revolution, or as a combinati on of both. The axisymmetric shell is discreted as a series of frustums of cones and the solid revolution as triangular or quadrilateral "toroids" connected at their nodal circles.

MPS2 UFSAR5.E-4Rev. 35Hamilton's variational principle is used to derive the equations of motion for these discrete structures. This leads to a mass matrix, stiffness matrix and load vectors which are all consistent with the assumed displacement field. To minimize computer storage and execution time, the non-diagonal "consistent" mass matrix is diagonalized by adding off-diagonal terms to the appropriate diagonal terms. These equations of motion are solved numerically in time domain by a direct step-by-step integration procedure. The assumptions governing the axisymmetric thin shell finite elem ent representation of the structure are those consistent with linear orthotropic thin elastic shell theory. b.Extent of Program's ApplicationsASHSD is used to obtain the dynamic response of the CSB/TS system due to a LOCA. An axisymmetric thin shell model of the structure is developed. The spatial Fourier series components of the time varying LOCA loads are applied to the modeled structure. The program yields the dynamic shell and beam mode response of the structural system. c.ReferenceGhosh, S., Wilson, E. L., "Dynamic Stress Analysis of Axisymmetric Structures Under Arbitrary Loading", Report Number EERC 69-10, U. of California, Berkeley, September, 1969.ICES/STRUDL - IIa.Description and Assumptions The ICES/STRUDL-II computer pr ogram provides the ability to specify characteristics of problems - framed structures and three-dimensional solid structures, perform analyses -

static and dynamic, and re duce and combine results. Analytic procedures in the pertinent portions of ICES/STRUDL-II apply to framed structures. Framed structures are two or three dimensional structures composed of slender, linear members which can be represented by properties along a centroidal axis. Such a structure is modeled with joints, includi ng support joints, and members connecting the joints. A variety of force conditions on members or joints can be specified. The member stiffness matrix is computed from beam theory. The total stiffness matrix of the modeled structure is obtained by appropriately combining the individual member stiffnesses. The stiffness analysis method of solution tr eats the joint displacements as unknowns. The solution procedure provides results for joints and members. Joint results include displacements and reactions and joint loads as calculated from member end forces. Member results are member end forces a nd distortions. The assumptions governing the beam element representation of the structure are as follows: linear, elastic, homogeneous, and isotropic behavior, small deformations, plane sections remain plane, and no coupling of axial, torque and bending.

MPS2 UFSAR5.E-5Rev. 35b.Extent of Program's ApplicationsThe program is used to obtain stiffness properties of lo wer support structure and upper guide structure grid beams due to transverse loads. The results of the analyses are incorporated into overall reactor vessel internals' models , which calculate the dynamic response due to seismic and LOCA conditions. These latter results, at a given time, are fed back into the grid beam mode ls to yield dynamic stresses. c.Reference"ICES/STRUDL-II, The Structural Design Language: Engineering User's Manual, Volume I", Structures Division and Civil Engineering's Systems Laboratory, Department of Civil Engineering, MIT, Second Edition, June, 1970.

SHOCKa.Description and AssumptionsThe computer program SHOCK solves for the response of structures which can be represented by lumped-mass and spring systems a nd are subjected to a variety of arbitrary type loadings. This is done by numerically solving the differential equations of motion for an n th degree of freedom system using the Runge-Kutta-Gill or a specialized Newmark integration technique. The equations of motion can represent an axially responding system or a laterally responding system; i.e., an axial motion, or a coupled lateral and rotational motion. The program is designed to handle a large number of options for describing load environments and includes such transient conditions as time-dependent forces and moments, initial displacements and rotations, and initial velocities. Options are also available for describing steady-state loads, preloads, accel erations, gaps, and nonlinear elements. The output from the code consists of minimum and maximum values of translational and angular accelerations, fo rces, shears and moments for the problem time range. In addition, the above quantities are presented for all printout times requested. Plots can also be obtained for displacements, veloci ties and accelerations as desired. b.Extent of Program's ApplicationsThe program is used to obtain the transient response of the reactor vessel internals due to LOCA loads. Lateral and vertical lumped-mass and spring models of the internals are formulated. Various types of springs - linear, compression only, tension only, or nonlinear springs - are used to represent the structural components. Thus, judicious use of load-deflection characteristics enables effects of components impacting to be predicted. Transient loading appropriate to the horizontal and vertical directions is applied at mass points and a dynamic response - displacements and internals forces - is obtained.

MPS2 UFSAR5.E-6Rev. 35c.ReferenceGabrielson, V. K., "SHOCK - A computer Code For Solving Lu mped-Mass Dynamic Systems", SCL-DR-65-34, January, 1966. SAMMSOR-DYNASORa.Description and AssumptionsSAMMSOR-DYNASOR provides the ability to perform nonlinear dynamic analyses of shell structures represented by axisymmetric finite-elements and subjected to arbitrarily varying load configurations. The program employs the matrix displacement method of structural analysis utilizing a curved shell element. Geometrically nonlinear dynamic analyses can be conducted using this code. Stiffness and mass matrices for shells of revolution are generated utilizing the SAMMSOR part of this code. This program accepts a description of th e structure in terms of the coordinates and slopes of the nodes and the properties of the elements joining the nodes. Utilizing the element properties, the structural stif fness and mass matrices are generated for as many as twenty harmonics and stored on magnetic tape. The DYNASOR portion of the program utilizes the output tape generated by SAMMSOR as input data for the respective analyses.The equations of motion of the shell are solved in DYNASOR using Houbolt's numerical procedure with the nonlinear terms being moved to the right-hand side of the equilibrium equations and treated as generalized pseudo-loads. The displacements and stress resultants can be determined for both symmetrical and asymmetrical loading conditions. Asymmetrical dynamic buckling can be investigated using this program. Solutions can be obtained for highly nonlinear problems utilizing as many as five circumferential Fourier harmonics. b.Extent of Program's ApplicationThis program is used to an alyze the dynamic buck ling characteristics of the core support barrel during a LOCA hot-leg break. The program's nonlinear characteristics provide this capability. A finite element model of the CSB is formulated which is consistent with the computer program. Taking into account the initial deviation of the structure and the shell mode which is most likely to give the minimum critical pressure, the time-dependent pressure load is applied to the barrel. The maximum displacement occurring in the barrel is obtained. This result is used as a basis for an overload analysis to satisfy ASME Code requirements.

MPS2 UFSAR5.E-7Rev. 35c.ReferencesTillerson, J. R. and Haisler, W. E., "SAMMSOR II - A Finite Element Program to Determine Stiffness and Mass Matrices of Shells of Revolution", Texas A&M University, TEES-RPT-70-18, October, l970. Tillerson, J. R. and Haisler, W. E., "DYNASOR II - A Finite Element Program for the Dynamic Non-Linear Analysis of Shells or Revolution", Texas A&M University, TEES-RPT-70-19, October, 1970.

