ML20046C956
| ML20046C956 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 06/30/1993 |
| From: | Mccracken C Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Thadani A Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9308130104 | |
| Download: ML20046C956 (74) | |
Text
., -f psnaug
?t 3s.
4-E UNITED STATES iC E
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Y,
[
WASHINGTON, D.C. 2055fHX)01 w
June 30, 1993 MEMORANDUM FOR:
Ashok Thadani, Director Division of Systems Safety Analysis FROM:
Conrad McCracken, Chief "lant Systems Branch Division of Systems Safety Analysis J
SUBJECT:
SUMMARY
OF JUNE 28, 1993, MEETING BETWEEN NRC STAFF AND NUMARC ON INDUSTRY THERMO-LAG FIRE BARRIER TEST-PROGRAM NRC staff met with representatives of the Nuclear Utilities Management and Resources Council (NUMARC) on June 28, 1993, to discuss details of NUMARC's Thermo-Lag test program.
The. meeting was to provide a forum for the NRC and NUMARC to follow up on the industry test program outline provided to the NRC during the meeting of June 3,1993. is a list of the attendees.
NUMARC provided the NRC a detailed description of the industry's Thermo-Lag test program (Enclosure 2). NUMARC also provided the NRC with the following
.i schedule:
Phase 1 Source Inspectio6 07/07/1993 - 07/10/1993 Test Specimen Construction 07/12/1993 - 08/27/1993 Testing 09/13/1993 - 09/29/1993 Completion of Test Reports 09/24/1993 - 10/15/1993 Phase 2 Test Specimen Construction 09/27/1993 - 10/29/1993 Testing 11/08/1993 - 12/09/1993 Completion of Test Reports 11/29/1993 - 12/23/1993 Industry Application Guide Complete (End of January 1994)
Phase 1 includes 7 upgraded test configurations which are funded by Thermal Science, Inc. (TSI, the vendor), and. Phase 2 includes 10 test configurations q
(existing industry installations and additional upgrades) which are funded by NUMARC. NUMARC described TSI's role in Phase 1 as removed; TSI.. drafted the k I first revision of the testing program, but the vendor's involvement' in the actual testing will be restricted by NUMARC.
- jf]b r/
\\
NUMARC stated that it will perform chemical analyses of the.Thermo-Lag
- b p f A d.-
materials used to construct the test specimens to verify that they are equivalent-to existing in-plant materials.
pgf/ y/8,
f 9308130104 930630 j
F
?
. June 30, 1993 According to NUMARC, the fire endurance test acceptance criteria are based on the NRC proposed fire endurance test acceptance criteria with one exception.
NUMARC is not planning to perform functionality testing of cables, although cables will be installed in the enclosures.
Rather, NUMARC stated its intention to qualify the fire barriers on temperature profiles. The N.%C staff raised concerns about the use of cables as an additional heat sink in the cable tray fire test specimens and questioned whether or not the resulting temperature profiles would be conservative and valid for;use in analyzing existing plant specific configurations. The staff will pursue this matter and other questions and issues it raised during the meeting with NUMARC further.
NUMARC stated that it will meet with utilities which use Thermo-Lag on July 19, 1993 to discuss the applicability of the NUMARC test configurations to individual licensees.
NUMARC also presented the results of the small-scale fire tests conducted at Underwriters Laboratories during June 1993.
NUMARC plans to use the test data to develop application-specific combustibility acceptance screening criteria for the licensees to assess the acceptability of Thermo-Lag in plant-specific areas.
The NRC questioned NUMARC's approach and methodology with respect to meeting the intent of Generic Letter 86-10 and applicable regulations. The concerns raised by the NRC will be pursued further with NUMARC.
The NRC staff plans to provide NUMARC with comments on the fire endurance testing program by July 2, 1993.
Comments on the combustibility issue will be provided later.
N ip Conrad E. McCracken, Chief Plant Systems Branch Division of Systems Safety and Analysis
Enclosures:
As stated cc w/ enclosures:
Mr. Joseph F. Colvin President and Chief Executive Officer Nuclear Utilities Management and Resources Council 1776 Eye Street, N.W.
Suite 300 Washington, D.C.
20006-3706 DISTRIBUTION See next page
g.
)
1
'1 1
Meetina Attehdees Name Affiliation C. McCracken USNRC.
S. West USNRC A. Singh USNRC P. Madden USNRC J. Holmes USNRC
- 1. Miller USNRC W. Dean USNRC-C. Berlinger USNRC R. Jenkins USNRC J. Chen USNRC-A. Marion NUMARC B. Bradley NUMARC r
M.~Schreim NUMARC.
R. Oehlberg EPRI F. Collins SWEC E. Kleinsorg ABB Impell l
C. Banning ABB.Impell R. Dible ABB Impell W. Holmes
'HSB PLC D. Shumaker PSE&G C.'Philpott Darchem Eng.
K. Hawks TRANSCO R. Licht:
3M-T. Meisenheimer Bechtel J. Raleigh STS, Inc.
Y. Kim NUS J. Stephens Miller & Chevalier
- D. Stellfox McGraw-Hill P. Gunter NIRS~
a I
r e [*
f 2
E o
6
Erctosure. p_ ~
j, NUMARC/NRC Thermo-Lag Meeting June 28,1993 Agenda
+
l.
Introduction Alex Marion, NUMARC 2.
NUMARC Program Overview Biff Bradley, NUMARC 3.
Industry Survey Results Richard Oehlberg, EPRI-4.
Phase 1 Test Plan Rick Dible, ABB Impell 5.
Phase 2 Test Configurations Cal Banning, ABB Impell
- 6.
Industry Application Guide Elizabeth Kleinsorg, ABB Impell 7.
Combustibility Test Results Morris Schreim,NUMARC Frank Collins, Stone and Webster 8.
Summary NUMARC i
?
?
.M NUMARC Thermo-Lag Program Program Elements
- Interaction on test / acceptance criteria issues
- Industry configuration assessment
- Phase 1 test program (7 tests)
- Phase 2 test program (10 tests)
- Combustibility Assessment
- Ampacity Derating Assessment i
7 NUMARC Thermo-Lag Program Team
- Fire Endurance Testing Laboratory Omega Point Engineering ABB impell Installers Peak Seals
- Combustibility Assessment Laboratory UL/lOmega Engineering S&W NUMNRC.
Thermo-Lag Industry Testing Program Industry Actions
- NUMARC Thermo-Lag Ad Hoc Advisory Committee (AHAC)
Formed March 1992 11 Meetings
- Thermo-Lag elevated to NUMARC Priority issue in September 1992
- $1M Test Program Funding approved in October 1992 i
NUMARC 1
)
t Thermo-Lag Industry Testing Program i
Industry Actions (continuec)
- Industry Configuration Assessment Industry survey - November 1992 Industry response - February 1993 3
3 Assessment of results, preparation of test matrix - March-May 1993
- Results of review Many parameters ofimportance to barrier performance Significant industry variation in these parameters NUMARC
l STATUS i
Assessment of industry configurations complete 17 fire tests p annec, exaected to envelope significant portion of industry installations
- Phase 1 - 7 tests of TSI upgrades, testing funded by TSI
- Phase 2 - 10 tests of existing industry installations and additional upgrades, testing-funded by NUMARC 1
NUMARC-i P
m Status i, Cont)
~'
1 Combustibility Testing
- Tests Complete
- Guideline Under Development Acceptance Criteria 1
1
- Awaiting NRC Request for Comments I
- Consideration: Revised Acceptance Criteria Should Address Comparison of Tested to installed Configurations Industry IV eeting - July 19 i
f NUMARC Thermo-Lag Testing Program Fire Test Program Objectives
- Assess performance ofinstalled barriers
- Assess performance of potential upgrades
- Provide utility guideline for application of test results to installed configurations Phase 1 NUMARC tests Phase 2 NUMARC tests n Utility tests j
y-l
?
