ML17146B010

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Suppl 3 to Evaluation of Selected Fire Door Frame Assemblies, Technical Rept
ML17146B010
Person / Time
Site: Susquehanna  Talen Energy icon.png
Issue date: 05/31/1987
From: Dobson P, Shield W, Spencer C
FACTORY MUTUAL RESEARCH CORP.
To:
Shared Package
ML17146B007 List:
References
NUDOCS 8710230363
Download: ML17146B010 (10)
v • d • e


Text

TECHNICAL REPORT EVALUATION OF SELECTED FIRE DOOR AND DOOR FRAME ASSEMBLIES (SUPPLEMENT 3) by, Chr istopher A. Spencer Prepared for Pennsylvania Power and Light Company Susquehanna Steam Electric Station Route 11 Salem Township, Pennsylvania 15635 May 1987 Reviewed by:

W. F. Shield, Assistant Manager Materials Section (Codes/Ratings)

FMRC Approved by:

P. H. Dobson oui ~ Senior Engineet 87 i 0>303b3;,.:

. hooey.;"0 05000387 PORE I FMRC PDR Factory NIIItual Research 1161 Boston-Providence Turnpike Norwood. Massachusetts 02062

0' ~ k tFACTORY MUTUAL RESEARCH t

CORPORATION TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Title ~Pa e TABLE OF CONTENTS i

SUMMARY

AND, CONCLUSIONS iii I INTRODUCTION 1 II FIRE DOOR AND FRAME EVALUATION 2 III RECOMMENDATIONS 5

FACTORY MUTUAL RESEARCH CORPORATION

SUMMARY

AND CONCLUSIONS An evaluation of selected fire doors and frames protecting safety related ar eas was conducted for the Pennsylvania Power and Light Co. (PPQ.) at Susquehanna Steam Electric Station, Units 1 & 2. The purpose of the evaluation was to examine certain unlabeled or modified doors and frames, compar e them with labeled units and render an opinion on their expected fire resistance.

This evaluation was requested by PPAL as a supplement to the original evaluation contained in a Factory Mutual report dated January 1985, Supplement 1 dated August 1985 and Supplement 2 dated June 1986.

The following conclusions were reached:

1. All frames examined may be expected to provide 3 hours3.472222e-5 days <br />8.333333e-4 hours <br />4.960317e-6 weeks <br />1.1415e-6 months <br /> fire resistance subJect to the completion of Recomendations 1 and 2 noted in this report.

'74M

2. Door 115 on Level 779 had a 1-1/2 hour label attached. The door may be expected to provide that level of protection.
3. Door 175 on Level 676 had a 1-1/2 hour label attached. The door may be expected to provide that level of protection.
4. Door 408 on Level 719 may be expected to provide 1-1/2 hours fire resistance;
5. Door 531 on Level 749 may be expected to provide 1-1/2 hours fire resistance subject to replacement of the missing silencer s and installation of a 16 ga. cover plate over the hole which was provided to receive an electromagnetic switch mechanism.
6. The active leaf of Door 712 on Level 799 has been sprung at the top and should be replaced.

~ W ~

FACTORY MUTUAL RESEARCH CORPORATION INTRODUCTION The plant was visited on April 9, 1987 by W. F. Shield and C. A. Spencer of FMRC. We were accompanied'by Mr. S. Davis of PAL. Five doors and frames were examined during this visit. The assemblies were located in Unit 1 and 2 Reactor Buildings and the Control Building.

Mr. C. A. Spencer is a Registered Professional Engineer in fire protection with 17 years'xperience at Factory Mutual. Mr. Spencer has been involved in field and plan review evaluation of fire walls and fire rated assemblies and is now involved in testing and evaluation of fire resistance of building materials and fire rated assemblies.

FACTORY MUTUAL RESEARCH CORPORATION FIRE DOOR AND FRAME EVALUATION Two labeled fire doors and frames, and three unlabeled fire doors and frames, were examined during this visit to the Susquehanna Steam Electric Station at the request of the Pennsylvania Power and Light Company (PPLu.).