SAASa.Description and AssumptionsThe program performs finite element static analyses of axisymmetric solids. The continuous body to be analyzed is replaced by a system of ring elements with triangular or quadrilateral cross sections. The elements are interconnected at their apexes which are referred to as nodes. The displacement method of finite element analysis is used to derive the element stiffness matrix. This method pr oceeds by selecting a di splacement expansion over the element, consistent with elemental boundary conditions, and assuming displacements in the interior of the element depend only on nodal quantities. The elemental stiffness matrices are computed and combined to yield the total stiffness matrix of the modeled structure. The principle of minimum potential energy is then applied to yield displacements and elemental forces (stresses). Since these elements are of relative arbitrary shape, the procedure can be applied to bodies of complex geometry. The program performs static analyses due to both boundary forces and thermal loads by converting these effects into equivalent nodal quantities. Assumptions governing the use of the aforementioned finite elements are those consistent with linear elasticity th eory of solid structures. b.Extent of Program's A pplications and AssumptionsThe program is employed to determine the stiffness properties of flanged regions as related to axisymmetric loads. Specifically, the CSB uppe r and lower flanges with connecting cylinders and the UGSP flange with connecting cylinder were analyzed. Displacements due to a known external load were determined. The resulting stiffnesses were incorporated into an overall model of the reactor vessel internals, which were employed in determining the dynamic response during vertical seismic and LOCA excitation. The results of the dynamic analyses were fed back into the flange analyses to determine their maximum st resses and deformations. Instrumentation flanges, which are used as primary pressure boundaries were analyzed with the subject program to determine their acceptability with respect to ASME Section III criteria.

MPS2 UFSAR5.E-8Rev. 35c.ReferenceWilson, E. L., Jones, R. M., "Finite Element Stress Analysis of Orthotropic, Temperature-Dependent Axisymmetric Solids of Revolution", Aerospace Report Number TR-0158 (S3816-22)-1, September, 1967.

NAOSa.Description and Assumptions The program applies the finite element analysis to axisymmetric solids subjected to arbitrary nonaxisymmetric loadings by expanding the various kinematic and forcing functions into Fourier series. The continuous body to be analyzed is replaced by a system of ring elements with triangular or quadrilateral cross sections and/or thin conical shell elements. The elements are interconnected at their apexes and ends (for the case shell elements) which are referred to as nodes. The displacement method of finite element analysis is used to derive the element stiffness matrices. This method proceeds by selecting a di splacement expansion over the elements, consistent with elemental boundary conditions and assuming displacements in the interior of the element depend only on nodal quantities. The elemental stiffness matrices are computed and then combined to yield the total stiffness matrix of the modeled structure. The principle of minimum potential energy is then applied to obtain displacements and element forces (stresses). The program performs static analyses due to both boundary forces and thermal loads by converting these effects into equivalent nodal quantities. Since the elements employed are of relatively arbitrary shape, the procedure can be applied to bodies of complex geometry. Assumptions governing the aforementioned analyses are those consistent with linear elasticity theory of solids and thin shell structures. b.Extent of Program's ApplicationsThe program is employed to determine the stiffness properties of flanged regions due to lateral loads. Specifically, the CSB upper and lower flanges with connecting cylinders and the UGSP flange with connecting cylinders were analyzed for late ral shear and bending moment loads. Displacements due to known magnitudes of these loads were determined. The resulting stiffnesses were incorporated into overall models of the reactor vessel internals which were employed in determining the dynamic respons e during horizontal seismic and LOCA excitation.The results of the dynamic analysis were fed back into the flange analyses to determine maximum stresses and deformations.

MPS2 UFSAR5.E-9Rev. 35c.ReferenceDunham, R. S., Nickell, R. E., et. al., "NAOS - Finite Element Analysis of Axisymmetric Solids with Arbitrary Loadings", Structural Engineering Laboratory, University of California, Berkeley, California, June, 1967.

EAC/EASEa.Description and AssumptionsThe EAC/EASE computer program provides static structural analyses of linear, three-dimensional systems subjected to sets of arbitrarily prescribed mechanical and thermal loads and displacement boundary conditions. The analysis used in the program is an application of the direct stiffness method. As the first step, the actual system is approximated by an assemblange of discrete structural elements interconnected at a finite number of points called nodes. The behavior of the "discretized structure" is an appr oximation to the response of the real system. Next, each element is constrained to deform in accordance with an assumed displacement field that is required to satisfy continuity across element interfaces. The displacement shapes are evaluated at convenient locations within the element (usually at points on element boundaries), and their amplitude s are sometimes called "generalized coordinates". The equations relating generalize d coordinates and their associated forces are called the element stiffness relations and are a function of the element geometry and its mechanical properties. The stiffness relations for an element are developed on the basis of a governing variational principle, the theorem of minimum potential energy. The "complete stiffness" of the discretized structure is obtained in the following manner: The element equations are combined into the system equations using the requirement that the summation of all internal forces contributed from those elements common to a particular node must be equal to the externally applied load at that joint. The resulting set of equations (appropriately modified for displacement boundary conditions) represent the equilibrium equations for the discretized structure connected only at the joints. The solution of the equilibrium equations results in six displacement components at each node arising from the loads appl ied to the system. Having defi ned the displacements at all nodes in the system, the internal stresses are calculated from displacements for each element in the structure. The elements used to model structures are the triangular plate membrane and bending elements. The stiffness relations for the elements are developed according to the following assumptions: small deformations, linear-elastic isotropic behavior, uniform element thickness, negligible through-the-thickness stress, normals to the original mid-surface do MPS2 UFSAR5.E-10Rev. 35 not distort and remain normal to the defl ected mid-surface (applies to plate bending element). b.Extent of Program's Application

The program is used to perfor m thermal stress analysis of the core shroud. A symmetrical section of the core shroud is modeled wi th triangular plate membrane and bending elements. The thermal load is applied by specifying temper atures at each of the nodal points. The results of the analysis are comp ared to stress criteri a defined in Section III of the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code. c.Reference "EAC/EASE - Elastic Analysis for Structural Engineering: User's Information Manual", Control Data Corporation, April, 1971.

III.REACTOR COOLANT SYSTEMThe computer programs that were used in the dynamic seismic analysis of the reactor coolant system components, as discussed in Sect ion 4.A.2.3, Appendix 4.A, of the FSAR, include: ICES/STRUDL-11a.Description and Assumptions The ICES/STRUDL-II computer pr ogram provides the ability to specify characteristics of problems - framed structures and three-dimensional solid st ructures, perform analyses -

static and dynamic, and re duce and combine results.

Analytic procedures in th e pertinent portions of ICES

/STRUDL-II apply to framed structures. Framed structures are two or thre e dimensional structures composed of linear members which can be represen ted by properties along a centroi dal axis. Such a structure is modeled with joints, including support jo ints, and members connecting the joints. A variety of force conditions on members or joints can be specified. The member stiffness matrix of the modeled structure is obtaine d by appropriately comb ining the individual member stiffnesses.

Masses may be specified for selected joint de grees-of-freedom repr esented in the total stiffness matrix. The total stiffness matrix is then "condensed" to yield a dynamic stiffness matrix in which only those joint degree-of-freedom for which mass is specified are retained. Using the (condensed) dynamic stiffn ess matrix and the associated diagonal mass matrix, an eigenvalue solution is perf ormed by a diagonalizati on process (Jocobi's method) to yield the natura l frequencies and mode shap es corresponding to the free vibrations of the structure.

