ML20114B758
| ML20114B758 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Fermi  |
| Issue date: | 01/23/1985 |
| From: | Jens W DETROIT EDISON CO. |
| To: | Youngblood B Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| NE-85-0030, NE-85-30, NUDOCS 8501290480 | |
| Download: ML20114B758 (61) | |
Text
-
t~eyne H. Jero Vice President Nuclear Operations h(
6dW thm Dixie H@way E5clits<D>ri : n ::r ""-
January 23, 1985 NE-85-0030 Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Attention:
Mr. B. J. Youngblood, Chief Licensing Branch No. 1 Division of Licensing U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555
Dear Mr. Youngblood:
Reference:
(1)
Fermi 2 NRC Docket No. 50-341 (2)
NRC Inspection Report 50-341/83-12, dated June 16,19 83.
(3)
Detroit Edison letter to NRC - Region III,
" Noncompliance at.Enrico Fermi Unit 2 - IE Report 50-341/83-12", EF2-64308, dated November 14, 1983.
Subject:
Qualification of Fire Doors Detroit Edison discussed the qualification of the Fermi 2 fire doors with members of the NRC staff (i.e., Messrs.
M. D. Lyn ch, C. B. Rams ey, J. F. Stang and P. M. Byron) in a January 11, 1985 telephone conversation.
As committed to in this telecon, Edison is submitting additional'information which supplements both the information provided via Reference 3 and the Fermi 2 FSAR.
As discussed below, the
- attachments confirm that the Fermi 2 fire doors provide the required fire resistant barrier.
Reference 2 identified a concern with respect to the quali-fication of fire doors which do not reflect UL labels.
Detroit Edison responded via Reference 3, acknowledging that doors which provided both a security and fire protection function did not reflect labels but were constructed in accordance with UL guidelines.
The vendor providing the fire / security doors [i.e., Chicago Bullet Proof (CBP)]
confirmed this with the the following qualification in the purchase order:
f A
0 PDR
, QO
4 Mr. B. J..Youngblood January 23, 1985~
NE-85-0030 Page 2 "The above bullet resistant / fire resistant door and frame assemblies will be constructed in strict accord-ance with CBP's Model DL Fire Doors and Frames as listed by UL for three (3) hour fire resistance.
(See Attached UL test report).
The doors however cannot bear the UL label for fire resistance because the Brinks #2050 dead bolt is not a fire listed hardware.
CBP will provide certification to the UL listed construction."
(Note: As reflected in Attachment 2, the Brinks 2050 dead-bolt was subsequently accepted, as a qualified lock by UL.)
In response to the NRC concern, Edison, via Reference'3, committed to contract Underwriter's Laboratories to investi-gate, evaluate and fire test, where necessary, to assure the subject (unlabeled) fire / security doors would satisfactorily perform their safety function.
The results of this program are provided in the attachments. provides a summary of both the results of the UL test reports, and the. Edison corrective action, as they pertain to the fire / security doors.
This attachment verifies that the hardware modifications ~ required to bring all but~two of these doors into compliance.with the UL standards, as identified by.UL, were implemented.
( Doors R3-13 and R3-20 were not approved by UL as discussed in the attachments.)
Fermi 2 Nuclear Quality Assurance will verify
[
the implementation of the modifications identified in.
Attachments 2 and 3 reflect UL Reports NC699-2 and NC699-1, respectively. provides a proposed FSAR revision intended to both clarify the Fermi 2 commitment to BTP CMEB 9.5-l'
.(formerly ASB 9.5-1) regarding the majority of the fire doors, and identify the two doors that do not comply with-this commitment, but have been evaluated by Edison and deemed acceptable.
A forthcoming supplement to the SER.
should similarly qualify the previous SSER 2 discussion of fire doors to document'NRC's evaluation of this letter.
I
(
Mr. B. J. Youngblood January 23, 1985 NE-85-0030 Page 3 Edison was also requested in the telephone conversation to provide a certificate of compliance to UL standards for doors which will remain unlabeled.
Section C.S.a.5 of CMEB 9.5.1 requires approval of a fire door by a nationally recognized labora-tory only, and does not restrict the documentation format of that approval.
The enclosed OL test report (Attachment 2) coupled with the modifications implemented by Edison per that report (see Attachment 1, provide the required compliance documentction.
This information is provided for NRC review.
Please direct any questions on this report to Mr. O. K. Earle at (313) 586-4211.
Sincerel
}g N-cc:
Mr. P. M. Byron Mr. M. D. Lynch Mr. C. B. Ramsey (RIII)*
Mr. L. A. Reyes (RIII)
Mr. J. F. Stang*
USNRC Document Control Desk Washington, D.C. 20555'
- With Attachment N
\\
?
A.
+
4 W'
, - Synopsis of UL Test Report and Detroit Edison's Corrective Actions 4
l 4
9' 4
4-e 1
2
-r
,,,3
..t__.,e y-,
.+-4e
Underwriter's Laboratory Reports NC699-1 and NC699-2 provide
- the results of UL's evaluation of the Fermi 2 fire door assemblies (door and frame).
The results of the UL evaluation and the applicable Detroit Edison confirmation / corrective action are provided in this attachment.
[ Note:'
The item number identified in this attachment references the " Conclusion" items in UL Report NC699-2.]
t 9
x 9
W T
i
-)
/
ri
\\
9 s
f a
a 4
f I..,I r
m
?
Item 1:
Edison Designed Frames (Drawing No. 5A721-2063)
UL Evaluation:
UL. stated that the frames installed by Edison would be considered acceptable alternate constructions to the channel frames identified in UL63 provided the following three items are implemented.
1.
The bolts affixing the stop to the channels are to be spaced a maximum of 3 inches from each end, and a maximum of 12 inches on-center.
2.
The height of the frame stops is increased to a minimum of 5/8-inches.
3.
The hinge and. strike preparations are as described inEUL 63.
Detroit Edison Resolution:
In response to UL, Edison has implemented the following actions:
1.
The stops for the frames _for b6th the fire doors-and the fire / security doorschave been modified, where~necessary, to p'rovide bolt spacing in accordance with UL63.
e 2.1 Fire door frames have beenimodified, where necessary, to replace the existing stops with 5/8 x l-1/2 inch bar stock. '
3.
Edison has confirmed that the. hinges and strike preparations are as described in UL63.for steel channel assemblies.
That'is, the hinges are surface mounted, and the strike:is provided with.
rectangular, holes.
'1 3 -_.
i; b
-e
.r-,
-g.
y gy,.r
.-,yr-,,,-%,
,-y.
,,n yr,,
e Item 2:
Edison Designed Frames (Detail 9)
UL Evaluation:
UL indicated that Detail 9 (identified as Detail 19 in UL report) to the frame design would be an acceptable alternate construction to the channel frames specified in UL63 provided the following two conditions were met:
1.
All the details of'the frame addressed in Item 1 above are incorporated.
2.
The anchors are constructed and attached as shown in Detail 10, on the drawing, or as described in UL63.
Detroit Edison Resolution:
The frame identified in Detail 9 is the same frame as that depicted On Edison drawing 5A721-2063.
Therefore, the details of the frame and anchoring are as discussed in Item 1.
T E
e I
a dh_
Item 3:
Fire / Security Door Frames UL Evaluation:
The UL assessment of the Fermi 2
~~
fire / security doors reads as follows:
"A.
The frames could not be ratable by UL, as high power rifle resistant, without tests to verify their alleged rating.
B.
The frame design could be incorporated as an-alternate to Chicago Bullet. Proof's Classified special purpose fire door assembly construction provided the following construction changes'are made:
1)
The stops are changed to a minimum of 3/4 in.
high.
2)
The stops are applied per UL63.
3)-
Th'e frame anchors are constructed attached and spaced as shown in UL63.
4)
The weather ~ stripping has been evaluated-under fire ~ conditions (i.e., Classified by UL for doors of the appropriate fire rating -
see Page 260 of UL's 1983 Building Materials Directory, shown as ILL.
7, for examples)."
Detroit' Edison Resolution:
A.
The UL test was solely to determine the fire resistance rating of the fire / security doors.
B.
To ensure the. fire / security' door assemblies are acceptable alternate constructions, Edison-has implemented the following modifications.
.1)
The previous stops have been replaced with 3/4 x l-1/2 inch bar stock in-accordance with UL63.
2)
Bolt. spacing was modified,-as required, to ensure compliance.with UL63.
3)
The anchors were' installed in accordance with Details 10 and 9 as addressed in Item 1 pre-viously.
As reflected in Item 2'to'UL Report NC699-2, this anchor. configuration is acceptable ~to UL.
.~-
m-Item 3:
Fire / Security Door Frames (Cont'd) 4)
Though the weather stripping is not listed by UL, it is made of a synthetic rubber material
-(commonly neoprene), typically secured by aluminum strips.,
The.' weather stripping is present'in small quantities'and its presence does not degrade the integrity of the door as a fire barrier.
l ',
m 6
1 4
i J
E
-*e r
4,
,e i,
4
3 Item 4:
Fire / Security Doors The following pages provide a detailed discussion of the Fermi 2~ fire doors-verius the UL report.
/
l
. r 3
1 '.
~
\\.
4
(
- i P
I i:
4..
n c.
t i
/
y a
r Door Identification:
Rl-15 and R2-9
-UL' Evaluation:
As' reflected in UL Report NC699-2.(see, Item 4.a),'these doors were not reviewed.
