ML19346E693
| ML19346E693 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 02/16/1994 |
| From: | Mccracken C Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Thadani A Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9402280171 | |
| Download: ML19346E693 (8) | |
Text
-..
- "4 4
3
-S UNITED STATES lE li
- j NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION (v
f WA5mGTON, D C. M56
- =***
February 16, 1994 MEMORANDUM FOR:
Ashok C. Thadani, Director Division of Systems Safety and Analysis Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation FROM:
Conrad E. McCracken, Chief Plant Systems Branch Division of Systems Safety and Analysis SUBJECT
SUMMARY
OF FEBRUARY 9, 1994, SENIOR MANAGEMENT MEETING
$ TWEEN NRC AND NUMARC.
Senior managers of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR) met with senior representatives of the Nuclear Management and Resources Council (NUMARC) on February 9, 1994. This was the second NRC/NUMARC senior management meeting to monitor the progress of the NUMARC Thermo-Lag test program. is a list of attendees.
During this meeting, NIR staff presented the preliminary results of NRC full-scale Thermo-Lag fire endurance and ampacity tests completed in December 1993 at Underwriters Laboratories, Inc. (Enclosure 2). The objective of these tests was to duplicate tests performed by Thermal Science, Inc., the Thermo-Lag vendor. ORR stated that, by late February or early March 1994, it would issue the test results in an information notice and place the final test report in the Publ'.c Document Room. NUMARC commented briefly on the completeri Phase 2 tests and remarked that ampacity derating tests, not yet scheduled, were not expected to present difficulties.
For most of the remaining time, the discussion focused e, the letter NRC sent to licensees pursuant to 10 CFR 50.54(f) znd on the guioance NUMARC sent to utilities for preparing a response to the 50.54(f) letter. The NRC noted that, while the guidance letter contained some good points, it could lead licensees to misinterpret the 50.54(f) letter and provide incomplete responses. NUMARC proposed to review the points of concern in the guidance letter and recommended that conjectures and concerns be placed on hold until-responses to the 50.54(f) letter are received and reviewet. NUMARC stated that it is currently reviewing information submitted by utilities which believe they are outside of the scope of the NUMARC program. NUMARC indicated that these utilities may benefit by joining efforts and sponsoring testing of their own.
NUMARC informed the NRC that the four remaining Phase 2 tests (2-4, 2-5, 2-6, and 2-11), originally scheduled for late February and March 1994, were put on hold. The reason for this decision is for NUMARC to factor the responses to the 50.54(f) letter in the upgrades of these 3-hour tests _ specimens. NUMARC also stated that it would provide a draft of the Applicatun Guide to the-staff by February 1994, and that NUMARC plans to hold an.
- industry i
.n workshop shortly after completing the Phase 2 tests.
g 9402280171 940216 CF SUBJ 003006
- "N Ib "7J own-7NUMARC CF K Mri h
, g t pa s ($1:u w'g;w m.
e@ m p vg u M M, _ L - '
y j;
~;
j
% v L 4 t' Junko
Ashok C. Thadani NUMARC outlined the Fire Protection Working Group activities (Enclosure 3) and informed the NRC that NUMARC second board meeting scheduled in March would include senior executives from industry.
NUMARC also stated that the working group had not yet assessed the letter of January 12, 1994, from J. Goldberg, Nuclear Division President, Florida Power and Light (FP&L) to J. Taylor. This letter will be the subject of a meeting on March 10, 1994, between NRC and FP&L.
J 4
The NRC and NUMARC representatives agreed to reschedule the next senior management meeting of March 29, 1994, at a more convenient time.
- y;can vauva %
Conrad E. McCracken, Chief d
Plant Systems Branch l
Division of Systems Safety and Analysis
(
i
Enclosures:
As stated
- c w/ enclosures
J. Colvin, NUMARC i
l 1
1 DISTRIBUTION Central File WDean FMiraglia RJenkins l
SPLB TSI File D0udinot WRussell TMarsh NRC PDR GMulley, OIG LJCallan Regional Administrators OPA EPawlik, Rill /01 MCallahan, OCA MVirgilio MGamberoni JRoe CMcCracken JHolmes SVarga SWest ASingh CBerlinger PMadden TMu rl ey A(Paul) Gill
- p /4
,m j
SP(R;:DSSA SPLB:DSSA,
SPEB:D'SSA D0udinot SWest (q/d CMcCracken i
2////94 2/{h/94,V 2//[/94 0FFICIAL RECORD COPY
[G:\\THERMOLA\\ZFEB9.D0]
i 1
4
l t
l l
MEETING ATTENDEES j
Name Affiliation C. McCracken NRR/SPLB l
M. Virgilio NRR/DSSA i
S. West NRR/DSSA/SPLB W. Russell NRR/ADT T. Murley NRR A. Thadani NRR/DSSA J. Colvin NUMARC l
W. Rasin NUMARC A. Marion NUMARC F. Gunter NIRS M. Callahan NRC/CA J. Juliano NUS T. Sutter Bechtel H. Fossett NRC/0lG R. Paul NRC/0I D. Stellfox McGraw-Hill J. Raleigh STS, Inc.