MPS2 UFSAR5.E-11Rev. 35Using the total stiffness matrix, the program will also solve the general statics problem to yield influence coefficients which relate member end forces and moments and support reactions to unit displacement imposed, in turn, at each of a designated group of joint degrees-of-freedom. In addition, the program will condense the total stiffness matrix to yield a set of stiffness coefficients which relate the forces corresponding to selected degrees of freedom of one group of designated joints to imposed displacements corresponding to selected degrees-of-freed om of a second group of designated joints. The stiffness analysis method of solution used in STRUDL treats the joint displacements as unknowns. The solution procedure provides results for joints and members. Joint results include displacements and reactions and joint loads as calculated from member end forces. Member results are member end load s and distortions. The assumptions governing the beam element representation of the structure are as follows: linear, elastic, homogeneous, and isotropic behavior, small deformations, plane sections remain plane, and no coupling of axial, torque and bending. b.Extent of Program's ApplicationThe program is used to define the dynamic characteristics of the structural models used in the dynamic seismic analyses of the reactor coolant system components. The natural frequencies and mode shapes of the structural models and the influence coefficients which relate member end forces a nd moments and support reactions to unit displacements are calculated. The influence coefficients are calculated for each dynamic degree-of-freedom of each mass point and for each degree-of-free dom of each support point at which relative motion is imposed. In addition, stiffness coefficients are calcul ated which relate the forces corresponding to those joint degree-of-freedom for which mass is specified to the imposed displacements corresponding to those (support) joint degrees-of-freedom at which relative motion will be specified duri ng subsequent seismic response calculations. As appropriate, these data are stored for later use in response spectra or time-history seismic response calculations (see Appendix 4.A of the FSAR). c.Reference"ICES/STRUDL-II, The Structural Design Language: Engineering User's Manual, Volume I", Structures Division and Civil Engineering's Systems Laboratory, Department of Civil Engineering, MIT, Second Edition, June, 1970.

TMCALCa.Description and AssumptionsUsing normal mode theory and Newmark's Beta-Method, with Beta equal to 1/6, the C-E computer program TMCALC solves the differen tial equations of mo tion which represents the dynamic characteristics of a singly or multiply supported, mu lti-degree-of-freedom linear structural system subjected to seismic excitations. The program provides for separate, time-dependent, inputs at each support point at which relative motion produced MPS2 UFSAR5.E-12Rev. 35 by the seismic event may be im posed. In the step-by-step num erical integration process (Newmark's Beta-Method) employe d by TMCALC, the time step selected is less than one-tenth of the period of the highest frequency mode.

Inputs to TMCALC consist of: 1.Output from STRUDL:a.frequencies, b.mode shapes,c.stiffness coefficients which relate mass point degree-of-freedom forces to support point degree-of-freedom (relative) displacements.2.Digitized time histories which describe the seismic event in terms of time-dependent motion imposed at the support po ints of the structural system. These consist of time histories of absolute accelerations at the reference support point of the system and corresponding time historie s of relative displacements at all nonreference support points at which relative motion is imposed (see Appendix 4.A of the FSAR).

The output from TMCALC consists of complete time histories of absoluteaccelerations, relative velocities and relative displa cements corresponding to eachdynamic degree-of-freedom of each of the mass points of the structural system.These data are calculated at each point in time during the integration process for the entire duration of the seismic event.

The formulation of the program assumes li near elastic behavior of the structure and a linear variation in accelerations over an integration time step.b.Extent of Program's Application The program is used to calcula te the dynamic response of stru ctural models used in the dynamic seismic analysis of th e reactor coolant system components. These data include time histories of absolute accelerations, relative velocities and relative displacements corresponding to each dynamic de gree-of- freedom of the stru ctural system. The data are stored for use in subsequent seismic response calculations.

c.References1.Przemieniecki, J. S., "Theory of Matrix Structural Analysis", Chapter 13, McGraw-Hill Book Company , New York, New York, 1968.2.Hurty, W. C., and Rubi nstein, M. F

., "Dynamics of Structures", Chapter 8, Prentice Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, 1964.

MPS2 UFSAR5.E-13Rev. 353.Newmark, N. M., "A Method of Computat ion for Structural Dynamics", Volume3, Journal of Engineering Mechanics Division, A.S.C.E., July, 1959.

FORCEa.Description and AssumptionsThe formulation of the computer program FORCE ass umes a linear elastic structural system modeled as a three-dimensional asse mblage of joints, or modes, which are interconnected by elastic structural elements or members. The program calculates a discrete time history of the loads, forces and moments, at each designated member end and the reactions at each desi gnated support joint, induced by specified seismic conditions (see Section 4.A.2.3.4 , Appendix 4.A of the FSAR). The program selects the maximum absolute values of each component of load at each member end and at each support joint, and the times at which the maxi mum values occur , over the enti re duration of the specified seismic event.

As input, the program FORCE uses a matrix of influence coef ficients calculated by ICES/

STRUDL-II, the dynamic response of the structure, i.e., the time history of relative displacements corresponding to each mass joint degree-of-freedom, as calculated by the program TMCALC, and the time hi stories of relative displacem ents prescribed for each support joint degree-of-freedom for the seismic event under consideration. With this input, the program FORCE forms appropria te linear combinations of the time-dependent relative displacements to yield a complete loads analysis of the deformed shape of the structure at each point in time over the entire duration of the seismic event. b.Extent of Program's Application

The program is used to calculate the time-dependent response of the reactor coolant system components to specified seismic conditions.

c.References Przemieniecki, J. S., "Theory of Matrix Structural Analysis

", McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York, New York, l968.

SHAKEa.Description and Assumptions The computer program SHAKE performs a norma l mode response spectr um analysis of a three-dimensional linear elastic structural syst em modeled as an asse mblage of joints, or modes, which are interconnected by elastic structural elements, or members. In the formulation, mass is assumed "lumped" at sel ected joints, each of which may have up to three translational dynamic degrees-of-freedom.

MPS2 UFSAR5.E-14Rev. 35 Input to SHAKE consists of frequencies and mode shapes , corresponding to each normal mode of vibration of the st ructure, the relevant diagona l mass matrix, and the response spectrum value, acceleration, corresponding to the period of each normal mode. The output from SHAKE consists of the modal inertial loads, forces, corresponding to each mass joint dynamic degree-of-freedom of the structure, for each normal mode. b.Extent of Program's Application The program SHAKE is used to calculate the dynamic response, modal inertial loads, for the reactor coolant system co mponents in those cases where spectrum analysis is applied (see Appendix 4.A of the FSAR). In turn, the modal inertial loads are applied to the structure, mode-by-mode, us ing the ICES/STRUDL-II pr ogram, which calculates the member end loads and support joint reactions for each mode, and comb ines the modal values to give the total response to the specified seismic event. c.ReferencesHurty, W. C., and Rubinstein, M. F., "Dyna mics of Structures", Prentice Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, 1964. IV.REACTOR COOLANT SYSTEM - STATIC STRUCTURAL ANALYSISMEC-21a.Description and Assumptions

The program is designed to co mpute the reactio ns and stresse s in complex piping systems, including closed-loop configurations, due to th ermal expansion and contraction; pressure effects; concentrated loads such as valves, fittings and fixtures; and uniform loads such as weight. The computational method is a tensor analysis treatment of Castigliano's theorem and assumes linear elastic behavior.

b.Extent of Program's Application

The program is used extensively to calcul ate the loads which act on the components and supports of the reactor coolant system for the various operating conditions. The calculated loads are included in the equipment specifica tions and, subsequently , used in the design calculations performed for the individual components. c.References 1.J. A. Olson and R. V. Cramer, "Pipe Flexibility Analysis Program MEL21", Report Number 10-66, Rev. 1, "A Modification of Program MEC21S", San Francisco Bay Naval Shipyard, Mare Island Site, Vallejo, California, August 26, 1969.

