Text

Evaluation of Fire Endurance Capability for Fire Barrier 16F-1
	ML20113E713
Person / Time
Site:	Duane Arnold
Issue date:	06/10/1996
From:	; IES UTILITIES INC., (FORMERLY IOWA ELECTRIC LIGHT
To:	;
Shared Package
ML20113E712	List: ML20113E713; NG-96-1336, Requests Exemption from 10CFR50,App R Fire Protection Program for Nuclear Power Facilities Operating Prior to 790101;
References
	CAL-M96-004, CAL-M96-004-R01, CAL-M96-4, CAL-M96-4-R1, NUDOCS 9607080297
	Download: ML20113E713 (45)
	v • d • e

.

to NG-96-1336 ENGINEERING CALCULATION COVER SHEET IES UTILITIES INC.

DUANE ARNOLD ENERGY CENTER 1

Calculation Number:

C A L - M 96 - 00 +

Calculation

Title:

E e 46 Tim u/

r h e-(i cr.

en Avr6.me_ c u o.. b. I I ry tw C.' r e.

bsrrier

\\ L F-I.

Project

Description:

(include Structure, System or Component)

Reference Documents: AR 9 I* 114'l DDC DCP/PMP Other Method of Verification:

M Design Review 0 Altemate Calculation O Engr. Review 0 Qualification Testing 4

3 2

o.

1 A v. W sla/M Yd A.M L u z,e& W u 02M b-to-1G Revision Prepared /Date Venfied/Date (Approved /Date

~

NG-007Z Rev 4 9607080297 960628 PDR ADOCK 05000331 F

PDR

1 1

CALCULATION REVISION

SUMMARY

SHEET IES UTILITIES INC.

DUANE ARNOLD ENERGY CENTER l

Document Number:

G.AL-M'l6-OM Rev.

Affected Pages Reason for Revision I

ALL IsseeA

.a ra c1 D L NG-104Z Rev.I

o

. CAL-M96- 00+

EVALUATION OF FIRE ENDURANCE REVISION 1 f

o CAPABILIW FOR FIRE BARRIER 16F-1 l

1.0 PURPOSE 1.1 Determine the ASTM E119 fire endurance capability of the Thermo-Lag fire barrier system protecting cable trays 1J1A01,1J1801,1J5A01 and 1JSB01. This fire barrier system is identified as 16F-1.

2.0 ASSUMPTIONS 2.1 All joints were pre-buttered with trowel grade thermo-lag 330-1.

Basis: BECH-E503 figure 2.1-3 (DCP 1206 index item 6.07)

3.0 REFERENCES

t 3.1)

NEl (Nuclear Energy Institute) application guide for evaluation of thermo-lag 330 fire barrier systems Volume 1 and 2 Revision 2.

3.2)

NEI test reports 2-1,2-3,2-7,2-8 and 2-10 3.3)

WA test report 11210-94554C 3.4)

Design Change Package 1206 Index Items:

a.

3.01 b.

6.05.07 c.

6.07 d.

8.10 e.

8.11 f.

12.01.10 3.5)

CHAMPS E700 and E701 database 3.6)

AR 95-2249 4.0 EVALUATION METHOD The fire barrier system protecting 1J1 A01,1J1B01,1J5A01 and 1J5B01 was first broken down into segments which roughly correspond to the fire barrier systems which were tested by NEl (reference 3.2).

Reference 3.1 identifies the critical attributes which affect the fire endurance capability of a thermo lag fire barrier system. These attributes were determined by NEl during 3 phases of fire barrier tests. Using DCP-1206, the CHAMPS E700/E701 database and plant walkdown, all critical attributes of the installed fire barrier system were determined. The installed critical attributes are listed in Attachment 1.

Tested fire barrier systems which would bound the installed segments were then identified and the critical attributes for those tested systems were listed beside the installed critical attributes.

Differences in critical attributes between the tested and installed configurations were ovaluated to determine if the difference is acceptable and why. An installed critical attribute which is evaluated to be Prepared: Mr Date: Yrr,/4C Page 1 of 43 Verified:D Date: 4boM.

l CAL-M96-OM EVALUATION OF FIRE ENDURANCE REVISION 1 CAPABILITY FOR FIRE BARRIER 16F-1 l

better structurally or thermally than the tested attribute cannot be used to increase the fire endurance rating beyond that tested or compensate for a weakness in another entical attribute.

For each segment, the critical attribute with the shortest fire endurance rating is determined. Then, the segment with the shortest fire endurance rating is determined which then becomes the endurance rating for the installed fire barrier system.

5.0 ATTACHMENTS 1.

Installed to tested fire barrier evaluation for installation 16F-1.

6.0 CONCLUSION

S 6.1 The segment with the shortest fire endurance rating is the air drop between cable trays 1J1 A01 and 1J5A01. Based on the resuits of NEl test 2-1 of 2" aluminum conduit protected by 1 hour1.157407e-5 days 2.777778e-4 hours 1.653439e-6 weeks 3.805e-7 months preshaped conduit sections and NEl test 2-3 of 3/4" aluminum conduit protected by 3 hour3.472222e-5 days 8.333333e-4 hours 4.960317e-6 weeks 1.1415e-6 months preshaped conduit sections, the 3/4" 3 hour3.472222e-5 days 8.333333e-4 hours 4.960317e-6 weeks 1.1415e-6 months preshaped section will provide at least the fire endurance rating of the 2" i hour preshaped conduit sections. This comparison is necessary as the installed air drop uses 3/4" 3 hour3.472222e-5 days 8.333333e-4 hours 4.960317e-6 weeks 1.1415e-6 months preshaped co_nduit sections and this size air drop was not specifically tested, however a test of an air drop protected by 2" 1 hour1.157407e-5 days 2.777778e-4 hours 1.653439e-6 weeks 3.805e-7 months preshaped conduit sections was performed by TVA test 11210-94554C. TVA test 11210-94554C provided 47 minutes of fire endurance for an air drop protected by 2" 1 hour1.157407e-5 days 2.777778e-4 hours 1.653439e-6 weeks 3.805e-7 months preshaped conduit sections before temperature criteria was exceeded. Because NEl tests 2-1 and 2-3 demonstrate that 3/4" 3 hour3.472222e-5 days 8.333333e-4 hours 4.960317e-6 weeks 1.1415e-6 months preshaped conduit sections perform at least as well as 2" i hour preshaped conduit sections, the installed configuration will provide a fire endurance rating of 47 minutes.

6.2 Conduit and support unistrut which penetrate the fire barrier envelope (intervening steel) provide a thermal short to the protected commodity. NEl test 2-10 protected intervening steel a distance of 18" from the envelope. The installed fire barrier system has intervening steel which is protected out only 9" from the envelope. NEl tests 2-7 and 2-8, which used baseline and upgrade 1 hour1.157407e-5 days 2.777778e-4 hours 1.653439e-6 weeks 3.805e-7 months thermo-lag, protected intervening steel 9" from the envelope. NEl test 2-8 installed upgrades on the cable tray barrier, but did not upgrade the intervening steel barrier and a fire endurance rating of 60 minutes was demonstrated. Based on equivalent construction between installed and NEl test 2-8 and because the i 1 stalled intervening. steel barrier uses the thicker 3 hour3.472222e-5 days 8.333333e-4 hours 4.960317e-6 weeks 1.1415e-6 months thermo-lag, it is reasonable to conclude that the installed intervening steel barrier will provide a fire endurance rating of 60 minutes.

6.3 The primary fire barrier system protects cable trays 1J1 A01,1J5A01,1J1801 and 1J5B01. NEl test 2-10 tested cable tray barriers with equivalent construction and sizes of protected commodities. NEl test 2-10 demonstrated a fire endurance rating of 85 minutes and the installed pnmary barrier would be expected to provide equivalent fire endurance. However, because the air drop segment will only provide a fire endurance of 47 minutes, the complete fire barrier system 16F-1 is rated for a fire endurance of 47 minutes.

l l

Prepared: b Date: N46 Page 2 of 43 Venfied: 219 Date: 4/3c/f/,

)

i

)

CAL-M96- 00+

EVALUATION OF FIRE ENDURANCE REVISION 1 CAPABILITY FOR FIRE BARRIER 16F-1 FIGURE F-1 INSTALLED TO TESTED FIRE BARRIER EVALUATION ATTACHMENT 1 THERMO-LAG BARRIER SYSTEM IDENTIFIER:

16F-1 BARRIER LOCATION DATA:

PUMPHOUSE ELEV. 747'-6", FIRE ZONE 16F REQUIRED RATING:

1 HOUR X__3 HOUR OTHER RES FIRE BARRIER SEGMENTS EVALUATED:

SEGMENT 01 - TLGEN-02, TLGEN-05 & TLGEN-07.

SEGMENT 02 - TLGEN-02, TLGEN-05, TLGEN-07, TLGEN-08, TLGEN-09, TLGEN-19,16F-1<5> & 16F 1<6>

SEGMENT 03 - TLGEN-02, TLGEN-08, TLGEN-09,16F-1<1>,16F-1<2> & 16F 1<8>

SEGMENT 04 - TLGEN-02, TLGEN-08, TLGEN-09,16F 1<1>,16F-1<2> & 16F-1<7>

SEGMENT 05 - 16F-1<3>

SEGMENT 06 - 16F-1<4>

FIRE BARRIER SYSTEM EVALUATION RESULTS:

ALL BOUNDED BY TEST NOT BOUNDED BY TEST RATED BARRIER SYSTEM FURTHER EVALUATION REQUIRED

_SEG 01 and 02

_ Air drop is limiting case perfonnance with 47 min. See evaluation _

(OTHER)

APPLICABLE TEST

REFERENCES:

TESTREPORTS - NEl TESTS 2-1,2-3,2-7, 2-8 & 2-10. TVA TEST 11210-94554C REMARKS INSTALLED BARRIER CAN PROVIDE ACCEPTABLE FIRE ENDURANCE CAPABILITYFOR A MINIMUM OF47 MINUTES.

Prepared:

Date: Yu /K Page 3 of 43 Verified: M Date: hkT6

CAL-M96- 00+

EVALUATION OF FIRE ENDURANCE REVISION 1 CAPABILITY FOR FIRE BARRIER 16F-1 FIGURE F-1.1 l

INSTALLED TO TESTED FIRE BARRIER EVALUATION l

ATTACHMENT 1 1HERMO-LAG BARRIER SYSTEM IDENTIFIER:

16F-1 BARRIER RATING SEGMENT COMMODITY BOUNDED BY TEST AS INSTALLED WITH UPGRADE EVAL PAGES TYPE (YlN)

(MINUTES)

(MINUTES) 01 4"X 24" CABLE Y

47 N/A TRAY 02 4"X 24" CABLE Y

47 N/A TRAY 03 4"X 12" CABLE Y

60 N/A TRAY 04 4"X 18" CABLE Y

60 N/A TRAY 05 4"X 12" CABLE Y

85 N/A TRAYINTERFACE WITH 4"X 24" CABLE TRAY 06 4"X 12" CABLE Y

85 N/A TRAYINTERFACE WITH 4"X 24" CABLE TRAY Prepared: b Date: Ybc[9C Page 4 of 43 Verified: 20 Date: 4/ Nib

CAL-M96- 00 t EVALUATION OF FIRE ENDURANCE REVISION 1 CAPABILITY FOR FIRE BARRIER 16F-1

+

FIGURE F-2 INSTALLED TO TESTED FIRE BARRIER EVALUATION ATTACHMENT 1 THERMO-LAG BARRIER SYSTEM IDENTIFIER:

16F-1 LIST AND ATTACH SKETCHES OF INSTALLED CONFIGURATION:

1FT-1<1>

16F-1<2>

16F-1<3>

16F-1<4>

16F-1<5>

16F-1<6>

16F-1<7>

16F-1<8>

TLGEN-02 TLGEN-05 TLGEN-07 TLGEN-08 TLGEN-09 TLGEN-19 i

t Prepared: -M Date: Ib4 /9' Page 5 c'43 Verified: SO Date: Vl38b6 l

m CAL-M96 DD4-EVALUATION OF FIRE ENDURANCE REVISION 1 CAPABILITY FOR FIRE BARRIER 16F-1 FIGURE F-2.1 INSTALLED TO TESTED FIRE BARRIER EVALUATION ATTACHMENT 1 THERMO-LAG BARRIER SYSTEM IDENTIFIER:

16F-1 CABLE TRA Y 1J1A01 AND 1J1801 CABLE FILL NUMBER OF CABLES NUMBER OF CONDUCTORS WIRE GAUGE COMBINED lbRt.