Detroit' Edison Resolution: These doors ~are not fire doors so their review by UL was not required.
k B i
1 Door Identification:
R3-13 UL Evaluation:
As reflected in UL Report NC699-1 (see, Test Record No. 2), the results of the fire endurance test are provided below.
" Observation of Exposed Side - The fire was luminous and well distributed during the fire test.
The temper-atures within the furnace chamber were controlled in accordance with the Standard Time Temperature curve as shown in ILL. 10.
By 2 minutes, the face of the door began bowing toward the fire.
The bowing continued throughout the test.
The appearance of the exposed face of the test assembly after the fire test and before the hose stream test is shown in ILL. 11.
Observation of The Unexposed Side - The deflection of the door was determined by measurements at about the center point on a horizontal line across the midheight of the door.
During the first few minutes of fire exposure, the door began to bow toward the fire.
The deflection at the center of the door reached a maximum of 1-1/4 inches at 180 minutes of fire exposure.
At 4 minutes, there were several reports from the door.
They appeared to be caused by some welds releasing.
The maximum separation of the door from the frame stops was 1 inch at 45 minutes between the latch and the top corner of the door and 1-3/8 inches at 180 minutes at.
the bottom latch corner.
The door separated.from the transom panel in a direction perpendicular to its face, at about its horizontal' midpoint, 2 inches at 90 minutes.
The separation increased throughout the rest of the test, reaching a maximum of 2-15/16 inches at 180 minutes.
At 55 minutes there was_ light intermittent flaming on the unexposed surface of'the assembly,-between.the door
'and the transom panel.
This continued occasionally over the next 30 minutes.
No_through openings developed.
The temperature on the unexposed surface was 69 *F prior to'the start of the test.
After 30 minutes, the:
maximum average temperature rise recorded on the unexposed surface of the door was 225*F."
'l a
+ #
4
~
r Door' Identification:
R3-13 (Cont'd)
Detroit Edison Resolution:
This doorfmet the conditions of acceptance of UL Standard 10B with the exception of Section 11~.2.1 The separation that developed did not contribute to flaming experienced since the criteria of Section 12.1, 12.2, and 12.3 were met.
Therefore, this door is considered suitable for 3 hour3.472222e-5 days <br />8.333333e-4 hours <br />4.960317e-6 weeks <br />1.1415e-6 months <br /> fire rated walls as the additional 5/16 inch gap is considered a minimal deviat.on from.the accept-ance criteria.
This door is located at the south end of the control room and opens into the Control Room from the Turbine Building extension.
Fixed combustibles are not present in the Turbine Building extension.
~
d
l Door Identification:
R3-20 UL Evaluation:
As reflected in UL Report NC699-1 (see, Test Record No. 1), the results of the fire endurance test are provided below.
" Observation of Exposed Side - The fire was luminous and well distributed during the fire test.
The temperatures within the furnace chamber were controlled
'in'accordance with the Standard Time Temperature Curve shown in ILL. 4.
By 2 minutes, the exposed pane of glazing material had cracked.
By 7 minutes, the glazing material was bubbling and by 9 minutes, it was boiling.
By 27 minutes, the inside layer of glazing material fell out of the assembly.
Observation Of The Unexposed Side - The deflection of the door was determined by measurements at about the center point on a horizontal line across the midheight of the door.
During the first few minutes of fire exposure, the door began to bow toward the fire.
The deflection at the center of the door reached a maximum of 1-1/2 inches at 90. minutes.
At 20 minutes, the door skin began bowing away from the glazing frame.
I At 21 minutes, light flaming occurred across the top of the glazing frame.
Between 42 and 50 minutes, continuous heavy flaming occurred across the top of the glazing frame.
At 60 minutes, the exposed glazing member cracked.
At 80 minutes, and continuing through the end of the t e s t,- the top latch corner of the glazing material began peeling out of the glazing frame.
This created a through opening in the door.
The maximum separation of the door from the frame stops was 3/4 inch at 30 minutes between the_ latch and the bottom of the door."
M.
Door Identification:
R3-20 (Cont'd)
Detroit Edison Resolution:
This door met the criteria of the subject tests with the exception of Sections 11.7 and 12.1 of UL Standard 10B.
The light flaming experienced at 21 minutes is not considered significant since the criteria of Sections 12.2 and 12.3 were met following the 30 minute interval.
Essentially, these sections establish limits (size and duration) of flaming beyond 30 minutes to the end of the test period.
Although light flaming occurred 9 minutes before the specified time interval, the flaming experienced did not increase significantly for the duration of the test.
The through opening that developed at 80 minutes was not of sufficient magnitude to contribute to the flaming experi-enced, as indicated above.
Based on this, the opening created would present only a remotc possibility of igniting combustibles on the unexposed side.
This door would be suitable to prevent-fire passage through 1-1/2 hour fire rated walls, provided that combustibles are not within close proximity of the door.
Door R3-20 is located at the northeast corner of the control room at the top of a stairwell access to a corridor where no combusti-bles are present.
?
4 r,
Door Identification:
T3-6 UL Evaluation:
As reflected in UL Report NC699-2 (see, Item 4.C), this door could not be evaluated by UL.
The door exceeded the tested door width used for evaluating all of Chicago Bullet Proof's designs and, therefore, had not been evaluated as part of the test program described in UL's letter dated June 2, 1983.
' Detroit Edison Resolution:
Although Door T3-6.does exceed the maximum allowable width for listing, it is the same width, and contains the same hardware, as Door R3-13 which was tested by UL, as previously discussed.
T3-6, though, does' not have a' transom, and is one foot shorter than R3-13.
The UL report for door R3-13 confirmed the door construction was acceptable for all but the transom region where exces-sive deflection occurred.
Due to the fact that door T3-6 does not have a) transom panel, the integrity of the door as a.3-hour barrier can be considered acceptable.
Edison has discussed this interpretation (i.e., qualification by similarity) with the UL representative and he has acknowl-edged the feasibility of this methodology.
He has further committed to review door T3-6 based on this approach.
e-.
Door Identification: RM2-2 and R4-8 UL Evaluation:
As reflected in UL Report NC699-2 (see, Item 4.D), the test report indicated that the use of Brinks Model 2050 electrically controlled, single-point lock (UL listed) was an acceptable alternate to the latches normally provided in Chicago Bullet Proof's UL 1
Classifiec doors.
(Detroit Edison had requested the Brink's lock be-used.)
Detroit Edison Resolution:
It was confirmed that a Brinks Model 2050 lock was used in both RM2-2 and R4-8.
(Note:
These locks were installed on doors R3-13 and R3-20 during their fire endurance tests as discussed earlier, and they operated acceptably.)
m
g Door Identification:
Rl-10, R2-16 and R3-4 UL Evaluation:
As reflected in UL Report NC699-2 (see, Items 3.B and 4.E), two items were identified which, once resolved, would verify the doors meet the UL standards.
The items involved:
- 1) confirmation that.the Brinks Model 2050 electrically controlled, single-point lock is used; and 2) verification that stops are applied per UL 63.
Detroit Edison Resolution:
The referenced Brinks lock is used on these doors.
In addition, the stops have been replaced to comply with UL 63.
Door Identification:
R2-13, R2-15 and R3-12 UL Evaluation:
As reflected in UL Report NC699-2 (see,
Items 3.B and 4.D), the following three items were identified which, once resolved, would result in the doors meeting UL 10B:
- 1) confirm that UL listed Brinks Model 2050 locks are used in the doors; 2) verify stops are installed in accordance with UL 63; and 3) replace the Glynn Johnson #1640L and #1641L surface bolts with a UL approved balt.
Detroit Edison Resolution:
These doors use the UL listed, Brinks Model 2050 locks.
The stops previously installed have been installed in accordance with UL 63.
-In addition, the Glynn Johnson bolts were replaced with UL listed Ives 454 manual surface bolts.
(
^
A 1
+
I Door Identification:
R2-11 UL Evaluation:
As reflected in UL Report NC699-2 (see, Item 3.B.2, 3.B.3 and 4.F), the indicated lock appears to have a 5/8 inch throw.
In order for Chicago Bullet Proof's doors to perform as intended, they must be equipped with a UL Listed single point lock with a minimum of a 3/4 inch throw.
In addition, confirm both the stops are sized and installed, and frame anchors are constructed, cnchored and spaced, per OL 63.
Detroit Edison Resolution:
The previous "Best" mortised lockset Model 22H7FBL was replaced with a_"Best" mortised lockset Model 24H7F4 with a 3/4-inch bolt throw.
In addition, the previous door stops have been replaced and the bolt spacing on the stops and frames is as delineated in UL 63.
a i-r LJ
- - Detroit Edison Summary Reports on No. NC699-2
~
~
U UNDERWRITERS LABORATORIES INC.8 333 PFINGSTE% RGAD NORinBROOK.lLLitsot$ 00002 an independent, not-for-projt organization testingfor public safety April 24, 1984 Detroit Edison Company Mr. C. Noles Fermi II WH B 6400 Dixie Hwy.
Newport, MI 48166 Our
Reference:
Fermi II Nuclear Power Plant 6
Project 83NK23365 Under File NC698 Report NC699-2
Dear Mr. Noles:
UL established Project 83NK23365 to conduct an investigation outlined in UL's letter dated July 8, 1983 to evaluate the assemblies shown on ILLS. 1 through 5.
The designs were to be evaluated to determine their acceptability as an alternate to the steel channel frames specified in Underwriters Laboratories Inc.'s Standard for Fire Door Frames, UL 63 and assemblies Classified for Chicago Bullet Proof Co.