Industry Survey Results i
i i
i Phase 1 Tests Phase 2 Tests Utility Tests c
S' 5
Test Reports Test Reports Test Reports l
c 1
Industry:
. Appl.ication n
Guide.
2
i UTILITY SUPPORT ISSUES i
Original program intent to use utility personnel, material for " ire barrier installation Objective:
- Optimize use ofindustry resources
- Ensure representative results Test Program will use utility aersonnel to extent practical 1
Contractor support as necessary Aapendix B QA
- Chemica ana vsis o"~~hermo- _aa NUMARC
s l
AMPACITY EVALUATION i
i
[
TUEC test completed Results for upgraded one-lour aarrier
- cable tray - 31%
- conduits - 7% to 10%
- air drops - 20% to 31%
Results are in the range of areviously reaorted values Results s1ould oe generically applicable for one hour barriers NUMARC
4 AMPACITY EVALUATION NUMARC will ciscuss generic applicability of TUEC results with NRC NUMARC program will aerform 3 hour3.472222e-5 days <br />8.333333e-4 hours <br />4.960317e-6 weeks <br />1.1415e-6 months <br /> barrier am aacity evaluation to IEEE P848 NUMARC.
amum,p, m NUMARC Thermo-Lag Questionnaire Richard Oehlberg Eiectric Power Research Institute Ken Dungan HSB Professional Loss Control Presented to U.S. NRC Washington, D.C., June 28,1993 mr s.wy o.wrim sw.m.ns n.a.u.ny emer om mrp, m Outline EPRI Thermal-Lag Role Responses Thermo-Lag Inventory Cable Trays Conduits Boxed Enclosures 1
Joints i
~-
i
-j
DRI Nuc6eer Power Divio6an EPRI Thermo-Lag Role Survey design (with AHAC comments and concurrence)
Survey analysis NUMARC test configuration specification, consulting and tracking (with substantial comments and advice from AHAC)
NUMARC programmatic planning support Results and application guidelines review and support
+ 1ncludes technical advice and support (as needed) as to conduct of cusent and potential need for additional Nue., s.Wy o.v.nm.numa.ns n.a.wer pro,-
w niuual.nrpa.a m m
b Responses 34 Utilities (47 Plants)
PGE (Trojan) not analyzed Nuclear Sawy Departners1Wek and RomeWty Propam manu== cue..==
i
'O f
EPAl Ntao6,P e, DM.non
(
Industry Thermo-Lag inventory Total (linear feet) 1 Hour 3 Hour Cable Trays 15,699(18) 13,166 (20)
Conduits 69,152 (31) 22,037 (35)
Buses 0
0 Cable Drop 754 (8) 339 (4)
Banked Conduits 2,115 (7) 2,289 (9)
Wire Ways 1,142 (4) 380 (3)
Minimum thickness 1/2" 1"
Maximum thickness 1"
1 3/4"
- Plants in (); 47 in population u m,s. w y o.,.,ui.nu m =.no a.u.a.mer p,.ee.m f
speum own
(
Industry Thermo-Lag inventory (Continued)
Total (Souare feet) 1 Hour 3 Hour Soxed Enclosures 1,260 (9) 5,270 (17)
Junction Boxes 1,189(13) 2,074 (17)
Pull Boxes 1,875 (14) 888 (12)
Other 929 (4) 3,868 (9)
Minimum thickness 1/2" 1"
Maximum thickness 1"
1 3/4"
(
- Plants in (); 47 in population j
= =,s. =,o
- ne -
m=ac==c =..==
i
emm m
Cable Tray inventory 23 plants had DQThermo Lag covered cable trays.
For 25 plants with Thermo-Lag on cable trays
+ 5 plants have solid bottom cable trays-
+ 12 plants have ladder back cable trays
+6 plants have both
+2 plants have "other"
+ 5 plants have aluminum cable trays, rest have stsel
)
/
m
, w %=. -
, n,
, = =
.ma asensus.
p.m 7
f Cable Tray Facts Maximum cable tray fill ranged from 5.54% to 70%
Minimum cable tray fill ranged from 0% (?) to 26%
Majority of protected cable trays were horizontal (5 were 100% horizontal)
Maximum cable tray width was 36" (2 plants); next was 30" (8 plants) 2 plants had some spray applied Thermo-Lag 8 plants had some troweled-on Thermo-Lag (but may have included joints) 10 plants had some trowel-grade Thermo-Lag finish coat 2 plants had some weatherproof topcoat m
e.w o n-,wm.= w n any on,y
g EPRI NWr Pow., oM. son Joints for Panels 9 plants can identify joints,4 cannot, rest said some could be identified 23 plants have gaps (Range of 1/32" to <1"; most from 1/16" to 1/2")
Butt Joints 25 plants have end-to-end joints 22 plants have perpendicular (corner) joints Scored Panet Joints (12 plants)
Grooved Panet Joints (10 plants)
/
m e,s. w,o. - w % %
.e manaa-ac=...= =
im um,P
, o w.n Summary of Joints on Cable Tray Fire Barriers Joint
- Rutt Rearad ' Graavad Number of Plants with Joint 26 12.
