1. 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.

2. NPH Evaluation Specific Methodology & Lessons Learned I.Introduction II.Background III.Establishing a Specific Methodology IV.Lessons Learned V.Questions

3. NPH Evaluation Specific Methodology & Lessons Learned Introduction Why is this important? –Seismically Induced Fires I. Introduction II. Background III. Specific Methodology IV. Lessons Learned V. Questions

4. NPH Evaluation Specific Methodology & Lessons Learned Introduction Why is this important? –Rescue Operations I. Introduction II. Background III. Specific Methodology IV. Lessons Learned V. Questions Photo Courtesy of USGS

5. NPH Evaluation Specific Methodology & Lessons Learned Introduction Why is this important? –Mitigation of Hazardous Material Release –Required by DOE Order 420.1B, Facility Safety I. Introduction II. Background III. Specific Methodology IV. Lessons Learned V. Questions

6. NPH Evaluation Specific Methodology & Lessons Learned 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 III. Specific Methodology IV. Lessons Learned V. Questions

7. NPH Evaluation Specific Methodology & Lessons Learned Introduction Why is this important? –Argonne is susceptible to NPH Events I. Introduction II. Background III. Specific Methodology IV. Lessons Learned V. Questions

8. NPH Evaluation Specific Methodology & Lessons Learned Introduction I. Introduction II. Background III. Specific Methodology IV. Lessons Learned V. Questions Photo Courtesy of Argonne

9. NPH Evaluation Specific Methodology & Lessons Learned Introduction I. Introduction II. Background III. Specific Methodology IV. Lessons Learned V. Questions Photo Courtesy of Argonne

10. NPH Evaluation Specific Methodology & Lessons Learned Introduction I. Introduction II. Background III. Specific Methodology IV. Lessons Learned V. Questions Photo Courtesy of Argonne

11. NPH Evaluation Specific Methodology & Lessons Learned 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 III. Specific Methodology IV. Lessons Learned V. Questions

12. NPH Evaluation Specific Methodology & Lessons Learned 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 III. Specific Methodology IV. Lessons Learned V. Questions

13. NPH Evaluation Specific Methodology & Lessons Learned 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 III. Specific Methodology IV. Lessons Learned V. Questions

14. NPH Evaluation Specific Methodology & Lessons Learned Performance Categories, DOE-STD-1021-93 Change Notice 1 I. Introduction II. Background III. Specific Methodology IV. Lessons Learned V. Questions

15. NPH Evaluation Specific Methodology & Lessons Learned 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 III. Specific Methodology IV. Lessons Learned V. Questions

16. NPH Evaluation Specific Methodology & Lessons Learned Performance Categories I. Introduction II. Background III. Specific Methodology IV. Lessons Learned V. Questions

17. NPH Evaluation Specific Methodology & Lessons Learned Summary of Wind/Tornado Design and Evaluation Criteria I. Introduction II. Background III. Specific Methodology IV. Lessons Learned V. Questions Performance Category1234 WindWind Hazard Annual Probability of Exceedance 2 x 10 -2 1 x 10 -2 1 x 10 -3 1 x 10 -4 Importance Factor1.0 Wind Speed (mph)9096Tornado Governing Missile CriteriaNA Tornado Governing TornadoTornado Hazard Annual Probability of Exceedance NA 2 x 10 -5 (4 x 10 -5 ) (3) 2 x 10 -6 (4 x 10 -6 ) (3) Importance FactorNA 1.0 Tornado Speed (mph) NA 248 (224) (3) 310 (292) (3) Missile CriteriaNA 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 APCNA 125 psf @ 50 psf/sec

18. NPH Evaluation Specific Methodology & Lessons Learned PC-3 and PC-4 Wind Driven Missiles 2x4 timber plank, 15 lb weight, traveling at 150 mph I. Introduction II. Background III. Specific Methodology IV. Lessons Learned V. Questions Photo Courtesy of KSHB, Kansas City, MO