MPS2 UFSAR5.E-15Rev. 352.J. A. Olson and R. V. Cramer, "Pipe Flexibility Analysis Program MEC21S", Report Number 35-65, San Francisco Bay Naval Shipyard, Vallejo, California, November 22, 1965.3.James Griffin, MEC21 7094, "A Piping Flexibility Analys is Program for the IBM-7090 and 7094", Los Alamos Scientific La boratory , Report LA-2929, Los Alamos, New Mexico, July 14, 1964.

V.ASME SECTION III, CLASS I COMPONENTS The following programs were used to determin e stresses in ASME Section III, Class I components.

SAASa.Description and Assumptions The program performs finite element static analyses of axisymmetric solids. The continuous body to be analyzed is replaced by a system of ring elements with triangular or quadrilateral cross s ections. The elements are interconne cted at the apexes which are referred to as nodes. The displace ment method of finite element analysis is used to derive the element stiffness matrix. This method pr oceeds by selecting a di splacement expansion over the element, consistent with elemental boundary conditions, and assuming displacements in the interior of the el ement depend only on nodal quantities. The elemental stiffness matrices are computed and combined to yield the total stiffness matrix of the modeled structure. The principle of minimum potential energy is then applied to yield displacements and elemental forces (stresses). Since these elements are of relative arbitrary shape, the procedure can be applied to bodies of complex geometry. The program performs static analyses due to both bounda ry forces and thermal loads by converting these effects into equivalent nodal quantities.

Assumptions governing the use of the aforementioned finite el ements are those consistent with linear elasticity th eory of solid structures. b.Extent of Program's Application The program is used to determine stresses in the primary head-tube sheet-secondary shell regions of the steam generators.

c.ReferencesWilson, E. L., Jones, R. M., "Finite Element Stress Analysis of Orthotropic, Temperature-Dependent Axisymmetric So lids of Revolution", Aero space Report Number TR-0158 (S3816-22)-1, September, 1967.

MPS2 UFSAR5.E-16Rev. 35 SEAL SHELL - 2a.Description and AssumptionsThe program uses the stiffness matrix method to solve the equa tions of thin elastic shells of revolution. The fo rmulation assumes homogeneous, is otropic, elastic material properties. Thickness, radii of curvature, applied surface loads, temperature and material properties may vary along the generating curve of th e shell, but not around its circumference. Circumferential uniformly di stributed, line-loads and moments can be applied. In the formulation, the stiffness matrix is ca lculated from strain energy considerations by use of the pr incipal of virtual work. Thick shell effects are included by using known results from the theory of beams to determine the appropriate contribution to the strain energy from the norma l stress and shear deflections.b.Extent of Program's Applications The program is used to determine stresses a nd deformations in vari ous axially-symmetric regions of Class I components.

c.References"Seal-Shell-2-A Computer Program for the Stre ss Analysis of a Thic k Shell of Revolution with Axisymmetric Pressures, Temperatures, and Distributed Loads", by C. M. Friedrich, WAPD-TM-398, UC-38: Engineering a nd Equipment, TID-4500, 24th Edition. ANALYSIS OF AXISYMMETRIC SOLIDSa.Description and Assumptions The finite element method is applied to the de termination of stresses and displacements in axisymmetric solids of arbitr ary geometry subjected to ther mal and mechanical loadings.

The formulation is based upon ener gy principa ls and assumes linear elastic, isotropic materials.

b.Extent of Program's Application The program is applied in the analysis of the re gions of reactor ve ssel-to-vessel head bolted closure, and other axisymmetr ic regions of Class I components. c.ReferencesE.L. Wilson, "Analysis of Axisymmetric Solids", University of California, February, 1967.

MPS2 UFSAR5.E-17Rev. 35 WIN - 12100a.Description and AssumptionsThe CE computer program WIN-12100 is a general purpose thermal analysis program which determines transient and steady-state temperat ure distributions in physical systems. The physical system, or structures analyzed may have irregular geometries, may be composed of several differen t materials and may be subjec ted to varying, time dependent, temperature transients at the boundaries. The formulation of the program is based upon the general finite difference equation of heat flow which is solved by relaxation techniques. Provisions are included to accommodate ra diation, convection a nd conduction modes of heat transfer and to include internal heat generation.b.Extent of Program's ApplicationThe program is used extensively to determine the temperature distributions which are subsequently used in stress an alysis of Class I components. c.ReferencesComputer Program Number WIN - 12100, "Heat Transfer by Relaxation", T. R.

McCormack, Combustion Engineering, Inc., Windsor, Connecticut, 1968. Stanley Hellman, George Habetler and Harold Babrov, "Use of Numerical Analysis in Transient Solution of Two-Dimensional Heat Transfer Problems with Natural and Forced Convection", ASME Transactions, 1956. TAPa.Description and AssumptionsThe program uses finite element techniques in obtaining numerical solutions to the general, three-dimensional, time-dependent differential equation of heat conduction. The formulation is general with respect to geometry, material properties and boundary conditions, permitting the solution of complex transient and steady-state heat transfer problems. b.Extent of Program's ApplicationThe program is used to obtain temperature distributions in the reac tor coolant pump case-cover assembly for subsequent use in stress analysis. c.ReferencesPeterson, F. E., Hui, H., "Three Dimensional Transient Heat Transfer Using a Finite Element Procedure", Theoretical Basis and Sample Soluti ons, Engineering/Analysis MPS2 UFSAR5.E-18Rev. 35Corporation, 1611 South Pacific Coast Highway, Redondo Beach, California, August, 1971. SOLIDS IIa.Description and AssumptionsThe program is a finite elemen t formulation for the analysis of axisymmetric and plane solids with variable orthotropic, temperature-dependent material properties. The program accommodates both axisymmetric and non-axisymmetric loadings. The formulation assumes linear elastic be havior of materials. b.Extent of Program's ApplicationThe program is used to determine both thermal and mechanical stresses in the axisymmetric regions of the reactor coolant pumps. c.ReferencesCrose, J. C. and Jones, R. M. "Finite Element Stress Analysis of Axisymmetric and Plane Solids with Different Orthotropic, Temperature-Dependent Material Properties in Tension and Compression", TR-0059(56816-53)-1, The Aerospace Corporation, San Bernardino, California, June 1971.

BJSa.Description and AssumptionsThe program is a general purpose, three-dimensional, finite elemen t formulation for the analysis of elastic structures of arbitrary shape sustaining arbitrary loadings and temperature distributions. The program BJS was adapted from the program SAP (September 1970 version) by the Engineering/Analysis Corporation, 1611 South Pacific Coast Highway, Redondo Beach, California for the Byron Jackson Pump Division, Borg-Warner Corporation, P. O. Box 2017, Terminal Annex, Los Angeles, California. The program assumes linear elastic behavior of materials and runs on the CDC-6600 Computer System. b.Extent of Program's Application The program is used for stress analysis of the reactor coolant pump casings. c.References"BJS A First Generation Three Dimensional Finite Element Computer Program for the Analysis of Structures of Arbitrary Geometry", Byron Jackson Pump Division, Borg-Warner Corporation, P. O. Box 2017, Term inal Annex, Los Angeles, California.

MPS2 UFSAR5.E-19Rev. 35Wilson, E. L., "SAP A General Structural Analysis Program", Structural Engineering Laboratory, University of California, Berkley, California (September 1970).