2 3

1/0 4.0 TOTAL OF 4.0 lbRt.

CABLE TRAY 1J5A01 MINIMUM CABLE FILL NUMBER OF CABLES NUMBER OF CONDUCTORS WIRE GAUGE COMBINED lbRt.

4 1

10

.20 6

1 2/0 3.18 2

2

14

.22 1

3

10

.2 1

12

12

.47 TOTAL OF 4.27 lbRt.

CABLE TRAY 1J5B01 CABLE FILL NUMBER OF CABLES NUMBER OF CONDUCTORS WIRE GAUGE COMBINED lbRt.

4 1

10

.20 6

1 2/0 3.18 5

2

14

.55 1

3

9

.25 i

2 3

10

.40 1

3

12

.15 1

3

14

.12 1

7

14

.21 1

12

12

.47 TOTAL OF 5.53 lbRt.

Prepared: No Date: #M96 Page 6 of 43 Verified: bD Date: IN30[9b

l i

CAL-M96 00+

EVALUATION OF FIRE ENDURANCE REVISIO.N 1 CAPABILITY FOR FIRE BARRIER 16F-1 FIGURE F-3 INSTALLED TO TESTED FIRE BARRIER EVALUATION ATTACHMENT 1 PERFORMANCE THERMO-LAG BARRIER SYSTEM IDENTIFIER:

PARAMETERS 16F-1 APPLICABLE FIRE BARRIER SYSTEM SEGMENT:

SEGMENT 01 COMMODITY INSTALLED CONFIGURATION TESTED CONFIGURATION (S)

APPLICABLE EVALUATION /

EVALUATED TESTS REF. NO.

TYPE LADDER BACK CABLE TRAY LADDER BACK CABLE TRAY NEl TEST 2-10 TESTED BOUNDS INSTALLED SIZE 4" X 24" 4"X 24" NEl TEST 2-10 TESTED 9" RUNG SPACING 9" RUNG SPAC'NG BOUNDS INSTALLED MATERIAL STEEL ALUMINUM NEl TEST 2-10 STEEL HAS MORE MASS THAN ALUMINUM PER FOOT.

TESTED BOUNDS INSTALLED CONTENTSI CABLE TRAY WT: 10.66 lb/ft CABLE TRAY WT: 2.94 lbNt NEI TEST 2-10 TOTAL TOTAL CABLE FILL WT:

4.00 lb/ft CABLE FILL WT:

9.80 lbNt THERMAL MASS ENCLOSED OFINSTALLEDIS MASS TOTAL WEIGHT 14.66 lbMt TOTAL WEIGHT 12.74 lb/ft GREATER THAN TESTED ANDIS THEREFORE BOUNDED ORIENTATION HORIZONTAL HORIZONTAUVERTICAL NEl 'EST 2-10 TESTED BOUNDS INSTALLED Prepared:[44r Date: 3ksh6 Page 7 of 43 Verified: M Date: 4/lolU

CAL-M96- 00 +

EVALUATION OF FIRE ENDURANCE REVISION 1 CAPABILITY FOR FIRE BARRIER 16F-1 FIGURE F-4 TO 8 INSTALLED TO TESTED FIRE BARRIEP EVALUATION ATTACHMENT 1 PERFORMANCE THERMO-LAG BARRIER SYSTEM IDENTIFIER:

PARAMETERS 16F-1 APPLICABLE FIRE BARRIER SYSTEM SEGMENT:

SEGMENT 01 BARRIER INSTALLED CONFIGURATION TESTED CONFIGURATION (S)

APPLICABLE EVALUATION /

EVALUATED TESTS REF. NO.

MATERIAL TYPE THERMO-LAG 330-1 V-RIBBED THERMO-LAG 330-1 V-RIBBED PANELS NEI TEST 2-10 TESTED PANELS (3 HOUR)

(3 HOUR)

BOUNDS INSTALLED MATERfAL 1.0" + 0.5"- 0" 1.0" + 0.25" - 0" NEl TEST 2-10 TESTED THICKNESS BOUNDS INSTALLED STlFFENER (V-EXTERNAL (TOP PANEL)

INTERNAL NEf TEST 2-10 REFERENCE E1 RIB) LOCATION I PERPENDICULAR TO PERPENDICULAR TO MAXIMUM SPAN ORIENTATION MAXIMUM SPAN STRESS SKIN INTERNAL AND EXTERNAL INTERNAL AND EXTERNAL NEl TEST 2-10 TESTED LOCATION BOUNDS INSTALLED JOINT TYPE (S)

PRE-BUTTERED BUTTJOINTS PRE-BUTTERED BUTTJOINTS NEI TEST 2-10 GROOVED AND GROOVED JOINTS JOINTS WILL PROVIDE BETTER STRUCTURAL PERFORMANCE THEREFORE TESTED BOUNDS INSTALLED JOINT GAP S1/4" S1/4" NEl TEST 2-10 TESTED BOUNDS INSTALLED Prepared: FA.-

Date: 3/tok.

Page 8 of 43 Verified: %LD Date: 4/Mid

CAL-M96- 0D+

EVALUATION OF FIRE ENDURANCE REVISION 1 CAPABILITY FOR FIRE BARRIER 16F-1 FIGURE F-4 TO 8 INSTALLED TO TESTED FIRE BARRIER EVALUATION ATTACHMENT 1 PERFORMANCE THERMO-LAG BARP.lER SYSTEM IDENTIFIER:

PARAMETERS 16F-1 APPLICABLE FIRE BARRIER SYSTEM SEGMENT:

SEGMENT 01 BARRIER INSTALLED CONFIGURATION TESTED CONFIGURATION (S)

APPLICABLE EVALUATION /

EVALUATED TESTS REF. NO.

UNSUPPORTED 24" 24" NEI TEST 2-10 TESTED BARRIER SPANS BOUNDS INSTALLED INTERNAL NONE NONE NE1 TEST 2-10 TESTED SUPPORT BOUNDS MECHANISMS INSTALLED FASTENER 18 GAUGE S.S. TlE WIRES 1/2" X 0.02" S.S. BANDS NEl TEST 210 TIE WIRES AND SIZEIMATERIAL 1/4"X 0.02" S.S..:: ANDS 1/4" BANDS WILL 1/2" X 0.02" S.S. BANDS ALLOWBETTER THERMO-LAG ACTIVATION AND WILL BE PROTECTED BY CHAR LAYER.

TESTED BOUNDS INSTALLED FASTENER 7" ON CENTER (MAXIMIIM) 12" ON CENTER (MAXIMUM)

NEl TEST 2-10 CLOSER SPACING SPACING OF FASTENERS PROVIDES BETTER STRUCTURAL SUPPORT.

TESTED BOUNDS INSTALLED Prepared: M Date: 3/u/4C Page 9 of 43 Verified: 7tO Date. 4 nom 6

CAL-M96- 00 4-EVALUATION OF FIRE ENDURANCE REVISION 1 CAPABILITY FOR FIRE BARRIER 16F-1 FIGURE F-4 TO 8 INSTALLED TO TESTED FIRE BARRIER EVALUATION ATTACHMENT 1 PERFORMANCE THERMO-LAG BARRIER SYSTEM IDENTIFIER:

PARAMETERS 16F-1 APPLICABLE FIRE BARRIER SYSTEM SEGMENT:

SEGMENTOf BARRIER INSTALLED CONFIGURATION TESTED CONFIGURATION (S)

APPLICABLE EVALUATION /

EVALUATED TESTS REF. NO.

FASTENER 2"(MAXIMUM) 2"(MAXIMUM)

NEl TEST 2-10 TESTED DISTANCE FROM BOUNDS JOINTS INSTALLED FASTENER EDGE NONE NONE NEl TEST 2-10 TESTED GUARDS BOUNDS INSTALLED JOINT NONE NONE NEI TEST 2-10 TESTED REINFORCEMENT BOUNDS MECHANISMS INSTALLED STRUCTURAL FULL PROTECTION OF FULL PROTECTION OF SUPPORT NEl TEST 2-10 REFERENCE E2 SUPPORT AND SUPPORT STEEL.

STEEL INTERVENING STEEL NEl TEST 2-1 lNTERVENING INTERVENING STEEL IN THE PROTECTED 18" FROM ENVELOPE NEl TEST 2-3 STEEL FORM OF AN AIR DROP TVA TEST PROTECT lON F"I.LY PROTECTED BY 3 11210-94554C

ti' UR 3/4" PRESHAPED SONDUIT SECTIONS.

BOXED ALL SIDES EXPOSED ALL SIDES EXPOSED NEl TEST 2-10 TESTED ENCLOSURE BOUNDS LOCATION INSTALLED BARRIER N/A MINOR OPENINGS IN VICINITY OF NEI TEST 2-10 REFERENCE E3 CONDITION BUTTJOINT ON BOTTOM SURFACE OF FOLLowlNG TRAYENVELOPE HOSE STREAM TEST Prepared:

4 Date: Yhh6 Page 10 of 43 Verified: N Date: N Tb

CAL-MES-OD f-EVALUATION OF FIRE ENDURANCE REVISION 1 l

CAPABILITY FOR FIRE BARRIER 16F-1 FIGURE F-9 INSTALLED TO TESTED FIRE BARRIER EVALUATION ATTACHMENT 1 THERMO-LAG BARRIER SYSTEM IDENTIFIER:

16F-1 7

i APPLICABLE FIRE BARRIER SYSTEM SEGMENT (S): SEGAtENT01 EVALUATION REF. NO.(S) E1, E2 and E3 EVALUATION (S):

E1 - Structurally the v-ribbed panels provide support for large spans and prevent sagging of the thcrmo-lag panel as it softens.

Thermally the v-ribbed panels would provide a air gap of approximately 1/2" however the top panel would not have this air gap as it would require cutting the panels in such'a way as to make the ribs lay on both side rails. NEl test 2-10 construction procedures do not require this type of construction therefore the installed configuration is bounded by tested. The installed barrier top panel has the same orientation of the tested barrier and therefore is bounded far orientation. The presence of or orientation of v-ribbedpanels on the installed side and bottom panels is unknown. Fie!i walkdown and measurements provide an indication that there is at least a 1/2" gap between the panels and tray based on the differunce between the overall measurement of the barrier and nominal unprotected tray size.