(UL 63 is shown as ILL. 6.)
C9yCLy2I9EE The following conclusions represent the judgement of Underwriterc Laboratories Inc., based upon the results of the examination as it relates to established principles and previously recorded data.
1.
The frames shown on ILL. 1 as A2063 would be acceptable alternate constructions to the channel frames specified in l
UL 63 provided:
A.
The bolts affixing the stop to the channels are spaced a maximum of 3 in, from each end and a maximum of 12 in. OC.
(Note:
As an option to bolts welding, on both sides of the stop, at the same spacing would be acceptable.)
B.
The height of the frame stops is increased to a minimum of 5/8 in. (ie., replaced or the addition of steel bar stock).
C.
The hinge and strike preparations are as described in UL 63, t
Look For The @ Usting or Classification Mark On The Product l
- ein m
,.nm c==
m'ac maa-a n
NC699 April 24,-1984 Page 2 2.
'The frames shown on ILL. 2 as Detail 19 would be acceptable alternate constructions to the channel frames specified in UL 63 provided the following conditions, which are not shown on the illustration, are met:
A.
All the details described for ILL. 1, and B.
The anchors are constructed and attached as shown in Detail 10, on the drawing, or as described in UL 63.
3.
We have the following conclusions about the framen shown un ILL. 3.
A.
The frames could not be ratable by UL, as high power rifle resistant, without tests to verify their alleged rating.
B.
The frame design could be incorporated as an alternate to Chicago Bullet Proof's Classified special purpose fire door assembly construction provided the following construction changes are made:
1)
The stops are changed tu linimum of 3/4 in.
high.
2)
The stops are applied per UL 63.
3)
The frame anchors are constructed, attached and spaced as shown in UL 63.
4)
The weather stripping has been evaluated under fire conditions (ie., Classified by UL for doors of the apprcpriate fire rating - see Page 260 of UL's 1983 Building Materials Directory, shown.as ILL. 7, for examples).
I l
.4.
The last part of the investigation consisted of evaluating the door constructions shown on ILL. 4.
Under the l
assumption that where applicable, frames are constructed as described in 3 B, above, we have the following comments:
i L
i A.
Per your request, door constructions RI-15 and R2-9 were not reviewed.
i N
l
. _, -~
NC699 April 24, 1984 l
Page 3 s
4 B.
Door constructions R3-13 and R3-20 were evaluated as described in Test Report NC699-1, dated April 23, 1984.
C.
Door construction T3-6 could not be evaluated.
It i
exceeds the tested door width used for evaluating all of Chicago Bullet Proof!s designs and was not evaluated by one of the test programs described in UL's letter of June 2, 1983.
l D.
For door constructions RM2-2 and R4-8, a UL Listed Brinks Model 2050 electrically controlled single point lock could be judged an alternate to the latches j
presently incorporated in Chicago Bullet Proof's UL i
Classified fire door.
This evaluation is based on a review of test data for Chicago Bullet Proof and Brinks, as well as the test information reported in Test Report NCE99-1, dated April 23, 1984.
/
/
/
E.
For door constructions R1-10, R2-13, R2-15, R2-16, R3-4 and R3-12, a UL Listed Brinks Model 2050 electrically controlled single point lock could be judged an alternate to the latches presently incorporated in Chicago Bullet Proof's UL Classified doors.
This evaluation is based on a review of the test data for Chicago Bullet Proof and Brinks, as well as the test information reported in Test Report NC699-1, dated April 23, 19E4.
(Note however, the GJ #16402 and GJ #16412 surface bolt cannot be identified as either
~
being Listed by UL or meeting the requirements of UL 10B.
Therefore door constructions R2-13, R2-15 and R3-12 cannot be evaluated as possible constructions that could bear the UL-Special Purpose Fire Door Classification Mark.)
F.
For door construction R2-11, the indicated lock appears to have a 5/8 in throw.
In order for Chicago Bullet Proof's doors to perform as intended, they must be equipped with a UL Listed single point lock with a minimum of a 3/4 in. throw.
Conclusions 1 through 4_ apply on1 to the design of the assemblies and not to tne. physica samples you have in your possession.
The UL Classification Mark (Label) on the product is the only method provided by Underwriters Laboratories Inc. to
. identify Fire Doors which have been produced under its Classification and Follow-Up Service.
. - - - = =..
NC699 April 24, 1984 Page 4 In no event shall UL be responsible to anyone for whatever use or nonuse is made of the information contained in this report and in
~
no event shall UL, its employees, or its agents incur any obligations or liability for damage, including, but not limited to consequential damages arising out of or in connection with the use, or inability to use, the information contained in this report.
The issuance of this report in no way implies Listing, Classification, or other recommendations by UL and does not authorize the use of UL Listing or Classification Marks or other reference to UL on or in connection with the product or system.
Should you require substantiation that the doors you have installed are fire doors; UL is agreeable to undertaking a Field Inspection to determine whether or not the product in the field complies with UL's requirements and is eligible to bear the appropriate UL Mark.
This is undertaken by UL at the request of the product manufacturer or product owner with the written approval of the manufacturer.
UL provides a representative to examine the product to determine compliance with UL's requirements.
If the product does comply with the construction description of the product eligible to bear the UL Mark, authorization is provided to apply the appropriate UL Marx.
This is done only with the cognizance of the code authority.
This inspection may include a destructive examination of one or more of the unmarked products, i
With this Report, we conclude our work on ?roject NC698, l
83NK23365.
l l
Very truly yours, Reviewed by:
,rkkhA -
"M q
~
(-
H. J..GRUSZY JAMES J. JRBAN l
Senior Project Engineer Engineering Group Leader
[
Fire Protection Department Fire Protection Department HJG:bg I
LETR4 L
i m_
1 NC699 l
April 24, J984 Page 5 e
1ypE3 ILL. No.
Description 1
Detroit Edison Dwg. No. SS721-2063 2
Detroit Edison Dwg. No. 6C721-2318
")
Detroit Edison Constructed Frame For Bullet / Fire Resistant Doors 4
Door Schedule For B-R/F-R Docrs 5
Door Design And Hardware Schedule 6
UL 63 7
Page 260/UL's 1983 Building Materials Directory 1
i F
i I
I i
.... 6
'T
. *l..
'a
= e
- w fu n#,e g '
~
itiff7Tt.r f-tf.1.'.itt.c TI o;
uo si i., m r I
I II I
I* b,
1v*
g g -
e
-ga 7
l
' *J; "W
-.'. 'j [ 4,M-* %*
- , ! ; h.
- *; i tTT~Y t
~ ~-
2 i' "A *y.38.! N f '**
J.'
i
- 1 1*g 4gt.i l": H L U li
.g_ w -.;
4 iT. -
Jf'3.U..A _-.{
{. s ie I
- - e e tc I
H
. w h -
- .,,1
'i.
e g... ! j,._
i
,g,_a. i.,-
.. r.
i i
ei 1
e
... g a,
- i.,, e fe 4
'O 8~ gl 1- -
<--~"
O
/
e g lllh l
l l
(*,
c 2
- ()
......IY. 8'...... U....
1...b...,
.1...
- i. M,.h.. Ih.;~
5.
~
r
-l i j:. l, 4 6 s
y pi e
p.h.IN 4' L
( 9 CbhtG]
t
@ M!!i..
s.. -
li 9 i.'
l
'T 4
-I s'---el
.n
.o.,; O
- me a
1
~
w
'T.f lT
$$2 ;
w I,
-L4:4a 4
a
- 2
,;: rd.
Yy S"? I b.+ N ci
.8
. - -s M.
.g :
k l
' 'O
(
I
'f3 4 a
.?.
\\
O W5 0 s-S..;)(
- N O
r.
Lh 1-.
"3 i
e lll I
dj!.
5 a
h j ' i.-
g S
?
n.
I ni p
l
[
O M; ~I j
C-j; e
i e'
5 N
[t e
s3
$ O N E
.a C I*d N "
(
e r*
!I M
f
-l I
w
.,j
.x o-G Ese a sann e,4 i
4 1
I e
a".
.I F*l-i8
'I v..<,.....,.u.......n
.I
- a
.I l.n r-
.n
..l i l 4
l 4
I
~l
_.j_;___a O
e t_.__t____
r
, - --' a 4
la:,.
o j
i t -
i-t..
\\\\' $
k f
l ' ~~ L ' I 0,
4 l,
i
?
\\
b
'i.- i l
L*-
a
...,,.. m o
'e
.b
-w j
g q
y j.-.-7---------.--,
q w
I j
J'g J *f g....
~
g s
L e,u,g.s ci s9 8 0
s,.p) 1 e
l5 e,.. car 9
_.r 3
p I ?
m I
m p.-
l .
{
t
.e 4;
af g i }
y e.
h.
?
M.
.d8prkl. 'l.
s A
t
[
'O
- h. fl.h. _.
p.e i
3 Jv-W. ;ty -
1
,\\
l f'.l
{
~
N 7 q.
b I(M_ *f g-
---f '- :,' -g- - - =_
l _. b_.q'lJ ;
.]'-
[
M --
-l
- . E.' ?
N f.
T spr i-.
5 l
d 6
k }h. f.
k
- s
$l*
/
h.1..
-L b."
- iI
^
a
- - r.. - l
, -.. - c-, s t -r,.
4
~..
i Sr-r.
=
ta--- m =,>.
r 4,
s
.y
,' d h ilf.
bJi!.
f
\\ b-M.h q 1 3..