10 Dry Fit 7
2 2
Pre-Buttered 20 9
8 Joints Staggered 9
Covered with trowel Material 26 12 10 Covered with stress skin 4
1 2
A
- Number of plants having specified joints given in table m m,s.wyo na num.= w % %
, ese mamaemesee.ese
amu.e,e
, m y
(
Cable Tray Fire Barrier Supports 2 plants wire ties and no bands 4 plants bands and no wire ties 19 plants said they had both Band or wire tie separation
+24" (1 plant)
+ 18" (1 plant)
+16"(1 plant)
+ 12" (12 plants)
+<6* (1 plant)
+ 3" (2 plants)
+ 2" (4 plants)
Edge guards (5 plants)
(Wire ties or bands covered with trowel ma plants)
Nuchs,Sawy W ad neunbhy Pmpam o m u
, w.o f
f Conduit inventory 3 plants do Dnt use Thermo-Lag on Conduit 41 cf 44 plants have rigid conduit 2 of 44 plants use EMT type conduits 5 of 44 plants have othertype(s) of conduit a Conduit size ranged from 3/4" to 6"
- 21 of 44 plants indicated 3/4" was minimum size
- Most common size was 4" (19 plants)
- 36 plants use steel conduits (32 plarrts use 100% steel) 9 plants use aluminum conduits (7 plants use 90%
aluminum) 1 plant has 5% of "other" type conduit material no, sowy o.,.nm aM ReenWhy Pmpum
.. = =
)
l
p eu
, w m.w 3 \\
Conduit Facts Cable fill: (Maximum ranged from 30% to 100%;
Minimum ranged from 0% (?)to 80%)
Application methods:
+ Spray - 10 of 44 plants used this to some extent
+ Trowel-on - 16 of 44 plants used this to some nxtent
+ Panels - 26 of 44 plants used this to some extent
+ Pre-shaped conduits - 34 of 44 plants used this to some extent
+ Combination - 21 of 44 plants used a combination of panels and pre-shaped conduit sections Finish wat used to some extent at 18 of 44 plants
' Weather proof top coat used at 7 of 44 plants
)
(A u ars.wr w n-ww.m.asn.a. war e
/
m umu w
a Joints for Conduit Fire Barriers 13 plants can identify joints, 8 cannot,19 said some could be identified, a few did not answer question 23 plants have gaps (Range of 0"to 1/2")
Butt Joints 36 plants have end-to-end joints
- 18 plants have perpendicular (corner) joints' Scored Panel Joints (16 plants)
Grooved Panel Joints (13 plants) u w s.wr o a=wa== as n.nmmar m
-- m. e
am m re, m Summary of Joints on Conduit Fire Barriers l
Jnint*
Rintt Renrad Granvad Number of Plants with Joint 38 16 13 Dy Fit 8
3 2
Pre-Buttered 30 13 11 Joints Staggered 10 Covered with trowel Material 36 18 13 Covered with stress skin 7
4 3
- Number of plants having specified joints given in table m, sewy D
= - n.a.w,
)
1 epm Nuotant power DMalen r
Conduit Fire Barrier Supports
)
26 plants wire ties said h d both
- Ba.rJ or wire tie Maximum separation of 12'
. Edge guards (3 plants)
Wire ties or bands covered with trowel material (8 plants)
Wire ties or bands covered with trowel material (7.
1 additional plants answered both "yes" and "no")
hr newy Depenma wmak and maneumy P,eyne
===ms. cia..
)
l i
i epm Nuotest Power DMeion
)
Boxed Enclosures Protected with Thermo-Lag 46 plants have some boxed enclosure application 28 had 1 hour1.157407e-5 days <br />2.777778e-4 hours <br />1.653439e-6 weeks <br />3.805e-7 months <br /> configurations j
19 plants had 3 hour3.472222e-5 days <br />8.333333e-4 hours <br />4.960317e-6 weeks <br />1.1415e-6 months <br /> conf.gurations 17 plants have interior unistrut support 21 plants have concrete as at least one side of enclosure 27 plants have Thermo-Lag on all sides of enclosure 11 plants have ribbed panels Nucamar setuty Department / Risk and Renebatty P,ogenni 1
EPR1 Nuol.et Power DMelon Boxed Enclosure inventory 24 plants protect pull boxes 22 plants have junction box enclosures 21 plants have othertypes of enclosures
+ 5 protected MOV enclosures
+5 protected HVAC Applications
+6 penetration boxed enclosures Boxed enclosures ranged from
+ 1 Hour: 5" x 1-1/2" x 1-1/2" to 200" x 86 x 41"
+ 3 Hour largest: 300" x 86" x 33-1/2" Nu
,s.inyD.,.,i
,wm.m.,w R.n.nmirP,
i
'A i
(
Boxed Enclosure Facts t
~
Application methods (only 18 answered):
+ Panels - 14 plants had 100% panels
+ 2 plants had 90% panels and 10% trowel-on
+1 plants had 80% panels and 20% trowel on
+ 1 plants had 75% panels and 25% trowel on
-i a Finish coat used to some extent at 11 plants Weather proof top cost used at 2 plants l
(
j
. = =
-m.
.i sm
= o f
(
1 Joints for Boxed Enclosure Fire Barriers -
i Butt Joints
- 43 plants have end-to-end joints
.]
- 11 plants have perpendicular (corner) joints
- l
- 11 plants have pre-buttered 1
- 16 plants covered joints with trowel material' l
I s
q l
'i Y
. :i
L EPRI Nucteer Power DMalon Boxed Enclosure Fire Barrier Bands, Ties, Etc.
4 plants wire ties and no bands Wire was 18 gauge spaced 6"-12" apart 11 plants used steel bands Band width was 1/2" - 3/4" wide
. Edge guards (2 plants)
Wire ties or bands covered with trowel material (3 plants)
Nucesor Setsey Departmenunnok and Reunbluty Program EPRI Nuotest Power DMalon intervening and Structural Steel 39 plants have steel in contact with cable or raceway
- 3 plants had NO intervening steel a Rest had no response 28 plants boxed in supports 22 plants employed trowel material to protect I
supports i
14 plants used both boxed enclosures and trowel material to protect supports N
)
,S..,De----
- =.. - =
sf 1:
f
^*NN C/NRC THERMO-LAG MEETING JUNE 28,1993 Phase 1 Testing
. Objectives
. Test Plan
. Test Assemblies
. Output
--,.xw.
+
.---e,-
-i-m-*
w# --
e.
ee ma 2-<-e w
=
h
,e%'s-
m--
%^
- jg pg iNNkhbRC/NRC THERMO-LAG MEETING JUNE 28,1993^
jf Phase 1 Testing: Objective Evaluate performance of one and three hour barrier design upgrades using TSI materials that can be. applied to existing utility baseline configurations.
t c
1 e
}-
i. t.
.m.
-m.s m=..
. u
- ww
-m-,-+4 1.w-
.~. ',..
4
,,e-
~., -,
u
- 2
..E-3.
w
..w..
._a,.
, +,,,,.. --m,,_.r-
t j
,tV Lj f',
C/NRC THERMO-LAG MEETINGJUNE 28,1993
~
"GN l
Phase 1 Testing: Test Plan 1
. Developed by TSI i-
. Reviewed by NUMARC/ABB Impell
. USNRC Proposed Acceptance Criteria dated November 19,1992
. Includes Design and Installation Details
. Provided to NRC 6/22/93 1
L T
d 4
h 4TiNUMARC/NRC THERMO-LAG MEETING lUNE 28,1993
. g{
Phases 1 and 2 Testing: Acceptance Criteria
. Proposed USNRC Criteria dated November 12,1992
-. Applied: Temperature Qualification,. Hose Stream Test, Barrier Material Inspection
. Cable Functionality not used-e
,~1-w s
..-ev.
+.-,,<-w
-.w.ew.
1~u-.
r<e-. - ~, - -
vr.+,,. -
u.--
t..,
,.cu,
-v r,-.4,--..e v-,e--.
c w
.~.,
b.
)
4
- e,,)N C/NRC THERMO-LAG MEETING JUNE 28,1993 1
Phas.e 1 Testing: Test Assemblies
. Test i-36" Steel Cable Tray (1 hr.)
. Test 2-36" Aluminum Cable Tray (1hr.)
. Test 3-36" Steel Cable Tray (3 hr.)
. Test 4 24" Steel Cable: Tray w/ Air Drop-(1 hr.)
. Test 5-24" Aluminum Cable Tray w/ Tee (3 hr.)
.1 Test 6-Conduit and Junction Box (1 hr.)
. Test:7-Conduit and Junction Box (3 hr.)
..aw
._--.,,---.,-----..,s-
+
u =
-. - - - ~. < - --
-.--- ---------- --~-
a j{
s.
xlF ' 1 $#
w:
wg iNUMhRC/NRC THERMO-LAG MEETING JUNE 28,1993 q)f TYPICAL 36" CABLE TRAY ASSEMBLY Test i: Steel (1hr)/ Test 2: Al(1hr)/ Test 3: Steel (3hr?
Upper unistrut
_ g* cane tray (Steel or Aluminuni) o 3* steel channel a;
to
. blockout perirneter (typ) 36' 10 GA stoel deck r ar 1
e UEin 1 n w
8 yDeckinsulation ut Y
+
N'5U "'
+
\\
3* steel channel 36 tray hanger (typ)
+
- 6" Therrwocwele. SPaci"$
t 7
9 a,n
+
o
. : + :l + + + + + + + + + l:[* 3+.
4
_L 48*
e 102" u m w
4-d.I
$y' i
b4N C/NRC THERMO-LAG MEETING JUNE 28,1993 f'
j TYPICAL BARE COPPER CONDUCTOR.
Configuration for Cable Trays: Tests 1 - 5 Bare copper conductor on top of cable layer Sin le Cable layer W
. OyP-)
kencheerno m
+
a e Copper Conductor on cable tray, rungs-Il4 jags) 4 m
.tm,..
s w
e
^
kk'A.
4-NLIMAlRC/NRC THERMO-LAG MEETING JUNE 28,1993 f
jpf 1 and 3 Hour Baseline Thermo-Lag Installation 36" and 24" Cable Trays: Tests 1 - 5
+
.1.
l ye 5
2n -
+
F Stainless Steel Tie Wire
- w Stainless Steel Banding Used on Right Left Used on Left Leg Structural Supports 12'8 Hax Hax 12" y_ v
.__ (_
w
=-
v Three llour Test Article g
g g Q pg{ @M One or Three d
Two (2) tie fasten each:.
- 7
-.y-wires are used to fasten each scored section mitered section.
of radius.
/
~
- r I
N 9'
of radius.
One llour 64sE4i,JE. P4.lEL."ThsckC565 Test Article One (1)' band is used to i br. o.5o o"r o.12.5 " - o "
fasten each scored section 3 k l.00c*+ 0,25o" -0 8-of radius.
s
a n,eM$43,x d,
Iy s;.
LNUMAiRC/NRC THERMO-LAG MEETING JUNE 28,1993 f
ys 1 Hour Upgrade Thermo-Lag Installation 36" Cable Trays: Tests 1 and 2 f
Circumferential Stress Skin With 3" overlay i
w
] Stress Skin N
\\
f
_ Circumferential b
Stress Skin.
24" or 36" stapled and applied Open Top 8
~
with Trowel Grade l
E Ladderback l
8, Unprotected P
eta ti le e
4-Structural Supports l
~
l
'W 9
Stress skin il y-
- I' -
-A EE With 3" h-llb
~
~
i d
~
[
f Overlap 7
Stainless Steel THERM)-1AG 330 Baseline THERMA-LAG 330-I--
Stainless Steel THERM)-1AG 330 Base'11ne Band Matettat Prefabricated Fanel Trowel Crsde Sanding -
Prefabricated Panel 0.500". + 0.125", -0" 0.500". + 0.125".
-0" l
l l
l t
r
$*Qw 7.[:; I -.
k N$?
NLI C/NRC THERMO-LAG MEETING JUNE 28,1993
- .{.b 3 Hour Upgrade Thermo-Lag Installation.
36" and.24" Cable Trays: Tests 3 - 5
, ",.., 'h Stitch all seams g
Prebutter seems - stitch with tie 1
6 apart with
.~
I' I
wire. 4" apart, apply with Trowel Grade '
work in 6" wide piece of Stress Skin.
I
,J Q '
(
f f'T'$ *f* *s ', -
^l
{
3" each side of seau. Staple s
,0.U. '-
from edge, 2" apart - cover with 5
Trowel Grade-i '.
[
g 1.k;.g..,-.
. 4_,: + 1 '
Prebutter seems on
. ).
.y'j" g,. ',
.' ['* /-
upgrade only. -
j l'
,,8-2 THER!t)-LAG 330 -
Baseline Panel
[0, 1.00". + 0.250" I] ll
-0"
- ]P g.*,
)
I
/'
- ,*1 Postbutter
/
y I_s
[.*
d.*
b* 7 THERM-LAG 330-1 0 ~!
Subliming q'
Q
- n.re'*
w
.. [,. hd f'
Approved Staples - \\" f rom edge of Stress Skin. 2" apart.
N 'll*
hp 7
~.
THERPS)-1AC 330 Upgrade Prefabricated Panels (0.625" t 0.12$")
L.
~....
~,,. - - -, - _.. -. - _ _ _ -. -
.a-.-. --
A
- WC ~n Je; -
n.
~~ 6NUM&RC/NRC THERMO-LAG MEETING JUNE 28,1993
.;e ~.......
m t r 24" Cable Tray Assembly w/ Air Drop Test 4: Steel Cable Tray (3hr?
\\
l
(
Steel Conduit
(+* d;a.)
?
Unistrut FETE
-2 x 14 Gage Bare Copper A
Member 4
24 inch Cable Trsy Test Article Conductors Thermocouples are located at 6" intervals along the air drop Air Drop
- t-X.
,,/
y.
y,,/
/
~
\\__
~
.,,.2
~ < -,..., _. ~....
...-,.,.s.,
.... ~
...L4~.....
.m..
a gM pg
.' NUMA1RC/NRC THERMO-LAG MEETING JUNE 28,1993 y/
24" Cable Tray Assembly w/ Tee Section Baseline Thermo-Lag: Test 5 Aluminum (3 Hr?
Stainless Steel Banding Material All.loigts fd be. Sst bb8d 12" 3 :
12" (fyp.)
/
m na m
I l
l
?
[
/
El
[
M 2"
- Stainless Steel Banding Material
~
Placed 2" maximum from eacli seam.
tilEltMO-1.AC 330 Basel ine Prefabricated Panels
-+
4-(l.00", t 0.250", -0")
- 2"
.-,,s
.,.-,-r
---...-.---.n.;-,,,--,+.,
n
..+r.,--
--w
p
'" NUMARC/NRC THERMO-LAG MEETING JUNE 28,1993 jf 24" Cable Tray Assembly w/ Tee Section Upgrade Installation: Test 5 Aluminumf3 Hr)
Skim coating of TilERMO-LAG 330-1 Subliming Stress Skin stapled over Trowel Grade Material seams Trowel Grade Applied Over Seams s 'NN.?B}MMMi!*.?.4:ylQ~';jh:,y}tg:.y,*.c:..snpy-7.;g.ggg ;;gg;;phW (
k,>
4-a
.x g.a ' ' -
, N,3.* '
A wk
.[
4 X?YJf%'F? 3:-!:v:N?51.?.' a t.T.i.,.
-- 2 j
J
./
/
Y f.T*JWNi/AMM** /y,*KM" )
mnnumGk:k f
L
~HlHilil!J12M.+;* '
f
\\
\\
~
?.
- W' i',N 'CRaid ???i :r!..... _ _ _ _'. _ _ _ _
=.2
[_
I f
)I
?
.me: = :.eu.=..
p 7
s s
s
-)) - ' - - - - - -
p j H'"t.,
........... T..
6W;f&n%!h ^ 5++w, StainIess Stee1 Tie Wire Used Ilaseline Panel On All Seams-2
. ( l.001, ' -t - 0. 250", -0")
' Seams on Baseline.
-Installation and Upgrade Alternated -- Seams' Upgrade Panel prebuttered on upgrade ~
_(0.625" 1.0.125")
only.
3' Upgrade Panel-is secured.uith Stain'less Steel'
~
. Tie Wire, wrapped st round. test a rt ic le.
4
..a
A. g %,
iNUMARC/NRC THERMO LAG MEETING JUNE 28 1993
~
av h
f Typical Conduit and Tunction Box Assembly Test 6: 1 Hour / Test 7: 3 Hour Structural Supports 7,5
()
3" Dia g i Ilour Steel j
3 llour Aluminum 1
Conduit l
+yp. couf in}
0 34" Uh g i 11 ur Aluminum
,g -
~
3 llou r S t ee l Junction Box AA h e_I
()
3" Dia
$ 1 Ilour Aluminum
.[h
>I A-Conduit 3 llour Steel n
AA l
{. },,,
I Hoiir A laimisyum
>ii-< steei ce a,,l t N
=
1
4%
.;f
[ %
2NUMAiRC/NRC THERMO-LAG MEETING JUNE 28,1993 f
f Typical Conduit and Tunction Box Assembly Test 6: 1 Hour / Test 7: 3 Hour Conduit Test Article 36" (S teel or A l uniinuni) t'
"~"9 Structural Supports 36" Junction Box V'
/
Condulet 48"
-, ~..
,,--,c.
a-,
f* *Q
- glM~tjM$iRCj'NRC THERMO-LAG MEETINGJUNE 28,1993 1 Hr Baseline and Upgrade for 3/4" Conduit Test 6
~
l a
y M@
l l
l l
.s.
hh stEJIS?.,Mi'Oi
[,
,=,
,=
q t=
. ]
. ]
~
...q l
...j_.
g=e
.........y
=
=
...{
..q
..{
...q
_h ONE il0UR TilERMO-LAG 330 PRESilAPED UPGRADE CONDUlT SECTION' INSTALLATION Banl~ne Ortkness : 0.50o7 t c.f 2 [- o" dryadt Orsfotss
- o.375"+/- o.:zs" sp-G
-k sm m
- m..
-m
.m_..,m__.
... ~
., ~., _
f:6A"'%
jp "lNLIM4RC/NRC THERMO-LAG MEETING JUNE 28,1993 if g
1 Hour Upgrade on Condulets and I-Box Test 6 e
MEM9*
((> rI
_N h_ N_ " _
[Se*rI.,
l" "I?",l!U
->JMN N
E<,
3
'I?",lll*"'
f 9 }
v
- u r,c.,.
~ i ' ",- NIY }; '
ks.;nytf7 f.
[I p$!
(,
e
/
w b
M
..m m.-
_m_.,,__e_.
.... ~...........
c,_.
J l
l i
O
.x ed "d
N d
N O
U r
b 3//." Conduit O
f.
h Stainless steel tie wire Postbutter seanas on THER.MJ4AG 330 used to secure g./
Preshaped Conouit Baseline sectaen baseline conduit section
( 1,00". + 0.250".
-.0)
THERM wtA:; 330
.w V
Baseline Conduit
!,I o
Section Prabutter all
.THERahtAG 330 Presnapes seams on upgrade Conduit Upgrade hection 0.625" 1 0.125" with b
stress skia 6"
)
wide sectico used it-i M
to cover ceans Q
l e
c>
-...:u.4
- . s 'b brainless Steel
' k%' ' '
- l'.-',
d.,.
Banding or tie wire Metno.A for Treating sean.
every 6" starting t%..,
ll Areas of Upgrade
.2" (max) from each
...'.5,e--
?
Apply THERMJ-LAG 330-1 Trowel
". i.'.M<M N i
. 'i' i
side of seam Grade Material over seam areas.
,/...
Center Stress skin over seams and staple at 2" interval" I/*
then cover with saim c$at of THERN0-1AG 330-1 Su'n11mi.is 2,o.e, ora,e m t.r,a1.
O N
M m
%$ J et U
w C
m:
/
1 0
v{j.
" ?eik.
nliM !RC/NRC THERMO-LAG MEETING JUNE 28,1993
[
3 Hour Upgrade Installation on Condulets Test 7 Applicable to all 3 Hour Condulets THERMO-LAG 330 Baseline Prefabricated Panel (1.00", + 0.250", -0")
- .-THERMO-LAG 330 Pref abricated Upgrade Panel TilERMO-LAG 330-1 Subliming (0.625" ! 0.125")
Trowel Grade Haterial+ )),,_ _
'm i _j,p,. ;.Yn - ~ f ~~,-- y Ev '_ 7 1 si Material applied over Md'7 corner seams, then
!j !'--
2 - y-;
--- yg a 3" x 3" L-shaped I;f 4(di A i
section of.' stress skin i t, l } Condulet
(
' f is stapled over the seam with another coat of
- jj b
ggg,g y 1
A mmm
'the THERMO-LAG 330-1
.j:
-(
d'dyf'"-
,]
Trowel Grade Material (9
g; 3 :f; r
C; $'
'5N.-h
-jn_
q Conduit dp 5 32
-~
?g 4
TilERMO-LAG 330 Baseline
< 7
}
Preshaped Conduit Section (l.00., + 0.250, -0 )
i TilERMO-LAG 330 Upgraded i
Preshaped Conduit Section j
(0.625" ! 0.125") with l
"V" stif feners - (applicable to
~3/4" Conduit only)'
-. ~..- - - - -.- -.... -.-
...-.~..... ~.....-.... - -
MM M.
e c.x f4....,
4%
"TNUMBRC/NRC THERMO LAG MEETING JUNE.28,1993
?
3 Hour Upgrade Installation on T - Box Test 7 i
h Stress Skin 3" over1ap on each side of all seams
~ Stainless Steel Tie Wire h
,"0 ',~".p'.,
used to lace all seams of Stress Skin Covering All Seams of
, * *.* I,-
upgrade Upgrade Coating
~
~
p Upgrade Panel
.' i,1 ?...,
(0.625" 1 0.125")
y y
?,,, :.
r 1, ,"*] w Baseline
)
Panet U
.Y '
.. :.". t,.
1.00". + 0.250"
)
., 7,: ~,,:
-0")
,s
~~.::-, ; -s:.-::;.
t ey e * *.. *
~,, ' -
,1 *
- N k
cg ott y Y.'.L P:. $..
~?
...,.y. y 7
m.
____.._m_.__._.m____.____m.___.______._._______.__.__;_._z m.
.,-..m.
s
.-~.,.__m
..-.,..-r m..--
+ - - _
.w
.c.,
w-m
. i a0 jjh-
' DNU C/NRC THERMO-LAG MEETING JUNE 28,1993
/.
Phase 1 Testing: Output
. Material Specification
. Installation Training Module
. Test Plan (' including installation proceduresf
. Fire Endurance Test Report e
..4..,
,r._..
- 1...
4%
[
%qu (NLIMARC/NRC THERMO-LAG MEETING JUNE 28,1993 g;i$
Phase 2 Testing
. Objectives
. Acceptance Criteria
. Test Assemblies
. Output.
O
-w, eww4w sw
.-3.s
-w+-
.<.n d.
+-r-e-
n.e-=e-et e.
e ve-
,mnr-ee*-
e
=
uu
-- - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - -- - '+
dhi
~
~f lkF%
1NLIMAlRC/NRC THERMO-LAG MEETING [UNE 28,1993
/
Phase 2 Testing: Objectives s
. Perform baseline and upgrade fire endurance testing based on existing industry configurations.
t I
L 1
l i-l t m
wy--%-,
-e w-
-v4er-m
-t-y-
,,wv vv%-wrgy ww-vvev esm' g-ey---W e w
-w vs e9r mg-er i-wve --
T "am'-'T'wv-s' 5-w-4 w
'4 r
w'-y rw 9-v'-at e -
-Witw-
%-F w
ww weWe w-we 4
e
fig Ji N ONLIM6'RC/NRC THERMO-LAG MEETING JUNE 28,1993
,f Phase 2 Testing: Test Assemblies
~
. Test 1: 12" and 24" Cable Trays - Baseline (1 Hr;>
. Test 2: 12" and 24" Cable Trays - Baseline (3 Hr;>
. Test 3: 2" Steel and 2",3",4", and 5" Aluminum Conduits Baseline (1 Hr;>
..cTest 4:.2" Steel and 2",3",4", and 5" Aluminum Conduits Baseline (3 Hr;>
. Test 5: ~ 24" Aluminum Cable Trays w/ Tee and 3" Aluminuin Conduit:-. Baseline (1 Hr l
\\
1
=
r
^ ;NlIMARC/NRC THERMO-LA G MEETING JUNE 28,1993 f
- p Phase 2 Testing
- Test Assemblies Continued
.. Test 6: 24" Aluminum Cable Tray w/ Tee and 3" Aluminum Conduit - Baseline (3 Hr?
. Test 7: 36" x 48" x 66" Box Enclosure to Concrete Slab -
Baseline (1 Hr.)
. Test 8: 36"Lx 48" x 66" Box Enclosure to Concrete Slab -
Baseline (3 Hr.)
Test 9: 24" Aluminum Tray-Upgrade and 12" Aluminum Tray.w/ Air Drop - Baseline (1 Hr?
Test 10:- 24" Aluminum Cable Trays w/ Tee and W'12"Tmy Aluminuni Conduit - Baseline (3 Hri
~
w/Airtrop s
v w
w g,<,.c-i r-,
.a
+.
-<-w-seine w
e.
e ee-.
w.
.,rg v
y--,-e.
n
THERMO-LAG TEST TABLES NP1 -
NUMARC Testing Phase 1 NP2 -
NUMARC Testing Phase 2 TV Electric Testing Program TU B/
Bounded / Followed by Applicable Test CONDUITS All sizes in the table include qualification of LB's and Radial Bends.
For NUMARC Test Program Baseline Configurations, joints will be post buttered and bands will be on a 12" maximum spacing.
For TV Electric Baseline Information, joints were pre-buttered and bands or tie wires were interchangeably used with maximum 12" spacing.
In some cases baseline qualification is noted for straight conduit runs with the same' test identified as qualifying upgrades on LB-lateral bends and RB-radial bends.
CABLE TRAYS All sizes in the table include qualification of sweeping radial i
bends.
For NUMARC Phase 1 baseline joints will be post buttered with bands on a 12" maximum spacing.
For NUMARC Phase 2 baseline joints will be pre-buttered with bands on a 12" maximum spacing.
boxes Joints for baselines are consistent with those for cable trays.
b
CABLE TRAYS SIZF/
MATL ONE HOUR THREE HOUR I
CONFIG.
= - -
BASELINE UPGRADE BASELINE UPGRADE 12" Steel TU-Scheme 13-2*TU-Scheme 13-1 B/NP2-Test TU-Scheme 3 2
B/NP2-Test 1 12" Alum. NP2-Test 1 NP2-Test 2 l
18" Steel B/NP2-Test 1 B/(see 12" & 24")
B/NP2-Test 2
1 18" Alum.
B/NP2-Test 1 B/NP2-Test i
2 24" Steel TU-Scheme 6 NP2-Test 9 B/NP2-Test NP2-Test 10 B/NP2-Test 1 TU-Scheme 12-2 2
NP2-Test 4 B/TU-Scheme 14-1 B/TU-Scheme 13-1 24" Alum.
NP2-Test 1 NP2-Test 2 NP1-Test 5 30" Steel TU-Scheme 5 TU-Scheme 12-1 B/NP1-Test 3 TU-Scheme 8 TU Scheme 14-1 B/NP1-Test 5 30" Alum.
36" Steel NP1-Test 1 NPI-Test 3 TU-Scheme 15-1 36" Alum.
NP1-Test 2
{
12" Tee Alum.
B/NP1 Test 5 q
18" Tee Alum.
B/NP1 Test 5 l
24" Tee Alum.
TU-Scheme 6 NP2-Test 6 NP1-Test 5 1
I NP2-Test 5
]
30" Tee
. Alum.
36" Tee Alum.
12" Tee Steel B/TU Scheme 12-2 B/NP1 Test 5 18" Tee Steel B/TU Scheme 12-2 B/NP1 Test 5 ~
l 24" Tee Steel B/NP2-Test 5 TU Scheme 12-2 B/NP2-Test B/NP1-Test 5 i
B/TU Scheme 14-1 6
30" Tee Steel TU-Scheme 5 TU Scheme 14-1 36" Tee Steel TU Scheme 1-2
- : Proposed TU Test
CONDUITS SIZF/
MATL ONE HOUR THREE-HOUR CONFIG.
BASELINE UPGRADE BASELINE UPGRADE 3/4" Steel TU-Scheme 2-1 TU Scheme 9-1 NP1-Test 7 B/NP1-Test 6 3/4" Alum.
NP1-Test 6 1"
Steel TU-Scheme 2-1 B/TU-Scheme 9-1 B/NP1-Test 7 B/NP1-Test 6 1"
Alum.
1-1/2" Steel B/TU-Scheme 9-1 B/NP1-Test 7 B/NP1-Test 6 1-1/2" Alum.
2" Steel NP2-Test 3 B/TU-Scheme 9-1 NP2-Test 4 B/NP1-Test 7 B/NP1-Test 6 h"
Alum.