E. Baker NRC/0CM W. Dean NRC/0EDO M. Gamberoni NRC/DRPW R. Blough NRC/DRPW D. Oudinot NRC/DSSA R. Jenkins NRR/EELB r
P. Madden NRR/SPLB N. Dudley NRC/ACRS F. Miraglia NRR l
4 i
I r
S l
s i
I
)
i l
I
l 1
February 9, 1994 TEST ARTICLE 1 FIRE ENDURANCE TEST
SUMMARY
TEST DATE:
December 8, 1993 TEST SPONSOR:
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission i
TECH ASSISTANCE:
Sandia National Laboratories TEST FACILITY:
Underwriters Laboratories, Incorporated Northbrook, Illinois TEST ARTICLE:
1 (TSI Procedure 20684, Rev V based barrier installation)
DESCRIPTION:
U-shaped 6-inch-wide steel solid bottom cable tray with light cable loading.
The test article components and configuration duplicated a test article from TSI Report 82-5-355B.
The barrier inst allation, however, was performed in accordance with TSI Technical Note 20684, I
Revision V.
3 hour3.472222e-5 days <br />8.333333e-4 hours <br />4.960317e-6 weeks <br />1.1415e-6 months <br /> fire rated barrier. Two layers of h-inch thick panels with prebuttered joirts.
AMBIENT TEMP:
19 "C [66 *F]
l TEST PROFILE:
Standard 3-hour ASTM E-119 time-temperature curve.
FAILURE CRITERIA:
Single thermocouple temperature > 200 *C [391 *F]'
Average thermocouple temperature > 158 *C [316 "F]2 i
Loss of circuit integrity
SUMMARY
RESULTS:
1:05 Single point temperature criterion exceeded.
1:16 Dead short circuit integrity failure.
i 1:20 Average temperature criterion exceeded.
2:30 Test terminated.
The Thermo-Lag had fallen away from upper leg and upper elbow sections of the cable tray.
Little virgin material remained on the test article.
All of the cable jacket and conductor insulatirn was consumed by the fire, only bare copper conductors remained.
HOSE STREAM TEST:
Not conducted due to extensive f ailure of test assembly during fire exposure.
i Maximum allowable single point temperature rise is 30 percent above the allowable average temperature rise (1.30 x 139 *C = 181 *C
[1.30 x 250 *F = 325 'F]) plus ambient temperature at the start of the test (181 *C + 19 'C = 200 *C [325 'F + 66 *F = 391 "F]).
2 Allowable average temperature rise is 139 *C [250 'F) above ambient temperature at the start of the test (139 *C + 19 *C = 158 'C
[66 "F + 250 "F = 316 "F]).
j
~
[
February 9, 1994 TEST ARTICLE 2 FIRE ENDURANCE TEST
SUMMARY
TEST DATE:
December 7, 1993 TEST SPONSOR:
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission TECH ASSISTANCE:
Sandia National Laboratories TEST FACILITY:
Underwriters Laboratories, Incorporated Northbrook, Illinois TEST ARTICLE:
2 (TSI Procedure 20684, Rev V based barrier installation)
DESCRIPTION:
U-shaped 12-inch-wide steel ladderback cable tray with light cable loading.
The test article components and configuration duplicated Test Article 4 of TSI Report 82-11-81. The barrier installation was performed in accordance with TSI Technical Note 20684, Revision V.
3-hour fire rated barrier. Two layers of h-inch thick panels with prebuttered joints.
AMBIENT TEMP:
19 *C [66 *F]
TEST PROFILE:
Standard 3-hour ASTM E-Il9 time-temperature curve.
FAILURE CRITERIA:
Single thermocouple temperature > 200 *C [391 *F]'
Average thermocouple temperature > 158 *C [316 *F]2 Loss of circuit integrity
SUMMARY
RESULTS:
0:55 Single point temperature criterion exceeded.
G:59 Dead short circuit integrity failure.
1:03 Average temperature criterion exceeded.
2:00 Test termini.ted.
The Thermo-Lag had fallen away from upper sections of the cable tray.
Little virgin material remained on the test article.
All of the cable jacket and conductor insulation was co sumed by the fire, only bare copper conductors remained.
HOSE STREAM TEST:
Not conducted due to extensive failure of test assembly during fire exposure.
Maximum allowable single point temperature rise is 30 percent above the allowable average temperature rise (1.30 x 139 *C = 181 *C
[1.30 x 250 #F = 325 *F]) plus ambient temperature at the start of the test (181 'C 4 19 "C = 200 *C [325 'F + 66 *F = 391 *F]).
2 Allowable average temperat re rise is 139 *C [250 *F] above ambient temperature at the start of the 1 1 (139 *C + 19 *C = 158 *C
[66 *F + 250 *F = 316 'F]).
r 3
February 9, 1994 FIRE ENDURANCE TEST
SUMMARY
TEST DATE:
December 6, 1954 f
TEST SPONSOR:
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission TECH ASSISTANCE:
Sandia National Laboratories TEST FACILITY:
Underwriters Laboratories, Incorporated Northbrook, Illinois TEST ARTICLE:
3 (TSI Test report-based barrier installation)
DESCRIPTION:
U-shaped 12-inch-wide steel ladderback cable tray with light cable loading.