Assuming that the orientation of the v-ribs is worst case, the installed configuration is bound by tested for V-rib orientation and location.

E2 - The air drop tested by TVA test 11210-94554C consisted of 1 hour1.157407e-5 days 2.777778e-4 hours 1.653439e-6 weeks 3.805e-7 months 2" preshaped conduit sections with the same construction techniques as installed. The installed configure. tion consists of 3 hour3.472222e-5 days 8.333333e-4 hours 4.960317e-6 weeks 1.1415e-6 months 3/4" preshaped conduit sections which provides a greatermass of thermo-lag than the tested configuration. Based on the greater mass of thermo-lag, it would be reasonable to conclude that the Installed configuration wouldperform as well as the tested configuration. This is further supported by NEl tests 2-1 and 2-3. NEl test 2-1 tested a 1 hour1.157407e-5 days 2.777778e-4 hours 1.653439e-6 weeks 3.805e-7 months baseline 2" preshaped conduit sections around a 2" aluminum condult. NEI test 2-3 tested a 3 hour3.472222e-5 days 8.333333e-4 hours 4.960317e-6 weeks 1.1415e-6 months baseline 3/4" e

preshaped conduit section around a 3/4" aluminum conduit. NEI test 2-1 and 2-3 used the same construction techniques as installed.

The 3/4" conduit has less mass than the 2" conduit and therefore no benefit is gained from thermal msss. The 3 hour3.472222e-5 days 8.333333e-4 hours 4.960317e-6 weeks 1.1415e-6 months 3/4" barrier failed temperature criteria at 63 minutes while the 1 hour1.157407e-5 days 2.777778e-4 hours 1.653439e-6 weeks 3.805e-7 months 2 inch barrier failed temperature criteria at 39 minutes. The performance of the 3 hour3.472222e-5 days 8.333333e-4 hours 4.960317e-6 weeks 1.1415e-6 months 3/4" barrier versus the 1 hour1.157407e-5 days 2.777778e-4 hours 1.653439e-6 weeks 3.805e-7 months 2" barrierprovides assurance that the additional mass of thermo-lag provides at least equivalent performance of the 3 hour3.472222e-5 days 8.333333e-4 hours 4.960317e-6 weeks 1.1415e-6 months 3/4" air drop versus the 1 hour1.157407e-5 days 2.777778e-4 hours 1.653439e-6 weeks 3.805e-7 months 2" air drop. The tested configuration exceeded temperature criteria at 48 minutes and was subjected to an additional 13 minutes of fire exposure before being removed from the furnace. Openings in the tested air drop were observed after the hose stream test. A walkdown of the plant area was conducted and there is no potential for objects to fall on the barrier during a fire. Because of the location of the air drop and the fact that there are no safe shutdown cables in the air drop, fire fighting activities would not result in fire hose water directly impinging on safe shutdown cables. The installed commodity will provide a fire endurance of 47 minutes.

l l

Prepared: h Date: Yu:.Ac Page 11 of 43 Verified: N Date:

t

___.m.

CAL-M96- 0D+

EVALUATION OF FIRE ENDURANCE REVISION 1 CAPABILITY FOR FIRE BARRIER 16F-1 FIGURE F-9 INSTALLED TO TESTED FIRE BARRIER EVALUATION ATTACHMENT 1 THERMO-LAG BARRIER SYSTEM IDENTIFIER:

16F-1 APPLICABLE FIRE BARRIER SYSTEM SEGMENT (S): SEGAfENT 01 EVALUATION REF. NO.(S) E1, E2 and E3 EVALUATION (S} continued: E3 - NEl test 2-10 demonstrated a fire endurance of 85 minutes for 4"X 24" trays before failing temperature criteria. After the hose stream test, openings were observedin the barrier envelope. The installed configuration uses the same construction techniques as test 2-10 and would be expected to perform at least as well as tested with openings observed amer 85 minutes. The barrier as a whole however can only be qualified forits " weakest" segment which is the air drop between tray 1J1A01 and 1J5A01. The air drop has been evaluated to have a fire endurance rating of 47 minutes. With the tested barrierproviding satisfactory temperature criteria for 85 minutes, it would be reasonable to expect that no barrier openings would be present on the tray envelopes y after only 47 minutes of exposure and wouldprotect the cables from falling objects andin-plant firefighting efforts. Intervening steelis the next weakest link with a fire endurance rating of 60 minutes. The intervening steelis comprised of unistrut and conduit which do not contain safe shutdown cable. The bounding tests forintervening steel demonstrated that any barrier openings in the primary barrier were not attributed to the intervening steel. With 13 minutes less fire exposure than tested it is reasonable to expect that the intervening steel fire barrier would protect the primary barrier from falling objects or in-plant firefighting.

Prepared: M Date: YMSC Page 12 of 43 Verified: RA 9 Date: 4/k[7b

.m. -

- m a

ni.

CAL-M96- 00 4 EVALUATION OF FIRE ENDURANCE REVISION 1 CAPABILITY FOR FIRE BARRIER 16F-1 FIGURE F-3 INSTALLED TO TESTED FIRE BARRIER EVALUATION ATTACHMENT 1 PERFORMANCE THERMO-LAG BARRIER SYSTEM IDENTIFIER:

PARAMETERS 16F-1 APPLICABLE FIRE BARRIER SYSTEM SEGMENT:

SEGMENT 02 COMMODITY INSTALLED CONFIGURATION TESTED CONFIGURATION (S)

APPLICABLE EVALUATION /

EVALUATED TESTS REF. NO.

TYPE LADDER BACK CABLE TRA Y LADDER BACK CABLE TRAY NEl TEST 2-10 TESTED BOUNDS INSTALLED SIZE 4"x 24" CABLE TRAY 4"X 24" CABLE TRAY NEI TEST 2-10 TESTED 9" RUNG SPACING 9" RUNG SPACING BOUNDS INSTALLED MATERIAL STEEL ALUMINUM NEl TEST 2-10 STEEL HAS MORE MASS THAN ALUMINUM PER FOOT.

TESTED BOUNDS INSTALLED CONTENTSI CABLE TRAY WT: 10.66 lb/ft CABLE TRAY WT: 2.94 lbNt NEl TEST 2-10 TOTAL TOTAL CABLE FILL WT:

4.27 lb/ft CABLE FILL WT:

9.80 lbNt THERMAL MASS ENCLOSED OFINSTALLED IS MASS TOTAL WEIGHT 14.93 lb/ft TOTAL WEIGHT 12.74 lb/ft GREATER THAN TESTED AND IS THEREFORE BOUNDED ORIENTATION HORIZONTAL HORIZONTAL / VERTICAL NEl TEST 2 TESTED BOUNDS INSTALLED Prepared:

49 Date: Idf /6 Page 13 of 43 Verified: 2L9 Date: 4/_%/46

CAL-M96- 00 4-EVALUATION OF FIRE ENDURANCE REVISION 1 CAPAB!LITY FOR FIRE BARRIER 16F-1 FIGURE F-4 TO 8 INSTALLED TO TESTED FIRE BARRIER EVALUATION ATTACHMENT 1 PERFORMANCE THERMO-LAG BARRIER SYSTEM IDENTIFIER:

PARAMETERS 16F-1 APPLICABLE FIRE BARRIER SYSTEM SEGMENT:

SEGMENT 02 BARRIER INSTALLED CONFIGURATION TESTED CONFIGURATION (S)

APPLICABLE EVALUATION /

EVALUATED

' TESTS REF. NO.

MATERIAL TYPE THERMO-LAG 330-1 V-RIBBED THERMO-LAG 330-1 V-RIBBED PANELS NEI TEST 2-10 TESTED PANELS (3 HOUR)

(3 HOUR)

BOUNDS INSTALLED MATERIAL 1.0" + 0.$" - 0" 1.0" + 0.25" - 0" NEl TEST 2-10 TESTED THICKNESS BOUNDS INSTALLED STlFFENER (V-EXTERNAL (TOP PANEL)

INTERNAL NEl TEST 2-10 REFERENCE E1 RIB) LOCATION I PERPENDICULAR TO PERPENDICULAR TO MAXIMUM SPAN ORIENTATION MAXIMUM SPAN STRESS SKIN INTERNAL AND EXTERNAL INTERNAL AND EXTERNAL NEl TEST 2-10 TESTED LOCATION BOUNDS INSTALLED JOINT TYPE (S)

PRE-BUTTERED BUTT JOINTS PRE-BUTTERED BUTTJOINTS NEl TEST 2-10 GROGWD AND GROOVED JOINTS JOINTS WILL PROVIDE BETTER STRUCTURAL PERFORMANCE

THEREFORE TESTED BOUNDS INSTALLED JOINT GAP s1/4" s1/4" NEl TEST 2-10 TESTED BOUNDS INSTALLED Prepared: A Date: 3ht/ic Page 14 of 43 Verified: MLO Date: N/4(,

CAL-MES- 00 4-EVALUATION OF FIRE ENDURANCE REVISION 1 CAPABILITY FOR FIRE BARRIER 16F-1 FIGURE F-4 TO 8 INSTALLED TO TESTED FIRE BARRIER EVALUATION ATTACHMENT 1 PERFORMANCE THERMO-LAG BARRIER SYSTEM IDENTIFIER:

PARAMETERS 16F-1 APPLICABLE FIRE BARRIER SYSTEM SEGMENT:

SEGMENT 02 BARRIER INSTALLED CONFIGURATION TESTED CONFIGURATION (S)

APPLICABLE EVALUATION /

EVALUATED TESTS REF. NO.

UNSUPPORTED 24" 24" NEl TEST 2-10 TESTED BARRIER SPANS BOUNDS INSTALLED INTERNAL NONE NONE NEI TEST 2-10 TESTED SUPPORT BOUNDS MECHANISMS INSTALLED FASTENER 18 GAUGE S.S. TIE WIRES 1/2" X 0.02" S.S. BANDS NEI TEST 2-10 TIE WIRES AND SIZEIMATERlAL 1/4" X 0.02" S.S. BANDS 1/4" BANDS WILL 1/2" X 0.02" S.S. BANDS ALLOWBETTER THERMO-LAG ACTIVATION AND WILL BE PROTECTED BY CHAR LA YER.

TESTED BOUNDS INSTALLED FASTENER 9"(MAXIMUM) 12"(MAXIMUM)

NEl TEST 2-10 CLOSER SPACING SPACING OF FASTENERS PROVIDES BETTER STRUCTURAL SUPPORT.

TESTED BOUNDS INSTALLED Prepared: A Date: 5/t' Ac Page 15 of 43 Verified: EL9 Date: 4/icM(>

CAL-M96- 00 +

EVALUATION OF FIRE ENDURANCE REVISION 1 CAPABILITY FOR FIRE BARRIER 16F-1 URE F-4 TO 8 INSTALLED TO TESTED FIRE BARRIER EVALUATION ATTACHMENT 1 PERFORMANCE THERMO-LAG BARRIER SYSTEM IDENTIFIER:

PARAMETERS 16F-1 APPLICABLE FIRE BARRIER SYSTEM SEGMENT:

SEGMENT 02 BARRIER INSTALLED CONFIGURATION TESTED CONFIGURATION (S)

APPLICABLE EVALUATION /

EVALUATED TESTS REF. NO.

