ML20035D017
| ML20035D017 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 07000832 |
| Issue date: | 01/22/1993 |
| From: | Licht R MINNESOTA MINING & MANUFACTURING CO. (3M CO.) |
| To: | Thadani A Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9304120043 | |
| Download: ML20035D017 (1) | |
Text
r 3M Ceramic Materials 3M Center St. Paul. Minnesota 55144-1000 612/733 111o January 22,1993 Mr. Ashok C. Thadani Director Division of Systems Safety & Analysi<;
U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commissi60 Washington, DC 20555
Dear Mr. Thadani:
On behalf of 3M and Fire Protection Products personnel, I want to thank you for the input at the public meeting in Rockville on January 7,1993.
I intend to provide comment on the Fire Barrier Testing Acceptance Criteria in i
the name of 3M and as chairperson of ASTM Task Group E-05.11.8. My major concerns deal with the deviation condition and a lack of any standard to address cable functionality.
As chairperson of ASTM E-05.11.8, I will attempt to include sections in the j
proposed standard that address cable functionality. This is not a simple subject, and this task group has been reviewing this type of criteria for the past 6 or 7 years.
3M, working with Underwriters Laboratories, has tried various methods of testing cable and methods for evaluating cable functionality, including oven testing to establish failure points, meggering before and after fire testing in both air and water, circuit integrity testing under low and high amperage load during fire testing, and other means. 3M is willing to make this information available to the industry to help develop a functionality test method. The question still exists on proper selection of the cable to be tested should it be artificially aged before testing, as aged cable will function differently than new cables. Cables of thn same design, labeled XLPE/PVC can failin an oven evaluation test at temperatures as low as 3250F and as hiah as 7500F. even though the cables are thought to be ioentical. The cnoice of caDie will be crucial to testing cable functionality.
3M would like tc understand the NRC acceptance of the altctnate hose exposure test as it is not part of any of tne recognized national standards. ad
~,
use of the fog nozzle hose stream would be a reduction in test periormance requirements.
I would like to thank the NRC staff for this opportunity to present 3M's concerns.
Sincer j
I R.R. Licht Technical Manager FPDCC HW 3
re Protection.P j
INITIAL gm3 9304120043 930122 DR ADOCK 0700 2