The test article components and configuration were identical to Test Article 2.
The barrier installation, how1ver, duplicated as closely as possible the barrier de.
n and installation documented in TSI Report 82-11-81.
Jpgraded 3-hour fire rated barrier.
Two layers of %-inch thick panels with nebuttered joints. All inner and outer joints and reinforced with wire stitching.
Outer joints also sec
?d with machine nuts and bolts.
l Skim coat of trowel-grade applied over assembly.
AMBIENT TEMP:
20 *C [68 'F]
TEST PROFILE:
Standard 3-hour ASTM E-Il9 time-temperature curve.
FAILURE CRITERIA:
Single thermocouple temperature > 201 *C [393 *F]'
Average thermocouple temperature > 159 *C [318 *F]2 Loss of circuit integrity
SUMMARY
RESULTS:
1:50 Single point temperature criterion exceeded.
t 1:58 Average temperature criterion exceeded.
1:59 Dead short circuit integrity failure.
3:00 Thermo-Lag covering the bottom of the upper cable tray section completely burned away, only stress skin remained.
The cable tray was fully exposed.
Very little virgin material remained on the test article.
All of the cable jacket and conductor insulation was consumed by the fire, only bare copper conductors remained.
HOSE STREAM TEST:
Not conducted due to failure during fire exposure.
Maximum allowable single point temperature rise is 30 percent above the allowable average temperature rise (1.30 x 139 *C - 181 *C
[1.30 x 250 #F - 325 *F]) plus ambient temperature at the start of the test (181 *C + 20 *C = 201 "C [325 *F + 68 "F - 393 "F)).
2 Allowable average temperature rise is 139 *C [250 #F] above ambient temperature at the start of the test (139 *C + 20 *C = 159 *C i
[68 *F + 250 *F = 318 *F)).
a
4 February 9, 1994 L
TEST ARTICLE 4 AMPACITY DERATING TEST
SUMMARY
TEST DATE:
October 14-15, 1993 (baseline, tray without barrier)
December 9-10, 1993 (protected, tray with barrier)
TEST SPONSOR:
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission TECH ASSISTANCE:
Sandia National Laboratories 2
TEST FACILITY:
Underwriters Laboratories, Incorporated Northbrook, Illinois TEST ARTICLE:
4 (TSI Procedure 20684, Rev V based barrier installation)
DESCRIPTION:
U-shaped 12-inth-wide steel ladderback cable tray with i
50 percent cable loading (8 AWG, 4 AWG, and 2/0 cables).
Test article components and configuration duplicated TSI Report 82-5-355F.
Barrier installation in accordance with TSI Technical Note 20654, Revision V.
3-hour fire rated barrier. Two layers of \\-inch thick panels with prebuttered joints.
I AW ACITY DERATING FACTORS Cable Size Data Sou ce Baseline Anpacity Protected Ampacity Derating Factor l
r (Amps)
(Ams)
(%)
8 AWL 5A; 23.7 12.7 46.4 151' 17.46 14.64 16.15 j
151' 20.38 13.20 31.84 1515 23.96 14.83 38.10 4 AW; sh; 37.8 24.1 36.2 15I' 35.77 29.74 16.B6 751' 41.75 28.21 32.43 1
TsI' 41.75 22.21 32.43 I
2/0 th; 114.00 73.4 0 35.6 151' 105.91 87.18 17,6B 151' 123.60 82.t o 33.10 151' 131.60 B4.82 35.55 9eported in TSI Report 82-5-355F.
3 15! calculation error associated with inverting the ICEA adjustment f actor corrected.
Actual individual co d. actor tenperatures used to calculate individual ampacity adjustment factors for each cable indepemently rather than using the hcttest single cable tenperature for each cable.
l l
I i
Fire Protection Working Group I
Mission Statement
Purpose:
1)
Review current industry activities relating to Fire Protection and identify necessary recommendations to address industry and NRC concerns that provide an effective long term resolution.
2)
Coordinate and communicate industry activities that support the development and implementation of necessary guidance or initiatives.
i 3)
Provide unified industry interaction with NRC management.
l f
Goals:
1)
Review current activities related to the Thermo-Lag test program and provide recommendations on appropriate strategy for addressing industry and NRC concems.
2)
Review current activities relative to the assessment of other fire bamer i
systems and provide recommendations on appropriate stmtegy for l
addressing industry and NRC concerns.
j i
3)
Assess the advantages / disadvantages of proposed revisions to the body of i
fire protection regulations and underlying guidance.
i 4)
Coordinate industry activities with other industry organizations (ANEC, EEI, EPRI, USCEA, etc.), standards development organizations (ANS, l
IEEE, NFPA, etc.), and other elements of the industry, as appropriate.
l 5)
Interact with NRC management to achieve reasonable resolution ofindustry and NRC concerns relative to Fire Protection.
h i
h