FASTENER 2"(MAXIMUM) 2"(MAXIMUM)

NEl TEST 2-10 TESTED

~

D! STANCE FROM BOUNDS JOINTS INSTALLED FASTENER EDGE NONE NONE NEI TEST 2-10 TESTED GUARDS BOUNDS INSTALLED JOINT NONE NONE NEl TEST 2-10 TESTED REINFORCEMENT BOUNDS MECHANISMS INSTALLED STRUCTURAL FULL PROTECTION OF FULL PROTECTION OF SUPPORT NEl TEST 2-10 REFERENCE E2 SUPPORT AND SUPPORT STEEL.

STEEL.

NEl TEST 2-1 REFERENCE E3 lNTERVENING INTERVENING STEEL INTERVENING STEEL PROTECTED OUT NEI TEST 2-3 ^

STEEL PROTECTED OUT29".

18".

NEl TEST 2-8 PROTECTION INTERVENING STEELIN THE INTERVENING STEEL PROTECTED OUT TVA TEST FORM OF AN AIR DROP 9 ".

11210-94554C FULLY PROTECTED BY 3 HOUR 3/4" PRESHAPED CONDUIT SECTIONS.

BOXED ALL SIDES EXPOSED ALL SIDES EXPOSED NEl TEST 2-10 TESTED ENCLOSURE BOUNDS LOCATION INSTALLED BARRIER N/A MINOR OPENINGS IN VICINITY OF NEl TEST 2-10 REFERENCE E4 CONDITION BUTTJOINT ON BOTTOM SURFACE OF FOLLOWING TRAY ENVELOPE HOSE STREAM TEST Prepared: M6-Date: YlCI(

f Page 16 of 43 Verified: MO Date:

DN$

CAL-M96 00 F EVALUATION OF FIRE ENDURANCE REVISION 1 CAPABILITY FOR FIRE BA,RRIER 16F-1 FIGURE F-9 INSTALLED TO TESTED FIRE BARRIER EVALUATION ATTACHMENT 1 THERMO-LAG BARRIER SYSTEM IDENTIFIER:

16F-1 l

APPLICABLE FIRE BARRIER SYSTEM SEGMENT (S): SEGMENT 02 EVALUATION REF. NO.(S) E1, E2 and E3 EVALUATION (S): E1 - Structurally the v-ribbed panels provide support for large spans and provant sagging of the thermo-lag panel as it softens. Thermally the V-ribbed panels would provide a air gap of approximately 1/2" however the top panel would not have this air gap as it wouV equire cutting the panels in such a way as to make the ribs lay on both side rails. NEI test 2-10 construction procedures do not requorer this type of construction therefore the installed configuration is bounded by tested. The installed barrier top panel has the same orientation of the tested barrier and therefore is bounded for orientation. The presence of or orientation of v-ribbedpanels on the installed side and bottom panels is unknown. Field walkdown and measurements provide an indication that there is at least a 1/2" gap between the panels and tray based on the difference between the overall measurement of the barrier and nominal unprotected tray size.

Assuming that the orientation of the v-ribs is worst case, the installed configuration is bound by tested for v-rib orientation and location.

E2 - The air drop tested by TVA test 11210-94554C consisted of 1 hour1.157407e-5 days 2.777778e-4 hours 1.653439e-6 weeks 3.805e-7 months 2" preshaped conduit sections with the same construction techniques as installed. The installed configuration consists of 3 hour3.472222e-5 days 8.333333e-4 hours 4.960317e-6 weeks 1.1415e-6 months 3/4" preshaped conduit sections which provides a greater mass of thermo-lag than the tested configuration. Based on the greater mass of thermo-lag, it would be reasonable to conclude that the installed configuration would perform as well as the tested configuration. This is further supported by NEl tests 2-1 and 2-3. NEl test 2-1 tested a 1 hour1.157407e-5 days 2.777778e-4 hours 1.653439e-6 weeks 3.805e-7 months baseline 2" preshaped conduit sections around a 2" aluminum conduit. NEl test 2-3 tested a 3 hour3.472222e-5 days 8.333333e-4 hours 4.960317e-6 weeks 1.1415e-6 months baseline 3/4" preshaped conduit section around a 3/4" aluminum conduit. NEl test 2-1 and 2-3 used the same construction techniques as installed.

The 3/4" conduit has less mass than the 2" conduit and therefore no benefit is gained from thermal mass. The 3 hour3.472222e-5 days 8.333333e-4 hours 4.960317e-6 weeks 1.1415e-6 months 3/4" barrier failed i

temperature criteria at 63 minutes while the 1 hour1.157407e-5 days 2.777778e-4 hours 1.653439e-6 weeks 3.805e-7 months 2 inch barrier failed temperature criteria at 39 minutes. The performance of the 3 hour3.472222e-5 days 8.333333e-4 hours 4.960317e-6 weeks 1.1415e-6 months 3/4" barrier versus the 1 hour1.157407e-5 days 2.777778e-4 hours 1.653439e-6 weeks 3.805e-7 months 2" barrierprovides assurance that the additional mass of thermo-lag provides at least equivalent performance of the 3 hour3.472222e-5 days 8.333333e-4 hours 4.960317e-6 weeks 1.1415e-6 months 3/4" air drop versus the 1 hour1.157407e-5 days 2.777778e-4 hours 1.653439e-6 weeks 3.805e-7 months 2" air drop. The tested configuration exceeded temperature criteria at 48 l

minutes and was subjected to an additional 13 minutes of fire exposure before being removed from the furnace. Openings in the tested air drop were observed after the hose stream test. A walkdown of the plant area was conducted and there is no potential for objects to fall on the barrier during a fire. Because of the location of the air drop and the fact that there are no safe shutdown cables in the air i

drop, fire fighting activities would not result in fire hose water directly impinging on safe shutdown cables. The installed commodity will provide a fire endurance of 47 minutes.

E3 - NEl test 2-8 consisted of a 4" X 24" tray protected by an upgraded 1 hour1.157407e-5 days 2.777778e-4 hours 1.653439e-6 weeks 3.805e-7 months barrier. Intervening steel was protected by nominal 1/2" thermo-lag 9" from envelope with no upgrades and, with the exception of thermo-lag thickness, the same construction techniques were used in test 2-8 and 2-10. NEl test 2-8 was qualified for 60 minutes of fire endurance. Based on the fact that the installed configuration used the same construction techniques, protected intervening steel 9 from envelope and used a 1" nominal thickness of thermo-lag, it is reasonable to conclude that the installed cornfiguration willperform at least as well as NEl test 2-8 and willprovide a fire endurance Prepared: Tofr Date: UdK Page 17 of 43 l

Verified: M Date: Llfhb

CAL-M96- 004-EVALUATION OF FIRE ENDURANCE REVISION 1

. CAPABILITY FOR FIRE BARRIER 16F-1 l rating of 60 minutes.

l E

I i

P Prepared: 'h Date: YK/TC Page 18 of 43 Verified:.O Date: 4/3*Nb t

t

CAL-M96 D O 4-EVALUATION OF FIRE ENDURANCE REVISION 1 CAPABILITY FOR FIRE BARRIER 16F-1 FIGURE F-9 INSTALLED TO TESTED FIRE BARRIER EVALUATION ATTACHMENT 1 i

THERMO-LAG BARRIER SYSTEM IDENTIFIER:

16F-1 APPLICABLE FIRE BARRIER SYSTEM SEGMENT (S): SEGAfENT02 EVALUATION REF. NO.(S) E1, E2, E3 and E4 EVALUATION (S) continued: E4 - NEl test 2-10 demonstrated a fire endurance of 85 minutes for 4"X 24" trays before failing temperature criteria. After the hose stream test, openings were observedin the barrier envelope. The installed configuration uses the same construction techniques as test 2-10 and would be expected to perform at least as well as tested with openings observed after 85 minutes. The barrieras a whole however can only be qualified forits " weakest" segment which is the air drop between tray 1J1A01 and 1J5A01. The air drop has been evaluated to have a fire endurance rating of 47 minutes. With the tested barrierproviding satisfactory temperature criteria for 85 minutes, it would be reasonable to expect that no barrier openings would be present on the tray envelopes after only 47 minutes of exposure and would protect the cables from falling objects and in-plant firefighting efforts. Intervening steelis the next weakestlink with a fire endurance rating of 60 minutes. The intervening steelis comprised of unistrut and conduit which do not contain safe shutdown cable. The bounding tests for intervening steel demonstrated that any barrier openings in the primary barrier were not attributed to the intervening steel. With 13 minutes less fire exposure than testedit is reasonable to expect that the intervening steel fire barrier wouldprotect the primary barrier from falling objects or in-plant firefighting.

Prepared:'N Date: Y16%

Page 19 of 43 Verified: 7LO Date: 4be[6

CAL-M96 00 +

EVALUATION OF FIRE ENDURANCE REVISION 1 CAPABILITY FOR FIRE BARRIER 16F-1 FIGURE F-3 INSTALLED TO TESTED FIRE BARRIER EVALUATION ATTACHMENT 1 PERFORMANCE THERMO-LAG BARRIER SYSTEM IDENTIFIER:

PARAMETERS 16F-1 APPLICABLE FIRE BARRIER SYSTEM SEGMENT:

SEGMENT 03 COMMODITY INSTALLED CONFIGURATION TESTED CONFIGURATION (S)

APPLICABLE EVALUATION /

EVALUATED TESTS REF. NO.

TYPE LADDER BACK CABLE TRA Y LADDER BACK CABLE TRAY NEl TEST 2-10 TESTED BOUNDS INSTALLED SIZE 4" X 12" 4"X 6" NEl TEST 2-7 REFERENCE E1 9" RUNG SPACING 4" X 24" NEl TEST 2-8 9" RUNG SPACING NEI TEST 2-10 MATERIAL STEEL ALUMINUM NEl TEST 2-10 STEEL HAS MORE MASS THAN ALUMINUM PER FOOT.

TESTED BOUNDS INSTALLED CONTENTSI CABLE TRAY WT: 7.48 lb/ft 6" TRAY TOTAL WT:

5.65 lb/ft NEI TEST 2-10 REFERENCE E1 TOTAL CABLE FILL WT:

4.00 lb/ft ENCLOSED 24" TRAY TOTAL WT:

12.74 lb/ft MASS TOTAL WEIGHT 11.48 lb/ft ORIENTATION VERTICAL HORIZONTAIJVERTICAL NEl TEST 2-10 TESTED BOUNDS INSTALLED Prepared:_I#e-Date: Y2' MC Page 20 of 43 Verified: NO Date: V/k/f6

CAL-M96- 00+

EVALUATION OF FIRE ENDURANCE REVISION 1 CAPABILITY FOR FIRE BARRIER 16F-1 FIGURE F-4 TO 8 INSTALLED TO TESTED FIRE BARRIER EVALUATION ATTACHMENT 1 PERFORMANCE THERMO-LAG BARRIER SYSTEM ICENTIFIER.

PARAMETERS 16F-1 APPLICABLE FIRE BARRIER SYSTEM SEGMENT.

SEGMENT 03 BARRIER INSTALLED CONFIGURATION TESTED CONFIG0ATION(S!

APPLICABLE EVALUATION /

EVALUATED TESTS REF. NO.

