NPH Evaluation Specific Methodology & Lessons Learned Natural Phenomena Hazards (NPH) Evaluation at...

NPH Evaluation Specific Methodology & Lessons Learned

Natural Phenomena Hazards (NPH) Evaluation at Argonne National Laboratory

Establishing a Specific Methodology and Lessons Learned

Betsy Grom, Argonne National Laboratory

Alex Smith, Nexus Technical Services Corp.


I. Introduction

II. Background

III. Establishing a Specific Methodology

IV. Lessons Learned

V. Questions


Introduction

• Why is this important?– Seismically Induced Fires

I. Introduction

II. Background

III. Specific Methodology

IV. Lessons Learned

V. Questions


Introduction

• Why is this important?– Rescue Operations

I. Introduction

II. Background


IV. Lessons Learned

V. Questions

Photo Courtesy of USGS


Introduction

• Why is this important?– Mitigation of Hazardous Material

Release– Required by DOE Order 420.1B,

Facility Safety

I. Introduction

II. Background


IV. Lessons Learned

V. Questions


Introduction

• Why is this important?– Ensure confinement of hazardous

materials– Protection of facility workers and public– Continued operation of essential

facilities– Protection of government property

I. Introduction

II. Background


IV. Lessons Learned

V. Questions


Introduction

• Why is this important?– Argonne is susceptible to NPH Events

I. Introduction

II. Background


IV. Lessons Learned

V. Questions


IntroductionI. Introduction

II. Background


IV. Lessons Learned

V. Questions

Photo Courtesy of Argonne


Introduction

• NPH Evaluations are required for all Structures, Systems, and Components (SSCs)– Evaluation uses a graded approach. – Vital SSCs require a more rigorous

evaluation.

I. Introduction

II. Background


IV. Lessons Learned

V. Questions


Project Description

• NPH Gap Analysis

• Development or update of Site Specific Design Basis Events

• Development of a Design Criteria Document

• NPH evaluation of Argonne’s hazard-category nuclear facilities

I. Introduction

II. Background


IV. Lessons Learned

V. Questions


Performance Categories

• Structures, Systems, and Components (SSCs)

• Hazard Category (HC)– HC-1 (Reactor), HC-2 (Lots of

Material), HC-3 (Moderate Material)

• Performance Category (PC)– PC-0, PC-1, PC-2, PC-3, PC-4 (Most

Important)

I. Introduction

II. Background


IV. Lessons Learned

V. Questions


Performance Categories, DOE-STD-1021-93 Change Notice 1I. Introduction

II. Background


IV. Lessons Learned

V. Questions


Performance Categories

• Argonne Methodology– Survey Safety Basis Documents– Review System Drawings– Verify Field Conditions– Assign Preliminary Performance

Categories– Evaluate SSCs– Prepare Final PC List

I. Introduction

II. Background


IV. Lessons Learned

V. Questions


Performance CategoriesI. Introduction

II. Background


IV. Lessons Learned

V. Questions

Structures, Systems

Systems, Components

Structures, Systems,

Components

Chemical Hazards

Programmatic Equipment

Identify and Field Verify

Assign Performance Category According to

DOE-STD-1021

DSA

SDDs

1995 NPH SSC Questionaire

FIMS

Chemical Management System

Support Systems


Summary of Wind/Tornado Design and Evaluation CriteriaI. Introduction

II. Background


IV. Lessons Learned

V. Questions

Performance Category 1 2 3 4

Wind

Hazard Annual Probability of Exceedance

2 x 10-2 1 x 10-2 1 x 10-3 1 x 10-4

Importance Factor 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

Wind Speed (mph) 90 96 Tornado Governing Tornado Governing

Missile Criteria NA NA Tornado Governing Tornado Governing

Tornado

Hazard Annual Probability of Exceedance

NA NA 2 x 10-5

(4 x 10-5) (3)

2 x 10-6

(4 x 10-6) (3)

Importance Factor NA NA 1.0 1.0

Tornado Speed (mph) NA NA 248(224) (3)

310(292) (3)

Missile Criteria NA NA 2x4 timber plank 15 lb @150 mph (horiz.), max. height 200 ft.; 100 mph (vert.) 3 in. dia. std. steel pipe, 75 lb @ 75 mph (horiz.); max. height 100 ft, 50 mph (vert.)