19. NPH Evaluation Specific Methodology & Lessons Learned PC-3 and PC-4 Wind Driven Missiles 3 in diameter standard steel pipe, 75 lb weight, traveling at 75 mph I. Introduction II. Background III. Specific Methodology IV. Lessons Learned V. Questions

20. NPH Evaluation Specific Methodology & Lessons Learned PC-3 and PC-4 Wind Driven Missiles 3,000 lb automobile traveling at 25 mph, rolling and tumbling I. Introduction II. Background III. Specific Methodology IV. Lessons Learned V. Questions Photo Courtesy of WDBR-FM, Springfield, IL

21. NPH Evaluation Specific Methodology & Lessons Learned PC-3 and PC-4 Wind Driven Missiles I. Introduction II. Background III. Specific Methodology IV. Lessons Learned V. Questions Missile CriteriaAcceptable 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

22. NPH Evaluation Specific Methodology & Lessons Learned PC-3 and PC-4 Wind Driven Missiles Many walls at Argonne are unreinforced CMU walls I. Introduction II. Background III. Specific Methodology IV. Lessons Learned V. Questions Photo Courtesy of WDBR-FM, Springfield, IL

23. NPH Evaluation Specific Methodology & Lessons Learned Seismic Loads I. Introduction II. Background III. Specific Methodology IV. Lessons Learned V. Questions Performance Category (PC) 1234 Hazard Exceedance Probability, P H 4x10 -4 (8x10 -4 ) 4x10 -4 (8x10 -4 ) 4x10 -4 (8x10 -4 ) 1x10 -4 (2x10 -4 ) Response Spectra2/3 MCE ground motion (1,3) Site-specific Response Spectra Damping for Structural Evaluation 5%Damping Values Table JNPH-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 groupIIIINA Importance Factor11.5NA Load FactorsCode specified load factors1.0 Scale Factors (SF)NA0.91.25 Inelastic Energy Absorption Ratios For Structures R in IBC 2000Inelastic Energy Absorption Factors, Fμ Table, JNPH-101-Q-T003 Material StrengthMinimum specified or 95% non-exceedance in-situ values

24. NPH Evaluation Specific Methodology & Lessons Learned Seismic Loads Seismic Interaction –URM Interaction I. Introduction II. Background III. Specific Methodology IV. Lessons Learned V. Questions Photos Courtesy of USGS

25. NPH Evaluation Specific Methodology & Lessons Learned 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 III. Specific Methodology IV. Lessons Learned V. Questions

26. NPH Evaluation Specific Methodology & Lessons Learned Seismic Loads I. Introduction II. Background III. Specific Methodology IV. Lessons Learned V. Questions Lateral BraceLongitudinal Brace

27. NPH Evaluation Specific Methodology & Lessons Learned 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 III. Specific Methodology IV. Lessons Learned V. Questions

28. NPH Evaluation Specific Methodology & Lessons Learned SSC Evaluations I. Introduction II. Background III. Specific Methodology IV. Lessons Learned V. Questions

29. NPH Evaluation Specific Methodology & Lessons Learned SSC Evaluations I. Introduction II. Background III. Specific Methodology IV. Lessons Learned V. Questions

30. NPH Evaluation Specific Methodology & Lessons Learned SSC Evaluations I. Introduction II. Background III. Specific Methodology IV. Lessons Learned V. Questions

31. NPH Evaluation Specific Methodology & Lessons Learned SSC Evaluations I. Introduction II. Background III. Specific Methodology IV. Lessons Learned V. Questions

32. NPH Evaluation Specific Methodology & Lessons Learned 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 III. Specific Methodology IV. Lessons Learned V. Questions

33. NPH Evaluation Specific Methodology & Lessons Learned Lessons Learned Employing the use of a specific methodology minimizes interpretations of requirements. Ensures consistency of individual analyses. I. Introduction II. Background III. Specific Methodology IV. Lessons Learned V. Questions

34. NPH Evaluation Specific Methodology & Lessons Learned I. Introduction II. Background III. Specific Methodology IV. Lessons Learned V. Questions Questions