2.1 FIRE DOOR FRAMES All.frames examined were found to be fabricated in accordance with the American National Standards Institute, Standard A155.1, and may be expected to provide 3 hours3.472222e-5 days <br />8.333333e-4 hours <br />4.960317e-6 weeks <br />1.1415e-6 months <br /> fire resistance subJect'o completion of Recommendations 1 and 2.

2.2 FIRE DOORS Two labeled doors with modifications were examined and three unlabeled doors were compared to labeled fire doors to obta'in an estimated fire-resistance rating.

2.2. 1 Labeled Fire Doors with Modifications Labeled doors with modifications were examined to determine whether the door would still be expected to provide the level of fire resistance indicated on the label.

Door 115-g g999~.>.gd Door 115 (Elevation 779, Reactor Building, Unit 2) had a 1-1/2 hour label attached. This door had been modified by addition of an electromagnetic card reading device. Examination indicates this door may be expected to provide 1-1/2 hours fire resistance. (Note: The report of the original fire door evaluation dated January 1985 referenced a Door No. 115 on Elevation 670 of Reactor Building, Unit 1. This is not the same door.)

Door 175 Door 175 (Elevation 676, Control Structure, Lunch Room C-109) had a 1-1/2 hour label attached. This door had been modified by addition of a 10 in x 10 in wired glass light (Model T4G manufactured by Leslie Locke Inc ,

Atlanta, Georgia). Examination indicates that since this is within the

t FACTORY MUTUAL RESEARCH l

CORPORATION maximum exposed glass area allowed by National Fire Protection Association, NFPA 80, Standard for Fire Doors and Windows, this door may be expected to provide 1-1/2 hours fire resistance.

2.2.2 Unlabeled Fire Doors Unlabeled fire doors were examined by comparing their construction features with labeled doors.

Door 408 Door 408 (Elevation 719, Reactor Building, Unit 2) had no label. This

'A~ ~-L -8~

door was compared to Door 115'Mith the, following results:

a. Both doors are the same size.
b. Both doors have vertical internal stiffeners at approximately 6 in.

on center.

c. Face sheet thickness (18 ga'.) and hinge reinforcement (16 ga.) were-the same on both doors.
d. Both doors have mineral wool insulation in the cavity.
e. Door 408 has a latch throw of 1/2 in. compared to 5/8 in. for 9m~ a-c -rt'T Door 115." However, this satisfies the minimum latch throw requirement specified in NFPA 80 for a 1-1/2 hour door.

Based on the above observations, it is concluded that Door 408 would have an expected rating of 1-1/2 hours.

Door 531 Door 531 (Elevation 749, Reactor Building, Unit 1) had no label. This Qe n4 door was compared with Door 115 41th the following results:

a. Both doors had the same dimensions.
b. Both doors have vertical internal stiffeners at approximately 6 in.

on center as determined using a stethoscope.

c~ Face sheet thickness ( 18 ga.) and hinge reinforcement ( 16 ga.) were the same on both doors as determined using a specially adapted micrometer.

d. Both doors have latch throws of 5/8 in.
e. Both doors have mineral wool insulation in the cavity.

FACTORY MUTUAL RESEARCH CORPORATION It is concluded that Door No. 531 would have an expected rating of 1-1/2 hours subject to completion of the recommended improvements in Section III of this report.

Door 712 An examination of Door 712 (Elevation 799, Reactor Building, Unit 1) showed that the active leaf of this pair of doors had been sprung at the top edge and should be replaced.

FACTORY, MUTUAL RESEARCH CORPORATION I II RECOMMENDATIONS The silencers missing from the frame of Door 531 should be replaced.

The opening in the frame of Door 531 which was intended to receive an electromagnetic switch mechanism for a card reader, should be covered with a 16 ga. cover plate.

The active leaf of Door 712, which has been sprung at the top, should be replaced with a labeled 1-1/2 hour rated fire door.

DEVIATION REQUEST NP. 3 SUSQUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION - UNITS I 5 2 FIRE PROTECTION PROGRAM - CONCERN ¹I DOCKETS NO. 50-387 50-388 APPENDIX A - DEVIATION REQUESTS DEVIATION REQUEST NO. 3 ATTACHMENT 5

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML17146B010&oldid=2007568"