3,000 lb automobile @25 mph, rolls and tumbles

2x4 timber plank 15 lb @150 mph (horiz.), max. height 200 ft.; 100 mph (vert.) 3 in. dia. std. steel pipe, 75 lb @ 75 mph (horiz.); max. height 100 ft, 50 mph (vert.)3,000 lb automobile @25 mph, rolls and tumbles

APC NA NA 125 psf @ 50 psf/sec 125 psf @ 50 psf/sec


PC-3 and PC-4 Wind Driven Missiles

• 2x4 timber plank, 15 lb weight, traveling at 150 mph

I. Introduction

II. Background


IV. Lessons Learned

V. Questions

Photo Courtesy of KSHB, Kansas City, MO



• 3 in diameter standard steel pipe, 75 lb weight, traveling at 75 mph

I. Introduction

II. Background


IV. Lessons Learned

V. Questions



• 3,000 lb automobile traveling at 25 mph, rolling and tumbling

I. Introduction

II. Background


IV. Lessons Learned

V. Questions

Photo Courtesy of WDBR-FM, Springfield, IL


PC-3 and PC-4 Wind Driven MissilesI. Introduction

II. Background


IV. Lessons Learned

V. Questions

Missile Criteria Acceptable Missile Barrier

Horizontal Component: 2x4 timber plank, 15 lb @ 150 mph, max. height 200 ft above ground

• 6 in. concrete slab with #4 rebar @ 6 in. on center, each way in middle of slab

• 8 in. concrete masonry unit (CMU) wall with one #4 rebar grouted in each vertical cell and horizontal trussed joint reinforced @ 16 in. on center

Vertical Component: 2x4 timber plank 15 lb @100 mph

• 4 in. concrete slab with #3 rebar @ 6 in . on center each way in middle of slab

Horizontal Component: 3 in. diameter steel pipe 75 lb @ 75 mph max. height 100 ft above ground

• 10 in. concrete slab with #4 rebar @ 12 in . on center each way place 1.5 in. from each face

Vertical Component: 3 in. diameter steel pipe 75 lb @ 50 mph

8 in. concrete slab with #4 rebar @ 8 in . on center each way placed 1.5 in. from inside face



• Many walls at Argonne are unreinforced CMU walls

I. Introduction

II. Background


IV. Lessons Learned

V. Questions

Photo Courtesy of WDBR-FM, Springfield, IL


Seismic LoadsI. Introduction

II. Background


IV. Lessons Learned

V. Questions

Performance Category (PC)

1 2 3 4

Hazard Exceedance Probability, PH

4x10-4

(8x10-4)4x10-4

(8x10-4)4x10-4

(8x10-4)1x10-4

(2x10-4)

Response Spectra 2/3 MCE ground motion (1,3) Site-specific Response Spectra

Damping for Structural Evaluation

5% Damping Values TableJNPH-101-Q-T003

Acceptable Analysis Approaches for

Structures

Static or dynamic force method as described in IBC 2000

Dynamic analysis

Analysis approaches for systems and components

IBC Force equation for equipment and non-structural elements (or

more rigorous approach)

Dynamic analysis using in-structure response spectra (Damping Values

Table JNPH-101-Q-T003)

Seismic Use group I III NA

Importance Factor 1 1.5 NA

Load Factors Code specified load factors 1.0

Scale Factors (SF) NA 0.9 1.25

Inelastic Energy Absorption Ratios For Structures

R in IBC 2000 Inelastic Energy Absorption Factors, Fμ Table, JNPH-101-Q-T003

Material Strength Minimum specified or 95% non-exceedance in-situ values


Seismic Loads

• Seismic Interaction– URM Interaction

I. Introduction

II. Background


IV. Lessons Learned

V. Questions

Photos Courtesy of USGS


Seismic Loads

• Seismic Interaction– System interaction– Sprinkler pipe falling and breaking a

hot cell containment window– System was not designed to be

operable following event.

I. Introduction

II. Background


IV. Lessons Learned

V. Questions


Seismic LoadsI. Introduction

II. Background


IV. Lessons Learned

V. Questions

Lateral Brace Longitudinal Brace


SSC Evaluations

• System Evaluation Work Sheet (SEWS)

• Walk-down assessment follows the methodology established by the Seismic Qualification Users Group (SQUG), which is the basis of the DOE-GIP (EH-0545)

I. Introduction

II. Background


IV. Lessons Learned

V. Questions


SSC EvaluationsI. Introduction

II. Background


IV. Lessons Learned

V. Questions


Results

• Provides quantitative input for future safety basis development.

• NPH mitigation deficiencies identified. Planning for upgrades can be prioritized:– Safety significance of upgrades– Time or funding constraints– Mission requirements

• Forms basis for future development of post-event procedures in facilities.

I. Introduction

II. Background


IV. Lessons Learned

V. Questions


Lessons Learned

• Employing the use of a specific methodology minimizes interpretations of requirements.

• Ensures consistency of individual analyses.

I. Introduction

II. Background


IV. Lessons Learned

V. Questions


I. Introduction

II. Background


IV. Lessons Learned

V. Questions

Questions

NPH Evaluation Specific Methodology & Lessons Learned Natural Phenomena Hazards (NPH) Evaluation at...

Documents

Transcript of NPH Evaluation Specific Methodology & Lessons Learned Natural Phenomena Hazards (NPH) Evaluation at...