7 I
i I
I 1 f -y W+Aij i! (I,d
,e, I
' ' '.'.i. I
[U l
l' K..y,1M 3'
b.
.\\. p!
L,'. s. 1 i
i s
1,:,e,?;.
r b -
a i
N kw[f d c.6 e,- y-
,t7--.n "5f L-3 C..
.Y. l '.._._1. *l s [,._
.il
. _'.I
/.,.,s.,e l c
.r..
Vf.
F
- s
.. y e
a i
E-
,...,,c.
_a v
5, l$ f.ll!'I!
- v. I g
-ll -Pdf d..,-j.*u_sh*:i'1_
("l Ph h.o.
t.
j e.
U P I
I i
l 8
i I
l
[ k ;[1!:;* W( i J.-
( +..'e'4 1 M, p!!.f
.I 8
a D,pl :g.a. I)z. - 3 E
J
~"
l l<
, j
'?.'
". t j
a_- i;.i i. i. -. i.f--*u.
-.q p l
g, "p
l 4
i i.
If, /n.
! M-
.i
- .u 4;,,Ji I, r-f.q ;.
,p'[7
!q r-
[;g -, 7l. /
- 1. p:
y
- h..,_. _._.. ___. _ _.
p p.aur.
.c ; :l t' l V
O!
-s
~-- r t
- -._.--l..
y; '; *!, ;
r g
l y,'p' %;;
t'i p ':
g-
_1,..+,,. J '_,,,,_.. _.._. v.
.)*
- p l{
,/.g.
,4
,6 ;
r 49 i
l i
f>Q:s j,,'
l t
.f/.
F...
1...
,,. s.. M. t.r.
.. [ a%-
.. - - - - ~..
e'.
,s. - :,1 g
6:
r-
,. ; ;:q 2,,..f r s r:
I
- s. i.
t...
21 7-
,i gl i i >
r.4t-m' t 2-rM I
{<
fm-e t lt. it'
..N l
o i
ll:
~
l Mfp P li:-1.41:: E
. -. a 5.
n t
g.:.,..
..a.,.u I
.g i
r.
':;;mc34 :y'.
.ed &
1.:.
u i.
.L.
s::.
i..,;y_.
.a r.
?
l V2 g.-
yM e
1..
(,
l
~~%a, )J y" ^ '--
.l m_
E, pi l/j }i 1
u y;,
l I-r.c...
5.
l 3 I.:..g; g.
p.j', g,3
.u j
m.;_.
w_.
p e
4 i
)
p vi.@r r2 l.,45, 8
i 4.
r l
y gj r>*
I.
i ',T l.
pr
, (;, p. l
. DP D,t '
l ::8
. a m.
=v--- ' -Q{,; 4,,- j., hj
.e---
.,,.m,.
' ll)
-g i' :y.3-
' I:
t.M'
--rr -- n.
.r,
c
,,l*, ;
r-+
-4'
.u s
-i
_. E t
~'
+11 g
r
'.*'.'j ;l i
' ~ **P"I "." ' s i
1.,.
t l
- cl.'
t !
s' 3.h j;' l
,4
. l)
- j ItJ Q.<
- t i n;t; a
t
- r. '.
u
' ! s..
.t
- 1. :,-
eI.,.
o e
.e r
s..
s 5 og
(
{
. i I
b,.
r
, L.,. l4 k
. E,j i;_ M i M h*
_['_.
h; g: '.
- g...-_ n.
,: ' ' s.
f 2.
-r-- !y I.
i,I
!. k.I i j 'N d. d.I. / i\\i h* :
I* d N CI:~;'
- L.,
I' R!
l,.
,.. [
- h. y]
i
$, 4nd
.-.r,-
~. _
~
"9 6
s io g
Ad j
ggeg8 lns s
si a.'
e u.
oS ja
-e.
m 2
.r,
=
a a
o e-50 o
=)
u q E.i 9
2 a f l'
.an.imch$
I, u
c e
o 3' y
-i j D 8
a e a t, $ s, j 2 s,
&, c 2.$ n P,4 e
- ty
- 7 z
- s
'2
- i. -. e
- e<.3 l
.a t
o u 9' 9
[i 0 wR
$ g. b A
o a
g
- O 'E Q
~
" ~ p[g o
f 8: S!
D
?
.). j C z
o w
E a.h
.o s
s sa-j s
(4a,$ amq o
j d5, g4 2'
5 2
8 o*11)62,$*of'.'y,h'nc,$.'kei (d
g
[. L- $ $, P,
- g 2-9. r. ?
4j;u O
8 f 6 7- $ g. h, ',9 " ?- h,
")8 I
4 a
2g u
o ;, 3 S N!!
883 6
l I"
F$$9 l
b 4,., x c u s s u
o, a,.>g
>> 3
=
li
. j te a >
8 n
t w
4 e
. crgag i
i ta d
Z-t u
a y
>4 I <> wa lf..
i0 2
0 t
e4 b' p
.ilj 5.
.j 9 [. u z 0
3 C h.a 2 - ( 8 8 b'
e g a x"Nu b*3 25!'
v 3
dO5 I
i u t
.io id me 8
4-V M N edoatji@2usSi'idglifE' eon ${i i
=s 1
'; !:,N t, D 2 E 8 b, s' d
45 J f'. m, j g50gj,j d
ni
.a d w
9 E
2*.
gu
.j a - (.
49
.,E<msgal ro n
s a
5
@d Vs 4 a' p 1-D F,_
a e
J J
6 d
H f
~-
l 4
ee c
M.
- 8
-e 0 gl-h f.
~$ i ye.
o
,,.{u.....(..
_s t.
a u.
.7 s
\\
a[
a.=
41 a.. n..
s
~
i l
j e
.(
8 od
,,": -t r~i-E 3
CBe Q
y -
~5 0 s
J
-j v
y u
_M-I y
E i
9
.i -
e&.
P' i
J er l
3
/,l-
.6
/
._4 t
+j t
- ..+
i
)
t i
A
'y fj !
s I
e g
i ll 8
,y,, -
i n un i__
u ra n-
-i
-.i
e 4
l A...,w _t
/
o., m.. wia w..e DOOR SCHEDULE
)
M !
F R/,MES GEtlERAL DOORS a
n.
,g 8
leg *M HlRD I IXI'd1 'FRwf. OETAll!THRF5 I Q A RE U Al4K-
fl
~4 WAleE I. ACELFRAuf l' H6 Ar, JAt. B_ HOs., l L F vf L:
3 STYPE
-v.Itir 1FN 6 R[ F!M NCF-tr' C, V AT W]H l T,
e 4
NO l lIMf!!NG J
... w _..... _..., 3 '- g" 7*- f g.l*
A RH 2 t, A
5C H -1 J -l 3
s Is l H 3 -
i H g... -
C' SC..._H -l.... J_- l.
_A L.
vs f..AT Ht 8Fsi hlp M.IA-121-i.s,.
. o R.I - l ')
7 A_.72. '_.- 2.. >l 9 G *t. _H.! 3'..O.*7 *- C.',,I.j '
A..
.LHHR
,..f.,
_l g
Q. F A-721-2iJt.st '
116,:.
. i 3' s 'L '- O L_.1
_.._. l'.S C._. _.H.. 1.. I.Jl A L_ J _ 3 PRE ',"W R F ' 8 6HT
... l. _. - l...
l A} "
2
' 3'- f 7 A
RH R2-9, _7 A...7.?. I.- /'.=> l
.Il f'.. i
.il. 4 3
.. (..
AL*l,
~
l A
RH dj
- a 5 f.
HI
- Jl
.I i f * }*
It e,
78-e's 3 - f,",,f. ',';,;,*,',g'g ;,xa "ou'a tto
. H-1 l5C
,l J-l_
_3_. 6 ','fs.',,*,i';"**,j '..,
n._._ _.. g l,
,,3 _.
6 4
(
': g t.
, 6'- 0(,3'
.i}' I 2 j I?G le m,_74-7 1
.').;
J-l A
5C H-l
- log H,
n'- '? 5'- 7 ' i f _ _C _ L.','.l..r.
.p' q
E l
l. _..
s r s s.s.!M*x 7' 4"
' k A50 RY Al ' '...
_M
- 7 4 '2 8.b.JI l l - by MAM 1
R y
.. _ [ 3' o" f-J l }7 Lu n g p
3.d' P.E*s' v F'.'~ (A'"
- 0. -
W 7A_'.21 /.M2._17H AL
_,2*-(*
7'- 1
.I.V...
H.l l......i. _I.A..
54 M. _. _j.
I
.-s...-..
l 2
S He
- l 3. Asn mL i si.4 DFCP BAR I H
.6 "It= ~IZI
.70_02.~l.'1H 5 C l,,H-l
-o 7'- 2 *.i.'
..A.
- 11. H 7; D
~~~
~
','41",".fj,'f/'l'{.,,
- * ~ ~ ~ " ~
M F A-721 -2., k s. 13G..H._ }..l.'7
~ ~ - ~ ' '
..T' J -I 3
,,,b-7. 8-
Il' C
- y * *g,
3e.
A IY.#$ 3 '.'~.'l.!
3.3H. _.9... h ( II.?..'. ( 3.
L H R 8
'}
A
."YiM^hf j ".I.
3.!I'D O'tD E N N "
M FA-72I-2)j2*,I2,H H
... :."fM/l' *,E**d,, g..o' S'. a*
l S
A I
a 6Y' f.tW P.
. _ t.
6
.7A 7.ll. 2CM I M.
S.
