alpha gamma hot cell facility sprinkler system upgrade presented by: betsy grom, argonne national...
TRANSCRIPT
Alpha Gamma Hot Cell FacilitySprinkler System Upgrade
Presented by:
Betsy Grom, Argonne National Laboratory
Don Mershon, Nexus Technical Services Corp.
2
Project Description
The Alpha Gamma Hot Cell Facility (AGHCF) Sprinkler Upgrade corrected sprinkler and water supply system deficiencies, upgrading protection to comply with DOE requirements.
6
AGHCF Operations
AGHCF Mission:– At project start: R&D for safe and reliable fuel systems for advanced
commercial power reactors. (1964 – 2006)– At project end: Radioactive and hazardous material handling,
management & storage. (2006 – Present) AGHCF is located within Building 212, F-Wing, and runs from the
basement through the second floor Covers approximately 20,000 square feet F-Wing includes the Alpha Gamma Hot Cell, support,
maintenance, and office areas. Primary Constraint in AGHCF during installation was to maintain
an hourly fire watch.
7
Project Background
Nuclear facility FHAs were updated The updated AGHCF FHA identified that:
– Past sprinkler modifications were inadequate– The existing water supply was questionable
Hydraulic calculations confirmed that the existing water supply was inadequate
Temporary fix - operability determination– Replaced sprinkler heads– Restored compliance with SAR requirements
A project plan for resolution was developed The project plan was implemented
8
Fire Hazards Analysis
Exposure Hazards – Machine shop– Offices– Storage and support areas
AGHCF Internal Hazards (water not welcome)– Nuclear fuels– Metals– Swarf– Cutting oils, lubricants– Trash
Seismic interaction was not considered in the existing sprinkler system design
10
Sprinkler and Water Supply Analysis
Existing design– Occupancy classifications were unclear– Design criteria were inadequate– Areas beneath obstructions were unprotected– Multiple phased sprinkler modifications were unfinished and
inadequate for the hazards Flow tests were conducted Hydraulic calculations were performed Results – system could not function as designed, the water supply
was inadequate due to undersized building supply feeder
12
Key Decisions
Classification of:– Nuclear Hazard Category (HC-2)– Performance Category (PC-3)
How to apply seismic requirements Detailed design or performance specification? First project under ISO 9001 - 65 step project management procedure
13
Key Decisions
Hazard and Performance Categories– Defined in DOE 420.1B– Further defined in:
• DOE-STD-1020-02, Natural Phenomena Hazards Design and Evaluation Criteria for Department of Energy Facilities• DOE-STD-1021-93, Natural Phenomena Hazards
Performance Categorization Criteria for Structures, Systems, and Components
14
Performance Category 3
PC-3 SSCs are those for which failure to perform their safety function could pose a potential hazard to public health, safety, and the environment because radioactive or toxic materials are present and could be released from the facility as a result of that failure. PC-3 SSCs would prevent or mitigate criticality accidents, chemical explosions, and events with the potential to release hazardous materials outside the facility. Design considerations for these categories are to limit facility damage as a result of design basis natural phenomena events so that hazardous materials can be controlled and confined, occupants are protected, and the functioning of the facility is not interrupted. When safety analyses determine that local confinement of high-hazard materials is required for worker safety, PC-3 designation may be appropriate for the SSCs involved. PC-3 NPH provisions are consistent with those used for reevaluation of commercial plutonium facilities with conservatism in between that of model building code requirements for essential facilities and civilian nuclear power plant requirements.
16
Key Decisions
Detailed design or performance specification? Why a detailed design?
– Intricate scope of work with operational sensitivities during installation
– Ensure the final installation meets all design requirements– More accurate cost estimates– Control costs by:
• Limiting the number of contractor change orders• Encouraging an open relationship with contractors to
alleviate their anxiety with respect to unknowns
17
Key Decisions
First project under ISO 9001 – 65-step project management process Why use the 65-step process?
– Required by Argonne site engineering program
– Complicated scope of work requiring diligent coordination
– Control work to ensure appropriate outcomes
– Ensure design AND installation meet ALL requirements
– Predictable costs and results Features of project management process:
– Aggressive documentation and follow-up
– Checklists to ensure activities completed
– Milestones or deliverables tied to each step
– Traceable results
20
Issues
Operations– Work adjacent to hot cell to be
performed within one week
– Hourly fire watch during construction
– Protection of Zinc Bromide(ZnBr2) filled windows
21
Design Objectives
Correct design criteria for occupancies Increase water supply Protect areas under obstructions Design for seismic interactions
22
Design Requirements
Water supply to remain operable during the day Work to be pre-planned and pre-fabricated to minimize exposures
and speed installation ZnBr2 windows to be protected from mechanical damage during
installation Work to be sequenced to allow testing and return to operability of
AGHCF sprinklers immediately following installation
27
Sequencing required:– Water supply was shared between fire protection and
domestic water distribution systems– Initial out-of-services rendered both water distribution systems
inoperable during water supply upgrade– Operations required domestic water during the day, allowing
shutdown on Saturdays only– After separation from domestic water, cross connections to the
service tunnel feed main would leave multiple areas of 212 unprotected if not sequenced
– Sequencing allowed the project to manage fire watch costs
Sequencing Played a Key Role
28
Fire protection water
Domestic water
Shared water supply feeder
North Water Supply EntranceShared Service with Domestic Water Supply
30
Seismic Bracing
Required by DOE 420.1B and DOE-STD-1020
Seismic bracing required to avoid interaction with AGHCF ZnBr2 filled windows
Seismic bracing design details were developed and complied with NFPA 13 requirements
Contractor decided to ignore and invent their own unsubstantiated restraints
Contractor ultimately complied with the design details provided
40
Post Mortem
Detailed design provided an accurate cost estimate with contractor costs coming in within 2% of cost estimate
Contractor change orders were minimized and extras were held to less than 4%
Complete documentation was received
Lesson - involve construction and operation types in design phase to capture innovations to make the job go easier
41
Post Mortem (cont.)
Project management process– Prepared management for complete cost estimate and
alleviated the need for “value engineering”– Original project scope estimate was for a different scope of
work, it did not include upgrading the water supply, thus original cost estimate was low
– Original project scope would not have fixed the problem– Lesson – make sure funding requests and GPP estimates
match the scope required to fix the problem– Lesson – well defined project made it easy to obtain
management backing
42
Post Mortem (cont.)
Lesson – watch the contractor all the way to the end– Pipe supports were fabricated from all thread rod rather than
following design details for pipe saddles– Seismic braces were homemade with no basis for design, nor
installation, persistence forced them to follow the design and install qualified seismic braces