VI.CLASS I PIPING SYSTEMThe following codes are used in the analysis of the Class I piping systems. MRI/STARDYNEa.Description and Assumptions

Refer to Section II, Reactor Vessel Internals, of this question. b.Extent of Program's Applications The program is used to obtain the responses of Class I piping system using three-dimensional model. The model response spect rum technique is used to compute forces, moments and displacements at each point sp ecified in the piping system.

ADL PIPEa.Description and Assumption

The program provides an elas tic analysis of redundant pi ping systems subjected to thermal, static and dynamic loads. The system may contain a number of sections, a section being defined as a sequence of straight and/

or curved members lying between two points.

The basic approach to be used in computing the response of piping systems to ground spectra consists of generati ng the dynamic properties of the system and applying the modal super-position method or normal mode method to obtain the structural response.

The two eigenvalve routines used in ADLPIPE are the Jocobi rota tion scheme and the Givens-Householder scheme; th e later has been modified to incorporate a suggestion made by Wilkinson. b.Extent of Program's Application The program is used to obtain the modal responses of Class I piping by the response spectrum technique. c.References 1.Greenstadt, J., "The Determination Charact eristic Roots of a Matrix by the Jocobi Method", John Wiley, New York, 1959.2.Wilkinson, "The Algebraic Eigenvalve Problem".

MPS2 UFSAR5.E-20Rev. 35 VII.CLASS I STRUCTURES The following codes were used in the dynamic analysis of the Class I Structures.

CE 309 STRESSa.Description and AssumptionSTRESS (Structural Engineering Systems So lver) is a programming system for the solution of structural engineer ing problems. It was originally developed at M.I.T. in 1964 and intended for IBM-7094 appl ication. In 1968 Bechtel impl emented the program into GE-600 Series. The program is capable of executing a large va riety of structural problems in two or three dimensional structures with different jo int conditions. The program is primarily used to obtain the stiffness characteristics of a structure. Stiffness matrix of the structure obtained is used in the dynamic analysis.

b.Extent of Program's ApplicationsThe program is used to obtain the stiffnes s matrix of the cont ainment structure and containment internal structures. c.ReferenceFenves, S. J., Logcher, R.

D., and Mauch, S. P., "STRESS Reference Manual", The M.I.T.

Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1964. CE 611 TIME-HISTORY ANALYSISa.Description and Assumptions This program performs the time history analys is of a structure subj ected to an earthquake motion. The analytical technique is based on modal synthesis.

The general solution of the program is to formulate the equation of motion of the stru cture in terms of its mode shapes, frequencies and mass distribution as follows:

q j + 2B j w j q j + W j 2 q j = -F j U g (j=1,2....N) where: N = member of modes q = generalized coordinates

B = modal damping

w = frequency MPS2 UFSAR5.E-21Rev. 35 F j = [Ø] = mode shape matrix[M]= mass matrix

M = mass U g = input acceleration The above equation is solved using Runge-Kutta method.b.Extent of Program's Application The program is used to generate accelerati on time history at all Clas s I equipment locations in the containment, auxiliary building (including warehouse portion), turbine building and intake structure.c.ReferencesHildebrand, F. B., "Introducti on to Numerical Analysis,"

McGraw-Hill Book Company , 1956.Kuo, S. S., "Numerical Methods and Computers," Addition W esley Publishing Company, 1965.

Hurty, W. C., Rubinstein, M. F., "Dynamics of Structures," Pren tice Hall, Inc., 1964.Biggs, J. M., "Introduction to Structural Dynamics," McGraw-Hill Book Company , 1964.CE 617 MODES AND FREQUENCIES EXTRACTIONa.Description and Assumptions

The program provides a means fo r obtaining the natural frequenc ies, w , and modes shapes, Ø, of structural models. The structural input consists of the models lumped masses and either the stiffness or flexibility matrix. If the flexibility matrix is entered, the program provides an option for automatic inversion to a stiffness matrix.

The program uses the method of diagonalization by successi ve rotations. A detailed description of the method can be found in Engineering Analys es, A Survey of Numerical Procedures, by S. Crandall, published by the McGraw Hill Book Company, New York, 1966.The modes shapes can be printed out on an optional basis for normalization such that either [Ø]

T [m\] [Ø] = [1] or with respect to a uni t relative deflection of some arbitrary []T M j-------------

M[]

MPS2 UFSAR5.E-22Rev. 35 point. It is recommended to us e the first scheme for complex structures where it is not known which mass point will show the largest activity. Otherwise the second scheme may result in the selection of a nodal point with virtually no activity. For purposes of plotting the modes and to provide a quick inspection of modal behavior, a third scheme is automatically provided to normalize each mode with respect to its largest relative value.

These modes should not be further utilized.

As a last step an orthogona lity check is provided by forming the product [Ø]

T [m\] [Ø].

The resulting product should show the off diagonal terms virt ually zero in comparison to the main diagonal. This automatic check should always be reviewed.b.Extent of Program's Applications The program is used to obtain the mode shap es and frequencies containment structure and containment internal structures.c.Reference S.Crandall, S., "Engineering Analyses, A Su rve y of Numerical Pr ocedures," McGraw Hill, 1966.

CE 641 RESPONSE SPECTRUM TECHNIQUEa.Description and Assumption

The program assumes that the structure has been previously analyzed and that the natural frequencies, w , and mode shapes Ø, for th e structure has been obtained. The earthquake input is described in terms of response spectrum curves associated with different damping values. Acceleration values are obtained from the curve for each mode corresponding to its natural frequency and damping value.

Fore each mode j, a modal inertial force at each mass point is calculated as follows:

MPS2 UFSAR5.E-23Rev. 35 where: A j = special acceleration for mode j Then static analysis is used to obtain moda l shear , moment and displacement by applying the inertial force at each mass center. Model responses are combined on an absolute sum basis.b.Extent of Program's Application The program is used to obtain the model re sponses of the containment structure and containment internal structures by the response spectrum technique.

CE 784 RESPONSE SPECTRUM TECHNIQUEa.Description and Assumption This program combines the pr eviously described programs, CE 309, CE 617 and CE 641, and calculates the dynamic responses of a structure. The program utilizes the mathematical model of the structure which is represented by its cro ss sectional properties and lumped masses. The program then forms the structure stiffness matrix. By using the modified Jocobi method of symmetric matr ix diagonalization, natu ral frequencies and normal modes of the structur e are obtained. Using the natu ral frequencies and normal modes together with input acceleration, modal responses of the structure are calculated.b.Extent of Program's Applications

The program is used to obtain the modal responses of the auxiliary buildings (including warehouse portion) turbine bui lding and intake building.

Fij FjijMiijM i-------------

---

-=FjijMi ()22jMii-----------------------------------

Aj=FjijMi ()22jMii-----------------------------------

Aj=

MPS2 UFSAR5.E-24Rev. 35c.References1.Gere and Weaver, "Analysis of Framed Structures," Van Nostrand, 1968.2.Weaver, W. J., "Computer Programs for Structural Analysis," Van Nostrand, 1967.3.Biggs, J. M. "Introduction to Structural Dynamics," McGraw Hill, 1964.4.Ralston, A., Wilf, H. S

., "Mathematical Methods fo r Digital Computers," John Wiley & Sons, 1962.