2'. (J
%.7" A.
(.LI R 6
.l,
Q,"7.','$','; f [.E o.
Ih*
AL 3
J Q,
'* I f I
A L H rs e I,
A
_,;y u, y-S
, M.M. [*fi". y,c, i. - ]
6 7A-72 l-2 : i".
l3H H
3'- O' R H R 6, 4j i
3 j-SY.MANF-
, A t.
3 wvi2.%. 7/.7 21 - 20cci-1.155. l.
B... W.
.' 2.*.l I V.l. A l l.
- l...
J
.l l
.O 'pANr.
_-l.AL
-3 48 3 : fl5,'fQj'l., vv,rr*
j i._
A -
RH'*
I
. A i. _-O. * 'i..I d.'.
P M :l 7 A-721-2 l'
17J,;
.D _ i.'..o.
i 3
s s.
l t
j l
t Hai n Et 9 0.r** %
j s) poi,to H e".g,,9..; ye llew
<a er t ILL.4 l
Ne s99-2 uboops H e' is t'd ele
?* w e 9.Lg.
Ib Lle)
P' ses l'9 ?
8%
)
]
4 i
1, L
5
~
t 3 A
i-I.
g '- -
u,t,R C:'NM E E ET5 i,-
6E.T,D 7 eg
~'z Ci.o *Ec5 GET - 1 l
C,t.OS C R
./-
I s s vee, MocWD)
.j ELEN'C NM-
,N y-
. g gtg,r,-rgi DEtoet2X (DJR Nd g ygan T
_l Fps.
g pggp.rfro TucEGE%D pyfr e.,iO G l LEN 'E4*6
$ E*T E9 GEi "4 7 CLOGEr.*.9 e
.I CtoGER l ups-r:0 EO WW=W f'; '
t MosirTISED.bcKGET
.I HEW N"
. g procri". !!cLT i I.
9 q 8
g I_
.l L-c 1
y b-t 4
h A
i
=
B
'C D
i,
-f
!~
A
. r)v v Q
-T."N.'C) F ^~ -
- m <m ILL.5 l.
we s**-2
~
l
~
I 260 FIRE oooms (csNV)
DOOR FRAMES (GVST)-Continued
,,pe f e e e t t. e.w.a.me f m. m wa ms.w,, si., e.e.m C. p.mase eme... ce.
w
.e e e.,..
.t..a.t.
YON HAP STEEL CONSTRUCTION CO. SiOUL KOREA R9839 (N) we. f,s.a..me ea, f. -
w.,em.
. C. Ci
.fu 2o -,
.. e..o.s.a I
FIRE DOOR ACCESSORIES (GVUW) f
.,. t.s w f.,s
..m.
.u m - s
.at. ado,io..am.nn a C.im a.a.ee.,e..-.ee eu m.a,.
Cim.
e T=
um s
.e o
~.
,.atau.
t e e.
n mm
. a,
n
,.a s f...ou da.~p.
t a,s.o..e, s
.,..u.o s. o.ac., u. es,.s
,,e.
.,w.,
e mm..f = Cim.f.a
,,e o.
t.
o
.us..si.a.,e e
p,w.m.
,.sut m.
,.T.m,,
Teee.
Gasketing Materials FOr Fire COOr5 (GVWZ)
- o.,,..es f.,.. o.,s t.
e f, Cim f
.a C, a.a.,,,.e.oo s os,.,.
M m. m o s m
.a m.ae. e....a..
m.,,mu.t..a mt oeom. -so. ~ mm.,s cos.
m,...Th.e. w.,e,. mou..
. as T,.
m..
e f e,e
.s m.....as.-.f a fie.s.
,,,mo.i..,
, m.,a w.t a a,e,ap. m.s m. u.t...e
...t.,
,m i.e..f = C.s p
. o.,e.. o...mc ac.
ee se em o,f o
,,s.
. i. C m u...e.,e f.,e d
.ac., f,..e
...n..e. s.,,,....L m.o. e ooo,,.
,.s s,.t..a ~ f mn.e.a t Cim.o
.,e e.o,s f
T e
.e.s.e
. e p,os
.a n
.to
.e ut m. -,,. T.m.f ees.
A em s si T, u -
LOOK FOR CLASSIFICATION MARKING ON PRODUCT Th Lb l tas sh.wa ten.at.a the pr evet.
the Ci se f cat a Marseg of Umse*w.iiers.a oestones ac..sentify p,.e. cts p,.o.co..a.e.
s aa, metwee pr. vices tv u,,ee,w ie,s Lab rate,es las t Ciessd.cos a aa. 8.no= Un Se*v.co GASKETING M ATEntatt,OR,1RE oOORS CLs.ssinito av INTENOto unoeRwRrisRs LAsoRATomits
=C.
0R APPLICATION TO TYPE elRE.00R5 RATED UP TO M R S.
NATIONAL GUARD PRODUCTS INC. MEMPHIS TN 38107 R10042 (N; s.0, 8.etom..ateades f., esehcot M t.'..t*
Cists *.e-cessetes sam.es h. 420 A.t m Moao. We:a one $ies' C.overse,Como.ai.e Type
.e 0 es eavee.o 1. aas.aci.e ag 3 n.
2 2. 130. 133.e.4, 160. 182. 16e.,. 68. 13:
13.epe sae Medeis 702. 703 70,4. 70S pee. net.,5 t 10s..I20. 1.5101.102,.e.
Casset.ag matena's. M ecs 5115..t21 see. Mosets
.eese C.mo site Type e.,e Do.es ea.ee e; itt These,aste, isis see mioas emphca,s. a t sw.en,Ciss.s.f.es meno. Metal eae Steet C.0
,a,.ac..f e ses>t.sae* s.*f a lette s A -
esteega. sea.s i s-
.e see en. o.w,em : ems.o i..ae.aci.e.as 3 h,.
SEALEZE CORP. RICHMOND VA 23237 R9997 (N
.,c,o.. C,m.f.ma,.,. -Tne.mt..,s,.1 ieasa f
.p..c.,..T,.L.ma.s.,ie,.. o o....
i t
...m st. C ma C. apo ou
..am
.o
..m a t.
t.as coe.as an, STANLEY HARDWARE DIV OF STANLEY WORKS. NEW R10095 (N BRITAIN CT 06050 f..
mo
.aC, a.a
,mi.~ me<m,w.-,..
ne type fie
.e...me,,ca.1% 99,.
o.ss soces,a,ee.3 t FIRE DOOR LOUVERS (GVZS) twe 6 one *
,.re
, i e,s.re,atences to, easteiet a.a Ca.ss f.es 5.ae as.aew.e e,si.e.o.to.e a f*,
e d by sn.
si Closed.c.t.
- ,ive.ms.oe% h,s.s p,.v des De so.* nsa. feet.ee,s m.,.cate s
1 D
"e e.stee.nes.a.a the S dd.ag Mate.6ais 0.,ect y
e
,n s.st esseat.any.8 t
e bie st.el tieses
.si+4 love,e. f.o.D.e.has s.ad e.e, stem f., e.to ste.1 f,sa,e. mee
.,s.. s.sta t
e ers s
..t matic as.s.ag i.w.'.ssemb'9 en.it a.t.sc.te 5 76 og 6 L w.m a.e.s, *
.r net 4any ti.e.ag the biases maea the 8.n6.a.ct. vat
.my f th sees m.m s,'.nse.a essee ag 24.a.
p.csege.e w.ta tae sev<e The esse.t. h. instene.e,i.s.t es.*e.ac. wi.asteli the i e.a th ten. tea a.1,.ci.e o Tne fee e e
, la sm.aeed sa th the.a l
' st l sene e, 6e.
ee 4 wood c. po.s,te type fe. d,.,sThe s.ee.f e s-t.o tsteet e v.ree s mp tite typ..e, h.e.et me.te1 se'ews.t..as.ta
., ste t sa n the is.
n m.a tai typ. f.. e s v.* m the so
.s
.. wee f ts: ee a the C. ass 4f..e se+g a3 ee so.'s by sea e meads:1.'e.
f The tw e.oe t...e. see, t
.t th. d.o maa.fs.c,.,e* s p o es.' a th. fe.ls e new t.ne a of i s,.a v.,.==s ent A.nn m.n m.a p.au.et a en se w as.
Th. i n.: man,e i,ne to.a.eu.em p,w.ets wi.s eme,, e ut m.
,. Tem.e or l'
Asse.m tp.e s.UL t. List *g M.'s of Unde =nte.'s Let 'ce.h.s Inc.a tha Dr.o.ct is t e te Th et
.s e a a
'.t o a rehow Up S.*s. o Th i
mee p, t *, p*.e.c.t.s maav,,e.t *e.e,tr.a, s,m L.s. ting sa
,es i
mi.
~
LOOK FOR MARK ON PRODUCT ElLE.
NC G99-2
&la L 7 i
i
1 i -
' - Underwriters Laboratory Test Report-No. NC699-1 ( Fire Doors R3-13 and R3-20)
F l
^
e
/%
l l
r f..
t' L
j~-
S e
,a.-*.,,-,p-
'm.-
,.,,y-,=y,-r-,y
,,w,%--,
-we
,.w wv ew+e-
.w e.m--
V UNDERWRITERS LABORATORIES INC.
I 1
e su mmsm aan manianoom n.ums soas:
an independent,not-for-prof t organization testingfor public safety April 26, 1984 Detroit Edison Mr. C. Noles Fermi II, WH.B 6400 N. Dixie Hwy.