MATERIAL TYPE THERMO-LAG 330-1 V-RIBBED THERMO-LAG 330-1 V-RIBBED PANELS NEl TEST 2-10 TESTED PANELS (3 HOUR)

(3 HOUR)

BOUNDS INSTALLED MATERIAL 1.0" + 0.5"- 0" 1.0" + 0.25" - 0" NEI TEST 2-10 TESTED THICKNESS BOUNDS INSTALLED STIFFENER (V-EXTERNAL (TOP PANEL)

INTERNAL NEI TEST 2-10 REFERENCE E2 RIB) LOCATION I PARALLEL TO MAXIMUM PERPENDICULAR TO MAXIMUM SPAN ORIENTATION SPAN STRESS SKIN INTERNAL AND EXTERNAL INTERNAL AND EXTERNAL NEl TEST 2-10 TESTED LOCATION BOUNDS INSTALLED JOINT TYPE (S)

PRE-BUTTERED BUTTJOINTS PRE-BUTTERED BUTTJOINTS NEl TEST 2-10 GROOVED AND GROOVED JOINTS JOINTS WILL PROVIDE BETTER STRUCTURAL PERFORMANCE THEREFORE TESTED BOUNDS INSTALLED JOINT GAP s1/4" s1/4" NEl TEST 2-10 TESTED BOUNDS INSTALLED Prepared: M Date: 3/tc/<c Page 21 of 43 Verified: SV Date: 4/3al"d

CA.L-M96- 00 4 EVALUATION OF FIRE ENDURANCE REVISION 1

~

CAPABILITY FOR FlRE BARRIER 16F-1 FIGURE F-4 TO 8 INSTALLED TO TESTED FIRE BARRIER EVALUATION ATTACHMENT 1 PERFORMANCE THERMO-LAG BARRIER SYSTEM IDENTIFIER:

PARAMETERS 16F-1 APPLICABLE FIRE BARRIER SYSTEM SEGMENT:

SEGMENT 03 BARRIER INSTALLED CONFIGURATION TESTED CONFIGURATION (S)

APPLICABLE EVALUATION /

EVALUATED TESTS REF. NO.

UNSUPPORTED 12" 24" NEl TEST 2-10 TESTED

~

BARRIER SPANS BOUNDS INSTALLED INTERNAL NONE NONE NEl TEST 2-10 TESTED SUPPORT BOUNDS MECHANISMS INSTALLED FASTENER 18 GAUGE S.S. TIE WIRES 1/2"X 0.02" S.S. BANDS NEI TEST 2-10 TIE WIRES AND SIZEIMATERIAL 1/4"X 0.02" S.S. BANDS 1/4" BANDS WILL 1/2"X 0.02" S.S. BANDS ALLOWBETTER THERMO-LAG ACTIVATION AND WILL BE PROTECTED BY CHAR LA YER.

TESTED BOUNDS INSTALLED FASTENER 6" ON CENTER (MAXIMUM) 12" ON CENTER (MAXIMUM)

NEl TEST 2-10 CLOSER SPACING SPACING OF FASTENERS PROV; DES BETTER STRUCTURAL SUPPORT.

TESTED BOUNDS INSTALLED Prepared: I(A Date: 5/r(/fc Page 22 of 43 Verified: 40 Date: NI k

CAL-M96-OD 4 EVALUATION OF FIRE ENDURANCE PEVISION 1 CAPABILITY FOR FIRE BARRIER 16F-1 FIGURE F-4 TO 8 INSTALLED TO TESTED FIRE BARRIER EVALUATION ATTACHMENT 1 PERFORMANCE THERMO-LAG BARRIER SYSTEM IDENTIFIER:

PARAMETERS 16F-1 APPLICABLE FIRE BARRIER SYSTEM SEGMENT:

SEGMENT 03 BARRIER INSTALLED CONFIGURATION TESTED CONFIGURATION (S)

APPLICABLE EVALUATION /

EVALUATED TESTS REF. NO.

FASTENER 2"(MAXIMUM) 2"(MAXIMUM)

NEI TEST 2-10 TESTED DISTANCE FROM BOUNDS JOlNTS INSTALLED FASTENER EDGE NONE NONE NEI TEST 2-10 TESTED GUARDS BOUNDS INSTALLED JOINT NONE NONE NEl TEST 2-10 TESTED REINFORCEMENT BOUNDS MECHANISMS INSTALLED STRUCTURAL SUPPORTSTEEL FULLY FULL PROTECTION OF SUPPORT NEl TEST 2-10 REFERENCE E3 SUPPORT AND PROTECTED.

STEEL NEI TEST 2-8 INTERVENING INTERVENING STEEL INTERVENING STEEL PROTECTED OUT STEEL PROTECTED 29".

18".

PROTECTION INTERVENING STEEL PROTECTED OUT 9 ".

BOXED ALL SIDES EXPOSED ALL SIDES EXPOSED NEl TEST 2-10 TESTED ENCLOSURE BOUNDS LOCATION INETALLED BARRIER N/A MINOR OPENINGS IN VICINITY OF NEI TEST 2-10 REFERENCE E4.

CONDITION BUTTJOINT ON BOTTOM SURFACE OF FOLLOARNG TRAYENVELOPE HOSE STREAM TEST Prepared: M Date: YZ'M Page 23 of 43 Verified: M Date: 4/3cM/c

CAL-M96- 004-EVALUATION OF FIRE ENDURANCE REVISION 1 CAPABILITY FOR FIRE BARRIER 16F-1 FIGURE F-9 INSTALLED TO TESTED FIRE BARRIER EVALUATION ATTACHMENT 1 THERMO-LAG BARRIER SYSTEM IDENTIFIER:

16F-1 APPLICABLE FIRE BARRIER SYSTEM SEGMENT (S):

SEGMENT 03 EVALUATION REF. NO.(S) E1, E2 and E3 EVALUATION (S): E1 - Based on the results of NEI tests 2-7, 2-8 and 2-10, a smallerprcotected tray commodity with the same construction techniques, performs better structurally and thermally. The installed configuration uns equivalent construction techniques and has nearly the same mass ofprotected commodity as the 4"X 24" tray in NEl test 2-10. It is reasonable to conclude that the 12" tray would perform at least as well as the 24" tray and would provide a fire endurance rating of 85 minutes.

E2 - Structurally the v-ribbed panels provide support for large spans and prevent sagging of the thermo-lag panel as it softens.

Thermally the v-ribbed panels would provide a air gap of approximately 1/2" however the top panel would not have this air gap as it would require cutting the panels in such a way as to make the ribs lay on both side rails. NEI test 2-10 construction procedures do not require this type of construction therefore the installed configuration is bounded by tested. The installed barrier top panel has the v-ribs orientedparalleled to the maximum span and therefore is bounded for orientation. The presence of or orientation of v-ribbedpanels on the installed side and bottom panels is unknown. Field walkdown and measurements provide an Indication that there is at least a 1/2" gap between the panels and tray based on the difference between the overall measurement of the barrier and nominal unprotected tray size. Assuming that the orientation of the V 'ibs is worst case, the installed configuration is bound by tested for v-rib orientation and location.

E3 - NEl test 2-8 consisted of a 4"X 24" tray protected by an upgraded 1 hour1.157407e-5 days 2.777778e-4 hours 1.653439e-6 weeks 3.805e-7 months barrier. Intervening steel was protected by nominal 1/2" thermo-lag 9" from envelope with no upgrades and, with the exception of thermo-lag thickness, the same construction techniques were used in test 2-8 and 2-10. NEl test 2-8 was qualified for 60 minutes of fire endurance. Based on the fact that the installed configuration used the same construction techniques, protected intervening steel 9" from envelope and used a 1" nominal thickness of thermo-lag, it is reasonable to conclude that the installed configuration willperform at least as well as NEl test 2-8 and willprovide a fire endurance rating of 60 minutes.

Prepared: b Date: Ya/fC Page 24 of 43 Verified:

Date: $kNi

CAL-M96-O O +

EVALUATION OF FIRE ENDURANCE REVISlQN 1 CAPABILITY FOR FIRE BARRIER 16F-1 FIGURE F-9 INSTALLED TO TESTED FIRE BAPRIER EVALUATION ATTACHMENT 1 THERMO-LAG BARRIER SYSTEM IDENTIFIER:

16F-1 APPLICABLE FIRE BARRIER SYSTEM SEGMENT (S): SEGMENT 03 EVALUATION REF. NO.(S) Et, E2, E3 and E4 EVALUATION (S) continued: E4 - NEI test 2-10 demonstrated a fire endurance of 85 minutes for 4" X 24" trays before falling temperature criteria. After the hose stream test, openings were observedin the barrier envelope. The installed configuration uses the same construction techniques as test 2-10 and would be expected to perform at least as well as tested with openings observed after 85 minutes. The barrieras a whole however can only be qualified forits " weakest" segment which is the air drop between tray 1J1A01 and 1JSA01. The air drop has been evaluated to have a fire endurance rating of 47 minutes. With the tested barrierproviding satisfactory temperature criteria for 85 minutes, it would be reasonable to expect that no barrier openings would be present on the tray envelopes after only 47 minutes of exposure and wouldprotect the cables from falling objects andin-plant firefighting efforts. Intervening steelis the next weakest link with a fire endurance ratirg d 60 minutes. The intervening steelis comprised of unistrut and conduit which do not contain safe shutdown cable. The bounding 1r.ch; for intervening steel demonstrated that any barrier openings in the primary barrier were not attributed to the intervening steel. With 13 ruutes less fire exposure than tested it is reasonable to expect that the intervening steel fire barrier wouldprotect the p:iinary barrier from falling objects orin-plant firefighting.

Prepared: b Date: Yi([9C Page 25 of 43 Verified: M Date:kb4$

l CAL-M96- 00 4-EVALUATION OF FIRE ENDURANCE REVISION 1 CAPABILITY FOR FIRE BARRIER 16F-1 FIGURE F-3 INSTALLED TO TESTED FIRE BARRIER EVALUATION ATTACHMENT 1 PERFORMANCE THERMO-LAG BARRIER SYSTEM IDENTIFIER:

PARAMETERS 16F-1 APPLICABLE FIRE BARRIER SYSTEM SEGMENT:

SEGMENT 04 COMMODITY INSTALLED CONFIGURATION TESTED CONFIGURATION (S)

APPLICABLE EVALUATION /

EVALUATED TESTS REF. NO.

TYPE LADDER BACK CABLE TRA Y LADDER BACK CABLE TRAY NEI TEST 2-10 TESTED BOUNDS INSTALLED SIZE 4" X 18" 4"X 6" NEI TEST 2-10 REFERENCE E1 9" RUNG SPACING 4"X 24" 9" RUNG SPACING MATERIAL STEEL ALUMINUM NEI TEST 2-10 STEEL HAS MOREMASS THAN ALUMINUM PER FOOT.

TESTED BOUNDS INSTALLED CONTENTSI CABLE TRAY WT: 9.12 lbitt 6" TRAY TOTAL WT:

5.65 lb/ft NEl TEST 2-10 REFERENCE E1 TOTAL CABLE FILL WT:

S.53 lbfit ENCLOSED 24" TRAY TOTAL WT:

12.74 lb/ft MASS TOTAL WEIGHT 14.65 lb/ft ORIENTATION VERTICAL HORIZONTALNERTICAL NEl TEST 2-10 TESTED BOUNDS INSTALLED Prepared:N6-Date: Y1'/1C Page 26 of 43 Verified:

Date:k/kTb

a a

CAL-M96-O 04 EVALUATION OF FIRE ENDURANCE REVISION 1 CAPABILITY FOR FIRE BARRIER 16F-1 FIGURE F-4 TO 8 INSTALLED TO TESTED FIRE BARRIER EVALUATION ATTACHMENT 1 PERFORMANCE THERMO-LAG BARRIER SYSTEM IDENTIFIER:

PARAMETERS 16F-1 APPLICABLE FIRE BARRIER SYoTEM SEGMENT:

SEGMENT 04 BARRIER INSTALLED CONFIGURATION TESTED CONFIGURATION (S)

APPLICABLE EVALUATION /

EVALUATED TESTS REF. NO.