CE 792 RESPONSE SPECT RUM CALCULATIONa.Description and Assumptions This program computes the response spectra for specified accele ration time histories which are generated by CE 611 Time Histor y Analysis. The input acceleration time histories is digitalized at eq ual time intervals. The numeric al method used for integration is based on the exact solution to the governing differential equa tion, assuming that the input acceleration time hist ory varies linearly betwee n consecutive data points.b.Extent of Program's Applications This program is used to generate response spectra at all equipment locations in the containment, auxiliary bui lding (including warehouse por tion), turbine building and intake structure.c.References Nigam, N. C., Jennings, P.C., "Digital Ca lculation of Response Spectra from Strong-Motion Earthquake Records," CIT, 1968.

VIII.DELETEDIX.CLASS I STRUCTURES CE 316-4 Finite Element Stress Analysis (FINEL)a.Description and Assumptions

This program does static analys is of plane or axisymmetric structures using the finite element method. The finite element library contains orthotropic quadrilateral reinforcement elements, and is otropic triangles and quadrilaterals. Element stresses and joint displacements are solved due to applie d loads or temperature distributions. Applied loads can be concentrated, di stributed or inertial and must be axisymmetric for axisymmetric structures. The total load can be applied in small increments and the MPS2 UFSAR5.E-25Rev. 35solution is iterated within each increment if necessary to establish equilibrium. The program will consider up to eight different materials and allows for material properties changing with temperature. Materials can have bilinear stress-strain curves to model elasto-plastic behavior. Prestress forces are simulated by using appropriate concentrated forces.b.Extent of Program's ApplicationsThe program is used to obtain stresses in the containment structure due to thermal and pressure loads.CE 779 Structural Analysis Program (SAP)a.Description and AssumptionsThis program performs the static and dynamic analysis of linear elastic three-dimensional structures using the finite element method. The finite element library contains truss and beam elements, plane and soli d elements, plate and shell elements, axisymmetric (torus) elements, and special bounda ry (spring) elements.

Element stresses and displacements are solved due to either applied loads or temperature distributions. Concentrated loads, pressures or gravity loads can be applied. Temperature distributions are assigned as an appropriate uniform temperature change in each element.

Prestressing can be simulated by using artificial temperature change on rod elements.

The available dynamic response r outines will solve for arbitr ary dynamic loads or seismic excitations using either modal superposition or direct integration. The program also does response spectrum analysis.b.Extent of Program's ApplicationsThe program is used to obtain stresses in the concrete shell which is designed to protect the condensate storage tank from missiles.

MPS2 UFSAR5.E.1-1Rev. 35 5.E.1 COMPUTER PROGRAM APPLICABILITY AND VALIDATION I.BLOWDOWN LOADSThe computer programs WATERHAMMER and CEFLASH-4, described in Appendix 5.E were derived from programs in the public domain. Cha nges have been made to each to increase its utility and improve its treatme nt of the blowdown problem.

(1, 2)The WATERHAMMER (3) code is recognized for it s applicability to the an alysis of the subcooled decompression. The code manual (Reference 3) demonstrates th e program's validity through comparison of its predictions to LO FT Semiscale experimental results.CEFLASH-4 is the C-E modified version of the FLASH-4 code (4). The C-E modifications are discussed in Reference 1. CEFLASH-4 has been accepted by the AEC via the Interim Acceptance Criteria of December 1971 (5).The FLASH-4 program was written in FORTRAN IV for use on the CDC-6600 computer. It has been converted, at C-E such that it may also be run on the CDC-7600 computer.Verification of this conversion was obtained by running test case s when this change was made.a.References1.CENPD-26, "Description of Loss-of-C oolant Calculational Procedures,"

August 1971 (Proprietary).2.CENPD-42, "Topical Report on Dynamic Analysis of Reactor Vessel Accident Conditions With Application of Analysis to CE 800 MWe Class Reactors," August 1971 (Proprietary).3.65-28-RA, "Early Blowdown (WATER HAMMER) Analysis For Loss-of-Fluid Test Facility," by Stanislav Fabi c, dated June 1965 and revised April 1967.4.WAPD-TM-840, "FLASH-4: A Fully Im plicit FORTRAN IV Program forthe Digital Simulation of Transient In a Reactor Plant," by T. A. Porsching,J. H. Murphy, J. A. Redfield, and V. C. Davis, March 1969.5."Criteria for Emergency Core Cooling Systems for Light-Water Power Reactors," Federal Re gister, pp 24083, Volume 36, Number 244, Saturday, December 18, 1971.

II.REACTOR VESSEL INTERNALS MPS2 UFSAR5.E.1-2Rev. 35The following programs are in the public domain and have had sufficient use to justify their applicability and validity.MRI/STARDYNE June 1, 1970 Version The program was developed by Mechanics Rese arch, Inc., for use on the CDC-6600 Computer System. The program is run on the CDC-6600 Computer System located at the Boston, Massachusetts data center.ICES/STRUDL Version 1.4This version of the program was developed by the McDonnell Automation Company/Engineering Computer International. This version was purchased by Combustion Engineering and is run on the IBM-360 computer system.EAC/EASE March 1970 VersionThe program was developed by Engineering/Analysis Cor poration for use on the CDC-6600 Computer System. The program is run on the CDC-6600 Computer System located at the Boston, Massachusetts data center.SAAS Version I The program was developed by E. L. Wilson and R. M. Jones and is documented in the following reference:Wilson, E. L., Jones, R. M., "Finite Element Stress Analysis of Orthotropic, Temperature-Dependent Axisymmetric Solids of Revol ution," Aerospace Re port Number TR-0158 (S3816022)-1, September 1967.

The theoretical basis of the program wa s developed in the following reference:Wilson, E. L., "Structural Analysis of Axisym metric Solids," AIAA Journal, Volume 3, Number 12, December, 1965, pp 2269-2274.The program is compatible with the CDC-6600 Computer System. It is run on the CDC-6600 Computer System located at Combustion Engineering's Windsor, Connecticut data center.

III.REACTOR COOLANT SYSTEM - DYNAMIC ANALYSISThe following program is in the public domain and has had sufficient use to justify its applicability and validity.ICES/STRUDL Version 1.4 MPS2 UFSAR5.E.1-3Rev. 35This version of the program was developed by the McDonnell Automation Company/Engineering Computer International. This version was purchased by Combustion Engineering and is run on the IBM-360 computer system. (See, also, Appendix 5.E.3) IV.REACTOR COOLANT SYSTEM - STATIC STRUCTURAL ANALYSISMEC-21 June 1970 VersionThe program was developed by the Mare Island Naval Shipyard and is run on the CDC 6600/7600 computers.

V.ASME SECTION III, CLASS I COMPONENTSThe following programs are in the public domain and have had sufficient use to justify their applicability and validity.SAAS Version I The program was developed by E. L. Wilson and R. M. Jones and is documented in the following reference:Wilson, E. L., Jones, R. M., "Finite Element Stress Analysis of Orthotropic, Temperature-Dependent Axisymmetric Solids of Revol ution," Aerospace Re port Number TR-0158 (S3816-22)-1, September 1967.

The theoretical basis of the program wa s developed in the following reference:Wilson, E. L., "Structural Analysis of Axisym metric Solids," AIAA Journal, Volume 3, Number 12, December 1965, pp 2269-2274.The program is compatible with the CDC-6600 Computer System. It is run on the CDC-6600 Computer System located at Combustion Engineering's Windsor, Connecticut data center.