Newport, MI 48166 Our
Reference:
Project 83NK23366/NC699 (Your Order No. 1A-57822)
Report:
NC699-1 Two Fire And Hose Stream Tests On Special
Subject:
Purpose Type Fire Door And Frame Assemblies Gentlemen:
This is a Report on an investigation to determine the fire resistive performance of two single swing Special Purpose Type Fire Door and Frame Assemblies.
SCOPE OF Tr!E INVESTIGATION:
The investigation was established under Underwriters Laboratories
" Application For Special Services." ' The intent for Inc.
initiating this investigation was to provide the Nuclear Regulatory Commission with test information concerning special purpose type fire door and frame assemblies currently installed in Fermi II Power Station.
The reported results are based on the observed performance, physical data and identification submitted The Laboratories' staff did not verify the with the assembly.
internal construction of the doors /transcm panel prior to test.
TEST RECORD N O.
1 FIRE TEST:
1984 fire test was conducted in accordance with The February 21, UL Standard 10B, " Fire Tests Of Door Assemblies."
PRODUCT COVERED:
Special Purpose Type Fire Dcor and Trame Assemblies, installed in i
a masonry wall.
l l
l l
l Look For The @ listing or Classification Mark On The Product phen.
317,,ygm f.ese FPJape go.e meseC In.**.a.se k enew.a. T.go h.
d@D
NC699 April 26, 1984 Page 2 USE:
The assemblies were designed for the protection of openings in walls for 1-1/2 h ocations.
DESCRIPTION OF TEST ASSEMBLY:
The fire test assembly consisted of a single swinging fire door installed in a steel channel frame.
ASSEMBLY The assembly that Detroit Edison requested to be tested is shown on ILL.
1.
The assembly was chosen _and submitted to the Laboratories by Detroit Edison.
DOOR The construction of the door is shown on ILL. 1.
The door was
'l-3/4 in, thick.
The door appeared to be in a new condition.
The door did not bear markings as to either fire or bullet-resistance ratings.
FRAME The frame was pressed steel, as shown by ILL. 1.
It-was provided with 1-1/2 in, wide steel T-strap anchors.
It did not incorporate base anchors.
The frame appeared to be newly fabricated.
The frame did not bear markings as to fire rating.
l HARDWARE Hinge -
The frame was provided with a continuous steel hinge.
The hinge was secured to the frame and the door with l
steel machine screws.
Latch -
The single-swing door was provided with an electrically controlled, jamb mounted lock of the mortise type.
Although shown on ILL. 1, the dummy knob sets-were not provided.
Strike -
Since the Jock was jamb inounted, the strike was installed on the door.
f
~Gasketing-Although shown on ILL. 1, the gasket and threshold were l
not supplied with the test sample.
i r
k:
NC699 April 26, 1984 Page 3 Glazing - Approximately 100 in.2 of UL Classified Bullet Resistant Glazing Material (COGT) manufactured by Buckman Industries, Model 200-83.
' INSTALLATION:
The assembly was built in a 12 in thick masonry wall contained within a test frame.
The general appearance of the unexposed and exposed faces of the installed fire test assembly is shown by ILLS. 2 and 3, respectively.
The clearances around the door before the start of the test averaged: 1/4 in. between the door and the sill, 1/8 in. between the latch edge and the frame; and 3/32 in, between the top of the door and the frame.
There was no space at the hinge edge of doors because of the continuous hinge.
FIRE ENDURANCE TEST:
NETHOD After the masonry wall had seasoned, the fire tect was conducted in accordance with the Standard for Fire Tests of Door Assemblies, UL 10B.
Throughout the fire test, observations were made to note the character of the fire and its control, the condition of the exposed and unexposed faces, and all developments pertinent to the door as a fire barrier with special reference to stability and flame passage.
RESULTS Observation Of Expored Side - The fire was luminous and well distributed during the fire test..The temperatures within the furnace chamber were cor. trolled in accordance with the Standard Time Temperature Curve as shown in ILL.4.
By 2-min, the exposed pane of glazing material had cracked.
By 7 min, the glazing material was bubbling and by 9 min, it was boiling.
At'27 min, the inside layer of glazing material fell out of the assembly.
a
,w
,w--
,-9
-w
-e
~NC699 April 26, 1984 Page 4 Observation of The Unexposed Side - The deflection of the door was determined by measurements at about the center point on a horizontal line across the midheight of the door.
During the first few minutz t of fire exposure, the door began to bow toward the fire.
The 6eflection at the center of the door reached a maximum of 1-1/2 in, at 90 min.
At 20 min, the door skin began bowing away from the glazing frame.
At 21 min, light flaming occurred across the top of the glazing frame.
Between 42 and 50 min, continuous heavy flaming occurred across the top of the glazing frame.
At 60 min, the exposed glazing member cracked.
At 80 min, and continuing through the end of the test, the top latch corner of the glazing material began peeling out of the glazing frame.
This created a through opening in the door.
The maximum separation of the door from the frame stops was 3/4 in. at 30 min between the latch and the bottom of the door.
HOSE STREAM TEST:
METHOD Immediately after the 90 min fire exposure, the assembly was withdrawn from the furnace chamber and subjected to the impact and cooling effects of the 30 psi hose stream as.specified in the
-Standard for 1-1/2 h doors.
RESULTS During.the application of the hose stream, the door began to return to its original position.
It remained securely in the opening.
No additional through openings (other than the one in the glazing material, which did not change with the application of'the hose stream) developed in the door and the latch remained engaged ~throughout the hose stream test.
The maximum separation of the door from~the frame after the hose stream was 1-1/2 in. at the bottom latch corner.
The appearance of the unexposed and exposed sides of the assenbly after the fire =and hose stream test is shown by ILLS. 5 and 6, s
'respectively.
L
+
NC699 April 26, 1984 Page 5 TEST RECORD N O.
2 FI'RE TEST:
The February 22, 1984 fire test was conducted in accordance with UL Standard 10B, " Fire Tests Of Door Assemblies."
PRODUCT COVERED:
Special Purpose Type Fire Door and Frame Assembly, installed in a masonry wall.
USE:
The assembly was designed for the protection of openings in walls for 3 h locations.
DESCRIPTION OF TEST ASSEMBLY:
The fire test assembly consisted of a single swinging fire door installed in a steel channel frame.
ASSEMBLY The assembly that Detroit Edison requested to be tested is shown on ILL. 7.
The assembly was chosen and submitted to the Laboratories by Detroit Edison.
DOOR The construction of the door-is shown on ILL. 7.
The. door consisted of 1-3/4 in. thick heavy gauge (approximately-10 gauge) faces and steel top and bottom plates..
The door appeared to be in a new condition.
I The door did not bear markings as to either fire or bullet-resistance. ratings.
FRAME L
The frame was pressed steel, as shown by ILL. 7.
It was provided
..with ten 1/4 in. expansion anchors.
The frame did not l
l incorporate base anchors.
The frame appeared to be newly fabricated.
The frame did not bear markings as to fire rating.
Prior to test, Detroit Edison made the following modifications to the frame:
l i
~
NC699 April 26, 1964 8
Page 6 1.
The bottom four expansion bolts on each jamb were replaced with 3/8 in. diameter, Redhead expansion bolts.
2.
The top two bolts were mounted through the angles attaching the transom to the frame.
3.
The transom was welded into place with intermittent welds.
4.
The transom had an overlapping plate attached.
HARDWARE Hinge -
The frame was provided with a continuous steel hingc.
The hinge was secured to the frame and the door with steel machine screws.
Latch -
The single-swing door was provided with an electrically controlled, jamb mounted lock of the mortise type.
Although shown on ILL. 1, the dummy knob sets were not provided.
Strike -
Since the lock was jamb mounted, the strike was installed on the door.
Gasketing-Although shown on ILL.
1, the gasket and threshold were not supplied with the test sample.
l l-
~
l I
i I
NC699 April 26, 1984 Page 7 INSTALLATION:
The assembly was built in a 12 in. thick masonry wall contained within a test frame.
The general appearance of the unexposed and exposed faces of the installed fire test assembly is shown by ILLS. 8 and 9, respectively.
The clearances around the door before the start of the test averaged: 1/2 in. between the door and the sill, 1/16 in. between the latch edge and the frame; and 5/32.in, between the top of the door and the transom.
There was no gap between the transom panel and the frame.
FIRE ENDURANCE TEST:
METHOD After the mesonry wall had seasoned, the fire test was conducted in accordance with the Standerd for Fire Tests of Door Assemblies, UL 10B.
I Throughout the fire test, observations were made to note the character of the fire and its control, the condition of the exposed-and unexposed faces, and all developments pertinent to the door as a fire barrier with special' reference to stability and flame passage.
RESULTS Observation Of Exposed Side - The fire was luminous and well distributed during the fire test.
The temperatures within the furnace chamber were controlled in accordance with the Standard Time Terperature Curve as shewn in ILL.10.
By 2 min,-the face of the door began bowing toward the fire.
The bowing continued throughout the test.
Theappearanceoftheexposedfaceofthetestasse$blyafterthe fire test and before the hose stream test is shown in ILL. 11.
observation of The Unexposed Side - The deflection of the door was determined by measurements at about the center point on a horizontal line across the midheight of the door.
During the first few minutes of fire exposure, the door began to bow toward the fire.
The deflection at the center of the door reached a maximum of 1-1/4 in, at 180 min of fire exposure.
At 4 min, there were several reports _from the door.
They appeared.to be ccused by some welds relecsing.