NP2-Test 3 NP2-Test 4 3"
Steel NP1-Test 6 NPI-Test 6 (LB, RB)
B/NP2-Test NP1-Test 7 TU-Scheme 9-1 TU-Scheme 9-1 (LB, RB) 4 B/NP2-Test 3 B/NP1-Test 6 3"
Alum.
NP2-Test 3 NP1-Test 6 NP2-Test 4 NP1-Test 7 4"
Steel TU-Scheme 9-1 B/TU-Scheme 9-1 (LB, RB) B/NP2-Test NP1-Test 7 B/NP2-Test 3 4
i 4"
Alum.
NP2-Test 3 B/NP1-Test 6 NP2-Test 4 5"
Steel TU-Scheme 2-1 TU-Scheme 9-1 (LB, RB)
B/NP2-Test NP1-Test 7
~
TU-Scheme 9-1 4
B/NP2-Test 3 5"
Alum.
B/NP2-Test 3 NPI-Test 6 (LB, RB) 6" Steel B/NP2-Test 3 B/ NP2-Test 4
h" Alum.
NP2-Test 3 NP2-Test 4 1 "'(Tmwel) Steel B/NP2-Test.5 B/NP2-Test j
3 5
13" (Trowel) Alum.
NP2-Test 5 NPR-Test 6
BOX ENCLOSURES AND AIR DROPS l
SIZF/CONFIG.
MATL ONE HOUR THREE HOUR BASELINE UPGRADE BASELINE UPGRADE t
<36" x 48" x 66" Steel NP2-Test 7 NP2-Test 8 528 x 12 x 8 JB Alum.
NP1-Test 6 528 x12 x 8 JB Steel NP1-Test 7 524 x18 x 8 JB Steel TU-Scheme 2-1 518 x 12 x 6 JB Steel TU-Scheme 10-1 TU-Scheme 10-2 Air Drops 3/4" Conduit Bundle-Flex-NP2-Test 9 TU-Scheme 11-1 NP2-Test 10 NP2-Test
' Blanket NP2-Test 9 10 2" Conduit Bundle-Flex-B/NP2-Test 9 TU-Scheme 11-1 B/NP2-Test B/NP2-Blanket B/NP2-Test 9 10 Test 10 3" Conduit Bundle-Flex-B/NP2-Test 9 TU-Scheme 11-1 B/NP2-Test B/NP2-Blanket B/NP2-Test 9 10 Test 10 5" Conduit Bundle-Flex-NP2-Test 9 TU-Scheme 11-1 NP2-Test 10 NP2-Test Blanket NP2-Test 9 10 4" Pre-Fab. Conduit T-Lag NP1-Test 4
j l**%g d
llNUMA"?RC/NRC THERMO-LAG MEETINGJUNE 28,1993 j/
Phase 2 Testing: Output
. Material Specification
. Installation Procedure and Training Module
..: Fire Endurance TestiReports b
m
...,[-,_,
.. ~..,
m.,.._.._,,..-.______
m.
O,
~
g:
'"1NUMARC/NRC THERMO LAG MEETING JUNE 28 1993 j/
Industry Application: Guide Provide a tool to evaluate plant configurations against test results.
. NUMARC Phase 1 Tests
-.- NUMARC Phase 2 Tests
.jUtility. Tests e
4 g
. ~,
- m 4
.v..
us..,..w..e s.
wa.
. +
+
-,.ew.+.
< =semU, -, w - =..,,. - - *
-A 5
,r w.=
<.e.
.i
,c.w..r w,-2
+ + = =
.m
-u- '.
NLIhC/NRC THERMO-LAG MEETING JUNE 28,1993
/
a Industry Application Guide: Development Establish Process to Satisfy Utility and NRC requirements:
4
- Identify As-Built Configurations Critical Parameters
- Determine Tested Configurations that Most Closely Match As-built Configurations.
. Deter.mine, by Comparing Parameters, if As-Built Configuration is.
Qualified b
-. Document Evaluation i
.r
-y.
,4
-s
,...~.
o+
m*-
- +e 3
..m-
-,,,v,.
,,wm,
.-- ~~- -- -.,. - +.i..+
-.~.-r m
4A,.O-J y%L g
w 1NUMyC/NRC THERMO-LAG MEETING JUNE 28,1993 f
Industry Application Guide: Contents Scope
. Acceptance Criteria.
. Assumptions r
. Methodology
. References
. Appendices
. Commodity Matrices-Documentation Format-
.-----.s.-
ws
~
e
,.-....w..
~ e x
.-. ----..-~-w.---....x. -v.
-.-u..__.....---___------=._,x-
EPRI Nuclear Power Division Configuration Parameters of Interest for:
4 4
Panel thickness (maximum and minimum)
Trowel material thickness (maximum and minimum)
Type of joints (butt, scored, or grooved)
Gap width (maximum and minimum)
Banding spacing from other bands and from joints (maximum and minimum)
Internal bands on cable trays Staggering of bands when attaching bottom and top panels on cable trays Use of stress skin over joints (perpendicular or end-to-end)
Covering stress skin with trowel material Distance between supports All methods of attachment (lacing, staples, etc.)
Nuclear Safety Department / Risk and Reliability Program 29 RNO NUMARC/NRC Mtg. 6/28/93
+
l 4
i l
THERMO-LAG COMBUSTIBILITY ASSESSMENT PROGRAM 1
NUMARC 1
b e-
-x_.
g_...
..e-.
INFORMATION NOTICE 92-82 T1ermo-Lag Comaus':ioili':y ASTV E-136 Tes" l
teg u a:ory Rec uiremen':s
-Redundant safe shutdown path ecuipment seaaratec 20 feet horizontally with no intervening comaustibles
-Redundant safe shutdown aath ec uipmelit in containment se aarated by non-com austible raciant energy slields NUMARC 2
COMBUSTIBILITY DEFINITIONS BT3 CMEB 9.5-1 anc SRP (NU REG 0800)
-Combustiale material -- material t7at does not meet the de"inition of a non-comausti'a e material
-Non-com austiale materia material whic7 in the form it is used and uncer t7e conditions anticiaated, will not ignite, burn, sup aort com austion, or release flamma a e vapors w1en su ajected to fire or 1 eat NUMARC 3
l
u DEFINITIONS Jcont.h t
l l
-Insignificant quantities o" 1
materials that will. burn or ignite are allowed in 20 feet separation areas i
l I
i NUMARC 1
4 f
I
m
--J J
2:s n
k-
-a A
w
& l.a i
INDUSTRY GUIDELINES l
Developing industry guidelines for p. ant specific assessments-Assessmen: methodology
-Comaustible oading l
i
-Im aact on 20 feet separation and non-combustiale radiant energy shields i
i I
NUMARC 5
TEST STANDARDS USED TO SUPPORT ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY
" Determining Material Ignition and Flame Spread Properties" Provides quantitative thermal fire properties of Materials, been performed
- ASTM E1354 "licat and Visible Smoke Release Rates for Materials and Products Provides quantitative burning using an Oxygen Consumption Calorimeter" characteristics, been performed screening
" Ignition Properties of Plastics" Provides quantitative ignition data, been performed
" Gross Calorific Value of Coal and Coke by Adiabatic Bomb Provides caloric value of material, been Calorimeter performed
w
. SUMMA.RY OF TEST DATA ASTM Dl929 IGNITION TEMPERATURES PERFORMED FOR TU Fissh-Ignition 540*C (1004*F)
Self-Ignition 550*C (1022'F)
ASTM D2015 GROSS CALORIC VALUE PERFORMED FOR TU Caloric data (avg) 15.5 MJ/Kg (6670 Btu /lbm) 16.3 MJIKg (7000 Btullbm) used for assessment ASTM E1354 COMBUSTION DATA PERFORMED FOR TU & NUM ARC EXTERNAL IIEAT TIME TO 11 EAT OF RADIANT RELEASE IGNITION COMBUSTION FLUX RATE (avg.)
SECONDS MJ/Kg 2
2 Kw/m Kw/m
- 25
.N/A N/A N/A 35 9.9 264 N/A 50 88.9 33 14.6
-75 132.5 14 12.1-90 140.4 13 N/A
- Note: Thermo-Lag did~not ignite at external radiant flux of 25 Kw7in'
t b
l
SUMMARY
OF TEST DATA cont.
m l
l I
ASTM E1321' THERMAL DATA
' PERFORMED FOR NUMARC i
IGNITON TEST RESULTS 1.1 j
0 --
a
- IL
' O.9 z
cr-x LIJ N.
0.8 g
Q" 0.7 O.
a OO O
y 0.6 E
0.5 0 - --
0 y
z
{
0.4 I
' I I
I 0.3
'S 10 15 20 25 30 S @ T TI E (S 1 @
b =.0211 h =.049 kpc = 6.9
- 4
-,*J.-.e
,.,4.-
m
--,:w 4-
..r,-e't..
.,4c e-.,-y-a
.. -,~,-,-..--..
e
+
izw~<-
,rw,.
SUMMARY
OF TEST DATA cont.
ASTM E1321 TilERMAL DATA cont.
FLAME SPREAD DATA ( All tests run at radiant flux of 60 Kw/nl)
MATERIAL TIME TO MAX FLAME TRAVEL M AX. CIIAR FORM ATION 2
2 TYPE IGNITION mm Kwhn mm Kw/m (s) thr 115 225 46 450 16 thr 200 250 45 450 16 3hr 76 250 45 450 16 3hr 146 150 56 450 16 thr*
114 250 45 450 16
- Note: Different ignition source orientation l
l l
l l.,
=:!
i
- SUCCESSFUL THERMO-1.AG t
COMBUSTIBILITY ACCEPTANCE SCREENING e;
t.
TL 330-1
.{
NO INSTALLED IN FIRE AREA
'I YES CONSERVATIVELYADD WORST CASE COMBUST 1BLE LOADING TO FHA
'h ADDED TL USED IN COMBUSTIBLE
^
NO LOADING HAS NO NO NONCOMBUSTIBLE RADIANT
. EFFECT ON FIRE ENERGY SHIELD ORIN'
-l l
20 FT SEPARATION MYSIS AREA WS.
YES
[
NO.
WILL.
NOIGNITEIN NO NO jSUPPRESSIO i
SIGNIFICANT -
FLAME SPREAD IN CAN BE --
.APPUCATION ACCREDITED p
IN AREA
~
YES YES YES DOCUMENT ACCEPTABluTY :
[
m r
-e
En IGNITION EVALUATION The analysis to determine if there is the potential for the Thermo-Lag to ignite is based on the fact that a material has a minimum temperature that must be reached before the material will ignite (ASTM E1321) and that this temperature can be equated to a minimum heat flux (ASTM E1321). Also, the material requires a certain amount of energy to reach that temperature (ASTM E1321).
Fire modeling is used to determine the temperature at the Thermo-12g in question. This model is similar to the fire model used is the FIVE's Methodology and considers: fire size, plume temperature, ceiling jet temperature, the energy required to raise the hot gas layer to the critical temperature, total combustible loading in the area, ceiling height and room geometry. The modeling also account for the thermal delay required to raise the Thermo-Lag to the critical temperature.
For any given area a number of fire scenarios may have to be assessed to ensure that the worst scenario is analyzed.
if the Thermo-12g is evaluated not to ignite under the conditions anticipated then the Thermo-I2g can be considered a noncombustible.
,_u m
m m.
r
a FLAME SPREAD EVALUATION Thermo-Lag does not provide sufficient energy release to propagate a fire laterally. The minimum ignition temperature and minimum flux level for ignition are the same values for flame propagation.
The analysis will determine if Thermo-Lag can spread a fire to the point where it has the potential to impact Fire Safe Shutdown is based on the fact that Thermo-Lag requires an external heat to continue to bum. The external heat source can be analyzed as a minimum surface temperature or minimum heat flux (ASTM E1321). The time to ignition at a certain location along a material can also be determine (ASTM E1321) as a function of the external heat.
The Flame Spread model is for lateral travel only. The method assumes that the Thermo-Lag itself will provide sufficient energy feedback to propagate the fire in the vertical direction. It is also assumed that flame spread vertically wCl be instantaneous.
For any given area, a number of fire scenarios may have tr. oc yrformed to ensure that the worst scenario is antfysis.
If the Thermo-Lag to be evaluated does not spread the fire to the point of impacting Fire Safe Shutdown the Thermo-Lag can be treated as a negligible combustible
w
~~
EXAMPLE A
DAMAGE THRESHOLD
. j 10 KW/ SQ. M 3M
=
gy RADIANT ENERGY I:..
' :I THERMO-LAGGED FROM THERMO-LAG 24' CABLE TRAY 4.9 KW/SO. M.
- nwn w 18. w a+e v v /////////////////////// ////////////////// A l,
\\
el_ "
/
1.8 M
\\
~
THERMO-LAG EXTENT OF FLAME TRAV L MINIMUM FLUX 25 KW/ SQ M THERMO-LAG FORIGNITION HEAT RELEASE RATE 220 KW BASED ON 100 KW/SO. M 3M 2M i
i FIRE SIZE 5650 KW 3.8 SQ. M / 39.5 SQ FT OF TRANSFORMER OIL 11 THERMO-LAG FIRE MODEL SCENARIO FIRE FROM THERM-LAG WILL NOT DAMAGE CABLE EXAMPLE OF 20 FT SEPARATION ANALYSIS u
.2..
b DISTRIBUTION w/ enclosures:
DISTRIBUTION w/o enclosures:
SPLB TSI File FMiraglia
': CentralD File =
WRussel NRC PDR CMcCracken MVirgilio SWest DWheeler PMadden GMulley JHolmes EPawlik IMiller 4Thad14d h
RJenkins CBerlinger WDean LPlisco 77g 0
0FFICE SPLB:DSSA*
SPLB:DSSA*
hPLB:bSSA' DSSA DSSAbd' NAME IMiller SWest CMcCracken MVirgffI'o AThac ani DATE 6/29/93 6/29/93
<<'/fb/93~
1 /) /93
'7/,(i/93 0FFICIAL RECORD COPY f
Filename: G:\\ THERM 0LA\\MTGSUMRY.628 Originated by: Isabel Miller 1