SEAL-SHELL-2 The program was developed by C. M. Friedrich and is documented in the following reference:"Seal-Shell-2-A Computer Program for the Stress Analysis of a Thick Shell of Revolution with Axisymmetric Pressures, Temperatures, and Distributed Loads," by C. M. Friedrich, WAPD-TM-398, UC-38: Engineering a nd Equipment, TID-4500, 24th Edition.The program is run on the CDC-6600 Computer Systems, located at Combustion Engineering's Windsor, Connecticut data center.Analysis of Axisymmetric Solids - 1967 Version MPS2 UFSAR5.E.1-4Rev. 35 The program was developed by E. L. Wilson, University of California. The theoretical basis of the program is given in the following reference:Wilson, E. L., "Structural Analysis of Axisym metric Solids," AIAA Journal, V olume 3, Number 12, December 1965, pp 2269-2274.

The program is run on the CDC-6600 Computer System located at Combustion Engineering' s Windsor, Connecticut data center.SOLIDS II - June 1971 Version The program was developed by th e Aerospace Corporation and runs on the CDC-6600 Computer System. The program is describe d in the following reference:Crose, J. C. and Jones, R. M., "Finite Element Stress Analysis of Axisymmetric and Plane Solids with Different Orthotropic, Temperature-Dependent Material Properties in Tension and Compression," TR-0059(56816-53)-1, The Aerospace Corporation San Bernardino, California (June 1971).

VI.CLASS I PIPING SYSTEMS The following programs are in th e public domain and have had sufficient use to justify the applicability and validity.MRI/STARDYNE September 1, 1972 Version The program was developed by Mechanics Rese arch, Inc., for use on the CDC-6600 Computer System.

ADLPIPE The program was develope d by Arthur D. Little, Inc., Cambridge, Massac husetts for use on the CDC-6600 and UNIVAC 1108 Computer Systems.

VII.CLASS I STRUCTURES None MPS2 UFSAR5.E.2-1Rev. 35 5.E.2 COMPUTER PROGRAM TEST PROBLEM SOLUTIONS I.BLOWDOWN LOADSAdditional demonstration of the WATERHAMMER's validity is given in CENPD-42 (1) which presents comparisons of the code's predictions to LOFT Semiscale and Battelle Northwest CSE experimental results.

CEFLASH-4 has also been tested against blowdow n test data from the LOFT Semiscale and CSE experiments. The results of these compar isons are published in CENPD-26 and CENPD-42. These comparisons support the validity of the CEFLASH-4 method of analysis.a.Reference1.CENPD-42, "Topical Report on Dynamic Analysis of Reactor Vessel Accident Conditions With Application of Analysis to CE 800 MWe Class Reactors," August 1971 (Proprietary).

II.REACTOR VESSEL INTERNALS The following programs' solutions to a series of test problems have been demonstrated to be substantially identical to those obtained by computer program, SABOR-5-DRASTIC, developed at the Aeronautics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology:

ASHSDSAMMSOR/DYNASORThe comparison appears in "Topical Report on D ynamic Analysis of Reactor Vessel Internals under Loss-of-Coolant Accident C onditions with Application of Analysis to CE 800 MWe Class Reactors," Combustion Engineering Report CE NPD-42, Combustion Engineering, Inc., Nuclear Power Department, Combustion Division, Windsor, Connecticut, Appendix D.

III.REACTOR COOLANT SYSTEM - DYNAMIC ANALYSIS None IV.REACTOR COOLANT SYSTEM - STATIC STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS None V.ASME SECTION III, CLASS I COMPONENTSThe following program's solutions to a series of test problems ha ve been demonstrated to be substantially identical to those obtained by:

MPS2 UFSAR5.E.2-2Rev. 35a.closed form solutionsb.EASE, a computer program developed by the Engineer ing/Analysis Corporationc.SOLIDS II, TR-0059 (56816-53)-1, the Aerospace Corporation, San Bernardino, Californiad.SAP, Structural Engineering Laboratory, University of California, Berkeley, California BJS The following program's solutions to a series of test problems ha ve been demonstrated to be substantially identical to those obtained by computer program MARC-HEAT, described in MARC-CDC, User Information Manual, Vo lume I, CDC Publication Number 17309500.

WIN-12100 VI.CLASS I PIPING SYSTEMS None VII.CLASS I STRUCTURES CE 309 STRESS

This program has been demonstrated to be substa ntially identical to those obtained by the original program, STRESS, developed at th e Massachusetts Institute of Technology. The traceability of this program can be obtained at the Paci fic International Co mputer Corporation.

MPS2 UFSAR5.E.3-1Rev. 35 5.E.3 COMPUTER PROGRAM TEST PROBLEM SIMILARITIES I.BLOWDOWN LOADS Minor modifications were made to the WATERHAMMER code to incr ease its utility such as the addition of a plot routin e, revision of the output edit format, and increas e of the number of legs which may be employed.WATERHAMMER was written in FORTRAN IV fo r use on the CDC-3600 computer. It has been converted, at C-E, for operation on both the CDC-6600 and CDC-7600 machines. A test case, given in the manual, was reproduced with th e code and by hand techniques. Agreement was excellent.

II.REACTOR VESSEL INTERNALS The following programs' solutions have been demonstrated to be substantially identical to those obtained by hand calculations or fr om accepted experimental test or analytical results. The references below each program indicate where details of th ese comparisons can be found.

SHOCK1."Topical Report on Dynamic Analysis of Reactor Vessel Internals Under Loss-of-Coolant Accident Conditions with Application of Analysis to CE 800 MWe ClassReactors," Combustion Engineering Report CENPD-42, Combustion Engineering,Inc., Nuclear Power Department, Combustion Division, Windsor, Connecticut, Appendix B.2.Gabrielson, V. K., "SHOCK - A Computer Code for Solving Lumped-Mass Dynamic Systems," SCL-DR-65-34, January 1966, pp 58-79.

ASHSD1."Topical Report on Dynamic Analysis of Reactor Vessel Internals Under Loss-of-Coolant Accident Conditions with Application of Analysis to CE 800 MWe ClassReactors," Combustion Engineering Report CENPD-42, Combustion Engineering, Inc., Nuclear Power Dept., Combustion Division, Windsor, Connecticut, Appendix A.2.Ghosh, S., Wilson, E. L., "Dynamic Stress Analysis of Axisymmetric Structures under Arbitrary Loading," Report Number EERC 69-10, University of California,Berkeley, September 1969, pp 69-81.SAMMSOR/DYNASOR1."Topical Report on Dynamic Analysis of Reactor Vessel Internals Under Loss-of-Coolant Accident Conditions with Application of Analysis to CE 800 MWe Class MPS2 UFSAR5.E.3-2Rev. 35Reactors," Combustion Engineering Report CENPD-42, Combustion Engineering, Inc., Nuclear Power Department, Combustion Division, Windsor, Connecticut, Appendix C.NAOS1.Dunham, R. S., Nickell, R. E., et al., "NAOS - Finite El ement Analysis of Axisymmetric Solids with Arbitrary Loadings," Structural EngineeringLaboratory, University of California, Berkeley, California, June 1967, pp 32-39.

III.REACTOR COOLANT SYSTEM - DYNAMIC ANALYSIS ICES/STRUDL-IIThe basic version of this code, Version 1.4, is described under 5.31.1, above. To facilitate dynamic analysis, additional Input/O utput options and an eigenvalue analysis routine have been incorporated by Combustion Engineering. The validi ty of these additions have been carefully verified by appropri ate test problems.