NC699 April 26, 1984 Page 8 The, maximum separation of the door from the frame stops was 1 in, at 45 min between the latch and the top corner of the door and 1-3/8 in at 180 min at the bottom latch corner.
The door separated from the transom panel in a direction perpendicular to its face, at about its horizontal midpoint, 2 in. at 90 min.
The separation increased throughout the rest of the test, reaching a maximum of 2-15/16 in, at 180 min.
6 At 55 min, there was light intermittent flaming on the unexposed surface of the assembly, between the door and the transom panel.
This continued occasionally over the next 30 min.
No through openings developed.
The temperature on the unexposed surface was 69'F prior to the start of the test.
After 30 min, the maximum average temperature rise recorded on 'the unexposed surface of the door was' 225 F.
HOSE STREAM TEST:
METHOD Immediately after the 180 min fire exposure, the assembly was withdrawn from the furnace chamber and subjected to the impact and cooling affects of the 45 psi hose stream as specified in the Standard for 3 h doors.
RESULTS During the application of the hose stream, the door started returning to its approximate original position.
It remained securely in the opening.
No through openings developed in the door and the latch remained engaged throughout the hose stream test.
The maximum separation of the door from the frame af ter the hose stream was 2-1/4 in, at the bottom latch corner.
The maximum separation of the door from the transom panel, in a direction perpendicular to their faces, was 2-9/16 in.
The appearance of the unexposed and exposed sides of the assembly after the fire and hose stream test is shown by ILLS. 13 and 14, respectively.
NC699 April 26, 1984 Page 10 With this report, we conclude our work on Project 83NK23366, NC&99.
Very truly yours,
/
H. J. GRUSZYN Senior Project Engineer Fire Protection Department Reviewed by:
' h rLe JAMES J. URBAN Engineering Group Leader Fire Protection Department HJG:ist LTR1 l
L l
NC699-1 April 26, 1984 1EEI3 Test Record Test Record No. 1 No. 2 ILL.
ILL.
Description 1
7 Door Assembly Construction 2
8 Unexposed surface prior to fire end hose stream test 3
9 Exposed surface prior to fire and hose stream test 4
10 Furnace temperatures 13 Expcsed surface after fire test and prior to hose stream 12 Unexposed surface temperatures 5
13 Unexposed surface after fire and hose stream test 6
14 Exposed surface after fire and hose stream tttt "l
6
I 0
0 0
0 "W
)
g
., rd
,.q :,2 -
4
' HQ W-t l
q
~~
['Q M
'&R
'..,. y W4.-
P 3
' ?3.s g.,
e
- .v s e
e-E7
- d-a'
.. l ai,r. M e
.r > F.
4
,5X4>k.i ~ U-2 i
3y.
~.,.
l l
iC:
l ***.'
/
N
....,I s d ; ::::
i
- Y.
2
.G" i
1 i
.n
.g.
E
'. y,,....
aus 1
e I
.4 6
}. _,
,~
g-
-**,g-
, kN tj J'
I 7
~.
u.
e 1
t
l T ', *-. O i.-
.;,;p % Q.(8;,~,. f '-
s w..
~~
p-
- - m a m-
- p.,y.*
r,'
4 c
. T.
-x*y- +}'hi.47{. t fa#.49 u-
~.8
- . '+
., - ',.m. %,'.
i
_.s
.g'..!
s
.. -.,,,,,. t a
- t., i
<.a
,j l.
- 8 g
- ~-. 9,.g..... j$r..,Mi i...hy
' 4 (,.... g -
yas' v
g 4,..Q'k'^%'
. ( '. '
P l
s
~.
- ,p. L
.:Lt, ;+ 8 1 s p. %... s4., '
gi m.
g Ee i
- k,,
- f. f :
V s..
-.,sr g r
.:.{,
f
- =..
s ?.
.t
- * ' O.,
,4 f
1
?
I' n
w,
- f. _
.s r
m
,(
9,
. y S.,
i '
' l-l't4 e n i.4
,,. p g
g.. gf,l,
~
-}N h6 g
s
'n
=
.r,.
+
er ek g do i., an.
~
e
- te f.%
Ips,.a
. r 45
'f.,
E.h lN
.. (-
M....
l
.y, g
I g W s o.-
r 4
.+
h...:
. r, c::.:
., y,.,
2 l
tr t
)
h u.
e,4 i k N -
,4's q.
i h
g
.u.
. h 8-
"i@
l
- g 7, -
ve
+
s-y Le h
q.d n
---g$
{
=*L - '
~
p.
s m.m w ;-
y~,
=
m h
t
- -.,- n-_n
n.
hOj'I-
- Ij,-35dl(B,li flj,I d !
3J hI l,' l Ip E Ii l
sj,j.p 2 n.
3J o
3 I-4 s.
!!n v i
}
$b 5.d h0{
!f.
h$;Ij O
~
l((
N NN } Ni i !fj l
!!' [
If j l
@l I
I L t 'u k '.,m
[ ?4l!4 I :!!.
?
m 11,
E g'y'
.!.., 4 g
2 UJ --
itjj!
li c
j 1}
tn :
5%
e r i
"g
'Q"J*p t
l s
2 -
11
=
s I I; I,"~
l I Yt
.Si M
-}P J
g i
isl] 'h 4
4i j
9.!
l l'
g i 1 !i..
i.
e
. J-l E
0 E
e E,
l u
j. $
..,.. o a,., yJ i
t.
4 p
a j
e a
i 1-2.
q;,oj we e
ImI:
3
,;Ii
$_ i iif; OEd
(,I h.
i i
i r 4 sa. or o
,ds ;- o,zDr o
P j i
',F7 li a
a ll'~I,l Iey
- bl[',yl3 y3 d,!
'I imi 4 )49 N
u d
- 4 i
i i J '_
4 1,i j
i y
9 f 4
.i i!,
.=j f
L_ y 4 4
- ~i-
.__J,z-k. IE I"I.I! I ; I1 i1Il c j 1, j j i,:
is 2,
c~
$et
>g
.? ?.,f,s (m
J 6
l 3.M g,
e t t' y
[,
x p kq'/
- 00 0 i
<;, m; e
s
')
N 9
f v/
.g' N 3j i
.in I
y i
l b4 u _J I
i fhsv[,
g'; f hgg 8
)
7 y
9, 1-w
%59 p
w
,u w~=e= e,c v g
"M O
--(
jj{
uno,=n =~,.. @
l OS I,
8 e
e e.
.~.
m m
-fL I
4 jPj Ml t
f-41
- 3.w-5 e p
.g'.
g
,y r.t.> g g..
it.
M w.%.
~
gg *
=
se m w4
=
l
..f<.
.,7
.,. 4 i, 4..
F 4.
,g y -,G x
s i
.~3
~ ~ ~
i,-g
- 4 h.w i 4.?!b y
r4 7g' Qll$
o
+a a
A a
.,---a as--,---~maeac
--a-,
, = y ;<
-:,..<:.;gg
- - - - aup, b
a av gf.
i p!
p pg
).kili i
I.
i l
..4 i
(
i f),,j j
ft::
' %.' "i j
. i i
- )
c dhf$!.O
.. Sml""k%
_g., -
L
A.
1 we w, 0%
%j
- t.
s I
L i
su f5 4-a-
n,,i,g I#1_
l asg l D.: jI -
fr.>;*?I[.i. ' -
t 4
if
.l..
/.
ch u
'{W l ti, ki i n t
.i
.. g 1-
,)',og' j
h+
r,. p l
ll.;l I
+- 6 m i
=
v -<
a a
l s.
t$
p,
,w k
l
?
t
~
4 I
i.p.
j j
L k
po fil lj 6., k o
.a f.'
e.>-
}
8 i
I'!
. I.. i hk.:
N w!;}r islP i
-+
um n
3
[
4' tilir!
1111 1!!
- .e p
u t
I D
6
a,
_A w
- A
a A
a AW W
..,n e
=,
h' l
h
.. ' ' '?
6-f.
,e 3'
).,'*..
T y
to
.Afg' -
'I p
P j'
1 f.
L..
p.
)
y ap.g C
- y i-
- -.j
$er.$4 4
T'
's i kg
'em l
7 W p,re y $
,.g y
...c r
~.
h)f'T@
- s*'
'g.
i a
e
. 4 1
b_.
- 4g
{
4,.-
~f
<Y' 4
'y
- 's T
?A j
' - (4,
)"
i m
.s
+g 4
l s.
%!h..I..
y
., - I
.,t tr_
'J g3
'g o
l
.7
+
f 1
l i
j I
i I
1 i
,_,an
--n
r
,ig l
..=c_,
t U!
?
1 3
(
'l gi i
(
~
t; a
, i i',;.,ni))
l..
'r1
'YST)N(I'$
1 g
l l
w^*
I Th
?d %.-
N e
<o 3
en i
t I
,l e
4 t
?
1 1
/
as e
p
.p g
i, _
i, ',
,,ee,
, e. e. i, < ',1 la. >e M.
j
/
l
_ _ll Y' /
4 I
s ie y i
l<
/,,.
...oo
.k'.
l
.l l
i e,
,,,i, a y g
asam.
d I
4.
I i
'l1.
w n
- e
, 1..,
s
,,,.j,,
n g
l 1
(
41
,<i
<.;<}<
.i.
(
. i 7
b E
.p, si
<i,,<
i i.
u ei i
,4, W4We.
hI
, I d
8 l
l I
l i,
k
! N'
-, p;
, o,
.h<
4 o
j, [
a g
1 i
.I l}
i l
i,o,'<,,
4,..