MATERIAL TYPE THERMO-LAG 330-1 V-RIBBED THERMO-LAG 330-1 V-RIBBED PANELS NEl TEST 2-10 TESTED PANELS (3 HOUR)

(3 HOUR)

BOUNDS INSTALLED MATER 1AL 1.0" + 0.5" - 0" 1.0" + 0.25" - 0" NEl TEST 2-10 TESTED THICKNESS BOUNDS INSTALLED STlFFENER (V-EXTERNAL (TOP PANEL)

INTERNAL NEI TEST 2-10 REFERENCE E2 RIB) LOCATION I PERPENDICULAR TO PERPENDICULAR TO MAXIMUM SPAN ORIENTATION MAXIMUM SPAN STRESS SKIN INTERNAL AND EXTERNAL INTERNAL AND EXTERNAL NEI TEST 2-10 TESTED LOCATION BOUNDS INSTALLED JOINT TYPE (S)

PRE-BUTTERED BUTTJOINTS PRE-BUTTERED BUTTJOINTS NEI TEST 2-10 GROOVED AND GROOVED JOINTS JOINTS WILL PROVIDE BETTER STRUCTURAL PERFORMANCE THEREFORE TESTED BOUNDS INSTALLED JOINT GAP s1/4" S1/4" NEI TEST 2-10 TESTED BOUNDS INSTALLED Prepared: 44-Date: Yl' /90 Page 27 of 43 Verified: RL-Q Date: kbd%

CAL-M96-00 4 EVALUATION OF FIRE ENDURANCE REVISION 1 CAPABILITY FOR FIRE BARRIER 16F-1 FIGURE F-4 TO 8 INSTALLED TO TESTED FIRE BARRIER EVALUATION ATTACHMENT 1 PERFORMANCE THERMO-LAG BARRIER SYSTEM IDENTIFIER:

PARAMETERS 16F-1 APPLICABLE FIRE BARRIER SYSTEM SEGMENT:

SEGMENT 04 BARRIER INSTALLED CONF;GURATION TESTED CONFIGURATION (S)

APPLICABLE EVALUATION /

EVALUATED TESTS REF. NO.

~

UNSUPPORTED 18" 24" NEl TEST 2-10 TESTED BARRIER SPANS BOUNDS INSTALLED INTERNAL NONE NONE NEI TEST 2-10 TESTED SUPPORT BOUNDS MECHANISMS INSTALLED FASTENER 18 GAUGE S.S. TIE WIRES 1/2" X 0.02" S.S. BANDS NEl TEST 2-10 TIE WIRES AND SIZEIMATERIAL 1/4"X 0.02" S.S. BANDS 1/4" BANDS WILL 1/2" X 0.02" S.S. BANDS ALLOWBETTER THERMO-LAG ACTIVATION AND WILL BE PROTECTED BY CHAR LA YER.

TESTED BOUNDS INSTALLED FASTENER 6" ON CENTER (MAXIMUM) 12" ON CENTER (MAXIMUM)

NEl TEST 2-10 CLOSER SPACING SPACING OF FASTENERS PROVIDES BETTER STRUCTURAL SUPPORT.

TESTED BOUNDS INSTALLED Prepared: #[4_

Date: 3/2 C[fC Page 28 of 43 Verified: M Date: YNib

CAL-M96- 00 4-EVALUATION OF FIRE ENDURANCE REVISION 1 CAPABILITY FOR FIRE BARRIER 16F-1 FIGURE F-4 TO 8 INSTALLED TO TESTED FIRE BARRIER EVALUATION ATTACHMENT 1 PERFORMANCE THERMO-LAG BARRIER SYSTEM IDENTIFIER:

PARAMETERS 16F-1 APPLICABLE FIRE BARRIER SYSTEM SEGMENT:

SEGMENT 04 BARRIER INSTALLED CONFIGURATION TESTED CONFIGURATION (S)

APPLICABLE EVALUATION /

EVALUATED TESTS REF. NO.

FASTENER 2"(MAXIMUM) 2"(MAXIMUM)

NEI TEST 2-10 TESTED DISTANCE FROM BOUNDS JOINTS INSTALLED FASTENER EDGE NONE NONE NEl TEST 2-10 TESTED GUARDS BOUNDS INSTALLED JOINT NOME NONE NEI TEST 2-10 TESTED REINFORCEMENT BOUNDS MECHANISMS INSTALLED STRUCTURAL SUPPORT STEEL FULLY FULL PROTECTION OF SUPPORT NEI TEST 2-10 REFERENCE E3 SUPPORT AND PROTECTED.

STEEL.

NEl TEST 2-8 INTERVENING INTERVENING STEEL INTERVENING STEEL PROTECTED OUT STEEL PROTECTED 29".

18".

PROTECTION INTERVENING STEEL PROTECTED OUT 9 ".

BOXED ALL SIDES EXPOSED ALL SIDES EXPOSED NEl TEST 2-10 TESTED ENCLOSURE BOUNDS LOCATION INSTALLED BARRIER N/A MINOR OPENINGS IN VICINITY OF NEl TEST 2-10 REFERENCE E4.

CONDITION BUTTJOINTON BOTTOM SURFACE OF FOLLOWING TRAY ENVELOPE HOSE STREAM TEST Prepared: N-Date: Yt'M Page 29 of 43 Verified: N Date: N3*N

CAL-M96- 004-EVALUATION OF FIRE ENDURANCE REVISION 1 CAPABILITY FOR FIRE BARRIER 16F-1 FIGURE F-9 INSTALLED TO TESTED FIRE BARRIER E.ni_UATION THERMO-LAG BARRIER SYSTEM IDENTIFIER:

ATTACHMENT 1 16F-1 APPLICABLE FIRE BARRIER SYSTEM SEGMENT (S):

SEGMENT 04 EVALUATION REF. NO.(S) E1, E2 and E3 EVALUATION (S): E1 - Based on the results of NEl tests 2-7, 2-8 and 2-10, a sma!Ierprotected tray commodity with the s techniques, performs better structurally and thermally. The installed configuration uses equivalent construction techniques a at least as well as the 24" tray and wouldprovide a fire endurance rating of 85 minutes. greater mass j

E2 - Structurally the v-ribbed panels provide support forlarge spans and prevent sagging of the thermo-lag panel as it softens Thermally the v-ribbedpanels wouldprovide a air gap of approximately 1/2" however the top panel would not have this ai would require cutting the panels in such a way as to make the ribs lay on both side rails. NEl test 2-10 construction procedu require this type of construction therefore the installed configuration is bounded by tested. The installed barrier top panel has orientation of the tested barrier and therefore is bounded for orientation. The presence of or orientation of v-ribbedpanels on the installed side and bottom panels is unknown. Field walkdown and measurements provide an indication that there is between the panels and tray based on the difference between the overall measurement of the barrier and nominal unp Assuming that the orientation of the V-ribs is worst case, the installed configuration is bound by tested for v rib orientation a E3 - NEl test 2-8 consisted of a 4" X 24" tray protected by an upgraded 1 hour1.157407e-5 days 2.777778e-4 hours 1.653439e-6 weeks 3.805e-7 months barrier. Intervening steel was protected by n thermo-lag 9" from envelope with no upgrades and, with the exception of thermo-lag thickness, the same construction tec used in test 2-8 and 2-10. NEl test 2-8 was qualified for 60 minutes of fire endurance. Based on the fact that the installed c used the same construction techniques, protectedintervening steel 9" from envalope and used a 1" nominal thickness of 8

is reasonable to conclude that the installed configuration willperform at least as well as NEI test 2-8 and willprovide a fire endura rating of 60 minutes.

Prepared: k Date: YaGAIG Page 30 of 43 l

Verified: O$

Date: db I

i CAL-M96-O C) 4-EVALUATION OF FIRE ENDURANCE REVISIO.N 1 CAPABILITY FOR FIRE BARRIER 16F-1 FIGURE F-9 INSTALLED TO TESTED FIRE BARRIER EVALUATION ATTACHMENT 1 THERMO-LAG BARRIER SYSTEM IDENTIFIER:

16F-1 APPLICABLE FIRE BARRIER SYSTEM SEGMENT (S): SEGMENT 04 EVALUATION REF. NO.(S) E1, E2, E3 and E4 EVALUATION (S} continued: E4 - NEl test 2-10 demonstrated a fire endurance of 85 minutes for 4"X 24" trays before failing temperature criteria. After the hose stream test, openings were observed in the barrier envelope. The installed configuration uses the same construction techniques as test 2-10 and would be expected to perform at least as well as tested with openings observed after 85 minutes. The barrier as a whole however can only be qualified forits " weakest" segment which is the air drop between tray 1J1A01 and 1J5A01. The air drop has been evaluated to have a fire endurance rating of 47 m!nutes. With the tested barrierproviding satisfactory temperature criteria for 85 minutes, it would be reasonable to expect that no barrier openings would be present on the tray envelopes after only 47 minutes of exposure and wouldprotect the cables from falling objects andin-plant firefighting efforts. Intervening steelis the next weakest link with a fire endurance rating of 60 minutes. The intervening steelis comprised of unistrut and conduit which do not contain safe shutdown cable. The bounding tests for intervening steel demonstrated that any barrier openings in the primary barrier were not attributed to the intervening steel. With 13 minutes less fire exposure than tested it is reasonable to expect that the intervening steel fire barrier would protect the primary barrier from falling objects or in-plant firefighting.

Prepared: k Date: 3/16/%

Page 31 of 43 Verified: S(M Date: 4b8[Tl$

CAL-M96-O O 4 EVALUATION OF FIRE ENDURANCE REVISION 1 CAPABILITY FOR FIRE BARRIER 16F-1 FIGURE F-3 INSTALLED TO TESTED FIRE BARRIER EVALUATION ATTACHMENT 1 PERFORMANCE THERMO-LAG BARRIER SYSTEM IDENTIFIER:

PARAMETERS 16F-1 APPLICABLE FIRE BARRIER SYSTEM SEGMENT:

SEGMENT 05 COMMODITY INSTALLED CONFIGURATION TESTED CONFIGURATION (S)

APPLICABLE EVALUATION /

EVALUATED TESTS REF. NO.

TYPE LADDER BACK CABLE TRAY LADDER BACK CABLE TRAY NEl TEST 2-10 TESTED BOUNDS INSTALLED S12E 4" X 12" 4"X 6" NEl TEST 2-10 REFERENCE E1 4" X 24" 4"X 24" 9" RUNG SPACING MATERIAL STEFL ALUMINUM NEI TEST 2-10 STEEL HAS MORE MASS THAN ALUMINUM PER FOOT.

TESTED BOUNDS INSTALLED CONTENTSI CABLE TRA Y WT: 7.48 lbitt 6" TRAY TOTAL WT:

5.65 lbMt NEl TEST 2-10 REFERENCE E1 TOTAL CABLE FILL WT:

4.00lb/ft ENCLOSED 24" TRAY TOTAL WT: 12.74 lbMt MASS TOTAL WEIGHT 11.48 lb/ft ORIENTATION VERTICAUHORIZONTAL VERTICAUHORIZONTAL NEI TEST 2-10 REFERENCE E2 Prepared:

Date: 3/tc/f6 Page 32 of 43 Verified: Ec0 Date:4/3./Sc L

CAL-M96- 0 O 4 EVALUATION OF FIRE ENDURANCE REVISION 1 CAPABILITY FOR FIRE BARRIER 16F-1 FIGURE F4 TO 8 INSTALLED TO TESTED FIRE BARRIER EVALUATION ATTACHMENT 1 PERFORMANCE THERMO-LAG BARRIER SYSTEM IDENTIFIER:

PARAMETERS 16F-1 APPLICABLE FIRE BARRIER SYSTEM SEGMENT:

SEGMENT 05 BARRIER INSTALLED CONFIGURATION TESTED CONFIGURATION (S)

APPLICABLE EVALUATION /

EVALUATED TESTS REF. NO.

MATERIAL TYPE THERMO-LAG 330-1 V-RIBBED THERMO-LAG 330-1 V-RIBBED PANELS NEl TEST 2-10 TESTED PANELS (3 HOUR)

(3 HOUR)

BOUNDS INSTALLED MATERIAL 1.0" + 0.5" - 0" 1.0" + 0.25"- 0" NEI TEST 2-10 TESTED THICKNESS BOUNDS INSTALLED STIFFENER (V-EXTERNAL (TOP PANEL)

INTERNAL NEl TEST 2-10 REFERENCE E3 RIB) LOCATION /

PARALLEL TO MAXIMUM PERPENDICULAR TO MAXIMUM SPAN ORIENTATION SPAN STRESS SKIN INTERNAL AND EXTERNAL INTERNAL AND EXTERNAL NEl TEST 2-10 TESTED LOCATION BOUNDS INSTALLED JOINT TYPE (S)

PRE-BUTTERED BUTTJOINTS PRE-BUTTERED BUTTJOINTS NEI TEST 2-10 TESTED BOUNDS INSTALLED JOINT GAP s1/4" s1/4" NEl TEST 2-10 TESTED l

BOUNDS INSTALLED UNSUPPORTED 24" 24" NEl TEST 2-10 TESTED BARRIER SPANS BOUNDS INSTALLED INTERNAL NONE NONE NEl TEST 2-10 TESTED SUPPORT BOUNDS MECHANISMS INSTALLED Prepared: M Date: Vzc4(.

Page 33 of 43 Verified: OO Date: 4/5did

' ' ' ' ' ' ~ ~ ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ~ ' ' '

'~-

a CAL-M96-DD 4-EVALUATION OF FIRE LNDURANCE REVISION 1 CAPABILITY FOR FIRE BARRIER 16F-1

~

flGURE F-4 TO 8 INSTALLED TO TESTED FIRE BARRIER EVALUATION ATTACHMENT 1 PERFORMANCE THERMO-LAG BARRIER SYSTEM IDENTIFIER:

PARAMETERS 16F-1 APPLICABLE FIRE PARRIER SYSTEM SEGMENT:

SEGMENT 05 BARRIER INSTALLEO CONFIGURATION TESTED CONFIGURATION (S)

APPLICABLE EVALUATION /

EVALUATED TESTS REF. NO.

FASTENER 18 GAUGE S.S. TIE WIRES 1/2" X 0.02" S.S. BANDS NEI TEST 2-10 TIE WIRES AND SIZEIMATERIAL 1/4" X 0.02" S.S. BANDS 1/4" BANDS WILL 1/2"X 0.02" S.S. BANDS ALLOWBETTER l

THERMO-LAG ACTIVATION AND WILL BE PROTECTED BY CHAR LA YER.

I TESTED BOUNDS INSTALLED FASTENER 6" ON CENTER (MAXIMUM) 12" ON CENTER (MAXIMUM)

NEI TEST 2-10 CLOSER l

SPACING SPACING OF FASTENERS PROVIDES BETTER STRUCTURAL SUPPORT.

TESTED i

BOUNDS INSTALLED FASTENER 2"(MAXIMUM) 2"(MAXIMUM)

NEl TEST 2-10 TESTED DISTANCE FROM BOUNDS JOINTS INSTALLED FASTENER EDGE NONE NONE NEl TEST 2-10 TESTED GUARDS BOUNDS INSTALLED Prepared: M Date: Yz t. /96_

Page 34 of 43 Venfied: PS Date: YN

_.___.._m.

CAL-M96- 00 4 EVALUATION OF FIRE ENDURANCE REVISION 1 CAPABILITY FOR FIRE BARRIER 16F-1 FIGURE F-4 TO 8 INSTALLED TO TESTED FIRE BARRIER EVALUATION

~ ATTACHMENT 1 PERFORMANCE THERMO-LAG BARRIER SYSTEM IDENTIFIER:

PARAMETERS 16F-1 APPLICABLE FIRE BARRIER SYSTEM SEGMENT-SEGMENT 05 BARRIER INSTALLED CONFIGURATION TESTED CONFIGURATIOhiQ APPLICABLE I

EVALUATION /

EVALUATED TESTS REF. NO.

JOINT NONE NONE NEI TEST 2-10 TESTED REINFORCEMENT BOUNDS MECHANISMS INSTALLED STRUCTURAL NONE FULL PROTECTION OF SUPPORT NEI TEST 2-10 TESTED SUPPORT AND STEEL.

BOUNDS INTERVENING INTERVENING STEEL PROTECTED OUT INSTALLED STEEL 18".

PROTECTION BOXED ALL SIDES EXPOSED ALL SIDES EXPOSED NEl TEST 2-10 TESTED ENCLOSURE BOUNDS LOCATION MINOR OPENINGS IN VICINITY OF NEl TEST 2-10 REFERENCE E4.

INSTALLED BARRIER N/A CONDITION BUTTJOINT ON BOTTOM SURFACE OF FOLLOWING TRAY ENVELOPE HOSE STREAM TEST Prepared:

- Date: Y"4C Page 35 of 43 Verified: PO Date: d3DNb

CAL-M96- 00 4 EVALUATION OF FIRE ENDURANCE REVISION 1 CAPABILITY FOR FIRE BARRIER 16F-1 FIGURE F-9 INSTALLED TO TESTED FIRE BARRIER EVALUATION ATTACHMENT 1 THERMO-LAG BARRIER SYSTEM IDENTIFIER:

16F-1 APPLICABLE FIRE BARRIER SYSTEM SEGMENT (S):

SEGhtE.% r 05 EVALUATION REF. NO.(S) E1, E2 and E3 EVALUATION (S): E1 - Based on the results of NEl tests 2-7, 2-8 and 2-10, a smaller protected tray commodity with the same ccnstruction techniques, performs better structurally and thermally. The installed configuration uses equivalent construction techniques and has nearly the same mass of protected commodity as the 4"X 24" tray in NEI test 2-10. It is reasonable to conclude thet the 12" tray would perform at least as well as the 24" tray and would provide a fire endurance rating of 85 minutes.

E2 - The interfsce between tray 1J1A01 and 1J1801 was not specifically tested, however, the trays tested in NEl test 2-10 contained vertical and horizontal tray sections joined by a radial bend. The radial bend was constructed of miteredjoints which exposed a large number ofjoints to the fire. The 1J1A01 and 1J1801 Interface consists of a "T" where the vertical thermo-lag sections are supported by the horizontal tray section. The lateral bend of tray 1J1B01 consists of a smaller span in the bendportion with the thermo-lag groove cut to foll >w the radius. Because the stress skin is not broken through the bend as in s miter cut, joint failure is less likely with the installed configuration. The top panel of 1J1B01 does not have a span greater than 24", therefore it willprovide an equivalent fire endurance as tested. With the additionalsupport andlack of miteredjoint exposure to the fire, it is reasonable to conclude that the installed interface would perform at least as well as NEI test 2-10 for 4"X 24" trays and wouldprovide a fire endurance rating of 85 minutes.

E3 - Structurally the v-ribbed panels provide support forlarge spans and prevent sagging of the thermo-lag panel as it softens.

Thermally the v-ribbed panels would provide a air gap of approximately 1/2" however the top panel would not have this air gap as it would require cutting the panels in such a way as to irake the ribs lay on both side rails. NEI test 2-10 construction procedures do not requirn this type of construction therefore the installed configuration'is bounded by tested. The Installed barrier top panel has the same orientation of the tested barrier and therefore is bounded for orientation. The presence of or orientation of v-ribbedpanels on the installed side and bottom panels is unknown. Field walkdown and measurements provide an Indication that there is at least a 1/2" gap between the panels and tray based on the difference between the overall measurement of the barrier and nominal unprotected tray size.

Assuming that the orientation of the v-ribs is worst case, the installed configuration is bound by tested for v-rib orientation andlocation.

Prepared: N(4-Date: b 10 Page 36 of 43 Verified: @M Date: OM

CAL-M96-OC4 EVALUATION OF FIRE ENDURANCE REVISION 1 CAPABILITY FOR FIRE BARRIER 16F-1 FIGURE F-9 INSTALLED TO TESTED FIRE BARRIER EVALUATION ATTACHMENT ? '

THERMO-LAG BARRIER SYSTEM IDENTIFIER:

16F-1 APPLICABLE FIRE BARRIER SYSTEM SEGMENT (S): SEGMENTOS

^

EVALUATION REF. NO (S) Et, E2, E3 and E4 EVALUATION (S) continued: E4 - NEl test 2-10 demonstrated a fire endurance of 85 minutes for 4"X 24" trays before falling temperature criteria. After the hose stream test, openings were observed in the barrier envelope. The installed configuration uses the same construction techniques as test 2-10 and would be expected to perform at least as well as tested with openings observed after 85 minutes. The barrier as a whole however can only be qualified forits " weakest" segment which is the air drop between tray 1J1A01 and 1JSA01. The air drop has been evaluated to have a fire endurance rating of 47 minutes. With the tested barrierproviding satisfactory temperature criteria for 85 minutes, it would be reasonable to expect that no barrier openings would be present on the tray envelopes after only 47 minutes of exposure and won?d protect the cables from falling objects and in-plant firefighting efforts. Intervening steelis the next weakest link with a fire endurance rating of 60 minutes. The intervening steelis comprised of unistrut and conduit which do not contain safe shutdown cable. The bounding tests forintervening steel demonstrated that any barrier openings in the prirnary barrier were not attributed to the intervening steel. With 13 minutes less fire exposure than testedit is reasonable to expect that the intervening steel fire barrier would protect the primary barrier front falling objects or in-plant firefighting.

Prepared: M(-

Date:

344C Page 37 of 43 Venfied: N Date: N/h d

... -. ~. - - -.--

CAL-M96- 0 0 4 EVALUATION OF FIRE ENDURAr.r.E REVISION 1 CAPABILITY FOR FIRE BARRIER 16F-1 FIGURE F-3 INSTALL ED TO TESTED FIRE 8ARRIER EVALUATION ATTACHMENT 1 PERFORMANCE THERMO-LAG BARRIER SYSTEM IDENTIFIER:

PARAMETERS 16F-1 APPLICABLE FIRE BARRIER SYSTEM SEGMENT:

~

SEGMENT 06 COMMODITY INSTALLED CONFIGURATION TESTED CONFIGURATION (S)

APPLICABLE EVALUATION /

EVALUATED TESTS REF. NO.

TYPE LADDER BACK CABLE TRAY LADDER BACK CABLE TRAY NEl TEST 2-10 TESTED BOUNDS INSTALLED SIZE 4" X 18" 4"X 6" NEl TEST 2-10 REFERENCE E1 4" X 24" 4"X 24" 9" RUNG SPACING 9" RUNG SPACING MATERIAL STEEL ALUMINUM NEI TEST 2-10 STEEL HAS MORE MASS THAN AI.UMINUM t

PER FOOT.

TESTED BOUNDS INSTALLED CONTENTSI CABLE TRAY WT: 9.12 IMt 6" TRA Y TOTAL WT:

5.65 IMt NEI TEST 2-10 REFERENCE E1 TOTAL CABLE FILL WT:

5.53 IMt ENCLOSED 24" TRAY TOTAL WT:

12.74 IMt MASS TOTAL WEIGHT 14.65 IMt ORIENTATION VERTICAUNORIZONTAL VERTICAUHORIZONTAL NEl TEST 2-10 REFERENCE E2 I

'I Prepared:

Date: IbdfC Page 38 of 43 8'beM(5 Verified: M Date:

t

_. _ _ ~ -.. _

CAL-M96- 00 4-EVALUATION OF FIRE ENDURANCE REVISION 1 CAPABILITY FOR FIRE BARRIER 16F-1 FIGURE F-4 TO 8 INSTALLED TO TESTED FIRE BARRIER EVALUATION ATTACHMENT 1 PERFORMANCE THERMO-LAG BARRIER SYSTEM IDENTIFIER:

PARAMETERS 16F-1 APPLICABLE FIRE BARRIER SYSTEM SEGMENT:

SEGMENT 06 BARRIER

!NSTALLED CONFIGURATION TESTED CONFIGURATION (S)

APPLICABLE EVALUATION /

EVALUATED TESTS REF. NO.

MATERfAL TYPE THERMO-LAG 330-1 V-RIBBED THERMO-LAG 330-1 V-RIBBED PANELS NEl TEST 2-10 TESTED PANELS (3 HOUR)

(3 HOUR)

BOUNDS INSTALLED MATER 1AL 1.0" + 0.5" - 0" 1.0" + 0.25"- 0" NEl TEST 2-10 TESTED THICKNESS BOUNDS INSTALLED STlFFENER (V-EXTERNAL (TOP PANEL)

INTERNAL NEl TEST 2-10 REFERENCE E3 RIB) LOCATION I PERPENDICULAR TO PERPENDICULAR TO MAXIMUM SPAN ORIENTATION MAXIMUM SPAN STRESS SKIN INTERNAL AND EXTERNAL INTERNAL AND EXTERNAL NEI TEST 2-10 TESTED LOCATION BOUNDS INSTALLED JOINT TYPE (S)

PRE-BUTTERED BUTTJOINTS PRE-BUTTERED BUTTJOINTS NEl TEST 2-10 GROOVED AND GROOVED JOINTS JOINTS WILL PROVIDE BETTER STRUCTURAL PERFORMANCE THEREFORE TESTED BOUNDS INSTALLED JOINT GAP S1/4" s1/4" NEI TEST 2-10 TESTED BOUNDS INSTALLED Prepared: %6 Dat6: Y2t/9C Page 39 of 43 W

Date: b*b Verified:

O CAL-M96-O O 4-EVALUATION OF FIRE ENDURANCE REVISION 1 CAPABILITY FOR FIRE BARRIER 16F-1 FIGURE F-4 TO 8 INSTALLED TO TESTED FIRE BARRIER EVALUATION ATTACHMENT 1 PERFORMANCE THERMO-LAG BARRIER SYSTEM IDENTIFIER:

PARAMETERS 16F-1 APPLICABLE FIRE BARRIER SYSTEM SEGMENT:

SEGMENT 06 BARRIER INSTALLED CONFIGURATION TESTED CONFIGURATION (S)

APPLICABLE l

EVALUATION /

EVALUATED TESTS REF. NO.

~

UNSUPPORTED 24" 24" NEl TEST 2-10 TESTED BARRIER SPANS BOUNDS INSTALLED INTERNAL NONE NONE NEI TEST 2-10 TESTED SUPPORT BOUNDS MECHANISMS INSTALLED FASTENER 18 GAUGE S.S. TIE WIRES 1/2"X 0.02" S.S. BANDS NEl TEST 2-10 TIE WIRES AND SIZEIMATERIAL 1/4" X 0.02" S.S. BANDS 1/4" BANDS WILL 1/2" X 0.02" S.S. BANDS ALLOWBETTER THERMO-LAG ACTIVATION AND WILL BE PROTECTED BY CHAR LAYER.

TESTED BOUNDS INnTALLED FASTENER 6" ON CENTER (MAXIMUM) 12" ON CENTER (MAXIMUM)

NEl TEST 2-10 CuOSER SPACING

!WACING OF u=ASTENERS PROVIDES BETTER STRUCTURAL SUPPORT.

TESTED BOUNDS INSTALLED Prepared: dct Date-YL '/K Page 40 of 43

-> ate:Nf b -

Venfied: M

CAL-M96- 00 4-EVALUATION OF FIRE ENDURANCE REVISION 1 CAPABILITY FOR FIRE BARRIER 16F-1 FIGURE F-4 TO 8 INSTALLED TO TESTED FIRE BARRIER EVALUATION ATTACHMENT 1 PERFORMANCE THERMO-LAG BARRIER SYSTEM IDENTIFIER:

PARAMETERS 16F-1 APPLICABLE FIRE BARRIER SYSTEM SEGMENT:

SEGMENT 06 BARRIER INSTALLED CONFIGURATION TESTED CONFIGURATION (S)

APPLICABLE EVALUATION /

EVALUATED TESTS REF. NO.

FASTENER 2"(MAXIMUM) 2"(MAXIMUM)

NEl TEST 2-10 TESTED DISTANCE FROM BOUNDS JOINTS INSTALLED FASTENER EDGE NONE NONE NEl TEST 2-10 TESTED GUARDS BOUNDS INSTALLED l

JOINT NONE NONE NEl TEST 2-10 TESTED REINFORCEMENT BOUNDS MECHANISMS INSTALLED STRUCTURAL NONE FULL PROTECTION OF SUPPORT NEl TEST 2-10 TESTED SUPPORT AND STEEL.

BOUNDS INTERVENING INTERVENING STEEL PROTECTED OUT INSTALLED STEEL 18".

PROTECTION BOXED ALL SIDES EXPOSED ALL SIDES EXPOSED NEl TEST 2-10 TESTED ENCLOSURE BOUNDS LOCATION INSTALLED BARRIER N/A MINOR OPENINGSIN VICINITY OF NEl TEST 2-10 REFERENCE E4.

CONDITION BUTTJOINT ON BOTTOM SURFACE OF FOLLOWING TRAYENVELOPE HOSE STREAM TEST Prepared: 'N6-Date:

L LM Page 41 of 43 Verified: bO Date: NT[-

]

~. - - - - -

CAL-M9S- 00 4-EVALUATION OF FIRE ENDURANCE REVISION 1

~

CAPABILITY FOR FIRE BARRIEF. 6F-1 FIGURE F-9 INSTALLED TO TESTED FIRE BARRIER EVALUATION ATTACHMENT 1 THERMO-LAG BARRIER SYSTEM IDENTIFIER:

16F-1 APPLICABLE FIRE BARRIER SYSTEM SEGMENT (S):

SEGntENT 06 EVALUATION REF. NO.(S) E1, E2 and E3 EVALUATION (S): E1 - Based on the results of NEI tests 2-7, 2-8 and 2-10, a smallerprotected tray commodity with the same construction techniques, performs better structurally and therrnally. The installed configuration uses equivalent construction techniques and has nearly the same mass of protected commodity as the 4"X 24" tray in NEl test 2-10. It is reasonable to conclude that tt'e 12" tray would perform at least as wellas the 24" tray and wouldprovide a fire endurance rating of 85 minutes.

E2 - 1he interface between tray 1J5A01 and 1J5B01 was not specifically tested, however, the trays tested in NEl test 2-10 contained vertical ar'd horizontal tray sectionsjoined by a radial bend. The radial bend was constructed of miteredjoints which exposed a large number ofjoints to the fire. The 1J5A01 and 1J5B01 Interface consists of a "T" where the vertical thermo-lag sections are supported by the horizontal tray section. With the additionai support and iOck of miteredjoint exposure to the fire, it is reasonable to conclude that the installed interface would perform at least as wellas NEI test 2-10 for 4"X 24" trays and would p: ovide a fire endurance rating of 85 minutes.

E3-Structurally the v-ribbed panels provide support forlarge spans and prevent sagging of the thermo-lag pane! as it softens.

Thermally the v-ribbed panels would provide a air gap of approximately 1/2" however the top panel would not have this air gap as it would require cutting the panels in such a way as to make the ribs lay on both side rails. NEl test 2-10 construction procedures do not require this type of construction therefore the installed configuration is bounded by tested. The installed barrier top panel has the same orientation of the tested barrier and therefore is bounded for orientation. The presence of or orientation of v-ribbedpanels on the installed side and bottom panels is unknown. Field walkdown and measurements provide an indication that there is at least a 1/2" gap between the panels and tray based on the difference between the overall measurement of the barrier and nominal unprotected tray size.

Assummg that the orientation of the v-ribs is worst case, the installed configuration is bound by tested for v-rib orientation and location.

Prepared: b Date: bd(

Page 42 of 43 Verified:

Date: bI6

~

CAL-M96-OO 4-EVALUATION OF FIRE ENDURANCE REVISIO.N 1

~

CAPABILITY FOR FIRE BARRIER 16F-1 i

FIGURE F-9 INSTALLED TO TESTED FIRE BARRIER EVALUATION ATTACHMENT 1 THERMO-LAG BARRlER SYSTEM IDENTIFIER:

16F-1 APPLICABLE FIRE BARRIER SYSTEM SEGMENT (S): SEGAfENT06 EVALUATION REF. NO.(S) E1, E2, E3 and E4 EVALUATlON(S} continued: E4 - NEl test 2-10 dernonstrated a fire endurance of 85 minutes for 4"X 24" trays before failing temperature criteria. After the hose stream test, openings were observedin the barrier envelope. The installed configuration uses the same construction techniques as test 2-10 and would be expected to perform at least as well as tested with openings observed after 85 minutes. The barrier as a whole however can only be qualified forits " weakest" segment which is the air drop between tray 1J1A01 and 1J5A01. The air drop has been evaluated to have a fire endurance rating of 47 minutes. With the tested barrierproviding satisfactory temperature criteria for 85 minutes, it would be reasonable to expect that no barrier openings would be present on the tray envelopes after only 47 minutes of exposure and wouldprotect the cables from falling objects andin-plant firefighting efforts. Intervening steelis the next weakest link with a fire endurance rating of 60 minutes. The intervening steelis comprised of unistrut and conduit which do not contain safe shutdown cable. The bounding tests forintervening steel demonstrated that any barrier openings in the primary barrier were not attributed to the intervening steel. With 13 minutes less fire exposure than tested it is reasonable to expect that the intervening

^

steel fire barrier would protect the primary barrier from falling objects or in-plant firefighting.

Prepared: NA Date: Ytchc Page 43 of 43 Venfied: U Date: N%

A

..

ML20113E713

Contents

Text

Title:

Description:

SUMMARY

3.0 REFERENCES

6.0 CONCLUSION

REFERENCES:

Navigation menu

ML20113E713

Text

Title:

Description:

SUMMARY

3.0 REFERENCES

6.0 CONCLUSION

REFERENCES:

Navigation menu

Search