TMCALC The program was developed by Combustion Engineerin g, Inc., and its validity has been carefully confirmed. The various matrix manipulations employed by the pr ogram were confirmed by hand calculations and the numerical integration procedure, Newmark's Beta-M ethod, used in the analysis of the reactor coolan t system components for Millstone Nuclear Power Station, Unit Number 2, was confirmed by an alternate, independent, integr ation procedure which was, subsequently, incorporated into the program.

The alternate integration proce dure employs a closed-form soluti on of the modal equations of motion over each time step of the integration process.

Input excitation is provi ded in digitized form and varies linearly between input points. The validity of the closed-form so lution over a time increment was verified by hand calculations.

After incorporation of the altern ate integration procedure, TMCALC was again used to calculate the dynamic response of the reac tor coolant system model shown in Figure 4.A-1, Appendix 4.Aof the FSAR. The results obta ined, using the two, independent , integration routines are substantially identical.

FORCE The program was developed by Combustion Engineerin g, Inc., and its validity has been carefully verified by a series of test problems which were c onfirmed by hand calculations.

MPS2 UFSAR5.E.3-3Rev. 35 SHAKEThe program was developed by Combustion Engineerin g, Inc., and its validity has been carefully verified by a series of test problems which were confirmed by hand ca lculations. The test problems include those presented in the paper, "Response of Structural Systems to Ground Shock," by Dana Young, presented at the A nnual Meeting of the ASME, November 30, 1960.IV.REACTOR COOLANT SYSTEM - STATIC STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS None V.ASME SECTION III, CLASS I COMPONENTS None VI.CLASS I PIPING SYSTEMS None VII.CLASS I STRUCTURESThe following programs' solutions have been demonstrated to be substantially identical to those obtained by hand calculations from accepted experimental test on analytical results. The documents traceability of the following programs can be obtained at the Bechtel Power Corporation.CE 611 TIME-HISTORY ANALYSIS

CE 617 MODES AND FREQUENCIES EXTRACTION CE 641 RESPONSE SPECTRUM TECHNIQUE CE 784 RESPONSE SPECTRUM TECHNIQUE

CE 792 RESPONSE SPECTRUM CALCULATION MPS2 UFSAR5.F-1Rev. 35 5.F CONTAINMENT WATER INTRUSIO N INTO TENDON GALLERY DURING CONSTRUCTION (1) Due to the recurrent app earances of water in some of the te ndon sheaths and on the gallery floor , a formal inspection was made by Engineering personnel to deter mine a method to stop the water leakage. This inspection was performed on October 28, 1971.

The vertical tendon sheaths and tr umpets were examined from the tendon access gallery, where water was observed running down the interior surf aces of the vertical tendon sheaths and dripping to the floor from the bearing plat es. The number of the trumpet/bearing plate assemblies affected was 70 out of 124.

There were indications of light rusting on the interior surfaces of the trumpets and around the rims of the holes in the bearing plates, which had b een painted; and in some trumpets, deposits of minerals were building up inside and around the edges of the holes. However, the galvanized surfaces of the inside of the tendon sheaths appeared to be free of rust and deposits.

Mineral deposits and damp areas we re also noted in various locat ions along the ga llery walls at construction joints.

A sample of the dripping water was taken by the Site personnel and submit ted laboratory analysis.

From the report it was observed that:1.The water is very alkaline, with a pH = 11.68.

2.The water is very hard.3.The iron content is very low.Two possible sources of water were investigated:1.Curing water sprayed on the exteri or concrete containment wall.2.Ground water seeping into the concrete from below grade.No tendons have been affected by water leakage since no tendons were installed in any sheaths while leaking water was present. Extreme care had be en exercised to ensure that all water leakage was stopped in each tendon sheathing before installati on of the tendon.

After consulting with American Drilling and Boring Company, they provided a proposed method of stopping the ground water via letter of April 4, 1972. After review and approval of procedures, work started on May 15, 1972.NOTE: (1)From response to NRC Question Number 5.57.

MPS2 UFSAR5.F-2Rev. 35The first scheme utilized was that of drillings upward through the acc ess gallery ceiling, at elevation (-)32 feet 6 inches, to the construction joint between the Containment Mat and the Containment Wall at approximate elevation (-)26 feet 0 inches, and injecting chemical grout into these holes under a maximum pressure of 30 psi. It was theorized that the grout would travel along the same path as the water and seal the joint against leaking. This scheme worked around many of the sheathings, but in othe r instances the grout would travel to and leak from a sheathing near the drilled hole to the exte nt that no pressure could be bui lt up during the grouting operation. Without a pressure build-up, the grout would not seal off the water. Approximately 40 of the 70 sheathings, which were leaking, were sealed by this method. On July 5, 1972, a second scheme for sealing off the water was initiated. This scheme involved putting a plug in the sheathing above and below the first sheathing joint, at elevation (-)22 feet 6 inches, and pumping the grout out through the joint. This scheme proved very successful and by July 29, 1972, the water leaking into the remaining 30 tendon sheathings was essentially stopped. However, the very humid weather during the weeks of July 30 and August 6, 1972, caused considerable condensation on the access gallery ceiling and the grouting operation was delayed until additional ventilation fans were installed to supplement the two fans then in use.On August 14, 1972, with the use of one additional fan and with the arrival of less humid weather, the access gallery ceiling ha d dried up enough for grouting to proceed. By August 25, 1972, the leaks had been stopped in all tendon sheaths except 31V36, 31V31, 31V20, and 23V26. Several further attempts, utilizing scheme two, failed to completely stop the water seepage into these four tendon sheathings. However, the water seepage was in all cases under no pressure and in negligible quantities.In early December 1972, a third scheme for sealing the tendon sh eathing was initiated. This scheme involved the installation of a plug in the tendon sheath just above the bottom vertical trumpet. The sheath was then filled with chemical grout to approximately elevation 14 feet 6 inches. The top end of the sheath was then sealed with another plug and the air in the sheath was pressurized to approximately 40 psi. This pressure was held for 20 minutes to allow the grout to gel. The plugs were then removed and the grout in the sh eath was expelled us ing air pressure. All remaining grout in the sheath was removed with a high pressure (6000 psi) water jet. Visual inspection of the sheathing show ed it to be free of grout.As of February 1973, there was only one location at which water was entering the access gallery. This location is near the cons truction opening and the water leak age was through holes drilled to the construction joint, through the gallery ceiling. These holes were not initially grouted in order to be able to observe this leakage during the post-tensioning of the containment. On July 11, 1973, the remaining holes were grouted.As of July 16, 1973, vertical tendon installation, stressing, and greasing were completed. At all locations where water was indicated inside the sheathings, th e grouting operation completely arrested all water seepage into the sheathings. Examination inside the sheathings prior to tendon installation and greasing showed a dry condition. Therefore, all tendons are installed in a non-corrosive environment.

MPS2 UFSAR5.F-3Rev. 35A pressurized grease system connected to the tendon filler caps was installed after the fourth tendon surveillance inspection in 1986. As monitored in the sixth surveillance inspection report in 1996, the number of tendons in which water was found has been greatly reduced. No significant corrosion was identified beyond that noted at installation and reported during the fifth surveillance.See FSAR Section 5.9.3.3.4, "Corrosi on Protection", for additional data to prevent ground water intrusion.