,,4, jt p'
l i
i 8
ae r
l l;
,' j (t
s, 1
d
'1 s
a r
I f
d e
i o
=
i q l j.
, gr.,
t
<a s
1 e
i l,
g j
H
<i..g q
m l
r
,e, 4,
ii g,
i,
<i i,ii,
<i 4
{ h h l
t M r p
i j
c.
l T,I
. b",2' i
i t
w, m
sg ii i
i ii ii i,
i,<,
i,<6, ikiIp l1 ri h { <'
i l}
, l TTrit till
'l t
i l *8 i
em euk -
m b
P" O
_r-=.
+.
u mi i
ym 7.,e
.. :.:-b sn2
- 4
'IlI,liliIlllll
{ J
'I l ',
l
- l.ih.iel, !, I
.,,m,,jjh,14 I
.a j
i :
l p
p a
1
( l._
f l
h9 g
si
> i i
i i
i i
,.iad. assi4 I
l g
I
><.q, a
t a
i t
l li',
a
- '=
q I
-I,..
)
l l' ;
s.
1 I
e>.>
q t
i i
i I f 1
i V
- i I
l b
t
, i I
i
'ii.
<,.i....i,e 8
I p
l l
l l L'q.( ---,
e l
i i
(
- a r
I,s ll i
i j.
1 l
f l I' i
l 4
i s
...n.,
p
)g k
' it
_ g j
4 s
i i
'y e
i g'
4 p
ll I;
s f,l l
.id, i
bi o' ( ' i i
ai:
.'}..
g,y e
i d
e 3
r_.
1 6l
. ltI'b d I.
4 E.
(.
Ii I
d' d
I 1F
- *l gu e,e on,
-===
b P'
u v
' f ij J,J Cl!
l!!
l-7
!I
! )u pE!.!ia.! $!__i.!
'N f
![bGpi;;,
,a 1
o r
,0 g
t i E
"1 F
I J-
=c d a N
I E
I O !![
ou m
i, I
{ al I
}$
k h"
jI J
og
'!;ng: th i
o i uPi 2
?
il de
?!#:a 0
Il, j '- % +$
i a l l
j~
'j y) a j.
a
,11 i
t
.J r
t<'
ij
- . s j}
y.e.l jl 8
Y la' 2
i.f' * C:
N.
JEl$
b 1?
'jaz
.jg i t 4
J
( a3 ]
D j
s.e s l
x al* r*
%')
l d
's.,
j' y
s.1 a
.s D e' h0 Edi
- 3 5) 5
'N /
{b
~
h.n.,.t
.Gp h
u, =oce Q F
g r,
ikj h
h g
m,~=oo m-e e e
.b
~
"I uno,mn www.
i
.\\
1
r l
- *1 h i
!L~dnl 'il n i i~
Till 1
~
~
i i
,l
!i ti l
l l
! !i 'J ii i l l ll ll 1
11H e ;;
II;ll -!
- l Il I
11 11l llll ll 1 1:ll l lll l l
11l il ll l
l l
llll Illi Il l!Il i l ll 4
i.Il I
li i
I; I lll1.l i
I Il o
j g
1; l
q,j
'ra vg
- j gj
. i o, m
..~,-
7
.c
~
'l!! 'll! Ill 'llli llll ll l
'III
"'i'a," M O,'
i lli II I
1 l
I p
fl l
.I, 02.;
- p. ll
~
. gg 4
p
, !h ll!
4 ti ! !
e l
il l i'
.l' l Ill ll l 14ll
' il l U!l il'll l
>ll l Ji i
" "i"i.
ji'ill l
ill'h!.Igi G.,
"'t hlih' I
II, l
ll l
l l
l
.i.;l
' il 1:!!
i l 'lll I
II,
l; I
U l, Illi Il I
l l
fl l l Il!
i
,,.irj; ; j i
l R lll ll l
' llll l.
l l
l
, llli l ll 11ll l
l II' l
l W l
j ll1
- *I l
l' il I
's I
, l ll a
~
i
~P -
~
M"An
~!
"i @ijninllP 11 I I Eli i
i lil I
il _.I I
i is i !
llll ll l
Ill lli._
..re'!!
l ill IIll l I ni Illi ll I il llll1 I
I J
I I I lilli i
I!
J!
- 1 l-ll il i
il dill l i!
l 1
l 1
I i
3 "I
I I
i I
a c
i j yri s:w' i M
'n III lll Il
!I:
i !!
! ll i
l III I
lli ll l
I il I
', i.il l's Ili llil Illi i
I:
. nl I li i.
t j
i l<l I
ill il I il
,i.JJ..lillillIlli'.I'.,d,I,I,)iI.bill-lllL 101llllll 2 7,th
-a a:,: :: ~
=.-u
r - FSAR Clarification
...A
r EF-2-FSAR Position For Plants Under Construction and Operating Plants EF-2 Response
~
or plants under construction, if
/
accumulation of water from the (excep6 [.c doors # 3-13 sad R operation of new fire suppression systems does not create unacceptable consequences, drains need not be installed.
(j) Floors, walls and ceilings The fire hazar s analysis enclosing separate fire areas identifies the fire barriers should have minimum fire rating and determines the requirements
/NSER7 of three hours. Penetrations in for maintaini their integrity.
these fire barriers, including g
conduits and piping, should be Door openings are protected with sealed or closed to provide a equivalent rated doors, frames fire resistance rating at least and hardware that have/b--.. ;;;;c.
equal to that of the fire
?:d b/ a natic.c.c.lij~
barri'er itself. Door openings b g;;g.i::d_ '"
~
7Buch doors should be protected with
-are normally closed and will be g4 equivalent rated doors, frames alarmed with alarm and and hardware that have been annunciation in the control room.
tested and approved by a nationally recognized laboratory.
Penetrations for ventilation Such doors should be normally systems are protected by fire closed and locked or alarmed with alarm and annunciation in the dampers where deemed necessary as a result of the fire hazards control room. Penetrations for analysis.
)
ventilation system should be protected by a standard " fire The fire hazard in each area has door damper" where recognized.
been evaluated to determine barrier (Refer to NFPA 80, " Fire Doors requirements. Where barrier fire and Windows.") The fire hazard resistance is not adequate, in each area should be evaluated additional fire detection and to determine barrier requirements, suppression is provided as If barrier fire resistance cannot described in (i), (ii) and be made adequate, fire detection (iii).
and suppression should be provided, such as s (i) water curtain in case of
- fire, (ii) flame retardant coatings, (iii) additional fire barriers.
2.
Control of Combustibles (a) Safety related systems should be The fire hazards analysis isolated or separated from identifies these hazards and combustible materials. When this the protection afforded.
I J
9 B.5-16 Amendment 52 - December 1983
g EF-2-FSAR (ANI). standard method of cable and pipe penetration fire. stops.
The thickness is adequate to meet the T
test requirements of ASTM-E-119.
I Electrical cable trays in the Fermi 2 plant are all installed and hung on maximum five-foot centers, and the hangers are designed to carry a fully loaded tray.
The maximum ~ length of cable tray protruding from a penetration seal to the first hanger is four feet (assuming a one-foot wall).
The cable trays are fabricated of galvanized steel, and the hangers are fabricated of heavy structural steel.
Assuming an exposure fire in the room where there are four feet of cable tray between the wall and hanger, the room without fire suppression would reach temperatures that could cause steel to deform.
If this happened the lighter gauge steel of the cable tray would deform and collapse before 24 the heavier structural steel of the hangers..The tray collapse that would affect the penetration seal would be no more than the four feet of tray protruding through the wall to the nearest hanger.
At the same time, the heat of the fire would be ablating the silicone foam seal in the penetration, but in so doing, the silicone would be forming a hard clinker surface.
During this condition, the
<T hanger on the other side of the penetration is ff still carrying a part of the cable tray penetra-tion loading.
This rigidity being formed in the penetration and the support supplied by the hanger on the other side of the wall should provide ade-quate support for the cable tray keeping the seal in place.
Edison seals all penetrations in designated fire i
barriers with rated penetration seals.
The rating of the seal is at least equivalent to the barrier j
rating.
SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE Under Part C-1 of this response, all doors are described as being i
16-gauge hollow metal, 3-hour rated with a UL label.
It should t
also be noted that a number of fire doors are also security doors 55 of different construction.
These security doors have been investi-gated by UL for fire resistivity appropriate for their area but will not bear a UL label.
Additionally, selected doors, (see l
Section 9B) also were required to be' either blast resistant or L
water tight.
These doors are of substantial construction and will prevent a. fire from propagating to other areas.
They also, be-cause of'their uniqueness, do not bear UL fire labels.
[
=h I
j
\\q fusEX T (D i
l E.5.021-28 Amendment 55 - March 1984 o
n.-
l
~ INSERT - 1
' either'been tested, orievaluated and determined to be an
-acceptable alternate design by Underwriters Laboratory, or approved.by a. nationally recognized laboratory.
Doors R3-13 4
and R3-20 were tested by UL, to UL' Standard 10B.
A Detroit Edison analysis of the test results for these two doors
. determined-that the doors-provide the necessary. fire resistance.
INSERT - 2 1
Section 9B identifies doors R3-13 and R3-20 as the only doors which were not approved by a nationally recognized laboratory.
Detroit Edison subsequently evaluated the UL i
test results for these two doors and determined that they provide the necessary fire resistance.
4 L
l l
?
i.
4 4
L~
s 6
4 1
'w: