ML20117H662

Rev 1 to TR 094 TMI-1 Evaluation of Thermo-Lag Fire Barriers

ML20117H662
Person / Time
Site:	Crane
Issue date:	07/20/1996
From:	Barbieri F GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITIES CORP.
To:
Shared Package
ML20117H661	List: ML20117H658 ML20117H662
References
094, 094-R01, 94, 94-R1, NUDOCS 9609090361
Download: ML20117H662 (134)

Text

F g

Enclosur3 B UCgM7 C6710-96-2229 l

l l

i TMI-1 EVALUATION OF THERMO-LAG FIRE BARRIERS i

i Topical Report #094 REV. 1 1

l i

Project Nos/TDR No.:

BA 128177 Authors:

Fred P. Barbieri A

l)/C/f(

Date Approvals:

j i

?!/

96 SECTIO $ MANAGER DATE I

L C 08 7-x.- 9 4 DEPARTpN# DIRECT DATE fW WP/f&

DIRfCTOR, TECHNICAL FUNCTIONS DA7k

/

l 9609090361 960828 PDR ADOCK 05000289 P

PDR e

J

1878t9-EncloTura B ggMI C311-95-2226 TMI-1 EVALUATION OF THERMO-LAG FIRE BARRIERS Topical Report #094 REV. 0 Project No:/TDR No. : BA 128177 Authors. Fred P. Barbier spps-

..t.

Approvals:

O._..-m s/e/vr SECTIONfMANAGER DATE Q Q 0rL{

5 9C DEPAR$$ DIRE DATE klf)./bdm f/f/h' i

DIRECTOR, TECHNICAL"FUNdTIONS DATE /'

i

}

l N *F7 Nh i

6/4

/AS/77 J

r-a s

DOCUMENT NO.

TE m m _ _ _ E _ _ _

TR094 41gaEWIMI TMI-1 Evaluation of Thermo-Lag Fire Barriers REV

SUMMARY

OF CHANGE APPROVAL DATE

/h,y 7!/0/N 1

e rite to address 3-hour fire barriers 1

i N0036 (03-90) la

Topical Report #O94 Rev. 1 Page 2 of 16 I

ABSTRACT 2

The purpose of this report is to provide the methodology for establishing the fire endurance rating of installed Thermo-Lag fire barrier raceway systems. This report summarizes the results of the evaluations which establish the aforementioned fire endurance ratings and identifies those Thermo-Lag fire i

barrier raceway systems which meet the requirements of Appendix R, Section IIIG, those barriers which do not meet Appendix R and will be modified or upgraded to meet Appendix R, and those barriers which do not meet Appendix R and for which an evaluation will be performed to justify the fire endurance rating in an exemption request.

This report also provides the methodology used to evaluate the hazards in each fire area or fire zone where Thermo-Lag fire barrier raceway systems are installed. These hazard evaluations will be documented in exemption requ'ests and will serve as the basis for supporting such exemptions where the fire endurance rating of the Thermo-Lag fire barrier raceway system does not meet the requirements of Appendix R, Section IIIG.

1

]

Topical R2 port #094 1

R;v. 1 Page 3 of 16

)

TABLE OF CONTENTS

)

J Pace

)

l 4

I 1.0 PURPOSE 4

I 2.0 METHODOLOGY 4

2.1 Batablishing Actual Fire Rating 4

4 3.0

SUMMARY

OF RESULTS 9

3.1 control Building Fire Area CB-FA-2b 9

l 3.2 control Building Fire Area CB-FA-2c 10 3.3 control Building Fire Area CB-FA-2d 10 3.4 control Building Fire Area CB-FA-2e 11 3.5 control Building Fire Area CB-FA-2f 12 3.6 control Building Fire Area CB-FA-2g 12 3.7 control Building Fire Area CB-FA-3a 13 3.8 control Building Fire Area CB-FA-3b 13

]

3.9 Control Building Fire Bone FE-F5-5 14

4.0 REFERENCES

14 FIGURE 1 THERMO-LAG RESOLUTION LOGIC CHART 15' ATTACHMENT 1 FIRE BARRIER EVALUATIONS 16 i

i 013/025

l Topical Report #094 Rev. I l

Page 4 of 16 1.0 FURPOSE 1

The purpose of this report is to provide the methodology for establish! ag the fire endurance rating (equivalent rating by test comparison) of installed Thermo-lag fire barrier raceway systems at TMI-1.

Fire endur-ance rating is established by identifying the " Actual Fire Rating" or the rating consistent with the fire endurance test acceptance criteria as defined in NRC Generic Letter 86-10 Supplement 1,

" Fire Endurance Test i

Acceptance Criteria for Fire Barrier Systems Used to Separate Redundant Safe Shutdown Trains Within the Same Fire Area".

Results of these

)

evaluations are reported in Section 3.

1 i

This report also provides the methodology used to evaluate the hazards in each fire area or fire zone.

The hazard evaluation will serve as the basis for supporting exemptions from Appendix R, Section IIIG.

Figure 1 represents a logic chart for evaluating Thermo-lag and identifying a resolution path for restoring operability of cable raceway fire barriers. includes typical fire barrier evaluations for all conduit sizes that are bounded by an accepted test configuration as well as all unique configurations such as boxes and penetrations that are bounded.

2.0 METHODOLOGY 2.1 Establishing Actual Fire Rating To assess material performance and provide a basis for evaluation of installed Thermo-Lag fire barriers, an industry fire endurance test program was conducted by the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI).

To address issues with the fire endurance capability of installed barrier configurations, the industry test program:

Assessed current industry configurations through the use of survey data, conducted tests to establish performance of various baseline and upgraded fire barrier system assemblies, and Developed a guideline to assist utilities in evaluating installed barrier configurations The guideline developed by NEI is known as the "NEI Application Guide for Evaluation of Thermo-Lag 330 Fire Barrier Systems" (Report no.

0784-00001-TR-02 Revision 2) or the " Application Guide".

The Application Guide provides a process and data for evaluation of installed Thermo-Lag fire barrier configurations using information obtained from NEI and utility fire endurance test programs. GPU Nuclear has used this process to 1

Establish the extent that installed barrier configurations can be bounded by previous tests, Determine the fire endurance capability (or " Actual Fire Rating") that installed barrier configurations, which are bounded by test, can be reasonably expected to provide, and Propose upgrades to installed barrier configurations where deemed necessary to achieve an acceptable fire rating.

1 l

1 013/025

I i

{

e s

Topical Report #O94 i

Rev. 1 Page 5 of 16 i

In order to evaluate the extent that installed barrier conditions at TMI-1 can be bounded by test configurations and data in the J

Application Guide, GPU Muclear performed the following A walkdown of the fire areas / sones was conducted to document i

the installed barrier configurations with digitized computer images.

1 The parameters identified by NEI duriag the industry fire i

4 endurance test program which pertain to fire endurance capability, as identified in the Application Guide, were 1

included by GPU Nuclear in an electronic database.

(Doc.

j No. TLDB-TMI-775-1)

Each fire barrier system was separated into individual segments or elements for evaluation purposes.

In general, individual

}

elements are constituted by one or more of the following distinguishing characteristics:

I 1) change in barrier construction technique; 2) significant change in protected raceway or contents; 3) variation from applicable barrier installation requirements; 4) change in type of barrier materials or 5) change in orientation of protected raceway or change which necessitates a change in barrier construction a

j technique.

1 i

Data collected during the walkdown and collected by a review l

of the original fire barrier construction det.-ils were entered

{

into the database to permit detailed comparisons of relevant parameters from the NEI, Texas Utilities (TU), and TVA programs.

1' Each of the test assemblies in the industry test programs was separated into individual segments or elements for evaluation purposes as were the installed fire barrier systems and entered into the data base in order to permit the detailed comparisons of relevant parameters with the installed fire barrier systems.

The quality of the barrier installation was originally verified by installation process step sign-offs and final inspections i

performed by GPUN Quality Control and Fire Protection Engineers.

No significant deviations from the original design / installation are expected or were noted. Plant repair j

procedures perform repairs to the same requirements as the initial installation. Repairs are performed either by or under l-the supervision of certified installers and are re-inspected by certified inspectors.

Surveillance procedures ensure a l

refueling interval inspection to verify the integrity of the i

installed fire barrier envelopes.

A quality control program as described in the FHAR-Section 5 i

(and implemented by the TMI-1 QA Pit.n) was applied to the i

material, process and installation and inspection personnel.

l TMI-1 did not contract out the installation work to a third party licensed by TSI but rather contracted TSI to train and j

license GPUN personnel.

GPUN's initial experience with TSI's material shipments resulted in returning the initial shipment.

Some of these

]

problems are described as follows:

i 1

013/025 i

Tcpical R: port #O94 R3v. 1 Page 6 of 16 Thickness Material that was shipped excessively thick was a concern with hanger loading and cable derating.

GPUN receipt inspectors verified thickness by'taking many readings on each piece.

If any piece had more than a few deviations that could not be economically repaired, it was shipped back to TSI.

Volds and Porosity Since the material was subject to considerable field work (cut and fit) voids were filled with TSI trowel grade material when exposed during installation.

Material which had severe porosity was returned.

To insure receipt of consistent quality material from TSI, GPUN instituted 100% QC checks by GPUN at TSI's factory prior to release for shipment.

Thorough receiving inspection checks were maintained.

Density Prior to and after assignment of the Manufacturing Assurance representative to the TSI factory, on site QC receipt inspection was relied upon to verify that material weight and density specifications were met.

Detailed Examinations GPU Nuclear performed detailed exams to confirm the accuracy of Quality Assurance records for important parameters which are not visible by walkdown. These exams, as committed to in GPU Nuclear letter C311-95-2265 dated July 7,.1995, were' performed on 1 hour1.157407e-5 days <br />2.777778e-4 hours <br />1.653439e-6 weeks <br />3.805e-7 months <br /> conduit barrier couplings. Additionally, GPU Nuclear l

performed work over and above that committed to in the aforementioned letter during the TMI-1 11R outage. As reported in GPU Nuclear letter C-311-95-2456 dated October 31, 1995, five fire barrier envelopes were dismantled to complete cable pulls and terminations for a modification installed during the outage. The Fire Protection Engineer and Quality Verification personnel witnessed the dismantlements and documented the as found important installation parameters, construction details and construction methodology.

Items which were verified included the location of the stress skin, "v" rib orientation, joint design, gap widths, pre-buttering of joints and material inspection for voids. The results of these efforts confirmed conformance of Thermo-Lag with original installation and design requirements and provides a reasonable basis for reliance on Quality Assurance records and installation requirements for parameters which are not_ visible by walkdown.

In order to establish the actual fire rating of the installed fire barrier assemblies, the industry test data was evaluated. Actual fire rating is a term used to designate the fire endurance rating of the barrier consistent with the acceptance criteria contained in NFPA 251 (ASTM E-119),

" Standard Fire Tests of Building Construction and Materials". NRC ueneric Letter 86-10 Supplement 1, adapts the acceptance criteria of NFPA 251 to cable tray fire l

barrier wraps.

I I

i l

013/025 i

l Tcpical Report #094 3-Rev. 1 1-Page 7 of 16 i

In 86-10, supp.1, the staff bases acceptability of a fire endurance i

qualification test for fire barrier materials applied directly to a raceway or component if the " average" unexposed side temperature of the fire barrier system, as measured on the exterior surface of the raceway or component did not aceed 250 dog F above its initial j

temperature and a visual inspection of cables inside the raceway 1

should show no signs of degraded conditions... Also, individual-j temperature readings should not exceed the 250 dog F temperature rise by more than 30 percent, or 325 dog F above the initial l

temperature.

i To establish the barrier rating (ACTUAL RATING) of a test assembly, i

GPU Nuclear reviewed the temperature data for the test and identified that point in time when the first individual temperature j

reading on the unexposed side of the fire barrier for the entire raceway in the test assembly, ao measured on the exterior surface of the raceway or component, exceeded 325 dog F above the initial temperature. Note that this method establishes a rating for all 4

{

elements of a particular raceway size based upon the weakest link g

in the raceway.

While it is possible to establish individual l-ratings in a test involving straight conduit, radial bonds and condulets based upon thermocouple readings restricted to these j

elements in a test assembly, it is conservative to establish a common rating for all elements of a raceway based upon the single i

high reading for the entire raceway.- For cable tray, the bare copper conductor temperature under the rungs of the tray exceeded j

325 dog F before any other temperature reading and was'therefore j

used to establish a conservative actual rating unless noted j

otherwise in the evaluation for that barrier.

To establish the actual rating for an installed configuration or element, the installed configuration's relevant parameters were compared with those of the industry tested configurations.

If an

{

acceptable match was found, it was selected and the installed con-figuration is considered bounded by an acceptable industry test 4

configuration. The actual rating of the matching industry config-i uration becomes the actual rating of the installed configuration r

i or element as documented by a detailed evaluation. The results of

?

l these detailed comparisons and evaluations are listed in section i

3 of this report. These detailed comparisons and evaluations will l

d be retained in the electronic database ( Doc. No. TLDB-TMI-775-1) and digitized computer image library mentioned previously.

l f

2.2 Evaluating Fire Essards l

To evaluate the cable qualification ratings of the Thermo-Lag fire barriers which do not meet the requirements of Appendix R Section III.G (ie. less than 1 hour1.157407e-5 days <br />2.777778e-4 hours <br />1.653439e-6 weeks <br />3.805e-7 months <br /> or 3 hour3.472222e-5 days <br />8.333333e-4 hours <br />4.960317e-6 weeks <br />1.1415e-6 months <br />), the following method is i

employed:

l A detailed description of the fire areas / zone where Thermolag is j

installed is provided. This describes:

l a.

The location of the fire area / zone, the dimensions I

and fire rated construction of area / sone.

1 b.

Fire Protection Features in each fire area / zone.

{'

c.

Combustible materials and locations.

2 i-An evaluation is then conducted which considers the location of the Thermo-Lag barrier, the location of combustibles in relation to the barrier, fuel geometry, and the expected nature of a fire.

In addition, combustible or fire loading and calculated fire severity i

is provided for comparison to the rating of the barrier.

i 1

j 013/025

/

4

?

b e

0 g

Topical Report #O94 Rev. 1 e

Page 8 of 16 t

A comparison of the Actual Fire Rating (for 3 hour3.472222e-5 days <br />8.333333e-4 hours <br />4.960317e-6 weeks <br />1.1415e-6 months <br /> barriers) with the overall fire loading is performed using 80,000 BTU /Ft2 as equivalent to a one hour fire.

A combustible loading of 80,000 BTU /Ft2 has been considered as equivalent to the heat release in an ASTM E-119 Test Oven for a one hour fire duration test.

A source reference to support this assumption is Table 7-9b of the

)

NFPA Fire Protection Handbook, Seventeenth Edition. This technique i

has served as one of the appropriate supporting bases for previous exemption requests.

Combustible loading is an expression of the

-l maximum heat that would be released in a fire area if all i

combustibles in a given fire area burned. Fire load is expressed in terms of the average fire load, which is the maximum heat release divided by the fire area in square feet.

The comparison to E-119 as per Table 7-9b of the NFPA Fire Protection Handbook expresses heat potential in terms of energy released (BTU /FT2) and provides an equivalent fire severity approximately equivalent to that of the E-119 test for varying periods of time.

It is a relationship of fuel loading (wood, paper and similar materials having calorific values of 7,000 to 8,000 BTU /lb ) that produces an exposure equivalent to the standard time temperature curve for approximate durations. This is empirically derived data developed for the industry to allow engineers to assess the needs for fire resistive construction where class A combustibles constitute the primary fire hazard.

While class A combustibles are not the primary combustible in most areas in nuclear power plants, cable insulation, which is the primary combustible is slower burning in nature than class A combustibles and has a commonly accepted heat release value of 10,000 BTU /lb.

It is reasonable that the use of the NFPA method is applicable in assessing the ' fire severity potential in a power plant because the slower burning nature of a cable fire.

This assumption is not supported by testing to precisely compare the potential differences in the relationship of class A combustibles and cable insulation' fuel load to fire severity. However, it is judged to be comparable for the reasons stated above and because the E-119 standard is the industry accepted standard for testing and qualifying fire barriers including tests performed by and for the NRC.

Fire load is used as an approximate indicator of fire severity because it is considered conservative as long as fire conditions are not expected to be worse than the ASTM E-119 time-temperature curve. As stated j

above, the principal combustible in a nuclear plant is cable insulation which has a slightly higher heat release rate than ordinary class A combustibles.

However, fire conditions are not expected to be worse than the time temperature curve.

It is for this reason that the NRc staff used the combustible loading concept and the combustible loading relationship to fire severity of Table 7-9b of the UFPA Handbook as an appropriate attribute for assessing fire severity potential when granting previous exemptions.

013/025

e a

Topical Report #094 Rev. 1 Page 9 of 16 3.0 stBeGARY OF.tESULTs The results of applying the above methodology towards establishing an actual fire rating and a cable qualification rating for Thermo-Lag fire barriers are as follows:

3.1 Control Building Fire Area CB-FA-2b ENVELOPE NO.

TYPE NO. ELEMENTS ACTUAL NEI TEST RTG 1CCE-FB02 24" X 6" Cable Tray 1

85 2-10 1CCE-FB02 24" x 6" Cable Tray 1

85 2-10 1CCE-FB02 24" x 6" Radial bend tray 1

85 2-10 ICCE-FB03 Condulet 1

69 2-3 1CCE-FB03 1.25" conduit 8

69 2-3 1CCE-FB03 1.25" Radial bend conduit 5

69 2-3 1CCE-TB03 9.5" x 5" x 6" condulet 1

69 2-3 i

1CCE-FB09 1" Conduit 1

69 2-3 j

ICCE-FB09 1" Radial bend conduit 1

69 2-3 1CCE-FB09 11.5"x5.5"x12" condulet 1

69 2-3 1CCE-FB10 Condulet 1

69 2-3 1CCE-FB10 1" Conduit 5

69 2-3 1

1CCE-FB10 la Radial bend conduit 3

69 2-3 ICCE-FB10 8"x 5.5"x 4.5" condulet 1

69 2-3 The above envelopes (ICCE-FB02, ICCE-FB03, ICCE-FB09, ICCE-FB10) will be the subject of an exemption request from the requirement in Appendix R,

Section III.G.2.c for an automatic suppression system in fire area CB-FA-2b because they have. an " ACTUAL FIRE RATING" of at least 60 minutes.

l ENVELOPE NO.

TYPE NO. ELEMENTS ACTUAL NEI TEST RTG 1CCE-FB02 Penetration 1

Indetertrincte Unbounded i

ICCE-FB02 12" x 37" Penetration 1

I. determinate Unbounded ICCE-FB09 17.5"x 15"x 6" Penetration 1

Indeterminate Unbounded ICCE-FB10 Penetration 1

Indeterminate Unbounded-The fire endurance rating of the above penetration elements of envelopes ICCE-FB02, ICCE-FB09 and ICCE-FB10 is indeterminate.

These elements will be upgraded to provide a fire endurance rating of 60 minutes.

As with the existing envelopes in this fire area which have a minimum rating of 60 minutes, these elements will be the subject of an exemption request from the requirement in Appendix R,Section III.G.2.c for an automatic suppression system in fire area CB-FA-2b because they have an " ACTUAL FIRE RATING" of at least 60 minutes.

013/025

Trpic21 R: port #094 e

R v.

1 Page 10 of 16 3.2 Control Building Fire Area CB-FA-2c ENVELOPE NO.

TYPE NO. ELEMENTS ACTUAL NEI Test RTG.

ICCE-FB03 Penetration 1

60 3-2 1CCE-FB03 1.25" Condulet 2

69 2-3 ICCE-FB03 1.25" conduit 1

69 2-3 1CCE-FB09 Penetration 1

60 3-2 1CCE-FB09 1" conduit 1

69 2-3 1CCE-FB09 1" Radial bend conduit 1

69 2-3 1CCE-FB09 la condulet 2

69 2-3 1CCE-FB09 17.5"x 15"x 6" Box 1

69 2-3 1CCE-FB10 1" Conduit 5

69 2-3 1CCE-FB10 1" Penetration 1

63 3-1 1CCE-FB10 1" Radial bend conduit 5

69 2-3 The above envelopes (ICCE-FB03, ICCE-FB09, ICCE-FB10) will be the subject of an exemption request from the requirement in Appendix R,

Section III.G.2.c for an automatic suppression system in fire area CB-FA-2c because they have an " ACTUAL FIRE RATING" of at least 60 minutes.

ENVELOPE NO.

TYPE NO. ELEMENTS ACTUAL NEI Test RTG.

ICCE-FB09 Penetration 1

Indeterminate Unbounded ICCE-FB09 8" x 12" Penetration 1

Indeterminate Unbounded The fire endurance rating of the above penetration elements of envelope ICCE-FBO9 is indeterminate.

These elements will be upgraded to provide a fire endurance rating of 60 minutes. As with the existing envelopes in this fire area which have a minimum rating of 60 minutes, these elements will be the subject of an exemption request from the requirement in Appendix R,

Section III.G.2.c for an automatic suppression system in fire area CB-FA-2c because they have an " ACTUAL FIRE RATING" of at least 60 minutes.

3.3 Control Building Fire Area CB-FA-2d ENVELOPE NO.

TYPE NO. ELEMENTS ACTUAL NEI TEST RTG.

ICCE-FB04 0.75 conduit 5

69 2-3 1CCE-FB04 0.75 Radial bend conduit 3

69 2-3 1CCE-FBO4 0.75 condulet 2

69 2-3 1CCE-FB05 1.5" Conduit 4

69 2-3 1CCE-FB05 1.5" Penetration 1

60 3-2 j

ICCE-FB05 1.5" Radial bend conduit 1

69 2-3 1CCE-FB05 10.75"x7.5"x5.8 condulet 1

69 2-3 1CCE-FB05 14" x 6" x 6.5" condulet 1

69 2-3 ICCE-FB05 9.5"x 5.5"x"5 condulet 1

69 2-3 l

013/025

l l

Topical Report #094 Rev. 1 Page 11 of 16 ENVELOPE NO.

TYPE NO. ELEMENTS ACTUAL NEI TEST j

RTG.

l 1CCE-FB06 1.5" Conduit 6

69 2-3 1CCE-FB06 1.5" Penetration 1

60 3-2 l

ICCE-FB06 1.5" Radial bend conduit 4

69 2-3 1CCE-FB06 1.5" condulet 1

69 2-3 1CCE-FB06 14" x 6" x 6" condulet 1

69 2-3 The above envelopes (ICCE-FB04, ICCE-FB05, ICCE-FB06) will be the subject of an exemption request from the requirement in Appendix R,Section III.G.2.c for an automatic suppression system in fire area CB-FA-2d because they have an " ACTUAL FIRE RATING" of at least 60 minutes.

1 ENVELOPE NO.

TYPE NO. ELEMENTS ACTUAL NEI Test RTG.

ICCE-FB04 0.75 Penetration 1

Indeterminate Unbounded The fire endurance rating of the above penetration element of envelope ICCE-FB04 is indeterminate. This element will be upgraded to provide a fire endurance rating of 60 minutes.

As with the existing envelopes in this fire area which have a minimum rating of 60 minutes, this ele.nent will be the subject of an exemption request from the require.nent in Appendix R,Section III.G.2.c for an automatic suppression system in fire area CB-FA-2d because it has an " ACTUAL FIRE RATIllG" of at least 60 minutes.

3.4 control Building Fire Area CB-FA-2e ENVELOPE NO.

TYPE NO. ELEMENTS ACTUAL NEI TEST RTG.

ICCE-FB07 2" Conduit 6

69 2-3 1CCE-FB07 2" Radial bend conduit 5

69 2-3

)

1CCE-FB07 2" Condulet 1

69 2-3 The above envelope (ICCE-FB07) will be the subject of an exemption request from the requirement in Appendix R,Section III.G.2.c for an autotratic suppression system in fire area CB-FA-2e because it has an " ACTUAL FIRE RATING" of at least 60 minutes.

ENVELOPE NO.

TYPE NO. ELEMENTS ACTUAL NEI Test RTG.

ICCE-FB07 Penetration 2

Indeterminate Unbounded The fire endurance rating of the above penetration elements of envelope ICCE-FB07 is indeterminate.

These elements will be upgraded to provide a fire endurance rating of 60 minutes. As with the existing envelopes in this fire area which have a minimum rating of 60 minutes, these elements will be the subject of an exemption request from the requirement in Appendix R,

Section III.G.2.c for an automatic suppression system in fire area CB-FA-2e because they have an " ACTUAL FIRE RATING" of at least 60 minutes.

013/025

Topical Report #094 Rev. 1 Page 12 of 16 3.5 Control Building Fire Area CB-FA-2f ENVELOPE NO.

TYPE NO. ELEMENTS ACTUAL NEI TEST RTG.

ICCE-FB08 24" X 6" Cable Tray 1

85 2-10 1CCE-FB08 G" x 6" radial bend tray 1

86 2-10 The above envelope (ICCE-FBOB) will be the subject of an exemption request from the requirement in Appendix R,Section III.G.2.c for an automatic suppression system in fire area CB-FA-2f because it has an " ACTUAL FIRE RATING" of at least 60 minutes.

ENVELOPE NO.

TYPE NO. ELEMENTS ACTUAL NEI Test RTG.

ICCE-FB06 30" X 36" X 12 Box 1

Indeterminate Unbounded The fire eqdurance rating of the above element of envelope ICCE-FB08 ist indeterminate.

This element will be upgraded to provide a fire endurance rating of 60 minutes.

As with the existing envelope in this fire area, which has a minimum rating of 60 minutes, this element will be subject of an exemption request from the requirement in Appendix R,Section III G..C for an automatic suppression system in fire area CB-FA-2f because it has an " ACTUAL FIRE RATING" of at least 60 minutes.

3.6 Control Building Fire Area CB-FA-2g ENVELOPE NO.

TYPE NO. ELEMENTS ACTUAL NEI-TEST RTG.

ICCE-FB07 19' x 5" x 5" condulet 1

69 2-3 1CCE-FB07 2" Conduit 3

69 2-3 1CCE-FB07 2" Penetration 1

60 3-1 1CCE-FB07 2" Radial bend conduit 1

69 2-3 ICCE-FB07 22" x 7" x 6" condulet 1

69 2-3 The above envelope (ICCE-FB07) will be the subject of an exemption request from the requirement in Appendix R,Section III.G.2.c for an automatic suppression system in fire area CB-FA-2g because it has an " ACTUAL FIRE RATING" of at least 60 niinutes.

ENVELOPE NO.

TYPE NO. ELEMENTS ACTUAL NEI Test RTG.

ICCE-FB07 Penetracion 1

Indeterminate Unbounded The fire endurance rating of the above penetration element of envelope ICCE-FB07 is indeterminate. This element will be upgraded to provide a fire endurance rating of 60 minutes.

As with the existing envelopes in this fire area which have a minimum rating of 60 minutes, this element will be the subject of an exemption request from the requirement in Appendix R,Section III.G.2.c for an automatic suppression system in fire area CB-FA-2g because it has an " ACTUAL FIRE RATING" of at least 60 minutes.

013/025

l Topical Report #094 Rev. 1 i

Page 13 of 16 3.7 Control Building Fire Ar6a CB-FA-3a ENVELOPE NO.

TYPE NO. ELEMENTS ACTUAL NEI TEST RTG.

ICCG-FB01 12"x 15"x 13.5" Box 1

60 2-2 ICCG-FB01 2" Coriduit 2

69 2-3 1CCG-FB01 2" Radial bend conduit 2

69 2-3 i

ENVELOPE NO.

TYPE NO. ELEMENTS ACTUAL NEI TEST RTG.

ICCG-FB05 13.5"x 6" x 6" condulet 1

69 2-3 l

ICCG-FB05 16"x 6" x 7.5" condulet 1

69 2-3 l

ICCG-FB05 2" conduit 5

69 2-3 l

1CCG-FB05 2" Penetration 1

60 3-1 ICCG-FB05 2" Radial band conduit 4

69 2-3 The above envelopes (1CCG-FB01, ICCG-FB05) will be the subject of an exemption request from the requirement in Appendix R,Section III.G.2.c for an automatic suppression system in fire area CB-FA-2f because they have an " ACTUAL FIRE RATING" of at least 60 minutes.

ENVELOPE NO.

TYPE NO. ELEMENTS ACTUAL NEI Test RTG.

l l

ICCG-FB01 Penetration 1

Indeterminate Unbounded The fire endurance rating of the above penetration element of l

envelope ICCG-FB01 is indeterminate. This element will be upgraded to provide a fire endurance rating of 60 minutes.

As with the existing envelopes in this fire area which have a minimum rating of 60 minutes, this element will be the subject of an exemption request from the requirement in Appendix R,Section III.G.2.c for an automatic suppression system in fire area CB-FA-3a because it has an " ACTUAL FIRE RATING" of at least 60 minutes.

l l

l 3.8 Control Building Fire Area CB-FA-3b l

ENVELOPE NO.

TYPE NO. ELEMENTS ACTUAL NEI TEST RTG.

[

1CCG-FB02 3" Conduit 2

91 2-3 1CCG-FB02.

3" Radial bend conduit 1

91 2-3 1CCG-FB03 1" conduit i

69 2-3 1CCG-FB03 1" Radial bend conduit 1

69 2-3 1CCG-FB03 14.5"x 4" x 4" condulet 1

69 2-3 1CCG-FB03 7.5"x 6" x 5.5" condulet 1

69 2-3 1CCG-FB04 0.75" Conduit 1

69 2-3 1CCG-FB05 Penetration 1

60 3-1 1CCG-FB05 2" Conduit 5

69 2-3 1CCG-FB05 2" Radial bend conduit 3

69 2-3 ICCG-FB05 2" Condulet 1

69 2-3 The above envelopes (ICCG-FB02, ICCG-FB03, ICCG-FB04,1CCG-FB05) will be the subject of an exemption request from the requirement in Appendix R,

Section III.G.2.c for an automatic suppression system in fire area CB-FA-3b because they have an " ACTUAL FIRE RATING" of at least 60 minutes.

013/025

T pical Rrport #094

~ Rev. 1 Page 14 of 16 ENVELOPE NO.

7tPE No. ELEMENTS ACTUAL NEI Test RTG.

ICCG-FB02 23"x 17"x 5" Penetration 1

Indeterminate Unbounded ICCG-FB03 13"x 16" x 5" Penetration 1

Indeterminate Unbounded ICCG-FB03 16"x 11.5" x 3" Penetration 1

Indeterminate Unbounded 1CCG-TB05 15"x 7" x 7" Box 1

Indeterminate Unbounded ICCG-FB05 35"x 10.5" x 16" Box 1

Indeterminate Unbounded The fire endurance rating of the above penetration elements of envelopes ICCG-FB02, ICCG-FB03 and ICCG-FB05 is indeterminate.

These elements will be upgraded to provide a fire endurance rating of 60 minutes.

As with the existing envelopes in this fire area which have a minimum rating of 60 minutes, these elements will be the subject of an exemption request from the requirement in Appendix R,Section III.G.2.c for an automatic suppression system in fire area CB-FA-3b because they have an " ACTUAL FIRE RATING" of at least 60 minutes.

3.9 Control Building Fire Bone FN-FI-5 ENVELOPE NO.

TYPE NO. ELEMENTS ACTUAL NEI TEST RTG.

ICCE-FB01 14.5"x7.5"x7" Penetration 1

60 3-2 1CCE-FB01 2.5" Penetration 1

60 3-1 4

1CCE-FB01 14.5"x7.5"x7" condulet 1

69 2-3 1CCE-FB01 2.5" Conduit 8

69 2-3 1CCE-FB01 2.5" Radial bend conduit 7

69 2-3 i

1CCE-FB01 7.75"x18.5"x28" condulet 1

69 2-3 i

The above envelope (ICCE-FB01) will be the subject of an exemption request from the requirement in Appendix R,Section III.G.2.c for an automatic suppression system in fire zone FH-FE-5 because it has an " ACTUAL FIRE RATING" of at least 60 minutes.

4.0 REFERENCES

J 4.1 NRC Generic Letter 86-10, Supplement 1,

Enclosure 1,

" FIRE I

ENDURANCE TEST ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA FOR FIRE BARRIER SYSTEMS USED TO SEPARATE REDUNDANT SAFE SHUTDOWN TRAINS WITHIN THE SAME FIRE AREA", dated March 25, 1994.

4.2 10 CFR Part 50 Appendix R,

" FIRE PROTECTION PROGRAM FOR NUCLEAR 1

POWER FACILITIES OPERATING PRIOR TO JANUARY 1, 1979".

4.3 NEI Report No. 0784-00001-TR-02, Revision 2, "NEI APPLICATION GUIDE FOR EVALUATION OF THERMO-LAG 330 FIRE BARRIER SYSTEMS".

4.4 GPU Nuclear Three Mile Island Unit No.1 Fire Hazards Analysis Report (FHAR) No. 990-1745, Revision 16.

4.5 NFPA 251 (ASTM E-119),

" STANDARD FIRE TESTS OF BUILDING CONSTRUCTION AND MATERIALS".

4.6 Gilbert Commonwealth Letter G/C/TMI-1CS/16503 Sept. 15,1988, J.

Brendien to J.W.Langenbach, "TSI DERATING CHECK".

4.7 NFPA Fire Protection Handbook, Seventeenth Edition.

4.8 GPUN Document No. TLDB-TMI-775-1, "TMI THERMO-LAG DATA BASE".

013/025

e H

TES h

SAftSFY M

COMPLtic APP, R I

SUONIT ErfuPTICN REQut$f FROM SUP.

P ESSION SYSitu REQ'fS VES ta IER MAYE I M

• 3MR7 BARRIER ii h

IS NEED ENEMP M

MOD ior m F, ete c.,

ir,#6

;a

'""*" ""ecno" 5'5"= g g

=

1Nn

= ';; %

gc

'=>

Hg H

NO N0ptry w

NODIFT TO _ [-.

t,a;ig 3 ieR Co.,<ne

_ _s m

M O

O H

H O

T

>=

Q D

'tf F*

De JO 9

G Hu, n

$tt et ON m<=o 6*

w mN&

C e \\ FLOW 3\\ CHARTS \\ RJu\\ FIG S. FCD

I l

Topical Report #094 l

Rev. 1 Page 16 of 16 ATTACHMENT 1 FIRE BARRIER EVALUATIONS This attachment provides the detailed evaluations of selected "3 hour3.472222e-5 days <br />8.333333e-4 hours <br />4.960317e-6 weeks <br />1.1415e-6 months <br />" fire barrier configurations to demonstrate how specific elements are bounded with accepted test configurations and how fire endurance ratings or " Actual Fire Ratings" are established. In addition, the attachment includes assumptions used in performing these evaluations.

Both evaluations and assumptions have been extracted from the electronic database which retains all the evaluations (Doc.

No. TLDB-TMI-775-1). For conduits and tray, typical configurations are included.

All unique configurations are included.

Below is a listing of the selected evaluation by " element no."

SIZE CONDUIT (STRAIGHT)

CONDUIT (RADIAL BEND)

CONDULET

.75" 544 543 542 1.00" 354 353 352 1.25" 31 302 300

.l.50" 315 317 314 2.00" 334 333 34 2.50" 284 285 30 3.00" 381 382 NA SIZE TRAY TRAY (RADIAL BEND) 24" X 6" 159 160 6" X 6" 350 PENETRATIONS 573, 574, 582, 577, 578, 545, 605, 606 r

i I

4 l

013/025 i

L

EVALUATION ASSUMPTIONS FOR TMI

2. ASSUMPTIONS FOR IMPORTANT BARRIER PARAMETERS THIS SECTION ADDRESSES THE RELEVANCE OF IMPORTANT PARAMETERS IDENTIFIED IN NRC LETTER OF DEC. 21, 1993. EACH OF THESE PARAMETERS WHICH ARE APPLICABLE TO THI-1 IS CONSIDERED FOR COMPARISON TO TESTED CONFIGURATIONS DOCUMENTED IN THE NEI APPLICATION GUIDE. DETAILED EXAMINATIONS WERE CONDUCTED ON A REPRESENTATIVE NUMBER OF INSTALLED CONFIGURATIONS PRIMARILY TO DEMONSTRATE THE ACCURACY OF QUALITY VERIFICATION RECORDS FOR THE INSTALLATION OF THE THERMO-LAG FIRE BARRIER ENVELOPES FOR THOSE PARAMETERS WHICH CANNOT BE VERIFIED IN THE FIELD BY VISUAL EXAMINATION.

WHERE VERIFICATION OF PARAMETERS IS REQUIRED AND AVAILABLE BY VISUAL EXAMINATION, THOSE PARAMETERS WERE IDENTIFIED FOR EACH ELEMENT OF THE INSTALLED CONFIGURATION.

DETAILED EXAMINATIONS DEMONSTRATE THE ACCURACY OF QUALITY VERIFICATION RECORDS AND INVESTIGATE PARAMETERS WHICH ARE IMPORTANT BUT NOT PART OF ORIGINAL INSTALLATION RECORDS. THIS WILL JUSTIFY RELIANCE ON DESIGN AND QUALITY VERIFICATION RECORDS AS WELL AS THE DETAILED EXAMINATIONS FOR PARAMETERS WHICH CANNOT BE VERIFIED IN THE FIELD BY VISU7L EXAMINATION.

THIS SUPPORTS THE EFFORT TO COMPARE INSTALLED CONFIGURATIONS WITH TESTED CONFIGURATIONS USING DATA FROM THE NEI APPLICATION GUIDE. THIS COMPARISON IS REQUIRED TO ESTABLISH ACTUAL i

FIRE ENDURANCE RATINGS FOR INSTALLED THERMO-LAG CONFIGURATIONS.

A. RACEWAY ORIENTATION (HORIZONTAL, VERTICAL, RADIAL BENDS)

' RACEWAY ORIENTATION IS RELEVANT. VERIFICATION IS BY VISUAL EXAM.

NOTE THAT FIRE ENDURANCE RATINGS FOR ENVELOPE DESIGNS ON CONDUIT ROUTINGS ARE ESTABLISMED BY USING THE FIRST THERMOCOUPLE READING IN A TEST ASSEMBLY THAT EXCEEDS A SPECIFIC TEMPERATURE IRRESPECTIVE OF THE CRIENTATION. THIS METHOD IGNORES WHERE IN THE AS3EMBLY THE HIGHEST TEMPERATURE OCCURS FIRST.

THIS FIRST READING l

IS THEN USED AS THE BASIS FOR THE ENTIRE ASSEMBLY FIRE ENDURANCE i

RATING.

SOURCE OF THE THERMOCOUPLE READINGS IS A TEST REPORT REFERENCED IN THE NEI AFP;IFATION GUIDE. THEREFORE, FOR CONDUIT RUNS INCLUDING CONDULETS, THE ORIENTATION OF THE RACEWAY IS NOT i

CRITICAL TO ESTABLISHING THE FIRE ENDURANCE RATING.

B. CONDUIT THIS PARAMETER IS RELEVANT. VERIFICATION IS BY VISUAL EXAM AND DESIGN DRAWINGS. OC RECORDS ALSO DOCUMENT THE TYPE OF RACEWAY AND ITS SIZE.

C. JUNCTION BOXES AND LATERAL BENDS.

THIS PARAMETER IS RELEVANT. VERIFICATION IS BY VISUAL EXAM AND DESIGN DRAWINGS. QC RECORDS ALSO DOCUMENT THE TYPE OF RACEWAY AND ITS SIZE.

D. LADDER-BACK CABLE TRAY WITH SINGLE LAYER CABLE FILL THIS PARAMETER IS RELEVANT.

VERIFICATION IS BY VISUAL EXAM AND DESIGN DRAWINGS. QC RECORDS ALSO DOCUMENT THE TYPE OF RACEWAY AND ITS SIZE.

1 E. CABLE TRAY WITH T-SECTION THIS PARAMETER IS RELEVANT.

VERIFICATION IS BY VISUAL EXAM AND DESIGN DRAWINGS. QC RECORDS ALSO DOCUMENT THE TYPE OF RACEWAY AND ITS SIZE.

07/16/96 Page 7

EVALUATION ASSUMPTIONS FOR TMI F.

RACEWAY MATERIAL (ALUMINUM, STEEL)

RACEWAYS (CONDUITS, BOXES, ETC) AT TMI-1 ARE CONSTRUCTED OF STEEL AND ALUMINUM.

THIS PARAMETER IS NOT RELEVANT. THE BASIS FOR THIS IS THAT MOST NEI TES;ING HAS BEEN CONDUCTED USING ALUMINUM RACEWAYS.

ALTHOUGH ALUMINUM HAS A SLIGHTLY HIGHER HEAT CAPACITY (SPECIFIC HEAT) THAN STEEL, A GIVEN LENGTH OF STEEL CONTAINS SIGNIFICANTLY MORE MASS THAN ALUMINUM.

THEREFORE, A GIVEN HEAT EXPOSURE WILL RESULT IN HIGHER TEMPERATURES FOR ALUMINUM RACEWAYS THAN FOR EQUI-VALENT RACEWAYS CONSTRUCTED OF STEEL.

THIS EFFECT HAS BEEN DEMONSTRATED BY NEI TEST 1-6 AND TVA TEST 6.1.4 WHICH EACH EVALUATED 1-HOUR THERMOLAG PRESHAPED SECTIONS ON 3" DIAMETER ALUMINUM AND STEEL CONDUITS.

IN EACH TEST, THE AVERAGE AND MAXIMUM TEMPERATURES RECORDED ON THE SURFACE OF ALUMINUM CONDUITS SURPASSED THOSE RECORDED ON STEEL CONDUIT SURFACES.

THE RESULTS ARE NOT SIGNIFICANTLY DIFFERENT. HOWEVER, THE RESULTS DO SUGGEST THAT IT IS LEGITIMATE TO APPLY TEST RESULTS FOR ALUMINUM RACE-WAYS TO THERMOLAG CONFIGURATIONS CONSTRUCTED ON STEEL RACEWAYS BECAUSE FIRE TEST RESULTS FOR ALUMINUM RACEWAYS WILL MOST LIKELY BE CONSERVATIVE COMPARED TO STEEL RACEWAYS AND WILL PROBABLY NOT EXCEED TEST RESULTS FOR SIMILAR THERMOLAG CONSTRUCTION ON STEEL RACEWAYS.

'THEREFORE, VERIFICATION OF ALUMINUM OR STEEL AS THE RACEWAY MATERIAL IS NOT RELEVANT SINCE THE MAJORITY OF NEI TEST DATA IS BASED UPON THERMOLAG CONFIGURATIONS CONSTRUCTED ON ALUMINUM RACEWAYS AND THIS DATA IS AVAILABLE FOR ESTABLISHING FIRE ENDURANCE RATINGS. AS STATED ABOVE THIS IS CONSIDERED LEGITIMATE BASED UPON COMPARATIVE TEST RESULTS FOR SIMILAR THERMOLAG CONSTRUCTIONS ON ALUMINUM AND STEEL RACEWAYS.

G. SUPPORT PROTECTION, THERMAL SHORTS (PENETRATING ELEMENTS)

THIS PARAMETER IS RELEVANT. VERIFICATION IS BY VISUAL EXAM AND DESIGN DRAWINGS.

THE PURPOSE OF PROTECTING SUPPORT AND INTERVENING STEEL MEMBERS IS PRIMARILY TO PREVENT HEAT CONDUCTION THROUGH STEEL CONNECTED WITH THE PROTECTED RACEWAY.

1-HOUR CONDUIT AND CABLE TRAY ENVELOPES WIT'.f SUPPORT MEMBERS WERE PROTECTED FOR AN 9" DISTANCE.3-HOUR ENVELOFES TESTED WITH SUPPORT MEMBERS WERE PROTECTED FOR THE ENTIRE LENGTH AND INTERVENING STEEL MEMBERS WERE PROTECTED FOR AN 18" DISTANCE. NO JOINT REINFORCEMENT WAS PROVIDED ON EITHER OF THE ABOVE SUPPORT OR INTERVENING STEEL MEMBER CONFIGURATIONS.

THE TESTING DEMONSTRATED THAT SUPPORT AND INTERVENING STEEL MEMBERS PROTECTED AS DESCRIBED ABOVE ADEQUATELY PREVENT SIGNIFICANT HEAT CONDUCTION INTO PROTECTIVE ENVELOPES. UNPROTECTED STEEL DID NOT FAIL DURING THE TEST. NO FAILURES OF PROTECTIVE ENVELOPES HAVE BEEN ATTRIBUTED TO STRUCTURAL FAILURES OF MATERIAL INSTALLED ON SUPPORT AND INTERVENING STEEL MEMBERS.

THE CONFIGURATION OF THERMOLAG INSTALLED ON SUPPORTS IS NOT l

CONSIDERED CRITICAL AS LONG AS COVERAGE OF SUPPORT OR CONNECTING l

STEEL IS PROVIDED CONSISTENT WITH THE HOURLY RATING (1/2 IN. FOR 1-HOUR, 1 IN. FOR 3-HOUR) AND COMPARABLE OR GREATER DISTANCES AS AS PER THE NEI TESTS. NO SPECIFIC COMPARISONS WITH NEI TEST l

CONFIGURATIONS WILL BE MADE AS THE EXACT CONSTRUCTION DETAILS ARE 07/16/96 Page 8

i t

EVALUATION ASSUMPTIONS FOR TNI

[

NOT CONSIDERED CRITICAL '!O THE PERFORMANCE OF THE CABLE RACEWAY I

PROTECTIVE ENVELOPE.

.I H. AIR DROPS.

l l

THIS PARAMETER IS RELEVANT. VERIFICATION IS BY VISUAL EXAM AND DESIGN DRAWINGS. QC RECORDS ALSO DOCUMENT THE INSTALLATION l

DETAILS.

t I. BASELINE FIRE BARRIER PANEL THICKNESS l

THIS PARAMETER IS RELEVANT AND NOT AVAILABLE BY VISUAL EXAM.

RELIANCE IS ON QUALITY VERIFICATION CHECKS PERFORMED AT TSI, RECEIPT INSPECTION.AND INSTALLATION INSPECTION.

I VERIFICATION OF THIS PARAMETER IS DOCUMENTED BY DETAILED EXAMINATION.

l l

J. PREFORMED CONDUIT PANELS THIS PARAMETER IS RELEVANT. VERIFICATION IS BY VISUAL EXAM.

K. PANEL RIB ORIEN".AT7.ON (PARALLEL OR PERPENDICULAR TO THE RACEWAY)

VERIFICATION IS NOT AVAILABLE BY VISUAL EXAMINATION.

VERIFICATION OF THIS PARAMETER IS DOCUMENTED BY DETAILED f

EXAMINATION.

l l

THIS PARAMETER IS NOT RELEVANT FOR PREFORMED CONDUIT.

IT IS l

REI.EVANT TO CONFIGURATIONS CONSTRUCTED USING PANELS, NOT PREFORMED CONDUIT SECTIONS.

l MOST PANELS ARE FABRICATED WITH V-RIB STIFFENERS. THE STANDARD METHOD OF PANEL INSTALLATION RESULTS IN STIFFENERS BEING ORIENTED INWARD. THEREFORE, WHEN THE PANELS ARE INSTALLED, AN INHERENT AIR GAP OF APPROX. 1/2 IN. IS INTRODUCED BETWEEN THE UNEXPOSED SIDE OF THE PANEL AND THE SURFACE OF PROTECTED ASSEMBLIES. ALTHOUGH SPECIFIC COMPARATIVE TESTING HAS NOT BEEN PERFORMED, IT IS

(

REASONABLE TO CONCLUDE THAT CONFIGURATIONS CONSTRUCTED USING THIS STANDARD METHOD WOULD BE THERMALLY BOUNDED BY CONFIGURATIONS 4

l WHICH HAVE NO INSULATING AIR GAP.

CONFIGURATIONS USING FLAT PANELS ON LBD BOXES WERE TESTED BY TVA.

NEI TESTS USED V-RIBS.

TEST RESULTS FOR NEI SHOW THAT LBD'S ARE NOT LIMITING, IE. TEST 2-1 FOR 3/4 IN. LBD'S SHOW LBD SURFACE TEMPERATURE ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA' EXCEEDED AT 50 MINUTES VS CONDUIT SURFACE ACCEPTANCE CRITERIAEXCEEDED AT 27 MINUTES.

IT IS REASONABLE TO CONCLUDE THAT l

LACK OF AN AIR GAP WOULD NOT SIGNIFICANTLY AFFECT PERFORMANCE SUCH l

THAT TEMPERATURE ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA WOULD BE EXCEEDED IN LESS 27 MINUTES. AS DISCUSSED IN A ABOVE, THE FIRE ENDURANCE RATING IS BASED UPON THE FIRST THERMOCOUPLE READING IN THE ENTIRE ASSEMBLY TO EXCEED A SPECIFIC POINT.

THIS IS THEN APPLIED TO THE ENTIRE ASSEMBLY.

THEREFORE A 3/4 IN LBD IS CONSIDERED TO HAVE A FIRE ENDURANCE RATING OF 27 MIN., NOT 50 MIN.

THEREFORE THE f-PRESENCE OR DIRECTION OF V-RIBS IS NOT A RELEVANT PARAMETER SINCE

{

THE LBD RATING IS BASED UPON PREFORMED CONDUIT IN CONTACT WITH j

THE CONDUIT SURFACE.

TO FURTHER SUSTANTIATE THE ABOVE DISCUSSION, THE FOLLOWING IS PRE-SENTED:

I j

A REVIEW OF NEI TEST 2-1 (1 HOUR BASELINE CONDUIT) AND NEI TEST i-l 07/16/96 Page 9

X EVALUATION ASSUMPTIONS FOR TMI 3-3 (3 HOUR BASELINE CONDUIT) TEMPERATURE DATA SHOWS THAT THE FACTORS WHICH DETERMINE SURFACE CONDUIT OR CONDULET TEMPERATURE ARE AS FOLLOWS:

A) THICKNESS OF THERMOLAG B) PRESENCE OF AIR GAP BETWEEN THERMOLAG AND CONDUIT /CONDULET C) DIAMETER OF CONDUIT /CONDULET GREATER THICKNESS OF THERMOLAG PROVIDES A LOWER TEMPERATURE.

FOR A GIVEN THERMOLAG THICKNESS AND CONDUIT SIZE, THE PRESENCE OF AN AIR GAP RESULTS IN A LONGER TIME TO REACH AN UNACCEPTABLE TEMPERA-TURE.

THE CONDUIT AND CONDULET ARE ENVELOPED WITH THE SAME THICK-NESS AND HAVE ESSENTIALLY THE SAME DIAMETER. THE CONDULET IS ENVELOPED BY A " BOX" TYPE CONFIGURATION OF THERMOLAG BECAUSE OF ITS IRREGULAR SHAPE WHILE THE CONDUIT IS COVERED BY A CYLINDRICAL ENVELOPE. BASED UPON THIS DISCUSSION, A CONDULET OF THE SAME DIAMETER AND THERMOLAG THICKNESS WOULD BE EXPECTED TO RESULT IN THE SAME MAXIMUM TIME /TZMPERATURE CHARACTERISTICS AS A CONDUIT IF THERE WERE NO AIR GAP.

THE FACT THAT A CONDULET IS COVERED BY A

" BOX" WITH OR WITHOUT V-RIB STIFFENERS WILL CAUSE A VARIATION IN THE SIZE OF THE AIR GAP.

A " BOX" WITHOUT V-RIBS WILL STILL HAVE.

AIR GAPS BETWEEN THE THERMOLAG AND THE CONDULET WHERE THE THERMO-LAG IS NOT TANGENT TO THE CONDULET WALL.

THIS MEANS THAT THE CONDULET TEMPERATURE RESPONSE WILL BE LESS THAN OR EQUAL TO, BUT NOT GREATER THAN, A CONDUIT OF THE SAME DIAMETER WRAPPED IN THE

'SAME THICKNESS OF THERMOLAG.

THEREFORE THE USE OF TEMPERATURE RESULTS FOR PREFORMED CONDUIT IS APPROPRIATELY BOUNDING TO A " BOX" TYPE CONFIGURATION FOR THE SAME SIZE CONDULET EVEN IF THE V-RIB STIFFENERS ARE REMOVED FROM THE INSIDE FACE OF T~:: THERMOLAG PANELS USED TO CONSTRUCT THE " BOX".

AS R

T IN V A MA ARR R N E.

SPECIFICALLY, NEI TEST 1-1 EVALUATED UPGRADE METHODS APPLIED TO A LIMITING CASE 1-HOUR BARRIER DESIGN INSTALLED ON A 36 INCH WIDE CABLE TRAY.

THE PANELS WERE INSTALLED ON CABLE TRAY TOP AND BOTTOM SURFACES WITH RIBS ORIENTED IN THE DIRECTION OF THE TRAY RUN, AND NO MECHANISMS SUCH AS INTERNAL BANDING WERE USED TO SUP-PORT THE TOP PANELS.

THE ORIENTATION OF THE STIFFENER RIBS WAS A 1

CONTRIBUTING FACTOR TO BOTH THERMAL AND STRUCTURAL T A[ LURE OF THE ENVELOPE. A PRONOUNCED SAG EFFECT OF THE TOP PA".LS ENABLED SIGNIFICANT HEAT CONDUCTION THROUGH THE TOP OF ~aC ENVELOPE.

ULTIMATELY, THE STRESSES IMPOSED AT JOINTS ALONG THE TRAY SIDE RAILS WERE SUFFICIENT TO BREACH THE ENVELOPE. NEI TEST 2-7 EVALUATED 1-HOUR BASELINE BARRIERS INSTALLED ON 6 INCH AND 24 INCH WIDE CABLE TRAYS. THE STIFFENER RIBS WERE AGAIN ORIENTED IN THE DIRECTION OF THE TRAY RUN, AND NO MECHANISMS SUCH AS INTERNAL BANDING WERE USED TO SUPPORT THE TOP PANELS. FAILURE OF THE BARRIERS WAS NOT ATTRIBUTED TO SAG OF THE TOP PANELS OR EXCESSIVE HEAT CONDUCTION THROUGH THE TOP OF THE ENVELOPE.

THEREFORE, FOR ONE HOUR FIRE BARRIER PANELS, THE ORIENTATION OF THE RIB STIF-FENERS IS NOT CRITICAL AS LONG AS THE UNSUPPORTED OR UNFTIFFENED SPAN COES NOT EXCEED 24 INCHES.

SIMILARLY, NEI TEST 2-10 EVALUA'l ED 3 HOUR BASELINE BARRIERS INSTALLED ON 6 INCH AND 24 INCH WIDE CABLE TRAYS. THE RIBS WERE ORIENTED IN THE DIRECTION OF THE RUN OF THE TRAYS.

FAILURE OF THE BARRIERS WAS NOT ATTRIBUTED TO SAG EFFECTS OF THE TOP PANELS OR EXCESSIVE HEAT CONDUCTION THROUGH THE TOP OF THE ENVELOPES.

THEREFORE FOR 3 HOUR FIRE BARRIER PANELS, THE ORIENTATION OF THE RIB STIFFENERS IS NOT CRITICAL AS LONG AS THE UNSUPPORTED OR 07/16/96 Page 10

EVAIAATION ASSUMPTIONS FOR TNI i

UNSTIFFENED SPAN DOES NOT EXCEED 24 INCHES.

L. UNSUPPORTED SPANS 1

VERIFICATION OF RACEWAY SUPPORT LOCATIONS IS BY VISUAL EXAM.

VERIFICATION OF UNSUPPORTED THERMOLAG PANEL BARRIER SPANS IS NOT AVAILABLE BY VISUAL EXAM.

4 VERIFICATION OF THIS PARAMETER WITH RESPECT TO THERMOLAG PANEL BARRIER SPANS IS DOCUMENTED BY DETAILED EXAMINATION.

i l

SUPPORT SPAN FOR CONDUITS IS NOT RELEVANT. PROPER BAND 3

SPACING AND THE CONDUIT ITSELF PROVIDE ADEQUATE SUPPORT FOR PREFORMED CONDUIT BARRIERS. THIS PARAMETER IS RELEVANT TO CABLE TRAY ENVELOPES AND BOX ENCLOSURES. TESTING HAS DEMONSTRATED THAT LARGE UNSUPPORTED BARRIER SPANS GREATER THAN 24 j

INCHES CHALLENGE THE INTEGRITY OF BARRIER ENVELOPES AS GREATER STRESSES ARE IMPOSED ON JOINTS. (NEI APPLICATION GUIDE).

1 i

1 M. STRESS SKIN ORIENTATION (INSIDE OR OUTSIDE) 1 VERIFICATION OF THIS PARAMETER IS NOT AVAILABLE BY VISUAL EXAM FOR l

4 1-HOUR FIRE BARRIERS. RELIANCE IS ON QUALITY VERIFICATION RECORDS. VERIFICATION OF EXTERIOR STRESS SKIN ON 3 BOUR PREFORMED j

SHAPES IS BY VISUAL EXAM.

VERIFICATION OF THIS PARAMETER FOR 1-HOUR FIRE BARRIERS IS DOCUMENTED BY DETAILED EXAMINATION.

1 i

THIS PARAMETER IS RELEVANT.

1 HOUR PREFORMED CONDUIT SHAPES AND j

PANELS MUST HAVE STRESS SKIN INSTALLED ON THE INSIDE OF THE BARRIER.

3 HOUR PREFORMED CONDUIT SHAPES AND PANELS MUST HAVT j

STRESS SKIN INSTALLED ON BOTH SIDES OF THE PANEL.

N. STRESS SKIN OVER JOINTS OR NO STRESS SKIN OVER JOINTS t

INSTALLATION OF STRESS SKIN OVER JOINTS WAS NOT A DESIGN REQUIRE-MENT FOR TMI-1.

THIS HAS BEEN VERIFIED BY REVIEW OF THE j

ORIGINAL DESIGN DOCUMENTS.

1 i.

STRESS SKIN INSTALLED OVER JOINTS WOULD CONTRIBUTE TO IMPROVING 1

BARRIER PERFORMANCE AS DEMONSTRATED BY TESTING WITH THIS PARAMETER BY NEI, TUEC AND TVA.

SINCE TMI-1 DID NOT USE THIS DESIGN FEATURE IN ITS THERMOLAG INSTALLATIONS AND SINCE COMPARISONS OF TMI-1 CONFIGURATIONS ARE MADE TO TEST CONFIGURATIONS WITHOUT STRESS SKIN INSTALLED OVER JOINTS, NO VERIFICATION OF THIS PARAMETER IS REQUIRED.

O. STRESS SKIN TIES OR NO STRESS SKIN TIES e

INSTALIJLTION OF STRESS SKIN TIES WAS NOT A DESIGN REQUIRE-8 MENT FOR TMI-1.

THIS HAS BEEN VERIFIED BY REVIEW OF THE ORIGINAL DESIGN DOCUMENTS.

j.

STRESS SKIN TIES WOULD CONTRIBUTE TO IMPROVING BARRIER PERFORMANCE AS DEMONSTRATED BY TESTING WITH THIS PARAMETER ll BY NEI, TUEC AND TVA.

SINCE TMI-1 DID NOT USE THIS DESIGN FEATURE IN ITS THERMOLAG INSTALLATIONS AND SINCE COMPARISONS OF TMI-1 CONFIGURATIONS ARE MADE TO TEST CONFIGURATIONS l

WITHOUT STRESS SKIN TIES, NO VERIFICATION OF THIS PARAMETER IS REQUIRED.

}

07/16/96 Page 11 I

5

h EVALUATION ASSUMPTIONS FOR TMI P. DRY-FIT, POST-BUTTERRED JOINTS OR PRE-BUTTERRED JOINTS THIS PARAMETER IS RELEVANT AND NOT AVAILABLE BY VISUAL EXAM.

PRE-BUTTERED JOINTS WAS AN INSTALLATION REQUIREMENT AT TMI-1.

RELIANCE IS ON QUALITY VERIFICATION CHECKS.

VERIFICATION OF THIS PARAMETER IS DOCUMENTED BY DETAILED EXAMINATION.

Q. GAP WIDTH VERIFICATION OF THIS PARAMETER TO LESS THAN OR EQUAL TO 1/4 INCH BETWEEN PREFABRICATED THERMOLAG PANELS OR CONDUIT SECTIONS AT A JOINT IS DOCUMENTED BY DETAILED EXAMINATION. WHERE IT WAS VERIFI-ABLE, JOINT GAP DID NOT EXCEED 1/4 INCH.

THIS PARAMETER IS RELEVANT ALTHOUGH A MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE GAP BETWEEN JOINTS OF GREATER THAN 1/4 INCH SHOULD BE POSSIBLE. THE CONCERN IS THAT THE LACK OF STRESS SKIN AT A TROWELED JOINT FOR A RACEWAY INCREASES AS THE GAP GETS LARGER.

IT IS NOT APPARENT WHAT ROLE THE GAP SIZE PLAYS IN MAINTANING JOINT INTEGRITY DURING FIRE TESTING. THERE WERE NO SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS TO COMPLY WITH THIS PARAMETER DURING ORIGINAL THERMOLAG INSTALLATION.

' NOTE THAT THE DATA FIELD ON THE BARRIER SCREEN FOR EACH ELEMENT WILL NOT INDICATE A DIMENSION.

THE FIELD WILL BE FILLED IN WITH "NA" SINCE VERIFICATION OF JOINT GAPS BY DETAILED EXAMINATION VERIFIED GAPS, WHERE EXAMINED DID NOT EXCEED 1/4 INCH.

R. BUTT JOINTS OR GROOVED AND SCORED JOINTS.

THIS PARAMETER IS VERIFIED BY VISUAL EXAM AND IS ALSO DOCUMENTED BY DETAILED EXAMINATION.

GROOVED AND SCORED JOINTS APPLIES TO PREFABRICATED PANELS AND TO A METHOD FOR APPLYING PREFORMED CONDUIT SECTIONS ON RADIAL BENDS.

AN ALTERNATIVE TO GROOVING AND SCORING JOINTS IS BUTT JOINTS.

NOTE THAT GROOVING AND SCORING JOINTS DOES h0T APPLY TO STRAIGHT SECTIONS OF PREFORMED CONDUIT.

NOTE THAT BUTT JOINTS ONLY WERE USED TO FABRICATE BOXES AROUND LBD'S FOR SIZES'UP TO 4 INCH AND TO JOIN STRAIGHT SECTIONS OF PREFORMED CONDUIT.

NEI TEST 2-7 TESTED 24 INCH AND 6 INCH TRAYS WITH BUTT JOINTS ON ALL 4 PANELS AND USING THE GROOVE AND SCORE METHOD SUCH THAT SIDE AND BOTTOM PANELS WERE SCOPED TO THE INTERNAL STRESS SKIN TO FORM AN OPEN TOPPED TROUGH HINGED AT THE BOTTOM OF THE SIDE PANELS. THE TEST DATA INDICATES COMPARATIVE RESULTS ALTHOUGH ACCEPTABLE TEMPERATURES WERE EXCEEDED IN A SLIGHTLY SHORTER TIME FRAME FOR CONSTRUCTION WITH THE GROOVE AND SCORE METHOD. BARRIER OPENINGS WERE NOTED ON ALL ENVELOPES (EXCEPT FOR THE ALL BUTT JOINT 6 INCH TRAY) AFTER THE HOSE STREAM TEST. A CONCLUSION CAN BE DRAWN HERE THAT THE JOINT METEOD DOES NOT FACTOR INTO TEST FAILURE AND THAT A CONSERVATIVE APPROACH WOULD BE TO APPLY THE RESULTS OF THE GROOVE AND SCC.TE METHOD FOR ESTABLISHING FIRE ENDURANCE RATINGS.

NEI TEST 2-2 TESTED FREE STANDING BOX ENCLOSURES WITH THE BOTTOM AND SIDE PANELS SCORED TO THE INTERNAL STRESS SKIN AS WAS THE CASE WITH THE CABLE TRAY ENVELOPES DISCUSSED ABOVE.

THE REMAINING 07/16/96 Page 12

EVALUATION ASSUMPTIONS FOR TMI 1

JOINTS WERE EUTT JOINTS. THE TEST DATA INDICATES NO FAILURE OF EITHER JOINT EXCEPT THAT THE HOSE STREAM TEST APPARENTLY CAUSED AN OPENING IN ONE OF THE GROOVED AND SCORED JOINTS.

A REVIEW OF BOTH NEI TESTS 2-2 AND 2-7 INDICATES THAT THERE DOES NOT APPEAR TO BE AN APPRECIABLE DIFFERENCE IN PERFORMANCE OF BUTT JOINTS AND GROOVED AND SCORED JOINTS WITH RESPECT TO ESTABLISHING FIRE ENDURANCE RATINGS. FAILURES OF TESTS DO NOT APPEAR TO OCCUR BECAUSE OF ONE JOINT VS. THE OTHER ALTHOUGH USE OF TEMPERATURE DATA ASSUMING A GROOVED AND SCORED JOINT IS SLIGHTLY MORE CONSERVATIVE THAN DATA FROM AN ALL BUTT JOINT SYSTEM.

THEREFORE, USING TEST DATA FOR GROOVED AND SCORED JOINTS SHOULD PRECLUDE CONCERN OVER THE TYPE OF JOINT WHEN ESTABLISHING A FIRE l

ENDURANCE RATING.

THIS PARAMETER IS THEREFORE NOT CONSIDERED CRITICAL FOR FIELD VERIFICATION AS LONG AS TEST DATA FOR GROOVED AND SCORED JOINTS IS USED TO ESTABLISH A FIRE ENDURANCE RATING.

S. STEEL BANDS VS. TIE WIRES EITHER BANDS OR WIRES ARE ACCEPTABLE AND ARE CONSIDERED A RELEVANT PARAMETER.

VERIFICATION IS BY VISUAL EXAM.

STAINLESS STEEL BAND FASTENERS BOUND STAINLESS STEEL TIE WIRES.

TIE WIRES ALLOW FOR BETTER MATERIAL ACTIVATION. ALSO, PARTICULAP.LY DURING CONDUIT TESTS, BANDS HAVE BEEN OBSERVED I

TO RESULT IN LOCALIZED HEATING EFFECTS AS THEY TEND TO CONDUCT MORE HEAT THROUGH THE PROTECTIVE ENVELOPE THAN WIRES. (NEI i

APPLICATION GUIDE).

DUE TO BETTER MATERIAL ACTIVATION, THE EXPANDING CHAR LAYER TENDS TO PROTECT TIE WIRES MORE EFFECTIVELY THAN BANDS. LESS PRO-NOUNCED SAG EFFECTS AND BETTER OVERALL STRUCTURAL PERFORMANCE HAVE BEEN OBSERVED FOR TIE WIRE FASTENERS. (NEI APPLICATION j

GUIDE).

T.

BAND / WIRE SPACING THIS PARAMETER IS RELEVANT AND CAN BE VERIFIED BY VISUAL EXAM.

U. BAND / WIRE DISTANCE TO JOINTS THIS PARAMETER IS RELEVANT, EXCEPT AS NOTED BELOW, AND CAN BE VERIFIED BY VISUAL EXAMINATION NEI TESTS 2-1, 2-3, 2-7 and 2-10 HAVE DEMONSTRATED THAT CERTAIN BARRIER CONFIGURATIONS DO NOT TYPICALLY EX3fIBIT STRUCTURAL e

FAILURES. THESE INCLUDE THERMO-LAG PRESHAPED SECTIONS INSTALLED ON CONDUITS OF ALL SIZES, " BOX" TYPE ENCLOSURES CONSTRUCTED AROUND CONDULET FITTINGS WITH PANELS, AND BARRIERS INSTALLED ON SMALL CABLE TRAYS.

FOR THESE TYPES OF CONFIGURATIONS, THE PROTECTED RACEWAYS THEMSELVES GENERALLY PROVIDE A LARGE DEGREE OF STRUCTURAL SUPPORT TO THE BARRIER.

FOR THE BARRIERS EVALUATED BY THE NEI TESTS LISTED ABOVE, BAND SPACING OF 12" (ON CENTERS) WAS UTILIZED AND BANDS WERE INSTALLED WITHIN 2"-3" OF BUTT JOINTS FORMED BETWEEN ADJACENT PANELS OR CONDUIT SECTIONS. NOTE THAT THE USE OF SMALL MITERED PRESHAPED SECTIONS TO ACCOMMODATE THE CURVATURE OF CONDUIT RADIAL BENDS NECESSITATES A MINIMUM OF ONE FASTENER FOR 07/16/96 Page 13

EVAIAATION ASSUMPTIONS FOR TMI EACH MITERED PIECE.

IN EVALUATING RADIAL BENDS, USE OF THE REQUIREMENT TO BE WITHIN 2" OF A BUTT JOINT WILL BE USED IN EVALUATING ACCEPTABILITY. THIS REQUIREMENT IS CONSERVATIVE BECAUSC AS THE ENVELOPE SIEE INCREASES, THE' BAND PER MITERED SECTION ON SIEES BETWEEN 3/4 INCH AND 3-INCH ENVELOPES WILL EXCEED THE TESTED CONFIGURATION REQUIREMENT OF 1 BAND PER SECTION FOR A 3/4 INCH ENVELOPE.

EVALUATION OF RADIAL BENDS ALSO CONSIDERS THE DISTANCE OF BANDS FROM THE MITERED SECTIONS ON THE ENDS OF THE RADIAL BENDS TO THE BANDS ON THE ADJACENT ELEMENT. THE MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE DISTANCE IN THIS CASE IS 12' INCHES.

NEI TESTS 3-1 AND 3-2' EVALUATED BASELINE CONFIGURATIONS OF 1-HOUR AND 3 HOUR PRESHAPED THERMO-LAG SECTIONS INSTALLED ON CONDUIT ASSEMBLIES WHICH UTILIEED STAINLESS STEEL BAND FASTENERS LOCATED' 6" FROM DUTT JOINT LOCATIONS AND SPACED UP TO 14 INCHES ON CENTER.

THE PERFORMANCE OF THESE BASELINE BARRIER SYSTEMS DEMONSTRATED THAT SUCH VARIATIONS IN' FASTENER LOCATION (FROM PREVIOUS BASELINE TESTING WHERE FASTENERS WERE LOCATED 2" FROM BUTT JOINT LOCATIONS AND 12" ON CENTER) HAVE NO SIGNIFICANT EFFECT ON THE PERFORMANCE OF PRESHAPED STRAIGHT SECTIONS INSTALLED ON CONDUIT SYSTEMS.

BECAUSE VAR 7ATIONS IN BAND SPACING WITH RESPECT TO BUTT JOINT l.

LOCATION DO NOT HAVE AN EFFECT ON STRUCTURAL PERFORMANCE FOR

' STRAIGHT CONDUIT,'THE CRITERIA FOR SPACING ON THESE CONFIGURATIONS WILL REMAIN AT 12 INCHES ON CENTER. THE REQUIREMENT FOR BANDS TO BE LOCATED WITHIN 2 INCHES OF A BUTT JOINT IS NOT APPLICABLE.

THE CRITERIA FOR RADIAL BENDS IS AS DISCUSSED ABOVE.

l EACH ELEMENT EVALUATION WILL IDENTIFY ADDITIONAL INSPECTION REQUIREMENTS AND/OR ADDITIONAL BANDING REQUIREMENTS IF NEEDED.

IF ADDITIONAL BANDS ARE REQUIRED, THEY MUST BE INSTALLED IN ORDER l

FOR THE FIRE RATING ON THAT BARRIER, AS ESTABLISHED IN THE EVALUATION, TO.BE VALID.

V. NO INTERNAL BANDS ON TRAYS THIS PARAMETER IS RELEVANT AND CANNOT BE VERIFIED BY VISUAL EXAM.

RELIANCE IS ON QUALITY VERIFICATION CHECKS.

VERIFICATION OF THIS PARAMETER IS ALSO DOCUMENTED BY DETAILED EXAMINATION.

W.

NO ADDITIONAL TROWEL MATERIAL OVER SECTIONS AND JOINTS OR AD-DITIONAL TROWEL MATERIAL APPLIED SOME JOINTS AT THI-1 WERE POST BUTTERED IN ADDITION TO PRE-BUTTERING; HOWEVER NO SPECIFIC THICKNESS WAS SPECIFIED. THEREFORE, INSTALLATION OF ADD'L TROWEL OVER SECTIONS AND JOINTS WAS NOT A DESIGN REQUIREMENT FOR TMI-1.

ADD'L TROWEL INSTALLED OVER 1

SECTIONS AND JOINTS CONTRIBUTE TO IMPROVING BARRIER PERFORMANCE AS i

DEMONSTRATED BY NEI UPGRADE TESTING.

SINCE TMI-1 DID NOT

{

USE THIS DESIGN FEATURE AND SINCE COMPARISONS ARE MADE TO TEST CONFIGURATIONS WITHOUT THIS FEATURE, NO VERIFICATION OF THIS PARAMETER IS REQUIRED.

X. NO EDGE GUARDS OR EDGE GUARDS.

THIS PARAMETER IS NOT RELEVANT. THE USE OF EDGE GUARDS AS A

{

CONSTRUCTION AID ~AS DESCRIBED BELOW IS NOT CONSIDERED A 07/16/96 Page 14 l

EVALUATION ASSUMPTIONS F7.3 TMI PERFORMANCE PARAMETER ALTHOUGH IT CAN EE VERIFIED i;Y VISUAL EXAM.

FASTENER EDGE GUARDS-ARE TYPICALLY USED AS A CONSTRUCTION AID ON CABLE TRAY AND BOX ENCLOSURES TO ENABLE FASTENERS TO BE SECURELY TIGHTENED WITHOUT GOUGING INTO THERMOLAG PANELS.

IN THIS APPLICATION, A SMALL PIECE OF SHEET METAL IS TYPICALLY INSERTED ALONG THE EDGES OF A BARRIER ENCLOSURE, UNDER EACH FASTENER.

EDGE GUARDS HAVE BEEN UTILIZED IN THE CONSTRUCTION OF A TEST BARRIER 1

FOR TU ELECTRIC TEST SCHEME 3.

THE BARRIER WAS A ONE HOUR ASSEMBLY. THE FIRE ENDURANCE TEST RESULTED IN SATISFACTORY SIDE RAIL TEMPERATURES.

THEREFORE, FOR SIDE RAIL TEMPERATURE CRITERIA TO BE SATISFIED, THE EDGE GUARDS COULD NOT HAVE ADVERSELY AFFECTED THE THERMAL PERFORMANCE OF THE BARRIER.

SUBSEQUENT TU ELECTRIC CABLE TRAY TESTS (SCHEMES 13-1 AND 11-5) ALSO INCLUDED EDGE GUARDS ON UPGRADED 1-HOUR BARRIERS WITHOUT ADVERSE THERMAL OR STRUCTURAL EFFECTS.

NEI CABLE TRAY TESTING (TESTS 2-7 AND 2-10) WHICH DID NOT UTILIZE EDGE GUARDS, DEMONSTRATED THAT STRUCTURAL FAILURES OF CABLE TRAY ENVELOPES DO NOT TYPICALLY OCCUR IN AREAS WHERE EDGE GUARDS WOULD NORMALLY BE INSTALLED.

RATHER, STRUCTURAL FAILURES OCCUR AT JOINT LOCATIONS ON THE UNDERSIDES OF TRAY BARRIERS AWAY FROM EDGE GUARD LOCATIONS.

AS STATED ABOVE, THE USE OF EDGE GUARDS AS A CONSTRUCTION AID AS DESCRIBED ABOVE IS NOT CONSIDERED A SIGNIFICANT BARRIER PERFORMANCE PARAMETER.

i 07/16/96 Page 15

EVALUATICN FOR ELEMENT N3.

544 INSTALLED INDUSTRY Source....NEI-Baseline-3hr Report No.13890-96143 Ass. 2-3 Barr Component.... Conduit Size.............

0.75 3/41n conduit Thickness........ 1.000 1.000 Preform Conduit...Yes Yes Rib Location......N/A N/A Fill.............

92 %

0%

Support Span......

NA ft.

NA ft.

Stress Skin.......Inside and outside Inside and outside Over joints.....Yes No Ties............No No Staples.........Yes No Add trwl matl...No No Joint type........ Butt Butt Post buttered...No No Pre buttered....Yes Yes Gap width.......NA

.25 Add trwl matl... Yea No i

Banding.......... Steel Steel Spacing (max).. 10.0 0.0 12 0 dist to jt (max) 2.0 N/A Add Trwl matl...No No Edgeguard.........No No Barr/CQ rating.... 69/

0 min.

69 min.

Barr rating Element Comments:

Industry Comments:

Ref. Ass 2 3a.pcx Ass 2 3h.pcx Ass 2 31.pcx Ass 2 3j.pcx 4

I for construction details.

Evaluations As shown through a parameter comparison NEI Test 2-3 i

conduit) has been chosen as the bounding test for this(tested a 3/4" element.

For NEI Test 2-3, the 3/4 in, aluminum conduit maximum temperature criterion (325 deg. F over initial ambient) conduit surface temperature was exceeded at 69 minutes. The conduit surface temperature is the basis for establishing the actual rating of the installed configuration as this is the cold side temperature of the fire barrier. The installed configuration's raceway is constructed of steel vs. the tested aluminum. The tested aluminum conduit had a percent fill of 0%, while the installed steel conduit has a percent fill of 92%. The installed configuration therefore has a higher thermal capacity which would result in lower internal temperatures at a given time than would a similar assembly constructed of aluminum. It is therefore reasonable to conclude that the installed configuration would not exceed allowable internal temperatures faster than the tested configuration.

Barrier condition was not considered satisfactory after the hose stream test.

The purpose of the hose stream test is to evaluate the structural integrity of the fire barrier and its ability to protect the 4

enclosed raceway from damage caused by in plant fire fighting and falling external objects during a fire.

The conduit itself without the fire barrier will protect the circuits inside the conduit from in plant fire fightir.g and falling external objects during a fire. The barrier installed on the 3/4 in conduit had pronounced areas of burnthrough but 07/15/96

EVALUATION FOR ELEMENT CD.

544 had bsen =ubjected to an cdditional 33 minutes of exposure beyond the point where the surface temperature exceeded the acceptance temperature criteria.

Based on temperature profile data recorded during the test, no structural failure, such as joints opening, occurred for the 3/4 in.

conduit barrier during fire exposure. Rather the openingc were considered as "burnthrough" where the Thermo-lag material had been consumed to the underlying stress skin.

It is reasonable to conclude that this burnthrough occurred following exceedance of acceptance temperature criteria, and that the 3/4 in, conduit and conduit barrier would have been capable of providing an adequate level of protection to the enclosed raceway had the hose stream been applied when the acceptance temperature criteria was initially exceeded.

The plant barrier spacing between bands is less than the 12 spacing between bands for the tested configuration. The plant band spacing from a joint is acceptable as this dimension is not considered critical.

The plant barrier does not require additional work.

This three hour barrier can be down graded to a one hour barrier with no additional work.

It is therefore concluded that the test data and parameter comparison to a tested configuration provides reasonable assurance that the installed 3/4 in, conduit envelope has a fire endurance rating of at least 69 minutes when considering a maximum thermal acceptance criteria of 325 deg F above initial ambient temperature.

07/15/96

EVALUATICN FCR ELEMENT s%

606 entisfactory for the 60 minute test.

Barrier condition was satisfactory after the hose stream test.

Evaluation:

As shown through a parameter comparison, the installed configuration is i

bounded by a test configuration.

For NEI Test Ass. 3-2, a 6" x 6" x 4" junction box was protected with 1 inch thick panel sections. The enclosure was abutted to the concrete and sealed with Thermo-Lag trowel grade material using post buttered techniques. During NEI Test 3-2, temperatures on the Junction box surface for the 60 minutes was not recorded due to failure of the thermal couples. For this test, the Thermo-Lag to concrete interface i

joint did not fail the hose stream test. The thermocouple readings for i

the 6" x 6" x 4" junction box protected with 1/2" thick panel sections maximum temperature criterion It is re(maximum temperature 402 deg F.) was reached in 54 minutes.

asonable to conclude that the junction box protected with 1 inch thick panel section will last for 60 minutes.

In other words, this type of joint can be expected to maintain its thermal performance without failing the maximum temperature criterion for 60 minutes. It is therefore reasonable to use the results of NEI Test 3-2 to establish a fire endurance rating for this element as the construction techniques of this element are similar to those for NEI Test 3-2 except that this element has an additional panel section anchored to the concrete which is both pre and post buttered at the.

Thermo-Lag to concrete interface and Thermo-Lag to Thermo-Lag interface.

NEI Test 3-2 demonstrates that a Thermo-Lag to concrete interface with trowel grade material will not cause the barrier to fail.

The thermal mass of the tested configuration was 1.80 lb/lin. ft. The plant barrier has a total thermal mass of 6.039 lb./lin. ft.(5.67 lb./lin, ft. conduit, 0.369 lb./lin, ft. cable (7/C-12 EK-9F). The tested configuration used panels that were 1 inch thick. The plant configuration used 1 inch panel sections to protect the conduit and condulet.

Barrier condition was considered satisfactory after the hose stream test. There were no barrier openings present in the body of the protective envelope. No barrier openings to the conduits were present at the interface with the concrete slab either.

Band spacing is not considered relevant to this evaluation. The thermo-lag to concrete interface is the parameter being addressed here.

This element is the thermo-lag to concrete interface for element no.

30.

It is therefore concluded that the test data and parameter comparison to a tested configuration provides reasonable assurance that the installed 2 1/2 in. conduit envelope has a fire endurance rating of at least 60 minutes when considering a maximum thermal acceptance criteria of 325 deg F above initial ambient temperature.

07/15/96

~-

EVALUATION FOR ELEMENT NO.

543 INSTALLED INDUSTRY Source....NEI-Baseline-3hr 1

Report No.13890-96143 Ass. 2-3 Barr Component.... Radial bend conduit Size............. 0.75 3/41n rad. bend Thickness........ 1.000 1.000 Preform Conduit...Yes Yes Rib Location......N/A N/A l

Fill.....ha.......

92 %

0%

Support S n......

NA ft.

NA ft.

l Stress Skin.......Inside and outside Inside and outside l

Over joints.....Yes No i

Ties............No No l

Staples.........Yes No Add trwl matl...No No Joint type........ Butt Butt Post buttered...No No Pre buttered....Yes Yes Gap width.......NA

.25 Add trwl matl...Yes No i

Banding........... Steel Iband/ sect Spacing (max).. 11.0 0.0 0.0 dist to 3t (max) 3.5 Add Trwl matl...No No Edgeg/CQ rating....

uard.........No No Barr 69/

0 min.

69 min.

Barr rating Element Comments:

Industry Comments:

Ref. Ass 2 3a.pcx Ass 2 3h.pcx Ass 2 31.pcx Ass 2[,3j.pcx for conatruction details.

To allow for curvature, the sections installed on the radial bends were miter-cut into individual wedge shaped pieces and fit to the conduit radial bend.

Evaluation:

NEI Test 2-3, 3/4" conduit, tested a 90 degree radial bend in the horizontal to vertical orientation. The element is a 45 degree radial bend Construction of this radial bend is similar to that used for a straight run conduit, ie: preshaped conduit sections, pre-buttered butt joints, and installation of banding material. The 3/4" conduit radial bend bounds the existing 3/4" plant conduit radial bend.

For NEI Test 2-3, the 3/4 in. aluminum conduit maximum temperature criterion (325 deg. F over initial ambient) conduit surface temperature l

was exceeded at 69 minutes. The conduit surface temperature is the basis for establishing the actual rating of the installed configuration as this is the cold side temperature of the fire barrier. The installed configuration's raceway is constructed of steel vs. the tested aluminum. The tested aluminum conduit had a percent fill of 0%, while i

l the installed steel conduit has a percent fill of 92%. The installed configuration therefore has a higher thermal capacity which would result in lower internal temperatures at a given time than would a similar assembly constructed of aluminum. It is therefore reasonable to conclude that the installed configuration would not exceed allowable internal temperatures faster than the tested configuration.

07/15/96 l

EVALUATICN FOR ELEMENT NA 543 Barrier condition was not considered satisfactory after the hose stream test.

The purpose of the hose stream test is to evaluate the structural integrity of the fire barrier and its ability to protect the enclosed raceway from damage caused by in plant fire fighting and falling external objects during a fire.

The conduit itself without the fire barrier will protect the circuits inside the conduit from in plant fire fighting and falling external objects during a fire. The barrier installed on the 3/4 in conduit had pronounced areas of burnthrough but had been subjected to an additional 33 minutes of exposure beyond the i

point where the surface temperature exceeded the acceptance temperature criteria.

Based on temperature profile data recorded during the test, no structural failure, such as joints opening, occurred for the 3/4 in.

conduit barrier during fire exposure. Rather the openings were considered as "burnthrough" tA e the Thermo-lag material had been consumed to the underlying stre skin.

It is reasonable to conclude that this burnthrough occurred cO.owing exceedance of acceptance temperature criteria, and that _;, 3/4 in. conduit and conduit barrier would have been capable of providing an adequate level of protection to the enclosed raceway had the hose stream been applied when the acceptance temperature criteria was initially exceeded.

The plant barrier spacing between bands is less than the 12" spacing between bands for the tested configuration. The plant band spacing from a joint is greater than that in the tested configuration. The plant i

barrier is reguired to have additional bands installed to maintain the required banding for a radial bend.

j This three hour barrier can be down graded to a one hour barrier with minor rework on band placement.

It is therefore concluded that the test data and parameter comparison to a tested configuration provides reasonable assurance that the installed 3/4 in. conduit envelope has a fire endurance rating of at least 69 minutes when considering a maximum thermal acceptance criteria of 325 deg F above initial ambient temperature.

07/15/96

r EVALUATICN FCR ELEMENT D3.

542 INSTALLED INDUSTRE Source....NEI-Baseline-3hr Report No.13890-96143 Ass. 2-3 l

Barr Component....condulet i

Size.............

0.75 3/4in condulet

)

Thickness.........l.000 1.000 i

-Preform Conduit...No No

)

. Rib Location......N/A Horizontal Fill.............

92 %

0%

Support Span......

NA ft.

NA ft.

Stress Skin.......Inside and outside Inside and outside Over joints.....Yes No Ties............No No Staples.........Yes.

No Add trwl matl...Yes No Joint type........ Butt Butt Post buttered...No No Pre buttered....Yes Yes Gap width.......NA

.25 Add trwl matl...Yes No Banding.......... Steel Steel Spacing (max)... 2.0 0.0 12.0 dist to jt (max 3.0 2.0 Add Trwl matl...)Yes No Edgeguard.........No No l

Barr/CQ rating.... 69/

0 min.

69 min.

Barr rating Element Comments:

Industry Comments:

Ref. Ass 2 3a.pcx l

Ass 2 3e.pcx Ass 2 3h.

Ass 2 31.pex i

pcx l

Ass 2[3j.pcx for construction details.

Evaluation:

As shown through a parameter comparison NEI. Test 2-3-(tested a 3/4 in.

conduit) has been chosen as the bounding test for this element.

For NEI Test 2-3, the 3/4 in, aluminum conduit maximum temperature criterion (325 deg. F'over initial ambient) conduit surface temperature was exceeded at 69 minutes. The conduit surface temperature is the basis for establishing the actual rating of the installed configuration as this is the cold side temperature of the fire barrier. The installed configuration's raceway is constructed of steel vs. the tested aluminum. The tested aluminum conduit had a percent fill of 0%, while the installed steel conduit has a percent fill of 92%. The installed configuration therefore has a higher thermal capacity which would i

result in lower internal temperatures at a given time than would a similar assembly constructed of aluminum. It is therefore reasonable to conclude that:the installed configuration would not exceed allowable internal temperatures faster than the tested configuration.

Barrier condition was not considered satisfactory after the hose stream test.

The purpose of the hose stream test is to evaluate the structural integrity of the fire barrier and its ability to protect the enclosed raceway from damage caused by in plant fire fighting and

)

l falling. external objects during a fire.

The conduit itself without the i

fire barrier will protect the circuits inside the conduit from in plant i

fire fighting and falling external objects during a fire. The barrier i

i installed on the 3/4 in conduit had pronounced areas of burnthrough but l

07/15/96

l l

EVALUATICN FOR ELEMENT ND.

542 htd bscn subjseted to an additional 33 minutos of exposure beyond the point where the surface temperature exceeded the acceptance temperature criteria.

Based-on temperature profile data recorded during the test, no structural failure, such as joints opening, occurred for the 3/4 in.

conduit barrier during fire exposure. Rather the openings were considered as "burnthrough" where the Thermo-lag material had been consumed to the underlying stress skin.

It is reasonable to conclude that this burnthrough occurred following exceedance of acceptance temperature criteria, and that the 3/4 in. conduit and conduit barrier would have been capable of providing an adequate level of protection to the enclosed raceway had the hose stream been applied when the acceptance temperature criteria was initially exceeded.

The plant barrier spacing between bands is less than the 12" spacing between bands for the tested configuration. The plant band spacing from a joint is greater than that in the tested configuration. The plant barrier is required to have additional bands installed to maintain the 2" maximum spacing to a joint.

This three hour barrier can be down graded to a one hour barrier with minor rework on band placement.

It is therefore concluded that the test data and parameter comparison to a tested configuration provides reasonable assurance that the installed 3/4 in. conduit envelope has a fire endurance rating of at least 69 minutes when considering a maximum thermal acceptance criteria of 325 deg F above initial ambient temperature.

07/15/96

EVALUATION FOR ELEMENT C3.

354 IBATALLED INDUSTRY Source....NEI-Baseline-3hr Report No.13890-96143 Ass. 2-3 Barr Component.... Conduit Size.............

1" 3/41n conduit Thickness........ 1.000 1.000 Preform Conduit...Yes Yes Rib Location......N/A N/A Fill.............

72 %

0%

Support Span......

NA ft.

NA ft.

Stress Skin.......Inside and outside Inside and outside Over joints.....Yes No Ties............No No Staples.........No No Add trwl matl...No No Joint type........ Butt Butt Post buttered...No No Pre buttered....Yes Yes Gap width.......NA

.25 Add trwl matl...Yes No Banding...km....... Steel Steel Spacing ax).. 11.5 0.0 12.0 dist to jt (max) 3.5 N/A Add Trwl matl...Yes No Edgeguard.........No No Barr/CQ rating.... 69/

0 min.

69 min.

Barr rating Element Comments:

Industry Comments:

Ref. Ass 2 3a.pex Ass 2 3h.

Ass 2 31.pcx pcx Ass 2[3j.pcx for construction details.

Evaluation:

As shown through a parameter comparison NEI Test 2-3 (tested a 3/4" conduit)is 1". The 3/4" conduit bounds the existing 1" plant conduit.

has been chosen as the bounding test for this element. Plant conduit For NEI Test 2-3, the 3/4 in. aluminum conduit maximum temperature criterion (325 deg. F over initial ambient) conduit surface temperature was exceeded at 69 minutes. The conduit surface temperature is the basis f r establishing the actual rating of the installed configuration as this is the cold side temperature of the fire barrier. The installed configuration's raceway is constructed of steel vs. the tested aluminum. The tested aluminum conduit had a percent fill of 0%, while the installed steel conduit has a percent fill of 72%. The installed configuration therefore has a higher thermal capacity which would, result in lower internal temperatures at a given time than would a similar assembly constructed of aluminum. It is therefore reasonable to conclude that the installed configuration would not exceed allowable internal temperatures faster than the tested configuration.

Barrier condition was not considered satisfactory after the hose stream test.

The purpose of the hose stream test is to evaluate the structural integrity of the fire barrier and its ability to protect the enclosed raceway from damage caused by in plant fire fighting and falling external objects during a fire.

The conduit itself without the fire barrier will protect the circuits inside the conduit from in plant fire fighting and falling external objects during a fire. The barrier 07/15/96 1

EVALUATICN FOR ELEMENT NO.

354 instclled on the 3/4 in conduit had pronounc d arono of burnthrough but had been subjected to an additional 33 minutes of exposure beyond the point where the surface temperature exceeded the acceptance temperature criteria.

Based on temperature profile data recorded during the test, no structural failure, such as joints opening, occurred for the 3/4 in.

J conduit barrier during fire exposure. Rather the openings were considered as "burnthrough" where the Thermo-lag material had been consumed to the underlying stress skin.

It is reasonable to conclude that this burnthrough occurred following exceedance of acceptance temperature criteria, and that the 3/4 in. conduit and conduit barrier would have been capable of providing an adequate level of protection to the enclosed raceway had the hose stream been applied when the j,

acceptance temperature criteria was initially exceeded.

Note that the comparable test configuration to the installed 1

configuration is 3/4 in. vs. 1 in. respectively. Using the results of the smaller test configuration as a comparison is necessary since no baseline 1 in. conduit 3 hr. fire barrier envelope was tested. Use of i

the smaller configuration as a comparison is conservative since the 4

results of testing of multiple size raceways in Ass. 2-3 show the smaller the raceway, the faster acceptable internal temperatures are i

reached.

The plant barrier spacing between bands is less than the 12" spacing between bands for the tested configuration. The plant band spacing from a joint is acceptable as this dimension is not considered critical.

The plant barrier does not require additional work.

s This three hour barrier can be down graded to a one hour barrier.

It is therefore concluded that the test data and parameter comparison to a tested configuration provides reasonable assurance that the installed 1 in. conduit envelope has a fire endurance rating of at least 69 minutes when considering a maximum thermal acceptance criteria of 325 deg F above initial ambient temperature.

I 4

I 4

\\

07/15/96

-l EVALUATION FOR ELEMENT NO.

353 INSTALLED INDUSTRY Source....NEI-Baseline-3hr Report No.13890-96143 Ass. 2-3 Barr Component.... Radial bend conduit Size.............

1" 3/41n rad. bend Thickness........ 1 000 1.000 Preform Conduit...Yes Yes Rib Location......N/A N/A Fill.............

72 %

0%

Support Span......

NA ft.

NA ft.

Stress Skin.......Inside and outside Inside and outside Over joints.....Yes No l

Ties............No No Staples.........No No Add trwl matl...No No Joint type........ Butt Butt Post buttered...No No Pre buttered....Yes Yes Gap width.......NA

.25 Add trwl matl...Yes No Banding...im....... Steel Iband/ sect Spacing ax)... 5.5 0.0 0.0 dist to jt (max) 2.0 Add Trwl matl...Yes No Edgeg/CQ rating....

uard.........

O No Barr 69/

0 min.

69 min.

Barr rating Element Comments:

Industry Comments:

Ref. Ass 2 3a.pcx Ass 2 3h.

Ass 2 31.pcx pcx Ass 2[3j.pcx for construction details.

To allow for curvature, the sections installed on the radial bends were miter-cut into individual wedge shaped pieces and fit to the conduit radial bend.

Evaluation:

NEI Test 2-3, 3/4" conduit, tested a 90 degree radial bend in the horizontal to vertical orientation. The element is a 45 degree radial bend. Construction of this radial bend is similar to that used for a straight run conduit, ie: preshaped conduit sections, pre-buttered butt joints, and installation of banding material. The 3/4" conduit radial bend bounds the existing 1" plant conduit radial bend.

For NEI Test 2-3, the 3/4 in, aluminum conduit maximum temperature criterion (325 deg. F over initial ambient) conduit surface temperature was exceeded at 69 minutes. The conduit surface temperature is the basis for establishing the actual rating of the installed configuration as this is the cold side temperature of the fire barrier. The installed configuration's raceway is constructed of steel vs. the tested aluminum. The tested aluminum conduit had a percent fill of 0%, while the installed steel conduit has a percent fill of 72%. The installed configuration therefore has a higher thermal capacity which would result in lower internal temperatures at a given time than would a similar assembly constructed of aluminum. It is therefore reasonable to conclude that the installed configuration would not exceed allowable internal temperatures faster than the tested configuration.

07/15/96 1

1 EVALUATION N R ELEMENT C3.

353 Barrier condition was not considered satisfactory after the hose stream test.

The purpose of the hose stream test is to evaluate the structural integrity of the fire barrier and its ability to protect the enclosed raceway from damage caused by in plant fire fighting and falling external objects during a fire.

The conduit itself without the i

fire barrier will protect the circuits inside the conduit from in plant fire fighting and falling external objects during a fire. The barrier installed on the 3/4 in conduit had pronounced areas of burnthrough but had been subjected to an additional 33 minutes of exposure beyond the point where the surface temperature exceeded the acceptance temperature criteria.

Based on temperature profile data recorded during the test, no structural failure, such as joints opening, occurred for the 3/4 in.

conduit barrier during fire exposure. Rather the openings were l

considered as "burnthrough" where the Thermo-lag material had been l

consumed to the underlying stress skin.

It is reasonable to conclude l

that this burnthrough occurred following exceedance of acceptance temperature criteria, and that the 3/4 in, conduit and conduit barrier l

would have been capable of providing an adequate level of protection to the enclosed raceway had the hose stream been applied when the acceptance temperature criteria was initially exceeded.

Note that the comparable test configuration to the installed configuration is 3/4 in, vs. 1 in, respectively. Using the results of the smaller test configuration as a comparison is necessary since no baseline 1 in. conduit 3 hr. fire barrier envelope was tested. Use of the smaller configuration as a comparison is conservative since the results of testing of multiple size raceways in Ass. 2-3 show the smaller the raceway, the faster acceptable internal temperatures are reached.

The plant barrier spacing between bands is less than the 12" spacing between bands for the tested configuration. The plant band spacing from a joint is similar to the tested configuration. The plant barrier does not require additional work.

It is therefore concluded that the test data and parameter comparison to a tested configuration provides reasonable assurance that the installed 1 in, conduit envelope has a fire endurance rating of at least 69 minutes when considering a maximumm thermal acceptance criteria of 325 deg F above initial ambient temperature.

l l

l 07/15/96 l

EVALUATION FCR ELEMENT NO.

352 INSTALLED INDUSTRY Soarce....NEI-Baseline-3hr Report No.13890-96143 Ass. 2-3 Barr Component....condulet Size.............

11.5"x5.5"x12" 3/41n condulet Thickness........ 1.000 1.000 Preform Conduit...No No Rib Location......N/A Horizontal Fill.............

72 %

0%

Support Span......

NA ft.

NA ft.

Stress Skin.......Inside and outside Inside and outside Over joints.....Yes No Ties............No No Staples.........No No Add trwl matl...No No h

Joint type........ Butt Butt Post buttered...No No Pre buttered....Yes Yes Gap width.......NA

.25 Add trwl matl...Yes No Banding...km....... Steel Steel Spacing ax)...

8.5 0.0 12.0 dist to jt (max 2.5 2.0 Add Trwl matl..)Yes No Edgeguard.........No No Barr/CQ rating...

69/

0 min.

69 min.

Barr rating Element Comments:

Industry Comments:

Ref. Ass 2 3e.pcx Ass 2 3e.pcx Ass 2 3h.pcx Ass 2~31.pcx Ass 2[3j.pcx for construction details.

Evaluation:

As shown through a parameter comparison NEI Test 2-3 condulet)is 1".

The 3/4" condulet bounds the existing 1" planthas been element. Plant condulet condulet.

For NEI Test 2-3, the 3/4 in, aluminum conduit maximum temperature criterion (325 deg. F over initial ambient) conduit surface temperature was exceeded at 69 minutes. The conduit surface temperature is the basis for establishing the actual rating of the installed configuration as this is the cold side temperature of the fire barrier. The installed configuration's raceway is constructed of steel vs. the tested aluminum. The tested aluminum conduit had a percent fill of 0%, while the installed steel conduit has a percent fill of 72%. The installed configuration therefore has a higher thermal capacity which would result in lower internal temperatures at a given time than would a similar assembly constructed of aluminum. It is therefore reasonable to conclude that the installed configuration would not exceed allowable internal temperatures faster than the tested configuration.

Barrier condition was not considered satisfactory after the hose stream test.

The purpose of the hose stream test is to evaluate the structural integrity of the fire barrier and its ability to protect the enclosed raceway from damage caused by in plant fire fighting and 4

falling external objects during a fire.

The conduit itself without the fire barrier will protect the circuits inside the conduit from in plant 07/15/96

EVALUATICN FAR ELEMENT N3.

352 J

firo fighting and falling external objects during a fire. The barrior installed on the 3/4 in conduit had pronounced areas of burnthrough but had been subjected to an additional 33 minutes of exposure beyond the point where the surface temperature exceeded the acceptance temperature criteria.

Based-on temperature profile data recorded during the test,

?

no structural failure, such as joints opening, occurred for the 3/4 in.

conduit barrier durir.g fire exposure. Rather the openings were considered as "burnthrough" where the Thermo-lag material had been consumed to the underlying stress skin.

It is reasonable to conclude j

that this burnthrough occurred following exceedance of acceptance temperature criteria, and that the 3/4 in. conduit and conduit barrier would have been capable of providing an adequate level of protection to 1

the enclosed raceway had the hose stream been applied when the acceptance temperature criteria was initially exceeded.

I Note that the comparable test configuration to the installed configuration is 3/4 in. vs. 1 in. respectively. Using the results of the smaller test configuration as a comparison is necessary since no baseline 1 in. conduit 3 hr. fire barrier envelope was tested. Use of the smaller configuration as a comparison is conservative since the results of testing of multiple size raceways in Ass. 2-3 show the smaller the raceway, the faster acceptable internal temperatures are reached.

The plant barrier spacing between bands is less than the 12" spacing between bands for the tested configuration. Install additional bands to insure that the 2 inch maximum distance to joints is maintained.

This three hour barrier can be down graded to a one hour barrier with minor rework on band placement.

It is therefore concluded that the test data and parameter comparison to a tested configuration provides reasonable assurance that the installed 1 in, condulet envelope has a fire endurance rating of at least 69 minutes when considering a maximum thermal acceptance criteria of 325 deg F above initial ambient temperature.

i 4

N 07/15/96

+ - -.,

1 EVALUATICN FOR ELEMENT CO.

31 I

INSTALLED INDUSTRY Source....NEI-Baseline-3hr a

Report No.13890-96143 Ass. 2-3 i

Barr Component.... Conduit Size.............

1.25" 3/41n conduit Thickness........ 1.000 1.000 i

Preform Conduit...Yes Yes

-Rib Location......N/A N/A Fill.............

79 %

0%

Support Span......

NA ft.

NA ft.

Stress Skin........Inside and outside Inside and'outside Ties. joints.....Yes Over No

...........No No Staples.........Yes No i

Add trwl matl...No No Joint type...

.... Butt Butt Post buttered...No No Pre buttered....Yes Yes i

Gap width.......NA

.25 l

Add trwl matl...Yes No Banding........... Steel Steel Spacing (max)... 1.5 0.0 12.0 dist to 3t (max) 1.5 N/A Add Trwl matl...No No 1

Edgeguard.........No No Barr/CQ rating.... 69/

0 min.

69 min.

Barr rating

}

Element Comments:

Industry Comments:

Ref. Ass 2 3a.pcx 4'

Ass 2 3h.pcx l

Ass 2 31.pcx j

Ass 2_3j.pcx for construction details.

Evaluations As shown through a parameter comparison NEI. Test 2-3 (tested a 3/4" conduit)is 1.25". The 3/4" conduit bounds the existing 1.25" plant has been chosen as the bounding test for this element. Plant

}

conduit conduit.

i 1

This conduit is actually a penetration configuration which is similar to the tested 3/4" configuration in NEI Test Ass. 2-3 for a 3/4 in, j

conduit. The NEI assembly extended the barrier through the penetration 1

and sealed around the fire barrier. Due to the similarities in construction, the aforementioned test has been chosen as the bounding 4

test for this element.

1 While not instrumented as part of the test inside the penetration, conduit surface temperature inside the sealed penetration will be no -

higher since the construction of the barrier inside the penetration is i

i

.the same as inside the test oven. Therefore the test results of Ass.

2-3'for 3/4 in, conduit can be applied to this element.

1 i

For NEI Test 2-3, the 3/4 in. aluminum conduit maximum temperature i

criterion (325 deg. F over initial ambient) conduit surface temperature i

was exceeded at 69 minutes. The conduit surface temperature is the basis for establishing the actual rating of the installed configuration 4

i as this is the cold side temperature of the fire barrier. The installed i

configuration's raceway is constructed of steel vs. the tested i

aluminum. The tested aluminum conduit had a percent fill of 0%, while i

07/15/96 i

i

EVALUATION FOR ELEMENT N3.

31 tha instelled otsal conduit has a porcant fill of 79%. The installed configuration therefore has a higher thermal capacity which would result in lower internal temperatures at a given time than would a i

similar assembl constructed of aluminum. It is therefore reasonable to j

conclude that t e installed configuration would not exceed allowable internal temperatures faster than the tested configuration.

i Barrier condition was not considered satisfactory after the hose stream test.

The purpose of the hose stream test is to evaluate the structural integrity of the fire barrier and its ability to protect the enclosed raceway from damage caused by in plant fire fighting and i

falling external objects during a fire.

The conduit itself without the fire barrier will protect the circuits inside the conduit from in plant fire fighting and falling external objects during a fire. The barrier installed on the 3/4 in conduit had pronounced areas of burnthrough but.

had been subjected to an additional 33 minutes of exposure beyond the point where the surface temperature exceeded the acceptance temperature criteria.

Based on temperature profile data recorded during the test, no structural failure, such as joints opening, occurred for the 3/4 in.

conduit barrier during fire exposure. Rather the openings were considered as "burnthrough" where the Thermo-lag material had been consumed to the underlying stress skin.

It is reasonable to conclude that this burnthrough cecurred following exceedance of acceptance temperature criteria, and that the 3/4 in. conduit and conduit barrier would have been capable of providing an adequate level of protection to the enclosed raceway had the hose stream been applied when the acceptance temperature criteria was initially exceeded.

Note that the comparable teut configuration to the installed configuration is 3/4 in. vs. 1.25 in. respectively. Using the results of the smaller test configuration as a comparison is necessary since no baseline 1.25 in. conduit 3 hr. fire barrier envelope was tested. Use of the smaller configuration as a comparison is conservative since the results of testing of multiple size raceways in Ass. 2-3 show the smaller the raceway, the faster acceptable internal temperatures are reached.

The plant barrier spacing between bands is less than the 12" spacing between bands for the tested configuration. The plant band spacing from a joint is acceptable as this dimension is not considered critical.

The plant barrier does not require additional work.

This three hour barrier can be down graded to a one hour barrier with no additional work.

It is therefore concluded that the test data and parameter comparison to a tested configuratior. provides reasonable assurance that the installed 1.25 in, conduit envelope has a fire endurance rating of at least 69 minutes when considering a maximum thermal acceptance criteria of 325 deg F above initial ambient temperature.

i 1

07/15/96 J

EVALUATICN FOR ELEMENT NA 302 INSTALLED INDUSTRY Source....NEI-Baseline-3hr Report No.13890-96143 Ass. 2-3 Barr Component.... Radial bend conduit i

Size..............l.25" 3/41n rad. bend Thickness........ 1.000 1.000 Preform Conduit...Yes Yes Rib Location......N/A N/A Fill.............

79 %

0%

Support Span......

NA ft.

NA ft.

Stress Skin.......Inside and outside Inside and outside i

Ties. joints.....Yes Over No

...........No No Staples.........Yes No Add trwl matl...No No Joint type........ Butt Butt Post buttered...No No Pre buttered....Yes Yes i

Gap width.......NA

.25 Add trwl matl...Yes No Banding.......... Steel lband/ sect Spacing (max)... 6.0 0.0 0.0 dist to jt (max) 2.0 Add Trwl matl...No No Edgeguard.........No No Barr/CQ rating.... 69/

0 min.

69 min.

Barr rating Element Comments:

Industry Comments:

Ref. Ass 2 3a.pcx Ass 2 3h.pex Ass 2 31.pcx Ass 2[3j.pcx for construction details.

To allow for curvature, the sections installed on the radial bends were miter-cut into individual wedge shaped pieces and fit to the conduit radial bend.

Kvaluation:

NEI Test 2-3, 3/4" conduit, tested a 90 degree radial bend in the horizontal to vertical orientation. The element is a 45 degree radia.1 l

bend. Construction of this radial bend is similar to that used for a i

straight run conduit, ie: preshaped conduit sections, pre-buttered butt joints, and installation of banding material. The 3/4" conduit radial bend bounds the existing 1.25" plant conduit radial bend.

For NEI Test 2-3, the 3/4 in, aluminum conduit maximum temperature criterion (325 deg. F above initial ambient) conduit surface temperature was exceeded at 69 minutes. The conduit surface temperature is the basis for establishing the actual rating of the installed configuration as this is the cold side temperature of the fire barrier.

The installed configuration's raceway is constructed of steel vs. the tested aluminum. The tested aluminum conduit had a percent fill of 0%,

while the installed steel conduit has a percent fill of 79%. The installed configuration therefore has a higher thermal capacity which would result in lower internal temperatures at a given time than would a similar assembly constructed of aluminum. It is therefore reasonable to conclude that the installed configuration would not exceed allowable internal temperatures faster than the tested configuration.

07/15/96

EVALUATION PCR ELEMENT C3.

302 Barrier condition was not considered satisfactory after the hose stream test.

The purpose of the hose stream test is to evaluate the structural integrity of the fire barrier and its ability to protect the enclosed raceway from damage caused by in plant fire fighting and falling external objects during a fire.

The conduit itself without the fire barrier will protect the circuits inside the conduit from in plant fire fighting and falling external objects during a fire. The barrier installed on the 3/4 in conduit had pronounced areas of burnthrough but had been subjected to an additional 33 minutes of exposure beyond the point where the surface temperature exceeded the acceptance temperature criteria.

Based.on temperature profile data recorded during the test, no structural failure, such as joints opening, occurred for the 3/4 in.

conduit barrier during fire exposure. Rather the openings were considered as "burnthrough" where the Thermo-lag material had been consumed to the underlying stress skin.

It is reausnable to conclude that this burnthrough occurred following exceedance of acceptance temperature criteria, and that the 3/4 in. conduit and conduit barrier would have been capable of providing an adequate level of protection to the enclosed raceway had the hose stream been applied when the acceptance temperature criteria was initially exceeded.

Note that the comparable test configuration to the installed configuration is 3/4 in. vs. 1.25 in, respectively. Using the results of the smaller test configuration as a comparison is necessary since no baseline 1.25 in. conduit 3 hr. fire barrier envelope was tested. Use of the smaller configuration as a comparison is conservative since the results of testing of multiple size raceways in Ass. 2-3 show the smaller the raceway, the faster acceptable internal temperatures are reached.

The plant barrier spacing between bands is less than the 12" spacing between bands for the tested configuration. The plant band spacing from a joint is similar to the tested configuration. The plant barrier does not require additional work.

It is therefore concluded that the test data and parameter comparison to a tested configuration provides reasonable assurance that the installed 1.25 in. conduit envelope has a fire endurance rating of at least 69 minutes when considering a maximum thermal acceptance criteria of 325 deg F above initial ambient temperature.

I l

l

(

l 07/15/96 l

l

EVALUATION FOR ELEMENT N3.

300 INSTALLED INDUSTRY i

Source...NEI-Baseline-3hr Report No.13890-96143 Ass. 2-3 Barr Component....condulet Size.............

9.5" x 5" x 6" 3/41n condulet Thickness........ 1.000

. 000 Preform Conduit...No lo Rib Location......N/A Horizontal Fill.............

79 %

0%

Support Span......

NA ft.

NA ft.

Stress Skin.......Inside and outside Inside and outside Over joints.....Yes No Ties............No No Staples.........Yes No Add trwl matl...No No Joint type........ Butt Butt Post buttered...No No Pre buttered....Yes Yes Gap width.......NA

.25 Add trwl matl...Yes No Banding........... Steel Steel Spacing (max)... 7.8 0.0 12.0 dist to 3t (max) 1.3 2.0 Add Trwl matl...No No Edgeguard.........No No Barr/CQ rating.... 69/

0 min.

69 min.

Barr rating Element Comments:

Industry Comments:

Ref. Ass 2 3a.pcx Ass 2 3e.pcx Ass 2 3h.

Ass 2 31.pcx pcx Ass 2[3j.pcx for construction details.

Evaluation:

As shown through a parameter comparison NEI Test 2-3 (tested a 3/4 in.

condulet) has been chosen as the bounding test for this element. The 3/4" condulet bounds the existing 1.25" plant condulet.

For NEI Test 2-3, the 3/4 in, aluminum conduit maximum temperature criterion (325 deg. F over initial ambient) conduit surface temperature was exceeded at 69 minutes. The conduit surface temperature is the basis for establishing the actual rating of the installed configuration as this is the cold side temperature of the fire barrier. The installed configuration's raceway is constructed of steel vs. the tested aluminum. The tested aluminum conduit had a percent fill of 0%, while the installed steel conduit has a percent fill of 79%. The installed configuration therefore has a higher thermal capacity which would result in lower internal temperatures at a given time than would a l

similar assembly constructed of aluminum. It is therefore reasonable to conclude that the installed configuration would not exceed allowable internal temperatures faster than the tested configuration.

l Barrier condition was not considered satisfactory after the hose l

stream test.

The purpose of the hose stream test is to evaluate the l

structural integrity of the fire barrier and its ability to protect the enclosed raceway from damage caused by in plant fire fighting and

[

falling external objects during a fire.

The conduit itself without the i

fire barrier will protect the circuits inside the conduit from in plant i

i fire fighting and falling external objects during a fire. The barrier 07/15/96

EVALUATION FOR ELEMENT NO, 300 installed on tho 3/4 in conduit hed pronounced crocs of burnthrough but had been subjected to an additional 33 minutes of exposure beyond the point where the surface temperature exceeded the acceptance temperature criteria.

Based on temperature profile data recorded during the test, no structural failure, such as joints opening, occurred for the 3/4 in.

conduit barrier during fire exposure. Rather the openings were considered as "burnthrough" where the Thermo-lag material had been consumed to the underlying stress skin.

It is reasonable to conclude that this burnthrough occurred following exceedance of acceptance temperature criteria, and that the 3/4 in. conduit and conduit barrier would have been capable of providing an adequate level of protection to the enclosed raceway had the hose stream been applied when the acceptance temperature criteria was-initially exceeded.

Note that the comparable test configuration to the installed configuration is 3/4 in, vs. 1.25 in, respectively. Using the results l

of the smaller test configuration as a comparison is necessary since no baseline 1.25 in, conduit 3 hr. fire barrier envelope was tested. Use of the smaller configuration as a comparison is conservative since the results of testing of multiple size raceways in Ass. 2-3 show the smaller the raceway, the faster acceptable internal temperatures are reached.

The plant barrier spacing between bands is less than the 12" spacing between bands for the tested configuration. The plant band spacing from a joint is similar to that in the tested configuration. The plant barrier does not require additional work.

It is therefore concluded that the test data and parameter comparison to a tested configuration provides reasonable assurance that the installed 3/4 in. condulet envelope has a fire endurance rating of at least 69 minutes when considering a maximum thermal acceptance criteria of 350 deg F above initial ambient temperature.

l 07/15/96

- - ~.

i EVALUATION FOR ELEMENT C3.

315 i

INSTALLED, INDUSTRY Source....NEI-Baseline-3hr Report No.13890-96143 Ass. 2-3 Barr Component.... Conduit.

Size.............

1.5" 3/4in conduit l

Thickness........ 1.000 1.000 L

Preform Conduit...Yes Yes Rib Location.....N/A

'N/A Fill.............

75 %

0%

Support Span......

NA ft.

NA ft.

Stress Skin.......Inside and outside Inside and outside Ties. joints.....Yes Over No

...........No No Staples.........Yes No Add trwl matl...No.

No Joint type........ Butt Butt Post buttered...No No Pre buttered....Yes Yes Gap width.......NA

.25 Add'trwl matl...Yes No L

Banding........... Steel Steel l

Spacing (max).. 10.0 0.9 12.0 dist to 3t (max.4.5 N/A Add Trwl matl..).No No Edgeg/CQ rating...

69/

uard.........No No Barr 0 min.

69 min.

Barr rating L

Element Comments:

Industry Comments:

Ref. Ass 2 3a.pcx Ass 2 3h.pcx Ass 2 31.pcx Ass 2 3j.pcx I

for construction details.

Evaluation:

As shown through a parameter comparison NEI Test 2-3 (tested a 3/4" conduit) has been chosen as the bounding test for this element. Plant conduit is l'.5". The 3/4" conduit bounds the existing'1.5" plant conduit.

For NEI Test 2-3, the 3/4 in. aluminum conduit maximum temperature criterion (325 deg. F over initial ambient) conduit surface temperature l

was exceeded at 69 minutes. The conduit surface temperature is the basis for establishing the actual rating of the installed configuration as this is~the cold side temperature of the fire barrier. The installed configuration's raceway is constructed of steel vs. the tested aluminum. The tested aluminum conduit had a percent fill of 0%, while the installed steel conduit has a percent fill of 75%. The installed configuration therefore has a higher thermal capacity which would result in lower internal temperatures at a given time than would a similar assembly constructed of aluminum. It is therefore reasonable to conclude that the installed configuration would not exceed allowable

' internal temperatures faster than the tested configuration.

Barrier condition was not considered satisfactory after the hose i

stream test.

The purpose of the hose stream test is to evaluate the I

structural integrity of the fire barrier and its ability to protect the enclosed raceway from damage caused by in plant fire fighting and falling external objects during a fire.

The conduit itself without the i

i fire barrier will. protect the circuits inside the conduit from in plant l

07/15/96

EVALUATICN FOR ELEMENT C3.

315

' fir 5 fighting and falling external objects during a firo. The barrior installed on the 3/4 in conduit had pronounced areas of burnthrough but had been subjected to an additional 33 minutes of exposure beyond the point where the surface temperature exceeded the acceptance temperature criteria.

Based on temperature profile data recorded during the test, no structural failure, such as joints opening, occurred for the 3/4 in.

conduit barrier during fire exposure. Rather the openings were considered as "burnthrough" where the Thermo-lag material had been consumed to the underlying stress skin.

It is reasonable to conclude i

that this burnthrough occurred following exceedance of acceptance i

temperature criteria, and that the 3/4 in. conduit and conduit barrier would have been capable of providing an adequate level of protection to the enclosed raceway had the hose stream been applied when the acceptance temperature criteria was initially exceeded.

Note that the comparable test configuration to the installed configuration is 3/4 in. vs. 1.5 in respectively. Using the results of the smaller test configuration as a comparison is necessary since no 1

baseline 1.5 in. conduit 3 hr. fire barrier envelope was tested. Use of i

the smaller configuration as a comparison is conservative since the results of cesting of multiple size raceways in Ass. 2-3 show the smaller the raceway, the faster acceptable internal temperatures are reached.

The plant barrier spacing between bands is less then the 12" spacing between bands for the tested configuration. The plant band spacing from a joint is acceptable as this dimension is not considered critical.

The plant barrier does not requirt additional work.

This three hour barrier can be down graded to a one hour barrier.

It is therefore concluded that the test data and parameter comparison to a tested configuration provides reasonable assurance that the installed 1.5 in. conduit envelope has a fire endurance rating of at i

least 69 minutes when considering a maximum thermal acceptance criteria l

of 325 deg F above initial ambient temperature.

+

I e

07/15/96

i EVALUATION FOR ELEMENT I?O.

317 i

INSTALLED INDUSTRY Source....NEI-Baseline-3hr Report No.13890-96143 Ass. 2-3 Barr Component.... Radial bend conduit size.............

1.5" 3/41n rad. bend Thickness........ 1.000 1.000 Preform Conduit...Yes Yes Rib Location......N/A' N/A Fill..............

75 %

0%

' Support Span......

NA ft.

NA ft.

Stress Skin.......Inside and outside Inside-and outside LTies. joints.....Yes l-Over No

...........No No L

Staples.........Yes No l

Add trwl-matl...No No Joint' type........ Butt Butt Post buttered...No No l

Pre buttered....Yes Yes L

-Gap width.......NA

.25 l

Add trwl matl...Yes No Banding.......... Steel Iband/ sect Spacing (max)... 4.5 0.0 0.0 dist to jt (max 1.0 Add Trwl matl..).No i

No Edgeg/CQ rating...

69/

uard.........No No Barr 0 min.

69 min.

Barr rating Element Comments:

Industry Conunents:

Ref. Ass 2 3a.pcx Ars2 3h.pcx Ass 2 31.pcx Ass 2[3j.pcx for construction details.

To allow for curvature, the l

sections installed on the radial bends were miter-cut 11nto individual wedge shaped pieces and fit to the conduit radial bend.

Evaluation:

NEI-Test 2-3, 3/4" conduit, tested a 90 degree radial bend.in the horizontal to vertical orientation. The element is a 45 degree radial i

bend. Construction of this radial bend is similar to that used for a j

straight run conduit, ie: preshaped conduit sections, pre-buttered butt i

joints, and installation of banding material. The 3/4" conduit radial j

bend bounds the existing 1.5" plant conduit radial bend.

For NEI Test 2-3, the 3/4 in. aluminum conduit maximum temperature criterion (325 deg. F over initial ambient) conduit surface temperature

.was exceeded at 69 minutes. The conduit surface temperature is the basis for establishing the actual rating of the installed configuration as this is the cold side temperature of the fire barrier. The installed configuration's raceway is constructed of steel vs. the tested.

aluminum. The tested aluminum conduit had a percent fill of 0%, while the installed steel conduit has a percent fill of 75%. The installed configuration therefore has a higher thermal capacity which would result in lower internal temperatures at a given time than would a i

similar assembly constructed of aluminum. It is therefore reasonable to l

conclude that the installed configuration.would not exceed allowable i

internal temperatures faster than the tested configuration.

07/15/96

1 1

EVALUATICN FOR ELEMENT C3.

317 l

Barrier condition was not considered satisfactory after the hose stream test.

The purpose of the hose stream test is to evaluate the structural integrity of the fire barrier and its ability to protect the enclosed raceway from damage caused by in plant fire fighting and falling external objects during a fire.

The conduit itself without the fire barrier will protect the circuits inside the conduit from in plant fire fighting and falling external objects during a fire. The barrier installed on the 3/4 in conduit had pronounced areas of burnthrough but had been subjected to an additional 33 minutes of exposure beyond the point where the surface temperature exceeded the acceptance temperature i

criteria.

Based on temperature profile data recorded during the test, no structural failure, such as joints opening, occurred for the 3/4 in.

conduit barrier during fire exposure. Rather the openings were considered as "burnthrough" where the Thermo-lag material had been consumed to the underlying stress skin.

It is reasonable to conclude that this burnthrough occurred following exceedance of acceptance temperature criteria, and that the 3/4 in. conduit and conduit barrier wou.1d have been capable of providing an adequate level of protection to the enclosed raceway had the hose stream been applied when the acceptance temperature criteria was initially exceeded.

Note that the comparable test configuration to the installed configuration is 3/4 in. vs. 1.5 in. respectively. Using the results of the smaller test configuration as a comparison is necessary since no baseline 1.5 in. conduit 3 hr. fire barrier envelope was tested. Use of the smaller configuration as a comparison is conservative since the results of testing of multiple size raceways in Ass. 2-3 show the smaller the raceway, the faster acceptable internal temperatures are reached.

The plant barrier spacing between bands is less than the 12" spacing between bands for the tested configuration. The plant band spacing from a joint is similar to the tested configuration. The plant barrier does not require additional work.

It is therefore concluded that the test data and parameter comparison to a tested configuration provides reasonable assurance that the installed 1.5 in. conduit envelope has a fire endurance rating of at least 69 minutes when considering a maximum thermal acceptance criteria of 325 deg F above initial ambient temperature.

07/15/96

EVALUATION FOR ELEMENT C3.

314 INSTALLES INDUSTRY Source....NEI-Baseline-3hr Report No.13890-96143 Ass. 2-3 Barr Component....condulet Size.............

14" x 6" x 6.5" 3/41n condulet Thickness.........l.000 1.000 Preform Conduit...No No Rib Location......N/A Horizontal Fill.............

75 %

0%

Support Span......

NA ft.

NA ft.

j Stress Skin.......Inside and outside Inside and outside Ties. joints.....Yes Over-No

...........No No i

Staples..........Yes No Add trwl matl...No No i

i Joint type........ Butt Butt

~

Post buttered.~..No No 1

Pre buttered....Yes Yes i

Gap' width.......NA

.25 i

Add trwl matl...Yes No i

Banding........... Steel Steel Spacing (max)... 3.0 0.0 12.0 dist to 3t (max 2.0 2.0 Add Trwl matl..)No No Edgeguard.........No No

{

. Barr/CQ rating.... 69/

0 min.

69 min.

Barr rating i

Element Comments:

Industry Comments Ref. Ass 2 3a.pcx i

4 Ass 2 3e.pcx Ass 2 3h.pcx Ass 2 31.pcx i

4 Ass 2 3j.pcx I

for construction details.

l e

Evaluations i

As shown through a parameter comparison NEI Test 2-3 (tested a 3/4 in.

conduit) has been chosen as the bounding test for this element. The j

3/4" condulet bounds the existing 1.5" plant condulet.

4 For NEI Test 2-3, the'3/4 in. aluminum conduit maximum temperature criterion (325 deg. F over initial ambient) conduit surface temperature was exceeded at 69 minutes. The conduit surface temperature is the basis for-establishing the actual rating of the installed configuration i

as this is the cold side temperature of the fire barrier. The installed i

configuration's raceway is constructed of steel vs. the tested aluminum. The tested aluminum conduit had a percent fill of 0%, while j

the installed steel conduit has a percent fill of 75%. The installed configuration therefore has a higher thermal capacity which would result in lower internal temperatures at a given time than would a i

similar assembly constructed of aluminum. It is therefore reasonable to conclude that the installed configuration would not exceed allowable j

internal temperatures faster than-the tested configuration.

3 Barrier condition was not considered satisfactory after the hose stream test.

The purpose of the hose stream test is to evaluate the structural integrity _of-the fire barrier and its ability to protect the enclosed raceway from damage caused by in plant fire fighting and 4

i i

falling external objects during a fire.

The conduit itself without the j

fire barrier will protect the circuits inside the conduit from in plant

'i fire fighting and falling external objects during a fire. The barrier 4

07/15/96 4

i 1

EVALUATICN FOR ELEMENT ND.

314 installed on the 3/4 in conduit had pronounced areas of burnthrough but had been subjected to an additional 33 minutes of exposure beyond the i

point where the surface temperature exceeded the acceptance temperature criteria.

Based on temperature profile data recorded during the test, no structural failure, such as joints opening, occurred for the 3/4 in.

conduit barrier during fire exposure. Rather the openings were considered as "burnthrough" where the Thermo-lag material had been consumed to the underlying stress skin.

It is reasonable to conclude i

that this burnthrough occurred following exceedance of acceptance temperature criteria, and that the 3/4 in, conduit and conduit barrier would have been capable of providing an adequate level of protection to the enclosed raceway had the hose stream been applied when the acceptance temperature criteria was initially exceeded.

Note that the comparable test configuration to the installed configuration is 3/4 in. vs. 1.5 in. respectively. Using the results of the smaller test configuration as a comparison is necessary since no baseline 1.5 in. conduit 3 hr. fire barrier envelope was tested. Use of i

the smaller configuration as a comparison is conservative since the results of testing of multiple size raceways in Ass. 2-3 show the smaller the raceway, the faster acceptable internal temperatures are reached.

The plant barrier spacing between bands is less than the 12" spacing between bands for the tested configuration. The plant band spacing from a joint is similar to that in the tested configuration. The plant barrier does not require additional work.

It is therefore concluded that the test data and parameter comparison to a tested configuration provides reasonable assurance that the installed 1.5 in conduit envelope has a fire endurance rating of at least 69 minutes when considering a maximum thermal acceptance criteria of 325 deg F above initial ambient temperature.

07/15/96

' EVALUATION FOR ELEMENT E2.

334 i

INSTALLED INDUSTRY Source....NEI-Baseline-3hr Report No.13890-96143 Ass. 2-3 Barr-Component.... Conduit Size.............

2" 3/41n conduit Thickness........ 1.000 1.000 Preform Conduit...Yes Yes Rib Location......N/A N/A Fill.............

73 4 0%

Support Span......-

NA ft.

NA ft.

Stress Skin.......Inside and outside Inside and outside Over joints.....Yes No Ties............No No Staples.........Yes No Add trwl matl...No No Joint type........ Butt Butt Post buttered...No No Pre buttered....Yes Yes Gap width.......NA

.25 Add trwl matl...Yes No Banding........... Steel Steel Spacing (max).. 10.5 0.0 12.0 dist to 3t (max 2.0 N/A Add Trwl matl...)No No Edgeguard.........No No Barr/CQ rating.... 69/

0 min.

69 min.

Barr rating Element Comments:

Industry Comments:

Ref. Ass 2 3a.pcx Ass 2 3h.pcx Ass 2 31.pcx Ass 2[3j.pcx for construction details.

Evaluation:

As shown through a parameter comparison NEI Test 2-3 (tested a 3/4" conduit)is 2". The 3/4" conduit bounds the existing 2" plant conduit.

has been chosen as the bounding test for this element. Plant conduit For NEI Test 2-3, the 3/4 in. aluminum conduit maximum temperature criterion was exceede(d at 69 minutes. The conduit surface temperature is the325 deg. F ov basis for establishing the actual rating of the installed configuration as this is the cold side temperature of the-fire barrier. The installed configuration's raceway is constructed of steel vs. the tested aluminum. The tested aluminum conduit had a percent fill of 0%, while the installed steel conduit has a percent fill of 73%. The installed configuration therefore has a higher thermal capacity which would result in lower internal temperatures at a given time than would a similar assembly constructed of aluminum. It is therefore reasonable to conclude that the installed configuration would not exceed allowable internal temperatures faster than the tested configuration.

Barrier condition was-not considered satisfactory after the hose stream test.

The purpose of the hose stream test is to evaluate.the structural integrity of the fire barrier and its ability to protect the l

enclosed raceway from damage caused by in plant fire fighting and falling external objects during a fire.

The conduit itself without the fire barrier will protect the circuits inside the conduit from in plant fire fighting and falling' external objects during a fire. The barrier 07/15/96

l i

EVALUATICN FOR ELEMENT ND.

334 inctcllcd on thm 3/4 in conduit hcd pronounced creas of burnthrough but had been subjected to an additional 33 minutes of exposure beyond the point where the surface temperature exceeded the acceptance temperature criteria.

Based on temperature profile data recorded during the test, no structural failure, such as joints opening, occurred for the 3/4 in.

conduit barrier during fire exposure. Rather the openings were considered as "burnthrough" where the Thermo-lag material had been consumed to the underlying stress skin.

It is reasonable to conclude i

that this burnthrough occurred following exceedance of acceptance temperature criteria, and that the 3/4 in. conduit and conduit barrier would have been capable of providing an adequate level of protection to the enclosed raceway had the hose stream been applied when the acceptance temperature criteria was initially exceeded.

Note that the comparable test configuration to the installed configuration is 3/4 in. vs. 2 in. respectively. Using the results of the smaller test configuration as a comparison is necessary since no baseline 2 in, conduit 3 hr. fire barrier envelope was tested. Use of the smaller configuration as a comparison is conservative since the results of testing of multiple size raceways in Ass. 2-3 show the smaller the raceway, the faster acceptable internal temperatures are reached.

The plant barrier spacing between bands is less than the 12" spacing between bands for the tested configuration. The plant band spacing from d

a joint is acceptable as this dimension is not considered critical.

The plant barrier does not require additional work.

This three hour barrier can be down graded to a one hour barrier.

It is therefore concluded that the test data and parameter com toatestedconfigurationprovidesreasonableassurancethatt$arison e

installed 2 in, conduit envelope has a fire endurance rating of at least 69 minutes when considering a maximum thermal acceptance criteria of 325 deg F above initial ambient temperature.

07/15/96

i l

EVALUATION F03 ELEMENT C3.

333 INSTALLED INDUSTRY Source....NEI-Baseline-3hr Report No.13890-96143 Ass. 2-3 i

Barr Component.... Radial bend conduit Size.............

2" 3/41n rad. bend Thickness........

1.000 1.000 Preform Conduit...Yes Yes Rib Location......N/A N/A i

Fill.....

....... 73 %

0%

Support Span......

NA ft.

NA ft.

Stress Skin.......Inside and outside Inside and outside Over joints.....Yes No Ties............No No Staples.........Yes No i

Add trwl matl...No No Joint type........ Butt Butt Post buttered...No No Pre buttered....Yes Yes Gap width.......NA

.25 Add trwl matl...Yes No Banding.......... Steel 1 band / sect Spacing (max)... 1.5 0.0 0.0 dist to jt (max) 1.5

)

Add Trwl matl...No No Edgeg/CQ rating....

uard.........No No Barr 69/

0 min.

69 min.

Barr rating Element Comments:

Industry Comments:

Ref. Ass 2 3a.pcx Ass 2 3h.pcx Ass 2 31.pcx Ass 2[3j.pcx for construction details.

To allow for curvature, the sections installed on the radial bends were miter-cut into individual wedge shaped pieces and fit to the conduit radial bend.

Evaluation:

NEI Test 2-3, 3/4" conduit, tested a 90 degree radial bend in the horizontal to vertical orientation. The element is a 45 degree radial bend. Construction of this radial bend is similar to that used for a straight run conduit, ie: preshaped conduit sections, pre-buttered butt joints, and installation of banding material. The 3/4" conduit radial bend bounds the existing 2" plant conduit radial bend.

For NEI Test 2-3, the 3/4 in. aluminum conduit maximum temperature criterion (325 deg. F over initial ambient) conduit surface temperature was exceeded at 69 minutes. The conduit surface temperature is the basis for establishing the actual rating of the installed configuration as this is the cold side temperature of the fire barrier. The installed configuration's raceway is constructed of steel vs. the tested aluminum. The tested aluminum conduit had a percent fill of 0%, while installed steel conduit has a percent fill of 73%. The installed cont.guration therefore has a higher thermal capacity which would result in lower internal temperatures at a given time than would a similar assembly constructed of aluminum. It is therefore reasonable to l

conclude that the installed configuration would not exceed allowable internal temperatures faster than the tested configuration.

07/15/96

m EVALUATICN FCR ELEMENT N3.

333 Barrier condition was not considered satisfactory after the hose stream test.

The purpose of the hose stream test is to evaluate the i

structural integrity of the fire barrier and its ability to protect the enclosed raceway from damage caused by in plant fire fighting and falling external objects during a fire.

The conduit itself without the fire barrier will protect the circuits inside the conduit from in plant fire fighting and falling external objects during a fire. The barrier installed on the 3/4 in conduit had pronounced areas of burnthrough but had been subjected to an additional 33 minutes of exposure beyond the point where the surface temperature exceeded the acceptance tegerature criteria.

Based on temperature profile data recorded during the test, no structural failure, such as joints opening, occurred for the 3/4 in.

conduit barrier during fire exposure. Rather the openings were considered as "burnthrough" where the Thermo-lag material had been consumed to the underlying stress skin.

It is reasonable to conclude that this burnthrough occurred following exceedance of acceptance temperature criteria, and that the 3/4 in, conduit and conduit barrier would have been capable of providing an adequate level of protection to the enclosed raceway had the hose stream been applied when the acceptance temperature criteria was initially exceeded.

Note that the comparable test configuration to the installed configuration is 3/4 in. vs. 2 in. respectively. Using the results of I

the smaller test configuration as a comparison is necessary since no baseline 2 in. conduit 3 hr. fire barrier envelope was tested. Use of the smaller configuration as a comparison is conservative since the results of testing of multiple size raceways in Ass. 2-3 show the smaller the raceway, the faster acceptable internal temperatures are reached.

The plant barrier spacing between bands is less than the 12" spacing between bands for the tested configuration. The plant band spacing from a joint is similar to the tested configuration. The plant barrier does not require additional work.

It is therefore concluded that the test data and parameter comparison i

to a tested configuration provides reasonable assurance that the installed 2 in conduit envelope has a fire endurance rating of at least 69 minutes when considering a maximum thermal acceptance criteria of 325 deg F above initial ambient temperature.

1 i

07/15/96

EVALUATION FOR ELEMENT NO.

34 INSTALLED INDUSTRY Source....NEI-Baseline-3hr Report No.13890-96143 Ass. 2-3 Barr Component....condulet Size.............

2" 3/4in condulet Thickness.........l.000 1.000 Preform Conduit...No No i

Rib Location.......N/A Horizontal Fill.............

73 %

0%

Support Span......

NA ft.

NA ft.

otress Skin.......Inside and outside Inside and outside Over joints.....Yes No Ties.............No No Staples.........Yes No-Add trwl matl...No No Joint type........ Butt Butt Post buttered...No No Pre buttered....Yes Yes Gap width.......NA

.25 Add trwl matl...Yes No Banding........... Steel Steel Spacing (max)... 7.0 0.0 12.0 dist to 3t (max) 2.5 2.0 Add Trwl matl...No No Edgeguard.........No.

No Barr/CQ rating.... 69/

0 min.

69 min.

Barr rating Element Comments:

Industry Comments:

Ref. Ass 2 3a.pcx Ass 2 3e.pcx Ass 2 3h.

Ass 2 31.pcx pcx Ass 2_3j.pcx for construction details.

Evaluation:

NEI. Test 2-3, 3/4" conduit, tested a condulet in the horizontal to vertical orientation. The element is a condulet. The 3/4" condulet bounds the existing 2" plant condulet.

For NEI Test 2-3, the 3/4 in. aluminum conduit maximum temperature criterion (325 deg. F above initial ambient) conduit surface temperature was exceeded at 469 minutes. The conduit surface temperature is the basis for establishing the actual rating of the installed configuration as this is the cold side temperature of the fire barrier.

The installed configuration's raceway is constructed of steel vs. the tested aluminum. The tested aluminum conduit had a percent' fill of 0%,

while the installed steel conduit has a percent fill of 73%. The

. installed: configuration therefore has a higher thermal capacity which would result.in lower internal temperatures at a given time than would a similar assembly constructed of aluminum. It is therefore reasonable to conclude-that the installed configuration would not exceed allowable internal temperatures faster than the tested configuration.

Barrier condition was not considered satisfactory after the hose stream test.

The purpose of the hose stream test is to evaluate the structural integrity of the fire barrier and its ability to protect the enclosed raceway from damage caused by in plant fire fighting and falling external objects during a fire.

The conduit itself without the fire barrier will protect the circuits inside the conduit from in plant fire fighting and falling external objects during a fire. The barrier 07/15/96 I

I

EVALUATICN FOR ELEMENT C3.

34

• ~ installed on ths 3/4 in conduit had pronounced arons of burnthrough but had been subjected to an additional 33 minutes of exposure beyond the point where the surface temperature exceeded the acceptance temperature criteria.

Based on temperature profile data recorded during the test, i

no structural failure, such as joints opening, occurred for the 3/4 in.

conduit barrier during fire exposure. Rather the openings were considered as "burnthrough" where the Thermo-lag material had been l

consumed to the underlying stress skin.

It is reasonable to conclude l

that this burnthrough occurred following exceedance of acceptance temperature criteria, and that the 3/4 in. conduit and conduit barrier would have been capable of providing an adequate level of protection to the enclosed raceway had the hose stream been applied when the acceptance temperature criteria was initially exceeded.

Note that the comparable test configuration to the installed configuration is 3/4 in. vs. 2 in. respectively. Using the results of the smaller test configuration as a comparison is necessary since no

- baseline 2 in, conduit 3 hr. fire barrier envelope was tested. Use of the smaller configuration as a comparison is conservative since the t

results of testing of multiple size raceways in Ass. 2-3 show the smaller the raceway, the faster acceptable internal temperatures are i

reached.

The plant bcrrier spacing between bands is less than the 12" spacing between bands for the tested configurations. The plant band spacing from a joint is greater than that in the tested configuration. The l

- plant barrier is required to have additional bands installed to i

maintain the 2" maximum spacing to a joint.

This three' hour barrier can be down graded to a one hour barrier with minor rework on band placement.

j It is therefore concluded that the test data and parameter comparison

'i to a tested configuration provides reasonable assurance that the installed 2 in, conduit envelope has a fire endurance rating of at least 69 minutes when considering a maximum thermal acceptance criteria i

of 325 deg F above initial ambient temperature.

[

l 07/15/96

EVALUATION FOR ELEMENT N3.

284 INSTALLED INDUSTRY Source....NEI-Baseline-3hr Report No.13890-96143 Ass. 2-3 Barr Component.... Conduit size.............

2.5" 3/41n conduit Thickness........ 1.000 1.000 Preform Conduit...Yes Yes Rib Location......N/A N/A Fill.............

89 %

0%

Support Span......

NA ft.

NA ft.

Stress Skin.......Inside and outside Inside and outside Over joints.....Yes No Ties............No No Staples.........Yes No Add trwl matl...Yes No Joint type........ Butt Butt Post buttered...No No Pre buttered....Yes Yes Gap width.......NA

.25 Add trwl matl...Yes No Banding........... Steel Steel Specing 8.0 0.0 12.0 dist to (max)...

t (max) 2.0 Add Trwl]matl...No N/A No Edgeg/CQ rating....

uard.........No No Barr 69/

0 min.

69 min.

Barr rating Element Comments:

Industry Comments:

Ref. Ass 2 3a.pcx Ass 2 3h.pcx Ass 2 31.pcx Ass 2[3j.pcx for construction details.

Evaluation:

As shown through a parameter comparison NEI Test 2-3 (tested a 3/4 in.

conduit) has been chosen as the bounding test for this element.

For NEI Test Ass. 2-3, the 3/4 in. aluminum conduit maximum temperature criterion (325 deg F over initial ambient) conduit surface temperature was exceeded at 69 minutes.

The conduit surface temperature is the basis for establishing the actual rating of the installed configuration as this is the cold side temperature of the fire barrier.

The installed configuration's raceway is constructed of steel vs. the tested aluminum. The tested aluminum conduit had a percent fill of 0%,

while the installed steel conduit has a percent fill of 89%. The installed configuration therefore has a higher thermal capacity which would result in lower internal temperatures at a given time than would a similar assembly constructed of aluminum.

It is therefore reasonable to conclude that the installed configuration would not exceed allowable internal temperatures faster than the tested configuration.

Note that the comparable test configuration to the installed configuration is 3/4 in. vs. 2.5 in. respectively.

Using the results of the smaller test configuration as a comparison is necessary since no baseline 2.5 in. conduit 3 hr. fire barrier envelope was tested.

Use of the smaller configuration as a comparison is conservative since the results of testing of multiple size raceways in Ass. 2-3 show the smaller the raceway, the faster acceptable internal temperatures are reached.

07/15/96

EVALUATICJ POR ELEMENT ND.

284 Barrier condition was not considered satisfactory after the hose stream test.

The purpose of the hose stream test is to evaluate the structural integrity of the fire barrier and its ability to protect the enclosed raceway from damage caused by in plant fire fighting and falling external objects during a fire.

The conduit itself without the fire barrier will protect the circuits inside the conduit from in plant fire fighting and falling external objects during a fire. The barrier installed on the 3/4 in conduit had pronounced areas of burnthrough but had been subjected to an additional 33 minutes of exposure beyond the point where the surface temperature exceeded the acceptance temperature criteria.

Based on temperature profile data recorded during the test, no structural failure, such as joints opening,he openings were occurred for the 3/4 in.

conduit barrier during fire exposure.

Rather t considered as "burnthrough" where the Thermo-lag material had been consumed to the underlying stress skin.

It is reasonable to conclude that this burnthrough occurred following exceedance of acceptance temperature criteria, and that the 3/4 in conduit and conduit barrier would have been capable of providing an adequate level of protection to the enclosed raceway had the hose stream been applied when the acceptance temperature criteria was initially exceeded.

The plant barrier spacing between bands is less than the 12" spacing between bands for the tested configuration. The plant band spacing from a joint is acceptable as this dimension is not considered critical.

The plant barrier does not require additional work.

This three hour barrier can be down graded to a one hour barrier.

It is therefore concluded that the test data and parameter comparison to a tested configuration provides reasonable assurance that the installed 2.5 in. conduit envelope has a fire endurance rating of at least 69 minutes when considering a maximum thermal acceptance criteria of 325 deg F above initial ambient temperature.

07/15/96

EVALUATION FOR ELEMENT NA 285 INSTALLED INDUSTRY Source....NEr.-Baseline-3hr Report No.13L'90-9G143 Ass. 2-3 Barr Component.... Radial bend conduit Size.............

2.5" 3/41n rad, bend Thickness........ 1.000 1.000 Preform Conduit...Yes Yes Rib Location......N/A N/A Fill.............

89 %

0%

Support Span......

NA ft.

NA ft.

Stress Skin.......Inside and outside Inside and outside Over joints.....Yes No Ties............No No Staples.........Yes No Add trwl matl...Yes No Joint type........ Butt Butt Post buttered...No No Pre buttered....Yes Yes Gap width.......NA

.25 Add trwl matl...Yes No Banding........... Steel lband/ sect Spacing (max)... 4.5 0.0 0.0 dist to 3t (max) 1.5 Add Trwl matl...No No Edgeguard.........No No Barr/CQ rating.... 69/

0 min.

69 min.

Barr rating Element Comments:

Industry Comments:

Ref. Ass 2 3a.pcx Ass 2 3h.

Ass 2 31.pcx pcx Ass 2[3j.pcx for construction details.

To allow for curvature, the sections installed on the radial bends were miter-cut into individual wedge shaped pieces and fit to the conduit radial bend.

Ryaluation:

NEI Test 2-3, 3/4" conduit, tested a 90 degree radial bend in the horizontal to vertical orientation. The element is a double 45 degree radial bend. Construction of this radial bend is similar to that used for a straight run conduit, ie: preshaped conduit sections, pre-buttered butt joints, and installation of banding material. The 3/4" conduit radial bend bounds the existing 2.5" plant conduit radial bend.

For NEI Test 2-3, the 3/4 in, aluminum conduit maximum temperature criterion (325 deg. F above initial ambient) conduit surface temperature was exceeded at 69 minutes. The conduit surface temperature is the basis for establishing the actual rating of the installed configuration as this is the cold side temperature of the fire barrier.

The installed configuration's raceway is constructed of steel vs. the tested-aluminum. The tested aluminum conduit had a percent fill of 0%,

while the installed steel conduit has a percer.t fill of 89%. The installed configuration therefore has a nigher thermal capacity which would result in lower internal temperatures at a given time than would a sinilar assembly constructed of aluminum. It is therefore reasonable to conclude that the installed configuration would not exceed allowable 07/15/96 j

EVALUATICN FCR ELEMENT NL 285 int $rnnl temp rcturcs fceter than the tected configuration.

Barrier condition was not considered satisfactory after the hose stream test.

The purpose of the hose stream test is to evaluate the structural integrity of the fire barrier and its ability to protect the enclosed raceway from damage caused by in plant fire fighting and falling external objects during a fire.

The conduit itself without the fire barrier will protect the circuits inside the conduit from in plant fire fighting and falling external objects during a fire. The barrier installed on the 3/4 in conduit had pronounced areas of burnthrough but had been subjected to an additional 33 minutes of exposure beyond the point where the surface temperature exceeded the acceptance temperature criteria.

Based on temperature profile data recorded during the test, l

i no structural failure, such as joints opening, occurred for the 3/4 in.

conduit barrier during fire exposure. Rather the openings were considered as "burnthrough" where the Thermo-lag material had been consumed to the underlying stress skin.

It is reasonable to conclude that this burnthrough occurred following exceedance of acceptance temperature criteria, and that the 3/4 in, conduit and conduit barrier would have been capable of providing an adequate level of protection to the enclosed raceway had the hose stream been applied when the acceptance temperature criteria was initially exceeded.

Note that the com configuration is 3/ parable test configuration to the installed 4 in. vs. 2.5 in. respectively. Using the results of the smaller test configuration as a comparison is necessary since no baseline 2.5 in. conduit 3 hr. fire barrier envelope was tested. Use of the smaller configuration as a comparison is conservative since the results of testing of multiple size raceways in Ass. 2-3 show the smaller the raceway, the faster acceptable internal temperatures are reached.

l The plant barrier spacing between bands is less than the 12" spacing between bands for the tested configurations. The plant band spacing from a joint is similar to the tested configuration and does not require additional work.

It is therefore concluded that the test data and parameter comparison to a tested configuration provides reasonable assurance that the installed 2.5 in conduit envelope has a fire endurance rating of at least 69 minutes when considering a maximum thermal acceptance criteria of 325 deg F above initial ambient temperature.

07/15/96

]

l, EVALUATION FOR ELEMENT C3.

30 INSTALLED INDUSTRY Source....NEI-Baseline-3hr

-Report No.13890-96143 Ass. 2-3

'Barr Component....condulet Size............. 14.5"x7.5"x7" 3/4in condulet Thickness........ 1.000 1.000-Preform Conduit...No No Rib Location......N/A Horizontal Fill.............

89 %

0%

Support Span......

NA ft.

NA ft.

Stress Skin.......Inside and outside Inside and outside Ties. joints.....Yes Over No

...........No No Staples.........Yes No Add trwl matl...Yes No Joint type........ Butt Butt Post buttered...No No Pre buttered....Yes Yes Gap width.......NA

.25 Add trwl matl...Yes No Banding.......... Steel Steel Spacing max)... 7.8 0.0 12.0-dist to t (max) 3.5 2.0 Add Trwl matl...No No Edgeguard.........No No Barr/CQ rating...

69/

0 min.

69 min.

Barr rating Element Comments:

Industry Comments:

Ref. Ass 2 3a.pcx Ass 2 3e.

Ass 2 3h.pcx Ass 2 31.pcx pcx Ass 2[3j.pcx for construction details.

Evaluation:

As shown through a parameter comparison, the installed configuration is bounded by a test configuration.

l For NEI Test-Ass. 2-3, the 3/4 in, aluminum conduit maximum temperature criterion (325 deg F over initial ambient) conduit surface temperature j

was exceeded at 69 minutes.

The conduit surface' temperature-is the i

basis for establishing the actual rating of the installed configuration as this is the cold side temperature of the fire barrier.

The j

installed configuration's raceway is constructed of steel vs. the j

tested aluminum. The tested aluminum conduit had a percent fill of 0%,

while the installed steel conduit has a percent fill of 89%. The installed configuration therefore has a higher thermal capacity which would result in lower internal temperatures at a given time than would a similar assembly constructed of aluminum.

It is therefore reasonable to conclude that the installed configuration would not exceed allowable internal temperatures faster than the tested configuration.

j Note that the cow arable test configuration to the installed configuration is 3/4 in. vs. 2.5 in. respectively.

Using the results of the smaller test configuration as a-comparison is necessary since no m

j baseline 2.5 in. conduit 3 hr. fire barrier envelope was tested.

Use of the smaller configuration as a comparison is conservative since the 3

j results of testing of multiple size raceways in Ass. 2-3 show the smaller the raceway, the faster acceptable internal temperatures are 4

reached.

i 07/15/96

- ~

1 EVALUATIC".J FOR ELEMENT E3.

30 1

Barrier condition was not considered satisfactory after the hose stream test.

The purpose of the hose stream test is to evaluate the structural integrity of the fire barrier and its ability to protect the enclosed raceway from damage caused by in plant fire fighting and falling external objects during a fire.

The conduit itself without the fire barrier will protect the circuits inside the conduit from in plant fire fighting and falling external objects during a fire. The barrier installed on the 3/4 in conduit had pronounced areas of burnthrough but had been subjected to an additional 33 minutes of exposure beyond the point where the surface temperature exceeded the acceptance temperature criteria.

Based on temperature profile data recorded during the test, no structural failure, such as joints opening, occurred for the 3/4 in.

conduit barrier during fire exposure. Rather the openings were considered as "burnthrough" where the Thermo-lag material had been consumed to the underlying stress skin.

It is reasonable to conclude that this burnthrough occurred following exceedance of acceptance temperature criteria, and that the 3/4 in. conduit and conduit barrier would have been capable of providing an adequate level of protection to the enclosed raceway had the hose stream been applied when the acceptance temperature criteria was initially exceeded.

The plant barrier spacing between bands is less than the 12" spacing between bands for the tested configurations. The plant band spacing from a joint is required to have additional bands installed to maintain the 2" maximum spacing to a joint..

It is therefore concluded that the test data and parameter comparison to a tested configuration provides reasonable assurance that the installed 2.5 in. condulet envelope has a fire endurance rating of at least 69 minutes when considering a maximum thermal acceptance criteria of 325 deg F above initial ambient temperature.

1 i

07/15/96 l

,,_._4_,_

=--

"r

EVALUATION F03 ELEMENT NO.

381 INSTALLED INDUSTRY Source....NEI-Baseline-3hr Report No.13890-96143 Ass. 2-3 Barr Component.... Conduit Size.............

3" 31n conduit Thickness........ 1.000 1.000 Preform Conduit...Yes Yes Rib Location......N/A N/A Fill.............

37 %

0%

Support Span......

NA ft.

NA ft.

Stress Skin.......Inside and outride Inside and outside Over joints.....Yes No Ties............No No Staples.........Yes No Add trwl matl...No No Joint type........ Butt Butt Post buttered...No No Pre buttered....Yes Yes Gap width.......NA

.25 Add trwl matl...Yes No Banding........... Steel Steel 7

Spacing 0.0 12.0 dist to ](max).. 11.0 t (max) 8.5 N/A Add Trwl matl...No No Edgeg/CQ rating....

uard.........No No Barr 91/

0 min.

91 min.

Barr rating Element Comments:

Industry Comments:

Ref. Ass 2 3c.pcx Ass 2 3h.pcx Ass 2 31.pcx Ass 2 3j.pcx for construction details.

Evaluation:

As shown through a parameter comparison NEI Test 2-3 (tested a 3" conduit)is 3".has been chosen as the bounding test for this element. Plant conduit For NEI Test 2-3, the 3 in, aluminum conduit maximum temperature criterion (325 deg. F over initial ambient) conduit surface temperature was exceeded at 91 minutes. The conduit surface temperature is the basis for establishing the actual rating of the installed configuration as this is the cold side temperature of the fire barrier. The installed configuration's raceway is constructed of steel vs. the tested aluminum. The tested aluminum conduit had a percent fill of 0%, while the installed steel conduit has a percent fill of 37%. The installed configuration therefore has a higher thermal capacity which would j

result in lower internal temperatures at a given time than would a

{

similar assembly constructed of aluminum. It.is therefore reasonable to conclude that the installed configuration would not exceed allowable internal temperatures faster than the tested configuration.

Barrier condition was not considered satisfactory after the hose stream test.

The purpose of the hose stream test is to evaluate the structural integrity of the fire barrier and its ability to protect the enclosed raceway from damage caused by in plant fire fighting and falling external objects during a fire.

The conduit itself without the fire barrier will protect the circuits inside the conduit from in plant fire fighting and falling external objects during a fire. The barrier installed on the 3 in conduit had localized area of burnthrough but had 07/15/96

EVALUATION FOR ELEMENT !!3.

381 bssn subjseted to an additional 11 minutos of exposure bayond the point where the surface temperature exceeded the acceptance temperature criteria.

Based on temperature profile data recorded during the test, no structural failure, such as joints opening, occurred for the 3 in.

conduit barrier during fire exposure. Rather the openings were considered as "burnthrough" where the Thermo-lag material had been consumed to the underlying stress skin.

It is reasonable to conclude that this burnthrough occurred following exceedance of acceptance temperature criteria, and that the 3 in. conduit and conduit barrier would have been capable of providing an adequate level of protection to the enclosed raceway had the hose stream been applied when the acceptance temperature criteria was initially exceeded.

The plant barrier spacing between bands is less than the 12" spacing between bands for the tested configuration. The plant band spacing from.

a joint is acceptable as this dimension is not considered critical.

The plant barrier does not require additional work.

This three hour barrier can be down graded to a one hour barrier.

It is therefore concluded that the test data and parameter comparison to a tested configuration provides reasonable assurance that the installed 3 in. conduit envelope has a fire endurance rating of at least 91 minutes when considering a maximum thermal acceptance criteria of 325 deg F above initial ambient temperature.

07/15/96

EVALUATION FOR ELEMENT NO.

382 INSTALLED INDUSTRY Source....NEI-Baseline-3hr Report No.13890-96143 Ass. 2-3 Barr Component.... Radial bend conduit size.............

3" 31n rad. bend Thickness.........l.000 1.000 Preform Conduit...Yes Yes Rib Location......N/A N/A Fill.............

37 %

0%

Support Span......

NA ft.

NA ft.

Stress Skin.......Inside and outside Inside and outside Over joints.....Yes No Ties............No No Staples.........Yes No Add trwl matl...No No Joint type........ Butt Butt Post buttered...No No Pre buttered....Yes Yes Gap width.......NA

.25 Add trwl matl...Yes No Banding........... Steel 2 band / sect Spacing (max)... 6.0 0.0 0.0 dist to 3t (max) 3.0 Add Trwl matl...No No Edgeguard.........No No Barr/CQ rating.... 91/

0 min.

91 min.

Barr rating Element Comments:

Industry Comments:

Ref. Ass 2 3c.pcx Ass?~3h.pcx Ass 2 31.pcx Ass 2[3j.pcx for construction details.

i i

To allow for curvature, the sections installed on the radial bends were miter-cut into individual wedge shaped pieces and fit to the conduit radial bend.

Evaluation:

NEI Test 2-3, 3" conduit, tested a 90 degree radial bend in the horizontal to vertical orientation. The element is a double 45 degree radial bend. Construction of this radial bend is similar to that used for a straight run conduit, ie: preshaped conduit sections, pre-buttered butt joints, and installation of banding material.

For NEI Test 2-3, the 3 in. aluminum conduit maximum temperature criterion (325 deg. F over initial ambient) conduit surface temperature was exceeded at 91 minutes. The conduit surface temperature is the basis for establishing the actual rating of the installed configuration as this is the cold side temperature of the fire barrier. The installed configuration's raceway is constructed of steel vs. the tested aluminum. The tested aluminum conduit had a percent fill of 0%, while the installed steel conduit has a percent fill of 37%. The installed configuration therefore has a higher thermal capacity which would result in lower internal temperatures at a given time than would a similar assembly constructed of aluminum. It is therefore reasonable to conclude that the installed configuration would not exceed allowable internal temperatures faster than the tested configuration.

07/15/96

EVALUATICN FJR ELEMENT N3.

382 Barrior condition was not considered natisfactory after the hose stream test.

The purpose of the hose stream test is to evaluate the structural integrity of the fire barrier and its ability to protect the enclosed raceway from damage caused by in plant fire fighting and falling external objects during a fire.

The conduit itself without the fire barrier will protect the circuits inside the conduit from in plant fire fighting and falling external objects during a fire. The barrier installed on the 3 in conduit had localized area of burnthrough but had been subjected to an additional 11 minutes of exposure beyond the point where the surface temperature exceeded the acceptance temperature criteria.

Based on temperature profile data recorded during the test, no structural failure, such as joints opening, occurred for the 3 in.

conduit barrier during fire exposure. Rather the openings were considered as "burnthrough" where the Thermo-lag material had been consumed to the underlying stress skin.

It is reasonable to conclude that this burnthrough occurred following exceedance of acceptance temperature criteria, and that the 3 in, conduit and conduit barrier would have been capable of providing an adequate level of protection to the enclosed raceway had the hose stream been applied when the acceptance temperature criteria was initially exceeded.

The plant barrier spacing between bands is less than the 12" spacing between bands for the tested configuration. The plant band spacing from a joint is greater than that in the tested configuration. The plant barrier is reguired to have additional bands installed to maintain the required banding for a radial bend.

This three hour barrier can be down graded to a one hour barrier with minor rework on band placement.

It is therefore concluded that the test data and parameter comparison to a tested configuration provices reasonable assurance that the installed 3 in. conduit envelope has a fire endurance rating of at least 91 minutes when considering a maximum thermal acceptance criteria of 325 deg F above initial ambient temperature.

i i

)

07/15/96

EVAI.UATICN FOR ELEMENT ND.

159 j

INSTALLES INDUSTRY Source....NEI-Base-Tray-3hr i

Report No.13890-96150 Ass.2-10 Barr Component.... Cable. Tray i

1 Size.............

24" X 6" 24x4 Tray A Thickness........ 1.000 1.000 i

Preform Conduit...No No Rib Location...... Unknown Inside/ Parallel l

Fill.............

27 %

15 %

support Span.....

2.7 ft.

3.0 ft.

Stress Skin....'...Inside and outside Inside and outside Over joints.....Yes No i

Ties............No No Staples.........Yes a

No i

Add trwl matl...Yes No j

Joint type........ Butt Butt Post buttered...No No i

Pre buttered....Yes Yes i

Gap width.......NA

.25 i

Add trwl matl...Yes No Banding.......... Steel Steel j-Spacing (max)... 0.0 0.0 12.0 dist to jt (max) 2.0 l

Add Trwl matl...No No i

Edgeguard.........No No j

Barr/CQ rating.... 85/

0 min.

85 min.

Barr rating Element Comments:

Industry Comments:

Ref. Ass 2 10a.pcx 1

Ass 2 10e.pcx Ass 2 10f.pcx

}

Ass 2_10g.pcx for construction details.

The support span relates to the 3

single su assembly.pport in the testThe total unsuppor span is no greater than 3 feet.

}

Support members were covered using V-ribbed panel material to achieve i

coverage for the entire support.

The support member envelopes were i

secured with steel bands, within s

2in. of a panel butt joint or the j

endof a panel and a 12in. intervals thereafter.

All seams betweem joints between individual panels were postbuttered with trowel grade' material.

Evaluation:

As shown through a parameter comparison, NEI Test 2-10 (tested a 24" x 4" cable tray - Tray A) has been chosen as the bounding test for this element. The plant cable tray is 24" x 6".

The tested cable tray fire barrier bounds the existing 24" x 6" plant cable tray.

07/15/96

EVALUATION FOR ELEMENT O.

159 i

For NEI Test 2-10, Tray A maximum temperature criterio(24" x 4") aluminum ladder back cable tray n (325 deg. F over initial ambient? under cable tray rungs temperature was not exceeded at 86 minutes wh:.ch is when the test was terminated. However, the cable tray right rail temperature exceeded maximum criterion at 85 minutes. The cable tray under rungs area temperature is the basis for establishing the actual rating of the installed configuration as this is the cold side temperature of the fire barrier. The installed configuration's raceway is constructed of steel vs. the tested aluminum. The tested aluminum cable tray had a percent fill of 15%, while the installed steel cable tray has a percent fill of 27%. The installed configuration therefore has a higher thermal capacity which would result in lower internal temperatures at a given time than would the tested assembly. It is therefore reasonable to conclude that the installed configuration would j

not exceed allowable internal temperatures faster than the tested configuration.

1 Barrier condition was not considered satisfactory after the hose stream test.

The purpose of the hose stream test is to evalucte the structural integrity of the fire barrier and its ability to protect the enclosed raceway from damage caused by in plant fire fighting and falling external objects during a fire.

The cable tray itself will protect the circuits from in plant fire fighting and falling external objects during a fire due to the cable tray being installed high in the overhead. The barrier installed on the 24" x 4" cable tray had openings 1

j occur on the undersides of the barriers where damage to enclosed raceways induced by falling external objects would be unlikely.

Note that the comparable test configuration cable tray to the installed cable tray is 24" x 4" vs. 24" x 6" respectively. Using the results of the cable tray test configuration as a comparison is necessary since no baseline 24" x 6" cable tray 3 hr. fire barrier was tested. Use of the tested cable tray configuration as a comparison is acceptable since the depth of the cable tray does not effect the out come of the test as the width of the cable tray does.

The plant barrier spacing between bands is unknown. The plant band j

spacing from a joint is unknown. Additional inspection is required to determine the band spacing to a joint and spacing between bands.

y l

It is therefore concluded that the test data and parameter comparison to a tested configuration provides reasonable assurance that the installed 24" x 6" cable tray envelope has a fire endurance rating of

[

at least 85 minutes when considering a maximum thermal acceptance criteria of 325 deg. F above initial ambient temperature, t

07/15/96

EVALUATION FOR ELEMENT NO.

160 o

INSTALLED INDUSTRY Source....NEI-Base-Tray-3hr Report No.13890-96150 Ass.2-10 Barr Component.... Radial bend tray Size.............

24" x 6" 24x4 Tray A bend Thickness........ 1.000 1.000 Preform Conduit...No No Rib Location...... Unknown Inside/ Parallel Fill.............

27 %

15 %

Support Span.....

2.8 ft.

3.0 ft.

Stress Skin.......Inside and outside Inside and outside Ties. joints.....Yes Over No

...........No No Staples.........Yes No Add trwl matl...No No Joint type........ Butt Butt Post buttered...No Yes Pre buttered....Yes No Gap width.......NA

.25 Add trwl matl...Yes No Banding...km....... Steel 2 band / sect Spacing ax)...

5.5 0.0 0.0 dist to jt (max) 2.5 Add Trwl matl...No No Edgeguard.........No No Barr/CQ rating.... 85/

0 min.

85 min.

Barr rating Element Comments:

Industry Comments:

Ref. Ass 2 10a.pcx Ass 2 10e.pcx Ass 2 10f.pcx Ass 2[10g.pcx for construction details.

The support span relates to the single support in the test assembly.

The total unsupported 2

span is no greater than 3 feet.

To allow for curvature, the panels installed on the inside and outside surfaces of the radial bends were miter cut into individual horizontal slats, 3-7/81n. wide and 5-1/2 to 5-3/41n. wide respectively.

The side rail panel materials were similarly miter cut such that an inner surface panel section, an outer surface panel section, and two tray side rail sections would form a single circumferential band around the radial bend.

Evaluation:

As shown through a parameter comparison, NEI Test 2-10 (tested a 24" x 4" cable tray radial bend - Tray A)ble tray radial bend is 24" x 6".

has been chosen as the bounding test for this element. The plant ca The tested cable tray radial bend fire barrier bounds the existing 24" x 6" plant' cable tray radial bend.

07/15/96

l EVA1UATICN FOR ELEMENT CD.

160 1

For NEI Test 2-10, Trcy A maximum temperature criterio(n (325 deg. F over initial ambient)24" x 4") aluminum ladder ba I

under cable tray rungs temperature was not exceeded at 86 minutes which is when the test was terminated. However, the cable tray right rail temperature exceeded the maximum criterion at 85 minutes.

This will serve as the basis for the fire endurance rating for the barrier. The l

installed configuration's raceway is constructed of steel vs. the i

tested aluminum. The tested aluminum cable tray had a percent fill of 15%, while the installed steel cable tray has a percent fill of 27%.

The installed configuration therefore has a higher thermal capacity l

which would result in lower internal temperatures at a given time than would the tested assembly. It is therefore reasonable to conclude that the installed configuratlon would not exceed allowable internal temperatures faster than the tested configuration.

Barrier condition was not considered satisfactory after the hose stream test.

The purpose of the hose stream test is to evaluate the structural integrity of the fire barrier and its ability to protect the enclosed raceway from damage caused by in plant fire fighting and falling external objects during a fire.

The cable tray itself will protect the circuits from in plant fire fighting and falling external objects during a fire due to the cable tray being installed high in the overhead. The barrier installed on the 24" x 4" cable tray had openings occurr on the undersides of the barriers where damage to enclosed raceways induced by falling external objects would be unlikely.

Note that the comparable test configuration cable tray to the installed cable tray is 24" x 4" vs. 24" x 6" respectively. Using the results of the cable tray tese configuration as a comparison is necessary since no baseline 24" x 6" cable tray 3 hr. fire barrier was tested. Use of the tested cable tray configuration as a comparison is acceptable since the depth of the cable tray does not effect the out come of the test as the l

width of the cable tray does.

The plant barrier spacing between bands is less than the 12" spacing between bands for the tested configuration. The plant band spacing from a joint is greater than that in the tested configuration. The plant barrier is required to have additional bands installed to maintain the 2" maximum spacing to a joint.

It is therefore concluded that the test data and parameter comparison to a tested configuration provides reasonable assurance that the installed 24" x 6" cable tray radial bend envelope has a fire endurance rating of at least 85 minutes when considering a maximum thermal acceptance criteria of 325 deg. F above initial ambient temperature.

I i

l 07/15/96 l

l l

l

EVELUATION FOR ELEMENT C3.

350 INSTALLEp INDUSTRY Source....NEI-Base-Tray-3hr Report No.13890-96150 Ass.2-10 Earr Component.... radial bend tray size.............

6" x 6" 6x4 Tray B bend Thickness........ 1.000 1.000 Preform Conduit...No No Rib Location......N/A Inside/ Parallel Fill.............

90 %

16 %

Support Span.....

1.8 ft.

3.0 ft.

Stress Skin.......Inside and outside Inside and outside Over joints.....Yes No Ties............No No Staples.........Yes No Add trwl matl...Yes NA Joint type........ Butt Butt Post buttered...No Yes Pre buttered...Yes No Gap width.......NA

.25 Add trwl matl...Yes No Banding.......... Steel 2 band / sect Spacing (max)... 0.0 0.0 0.0 dist to jt (max Add Trwl matl..).No Edgeg/CQ rating....

uard.........No No Barr 86/

0 min.

86 min.

Barr rating Element Comments:

Industry Comments:

Ref. Ass 2 10b.pcx Ass 2 10e.pcx Ass 2 10f.pcx Ass 2_10g.pcx for construction details.

The support span relates to the single support in the test assembly.

The total unsupported span is no greater than 3 feet.

To allow for curvature, the panels i

installed on the inside and outside surfaces of the radial bends were miter cut into individual horizontal slats, 3-7/8in, wide and 5-1/2 to 5-3/41n wide respectively.

The side rail panel materials were i

similarly miter cut such that an i

inner surface panel section, an I

outer surface panel section, and two tray side rail sections would form a single circumferential band around the radial bend.

i i

Evaluation:

)

As shown through a parameter comparison, NEI Test 2-10 (tested a 6" x l

4" cable tray radial bend - Tray B) has been chosen as the bounding test for this element. The plant cable tray radial bend is 6" x 6".

The tested cable tray radial bend fire barrier bounds the existing 6" x 6" plant cable tray radial bend.

For NEI Test 2-10, Tray B (6" x 4") alumir'im ladder back cable tray 07/15/96 l

EVALUATICO FAR ELEMENT ND.

350 1

maximum temperature criterion (325 dag. F over initial ambient) under cable tray rungs was not exceeded at 86 minutes which is when the test was terminated. No temperatures at any location exceeded the maximum temperature criterion.

Therefore, 86 minutes will be the basis for establishing a fire endurance rating for the barrier.

The installed configuration's raceway is constructed of steel vs. the tested aluminum. The tested aluminum cable tray had a percent fill of 16%,

while the installed steel cable tray has a percent fill of 90%. The installed configuration therefore has a higher thermal capacity which would result in lower internal temperatures at a given time than would the tested assembly. It is therefore reasonable to conclude that the installed configuration would not exceed allowable internal temperatures faster than the tested configuration.

Note that the comparable test configuration cable tray to the installed cable tray is 6" x 4" vs. 6" x 6" respectively. Using the results of the cable tray test configuration as a comparison is necessary since the only other cable tray configuration tested was a 24" x 4" cable tray. Use of the 6" x 4" tested cable tray configuration as a comparison is conservative since the plant cable tray is more closely represented by the 6" x 4" tested cable tray.

Barrier condition was considered satisfactory after the hose stream test.

The plant barrier spacing between bands-is unknown. The plant band spacing from a joint is unknown. Additional inspection is required to determine the band spacing measurements.

It is therefore concluded that the test data and parameter comparison to a tested configuration provides reasonable assurance that the installed 6" x 6" cable tray radial bend envelope has a fire endurance rating of at least 86 minutes when considering a maximum thermal acceptance criteria of 325 deg. F above initial ambient temperature.

)

e 07/15/96

l EVALUATION FOR ELEMENT NO.

573 INSTALLED I.NDUSTRY Source....NEI-Baseline-JB-3hr Report No.13890-98757 Ass. 3-2 1

Barr Component.... Penetration

)

Size.............

1.25 6"x6"x4 JB 1

Thickness........ 1.000 1.000 Preform Conduit...No No i

Rib Location......N/A No ribs / flat Fill..............

O %

0 Support Span......

NA ft.

NA ft.

Stress Skin.......Inside and outside Inside and outside Over joints.....Yes No Ties............No No Staples.........Yes No Add trwl matl...No No Joint type........ Butt Butt Post buttered.'..No Yes Pre buttered....Yes No Gap width.......NA

.125 Add trwl matl...Yes No Banding.......... Steel Steel Spacing max)... 0.0 0.0 0.0 dist to t (max) 2.0 Add Trwl matl...No No Edgeguard.........

O No Barr/CQ rating.... 60/

0 min.

60 min.

Barr rating Element Comments:

Industry Comments:

Panels were installed on the junction boxes first, with the side panels in compression between the i

bottom enclosure panel and the concrete slab.

The V-rib 1

stiffeners were hammered flat for l

the panels used to cover the junction box assembly.

Support coverage was installed following junction box coverage using the butt joint method with post butterred joints.

Protruding item j

coverage on the 1 inch steel conduits was provided with 1/2 inch preshaped conduit sections for a distance of 9 inches.

An additional overlay of 3/8 inch thick sections was then installed.

Stainless steel tie wires were pre-installed to secure support coverage and bands oriented perpendicular to the protruding conduit were installed through the material such that they were in contact with the top of the box.

A fillet of trowel grade material was placed at the interface between the box coverage and the concrete slab and at the interface between the box coverage and the protruding item coverage.

Surface temperatures were

1 EVALUATION PCR ELEMENT N3.

573 antiefcetory for the 60 minute test.

Barrier condition was satisfactory after the hose stream 1

test.

Evaluation:

As shown through a parameter comparison, the installed configuration is bounded by a test configuration, j

For NEI Test Ass.

3-2, a 6" x 6" x 4" junction box was protected with 1 inch thick panel sections. The enclosure was abutted to the concrete and sealed with Thermo-Lag trowel grade material using post buttered techniques. During NEI Test 3-2, temperatures on the Junction box surface for the 60 minutes was not recorded due to failure of the thermal couples. For this test, the Thermo-Lag to concrete interface joint did not fail the hose stream test. The thermocouple readings for the 6" x 6" x 4" junction box protected with 1/2" thick panel sections maximum temperature criterion (maximum temperature 402 deg F.) was i

reached in 54 minutes. It is reasonable to conclude that the junction l

box protected with 1 inch thick panel section will last for 60 minutes.

In other words, this type of joint can be expected to maintain its thermal performance without failing the maximum temperature criterion for 60 minutes. It is therefore reasonable to use the results of NEI Test 3-2 to establish a fire endurance rating for this element as the construction techniques of this element are similar to those for NEI Test 3-2 except that this element has an additional panel section anchored to the concrete which is both pre and post buttered at the Thermo-Lag to concrete interface and Thermo-Lag to Thermo-Lag interface.

NEI Test 3-2 demonstrates that a Thermo-Lag to concrete interface with trowel grade material will not cause the barrier to fail.

The thermal mass of the tested configuration was 1.80 lb/lin, ft. The plant barrier has a total thermal mass of 2.2173 lb./lin. ft.(2.15 lb./lin. ft, conduit, 0.0673 lb./lin, ft. cable (ipr-16 EK-15A). The tested configuration used panels that were 1 inch thick. The plant configuration used 1 inch panel sections to protect the conduit and condulet.

Barrier condition was considered satisfactory after the hose stream test. There were no barrier openings present in the body of the protective envelope. No barrier openings to the conduits were present at the interface with the concrete slab either.

Band spacing is not considered relevant to this evaluation. The thermo-lag to concrete interface is the parameter being addressed here.

This element is the thermo-lag to concrete interface for element no.

175.

It is therefore concluded that the test data and parameter comparison to a tested configuration provides reasonable assurance that the installed 1-1/4 in, conduit envelope has a fire endurance rating of at least 60 minutes when considering a maximum thermal acceptance criteria of 325 deg F above initial ambient temperature.

07/15/96

l EVALUATION FOR ELEMENT C3.

574 i

INSTALLED INDUSTRY Source....NEI-Baseline-3hr Report No.13890-98756 Ass. 3-1 Barr Component.... Penetration Size.............

1" 2in mult. cond.

Thickness........ 1.000 1.000 i

Preform Conduit...Yes Yes Rib Location......N/A No ribs / flat Fill.....

....... 72 %

0

)

Support Span......

NA ft.

NA ft.

Stress Skin.......Inside and outside Inside and outside I

Over joints.....Yes No Ties............No No Staples.........Yes No Add trwl matl...No No l

Joint type........ Butt Butt Post buttered...No Yes Pre buttered....Yes No Gap width.......NA

.125 Add trwl matl...Yes No Banding........... Steel Steel Spacing 4.0 0.0 13.0 dist to a(max)...

t (max) 2.0 6.0 Add Trwl matl...No No Edgeguard.........No No Barr/CQ rating.... 60/

0 min.

60 min.

Barr rating Element Comments:

Industry Comments:

After V-Rib panels were flattened, the panels were oriented, as if the ribs still existed, parallel to the i

conduits.

One preshaped conduit section was installed on the outside edge of each 2 inch conduit along the entire length.

Top and bottom a

panels were then installed between the conduit sections forming an enclosure that is rounded on each side, flat on top and bottom and abutting the concrete slab on each end.

The interface between the barrier envelope and the concrete slab was post buttered with a fillet of trowel grade material.

Conduit surface temperatures were satisfactory for the 60 minute test a'

duration.

During the hose stream test, openings were developed in the barrier at the barrier /

concrete interface area.

Evaluation:

As shown through a. parameter comparison, the installed configuration is bounded by a test configuration.

For NEI Test ass.

3-1, a pair of 2 inch conduits were mounted in a 07/15/96 a

1 EVALUATICN FOR ELEMENT CD.

574 "U-shrpsd" conduit loop configurction. The enclo ure was constructed using 1 inch thick pre-shaped conduit sections and pre-fabricated V-rib panels covering the conduits. The enclosure was abutted to the concrete and sealed with Thermo-Lag trowel grade material using post buttered 4

techniques. During NEI Test 3-1, temperature acceptance limits were not exceeded on the conduit surface for the 60 minutes. For this test, the Thermo-Lag to concrete interface joint failed the hose stream test. The thermocouple readings in the area of the Thermo-Lag to concrete interface were well below the maximum temperature criterion (maximum temperature 393 deg F.).

The maximum thermocouple readings in this area ranged from 211 deg F to 229 deg F.

In other words, this type of 3

joint can be expected to maintain its thermal performance without f ailing the maxhum temperature criterion for 60 minutes. It is therefore reasonable to use the results of NEI Test 3-1 to establish a fire endurance rating for this element as the construction techniques of this element are the same as those for NEI Test 2-3 except that this element is both pre and post buttered at the Thermo-Lag to concrete interface.

NEI Test 3-1 demonstrates that a Thermo-Lag to concrete a

i interface with trowel grade material will not cause the barrier to fail.

The thermal mass of the tested configuration was 2.32 lb/lin. ft. The plant barrier has a total thermal mass of 2.20 lb./lin. ft.(1.65 lb./lin. ft. conduit, 0.208 lb./lin. ft. cable (2/C-10 EK-8B 0.34 lb./lin. ft. conduit coupling). The tested configuration use)d 2 inch preformed conduit sections and panels that were 1 inch thick. The plant configuration is as follows:

1" conduit, 1" preformed conduit sections on conduit up to coupling, 3" preformed conduit sections installed over the 1" sections, remaining conduit run conduit and the preformed conduit sectio (-2") has an air gap between the n to the ceiling. Even though the thermal mass of the tested configuration is slightly more the air 4

gap of the plant config/lin. ft.).uration will compensate for the slighty lower thermal mass (0.12 lb.

The tested configuration had trowel grade material applied at the preformed and concrete interface (post buttered). The plant configuration used both pre and post buttered trowel grade material for this joint. The fillet of trowel grade is also protected with the overlay of structural steel fire proofing. This i

provides additional protection to this joint.

Barrier condition was not considered satisfactory after the hose stream test. There were no barrier openings present in the body of the protective envelope. Openings to the conduits were present at the interface with the concrete slab. The purpose of the hose stream test is to evaluate the structural integrity of the fire barrier and its ability to protect the enclosed raceway from damage caused by in plant.

fire fighting and falling external objects during a fire.

The conduit itself without the fire barrier will protect the circuits inside the i

conduit from in plant fire fighting and falling external objects during a fire.

This element is located at the ceiling of the fire area and is located over the Technical Support center roof.

Note that this test was terminated at 60 minutes.

Band spacing is not considered relevant to this evaluation. The thermo-lag to concrete interface is the parameter being addressed here.

This element is the thermo-lag to concrete interface for element no.

375.

It is therefore concluded that the test data and parameter comparison to a tested configuration provides reasonable assurance that the installed 1 in, conduit envelope has a fire endurance rating of at least 60 minutes when considering a maximum thermal acceptance criteria of 325 deg F above initial ambient temperature.

07/15/96

EVALUATION FOR ELEMENT N3.

582 INSTALLED INDUSTRY Source....NEI-Baseline-JB-3hr Report No.13890-98757 Ass. 3-2 Barr Component.... Penetration Size..............

6"x6"x4 JB Thickness.........l.000 1.000 Preform Conduit...Yes No Rib Location......N/A No ribs / flat Fill..............

O%

0 Support Span......

MA ft.

NA ft.

Stress Skin.......Inside and outside Inside and outside Over joints.....Yes No Ties............No No Staples.........Yes No Add trwl matl...No No Joint type........ Butt Butt Post buttered...No Yes Pre buttered....Yes No Gap width.......NA

.125 Add trwl matl...Yes No Banding...

.......None Steel Spacing max)... 0.0 0.0 0.0 dist to t (max) 2.0 Add Trwl matl...Yes No Edgeguard.........

O No Barr/CQ rating.... 60/

0 min.

60 min.

Barr rating Element Comments:

Industry Comments:

Panels were installed on the junction boxes first, with the side panels in compression between the

, bottom enclosure panel and the concrete slab.

The V-rib stiffeners were hammered flat for the panels used to cover the junction box assembly.

Support-coverage was installed following junction box coverage using the butt joint method with post butterred joints.

Protruding item coverage on the 1 inch steel conduits was provided with 1/2 inch preshaped conduit sections for a distance of 9 inches.

An additional overlay of 3/8 inch thick sections was then installed.

Stainless steel-tie wires were pre-installed to secure support coverage and bands oriented perpendicular to the protruding conduit were installed through the material such that they were in contact with the top of the box.

A fillet of trowel grade material was placed at the interface between the box coverage and the concrete slab and at the interface between the box coverage and the protruding item coverage.

Surface temperatures were

EVALUATIC] FOR ELEMENT N3.

582 ccticfcctory for the 60 minute test.

Barrier condition was satisfactory after the hose stream test.

Evaluation:

As shown through a parameter comparison, the installed configuration is bounded by a test configuration.

For NEI Test Ass.

3-2, a 6" x 6" x 4" junction box was protected with 1 inch thick panel sections. The enclosure was abutted to the concrete and sealed with Thermo-Lag trowel grade material using post buttered techniques. During NEI Test 3-2, temperatures on the gunction box surface for the 60 minutes was not recorded due to failure of the thermal couples. For this test, the Thermo-Lag to concrete interface joint did not fail the hose stream test. The thermocouple readings for the 6" x 6" x 4" junction box protected with 1/2" thick panel sections maximum temperature criterion (maximum temperature 402 deg F.) was reached in 54 minutes. It is reasonable to conclude that the junction i

box protected with 1 inch thick panel section will last for 60 minutes.

In other words, this type of joint can be expected to maintain its thermal performance without failing the maximum temperature criterion for 60 minutes. It is therefore reasonable to use the results of NEI Test 3-2 to establish a fire endurance rating for this element as the construction techniques of this element are similar to those for NEI Test 3-2 except that this element has an additional panel section anchored to the concrete which is both pre and post buttered at the Thermo-Lag to concrete interface and Thermo-Lag to Thermo-Lag interface.

NEI Test 3-2 demonstrates that a Thermo-Lag to concrete interface with trowel grade material will not cause the barrier to fail.

The thermal mass of the tested configuration was 1.80 lb/lin. ft. The plant barrier has a total thermal mass of 1.858 lb./lin. ft.(1.65 lb./lin. ft. conduit, 0.208 lb./lin, ft. cable (2/C-10 EK-8B). The tested configuration used panels that were 1 inch thick. The plant configuration used 1 inch panel sections to protect the conduit and condulet.

Barrier condition was considered satisfactory after the hose stream test. There were no barrier openings present in the body of the protective envelope. No barrier openings to the conduits were present at the interface with the concrete slab either.

Band spacing is not considered relevant to this evaluation. The thermo-lag to concrete interface is the parameter being addressed here.

This element is the thermo-lag to concrete interface for element no.

609.

It is therefore concluded that the test data and parameter comparison to a tested configuration provides reasonable assurance that the installed conduit envelope has a fire endurance rating of at least 60 minutes when considering a maximum thermal acceptance criteria of 325 deg F above initial ambient temperature.

07/15/96

EVALUATION FOR ELEMENT NA 577 INSTALLED INDUSTRY Source....NEI-Baseline-JB-3hr Report No.13890-98757 Ass. 3-2 Barr Component.... Penetration Size.............

1.5" 6"x6"x4 JB Thickness........ 1.000 1.000 Preform Conduit...Yes No Rib Location......N/A No ribs / flat Fill.....

....... 75 %

0 Support S an......

NA ft.

NA ft.

Stress Sk n.......Inside and outside Inside and outside Over joints.....Yes No Ties............No No Staples.........Yes No Add trwl matl...No No Joint type........ Butt Butt Post buttered...No Yes Pre buttered....Yes No Gap width.......NA

.125 Add trwl matl...Yes No Banding........... Steel Steel Spacing (max)... 4.0 0.0 0.0 dist to 3t (max) 2.0 2.0 Add Trwl matl...No No Edgeg/CQ rating....

uard.........No No Barr 60/

0 min.

60 min.

Barr rating Element Comments:

Industry Comments:

Panels were installed on the junction boxes first, with the side panels in compression between the bottom enclosure panel and the concrete slab.

The V-rib stiffeners were hammered flat for the panels used to cover the i

junction box assembly.

Support coverage was installed following junction box coverage using the butt joint method with post butterred joints.

Protruding item coverage on the 1 inch steel conduits was provided with 1/2 inch preshaped conduit sections for a distance of 9 inches.

An additional overlay of 3/8 inch thick sections was then installed.

Stainless steel tie wires were pre-installed to secure support coverage and bands oriented perpendicular to the protruding conduit were installed through the material such that they were in contact with the top of the box.

A fillet of trowel grade material was placed at the interface between the box coverage and the concrete slab and at the interface between the box coverage and the protruding item coverage.

Surface temperatures were

'4VALUATICN FCR ELEMENT NA 577 gatiefectory for the 60 minute test.

Barrier condition was satisfactory after the hose stream test.

Evaluation:

As shown through a parameter comparison, the installed configuration is bounded by a test configuration.

For NEI Test Ass.

3-2, a 6" x 6" x 4" junction box was protected with 1 inch thick panel sections. The enclosure was abutted to the concrete and sealed with Thermo-Lag trowel grade material using post buttered techniques. During NEI Test 3-2, temperatures on the gunction box surface for the 60 minutes was not recorded due to failure of the thermal couples. For this test, the Thermo-Lag to concrete interface joint did not fail the hose stream test. The thermocouple readings for the 6" x 6" x 4" junction box protected with 1/2" thick panel sections maximum temperature criterion (maximum temperature 402 deg F.) was reached in 54 minutes. It is reasonable to conclude that the Junction box protected with 1 inch thick panel section will last for 60 minutes.

In other words, this type of joint can be expected to maintain its thermal performance without failing the maximum temperature criterion for 60 minutes. It is therefore reasonable to use the results of NEI Test 3-2 to establish a fire endurance rating for this element as the construction techniques of this element are similar to those for NEI Test 3-2 except that this element has an additional panel section anchored to the concrete which is both pre and post buttered at the Thermo-Lag to concrete interface and Thermo-Lag to Thermo-Lag interface.

NEI Test 3-2 demonstrates that a Thermo-Lag to concrete interface with trowel grade material will not cause the barrier to fail.

The thermal mass of the tested configuration was 1.80 lb/lin, ft. The plant barrier has a total thermal mass of 2.727 lb./lin. ft.(2.58 lb./lin, ft, conduit, 0.1470 lb./lin. ft, cable (2/C-12 EK-9C). The tested configuration used panels that were 1 inch thick. The plant configuration used 1 inch panel sections to protect the conduit and condulet.

Barrier condition was considered satisfactory after the hose stream test. There were no barrier openings present in the body of the protective envelope. No barrier openings to the conduits were present at the interface with the concrete slab either.

Band spacing is considered acceptable for this configuration. No additional work is necessary.

It is therefore concluded that the test data and parameter comparison to a tested configuration provides reasonable assurance that the installed 1 1/2 in. conduit envelope has a fire endurance rating of at least 60 minutes when considering a maximum thermal acceptance criteria of 325 deg F above initial ambient temperature.

07/15/96

EVALUATICN FOR ELEMENT N3.

578 INSTALLED INDUSTRY Source....NEI-Baseline-JB-3hr Report No.13890-98757 Ass. 3-2 Barr Component.... Penetration Size.............

1.5" 6"x6"x4 JB Thickness........ 1.000 1.000 1

Preform Conduit...No No Rib Location......N/A No ribs / flat Fill.....

....... 90 %

0 t

Support S an......

NA ft.

NA ft.

Stress Sk n.......Inside and outside Inside and outside Over joints.....Yes No-i Ties............Yes No Staples.........No No Add trwl matl...No No Joint type........ Butt Butt j

Post buttered...No Yes Pre buttered....Yes No Gap width.......NA

.125 Add trwl matl...Yes No Banding...

.......None Steel Spacing max)... 0.0 0.0 0.0 dist to t (max) 2.0 Add Trwl matl...No No Edgeguard.........No No Barr/CQ rating.... 60/

0 min.

60 min.

Barr rating I

Element Comments:

Industry Comments:

Panels were installed on the junction boxes first, with the side panels in compression between the bottom enclosure panel and the concrete slab.

The V-rib stiffeners were hammered flat for the panels used to cover the junction box assembly.

Support coverage was installed following junction box coverage using the butt joint method with post butterred joints.

Protruding item coverage on the 1 inch steel conduits was provided with 1/2 inch preshaped conduit sections for a distance of 9 inches.

An additional overlay of 3/8 inch thick sections was then installed.

Stainless steel tie wires were pre-installed to secure support coverage and bands oriented perpendicular to the protruding i

conduit were installed through the material such that they were in contact with the top of the box.

A fillet of trowel grade material was placed at the interface between the box coverage and the concrete slab and at the interface between the box coverage and the protruding item coverage.

Surface temperatures were

EVALUATICN FOR ELEMENT N3.

578 catisfactory for the 60 minute test.

Barrier condition was satisfactory after the hose stream test.

Evaluation:

As shown through a parameter comparison, the installed configuration is bounded by a test configuration.

For NEI Test Ass.

3-2, a 6" x 6" x 4" junction box was protected with 1 inch thick panel sections. The enclosure was abutted to the concrete and sealed with Thermo-Lag trowel grade material using post buttered techniques. During NEI Test 3-2, temperatures on the gunction box surface for the 60 minutes was not recorded due to failure of the thermal couples. For this test, the Thermo-Lag to concrete interface joint did not fail the hose stream test. The thermocouple readings for the 6" x 6" x 4" junction box protected with 1/2" thick panel sections maximum temperature criterion (maximum temperature 402 deg F.) was reached in 54 minutes. It is reasonable to conclude that the junction box protected with 1 inch thick panel section will last for 60 minutes.

In other words, this type of joint can be expected to maintain its thermal performance without failing the maximum temperature criterion for 60 minutes. It is therefore reasonable to use the results of NEI Test 3-2 to establish a fire endurance rating for this element as the construction techniques of this element are similar to those for NEI Test 3-2 except that this element has an' additional panel section anchored to the concrete which is both pre and post buttered at the.

Thermo-Lag to concrete interface and Thermo-Lag.to Thermo-Lag interface.

NEI Test 3-2 demonstrates that a Thermo-Lag to concrete interface with trowel grade material will not cause the barrier to fail.

The thermal mass of the tested configuration was 1.80 lb/lin ft. The plant barrier has a total thermal mass of 2.994 lb./lin. ft.(2.58 lb./lin, ft. conduit, 0.207 lb./lin. ft. cable (3/C-12 EK-9D 0.207 lb./lin. ft. cable (3/C-12 EK-9D). The tested configuration u) sed panels that were 1 inch thick. The plant configuration used 1 inch panel sections to protect the conduit and condulet.

Barrier condition was considered satisfactory after the hose stream test. There were no barrier openings present in the body of the protective envelope. No barrier openings to the conduits were present at the interface with the concrete slab either.

The plant barrier spacing between bands is unknown. The plant band spacing from a joint is unknown. Additional inspection is required to determine band measurements.

It is therefore concluded that the test data and parameter comparison to a tested configuration provides reasonable assurance that the installed 1 1/2 in conduit envelope has a fire endurance rating of at least 60 minutes when considering a maximum thermal acceptance criteria of 325 deg F above initial ambient temperature.

07/15/96

3 EVALUATION FOR ELEMENT N3.

545 IHRTALLED INDUSTRY Source....NEI-Baseline-3hr Report No.13890-98756 Ass. 3-1 Size....ponent.... Penetration Barr Com

......... 2 inch 2in mult. cond.

Thickness........

1.000 1.000 Preform Conduit...Yes Yes Rib Location......N/A No ribs / flat Fill..............

O%

0 Support Span......

NA ft.

NA ft.

Stress Skin.......Inside and outside Inside and outside Over joints.....Yes No Ties............No No Staples.........Yes No Add trwl matl...No No Joint type........ Butt Butt Post buttered...No Yes Pre buttered....Yes No Gap width.......NA

.125 Add trwl matl...No No Banding........... Unknown Steel Spacing (max)... 0.0 0.0 13.0 dist to Jt (max) 6.0 Add Trwl matl...No No Edgeg/CQ rating....

uard.........

O No Barr 60/

0 min.

60 min.

Barr rating Element Comments:

Industry Comments:

After V-Rib panels were flattened, the panels were oriented, as if the ribs still existed, parallel to the conduits.

One preshaped conduit section was installed on the outside edge of each 2 inch conduit along the i

entire length.

Top and bottom panels were'then installed between the conduit sections forming an enclosure that is rounded on each side, flat on top and bottom and abutting the concrete slab on each end.

The interface between the barr'ier envelope and the concrete slab was post buttered with a fillet of trowel grade material.

Conduit surface temperatures were satisfactory for the 60 minute test duration.

During the hose stream test, openings were developed in the barrier at the barrier /

concrete interface area.

Evaluation:

As shown through a parameter comparison, the installed configuration is bounded by a test configuration.

For NEI Test Ass.

3-1, a pair of 2 inch conduits were mounted in a 07/15/96

EVALUATICN FOR ELEMENT N3.

545 "U-chtp:d" conduit loop configuration. The enclosure was constructed using 1 inch thick pre-shaped conduit sections and pre-fabricated V-rib panels covering the conduits. The enclosure was abutted to the concrete and sealed with Thermo-Lag trowel grade material using post buttered techniques. During NEI Test 3-1, temperature acceptance limits were not exceeded on the conduit surface for the 60 minutes. For this test, the Thermo-Lag to concrete interface joint failed the hose stream test. The thermocouple readings in the area of the Thermo-Lag to concrete interface were well below the maximum temperature criterion (maximum temperature 393 deg F.). The maximum thermocouple readings in this area ranged from 211 deg F to 229 deg F.

In other words, this type of joint can be expected to maintain its thermal performance without failing the maximum temperature criterion for 60 minutes. It is therefore reasonable to use the results of NEI Test 3-1 to establish a fire endurance rating for this element as the construction techniques of this element are the same as those for NEI Test 3-1 except that this element is both pre and post buttered at the Thermo-Lag to concrete interface.

NEI Test 3-1 demonstrates that a Thermo-Lag to concrete interface with trowel grade material will not cause the barrier to fail.

The thermal mass of the tested configuration was 2.32 lb/lin. ft. The plant barrier has a total thermal mass of 3.846 lb./lin. ft.(3.52 lb./lin. ft. conduit, 0.3260 lb./lin. ft. cable (5/C-12 EK-9E The tested configuration used 2 inch preformed conduit sections a)nd panels that were 1 inch thick. The plant configuration used 2" preformed conduit sections that were 1 inch thick to the floor. The tested configuration had trowel grade material applied at the preformed and concrete interface (post buttered). The plant configuration used both pre and post buttered trowel grade material for the Thermo-Lag to Thermo-Lag and Thermo-Lag to concrete joint.

Barrier condition was not considered satisfactory after the hose stream test. There were no barrier openings present in the body of the protective envelope. Openings to the conduits were present at the interface with the concrete slab. The purpose of the hose stream test is to evaluate the structural integrity of the fire barrier and its ability to protect the enclosed raceway from damage caused by in plant fire fighting and falling external objects during a fire.

The conduit itself without the fire barrier will protect the circuits inside the conduit from in plant fire fighting and falling external objects during a fire.

Note that this test was terminated at 60 minutes.

1 Band spacing is not considered relevant to this evaluation. The i

thermo-lag to concrete interface is the parameter being addressed here.

This element is the thermo-lag to concrete interface for element no.

45.

It is therefore concluded that the test data and parameter comparison to a tested configuration provides reasonable assurance that the installed 2 in. conduit envelope has a fire endurance rating of at least 60 minutes when considering a maximum thermal acceptance criteria of 325 deg F above initial ambient temperature.

d 07/15/96 4

a

)

EVALUATIC'; FOR ELEMENT C3.

605 INSTALLED INDUSTRY Source....NEI. Baseline-3hr Report No.13890-98756 Ass. 3-1 Barr Component.... Penetration size.............

2.5" 2in mult. cond.

Thickness........ 1.000 1.000 Preform Conduit...Yes Yes Rib Location......N/A No ribs / flat Fill.............

89 %

0 i

Support Span......

NA ft.

NA ft.

Stress Skin.......Inside and outside Inside and outside 4

Ties. joints.....Yes Over No

...........No No Staples.........Yes No Add trwl matl...Yes No Joint type........ Butt Butt Post buttered...No Yes Pre buttered....Yes No l

Gap width.......NA

.125 Add trwl matl...Yes No Banding...........None Steel S acing (max)... 0.0 0.0 13.0 d st to 3t (max) 6.0 Add Trwl matl...No No Edgeguard.........No No Barr/CQ rating.... 60/

0 min.

60 min.

Barr rating Element Comments:

Industry Comments:

1 After V-Rib panels were flattened, the panels were oriented, as if the ribs still existed, parallel to the conduits.

One preshaped conduit section was installed on the outside edge of each 2 inch conduit along the i

entire length.

Top and bottom panels were then installed between the conduit sections forming an enclosure that is rounded on each side, flat on top and bottom and

)

abutting the concrete slab on each end.

The interface between the barrier envelope and the concrete slab was post buttered with a fillet of trowel grade material.

Conduit surface temperatures were satisfactory for the 60 minute test duration.

During the hose stream test, openings were developed in the barrier at the barrier /

concrete interface area.

Evaluation:

As shown through a parameter comparison, the installed configuration is bounded by a test configuration.

For NEI Test Ass.

3-1, a pair of 2 inch conduits were mounted in a 07/15/96

EVALUATICN FIR ELEMENT C3.

605 J

F "U-shapsd" conduit loop configuration. Tha cnclorurs wcs constructed using 1 inch thick pre-shaped conduit sections and pre-fabricated V-rib panels covering the conduits. The enclosure was abutted to the concrete and sealed with Thermo-Lag trowel grade material using post buttered techniques. During NEI Test 3-1, temperature acceptance limits were not exceeded on the conduit surface for the 60 minutes. For this test, the Thermo-Lag to concrete interface joint failed the hose stream test. The thermocouple readings in the area of the Thermo-Lag to concrete interface were well below the maximum temperature criterion (maximum temperature 393 deg F.). The maximum thermocouple readings in this area ranged from 211 deg F to 229 deg F.

In other words, this type of joint can be expected to maintain its thermal performance without failing the maximum temperature criterion for 60 minutes. It is therefore reasonable to use the results of NEI Test 3-1 to establish a fire endurance rating for this element as the construction techniques of this element are the same as those for NEI Test 2-3 except that this element is both pre and post buttered at the Thermo-Lag to concrete interface.

NEI Test 3-1 demonstrates that a Thermo-Lag to concrete interface with trowel grade material will not cause the barrier to fail.

The thermal mass of the tested configuration was 2.32 lb/lin. ft. The plant barrier has a total thermal mass of 6.039 lb./lin, ft.(5.67 lb./lin. ft. conduit, 0.369 lb./lin. ft, cable (7/C-12 EK-9F. The tested configuration used 2 inch preformed conduit sections)and panels that were 1 inch thick. The plant configuration used 2 1/2" preformed conduit sections on the conduit.

Barrier condition was not considered satisfactory after the hose stream test. There were no barrier openings present in the body of the protective envelope. Openings to the conduits were present at the interface with the concrete slab. The purpose of the hose stream test is to evaluate the structural integrity of the fire barrier and its ability to protect the enclosed raceway from damage caused by in plant fire figheing and falling external objects during a fire.

The conduit itself without the fire barrier will protect the circuits inside the conduit from in plant fire fighting and falling external objects during a fire.

Note that this test was terminated at 60 minutes.

Band spacing is not considered relevant to this evaluation. The thermo-lag to concrete interface is the parameter being addressed here.

This element is the thermo-lag to concrete interface for element no.

298.

It is therefore concluded that the test data and parameter comparison to a tested configuration provides reasonable assurance that the installed 1 in conduit envelope has a fire endurance rating of at least 60 minutes when censidering a maximum thermal acceptance criteria of 325 deg F above initial ambient temperature, i

07/15/96 t

l J

a r

l EVALUATION F!R ELEMENT NO.

606 l

e INSTALLED, INDUSTRY Source....NEI-Baseline-JB-3hr Report.No.13890-98757 Ass. 3-2 Barr Component.... Penetration Size.............

14.5"x7.5"x7" 6"x6"x4 JB Thickness........ 1.000 1.000 Preform Conduit...No No i

Rib Location......N/A No ribs / flat Fill.....

O%

0 Support S an......

NA ft.

NA ft.

Stress Sk n.......Inside and outside Inside and outside over joints.....Yes No Ties............No No Staples.........Yes No Add trwl matl...Yes No Joint type........ Butt Butt Post buttered...No Yes Pre buttered....Yes No Gap width.......NA

.125 Add trwl matl...Yes No Banding...

.......None Steel Spacing max)... 0.0 0.0 0.0 dist to t (max) 2.0 Add Trwl matl...No No Edgeguard.........No No Barr/CQ rating...

60/

0 min.

60 min.

Barr rating

- Element Comments:

Industry Comments:

Panels were installed on the junction boxes first, with the side panels-in compression between the bottom enclosure panel and the concrete slab.

The V-rib stiffeners were hammered flat for the panels used to cover the junction box assembly.

Support coverage was installed following junction box coverage using the butt joint method with post butterred joints.

Protruding item coverage on the 1 inch steel conduits was provided with 1/2 inch preshaped conduit sections for a distance of 9 inches.

An additional overlay of 3/8 inch thick sections was then installed.

Stainless steel tie wires were pre-installed to secure support coverage and bands oriented perpendicular to the protruding conduit were installed through the material such that they were in contact with the top of the box.

A fillet of trowel grade material was placed at the interface between the box coverage and the. concrete slab and at the interface between the box coverage and the protruding item coverage.

Surface temperatures were i

w

-~w e

a c

'7 i

e REORDERED SET OF FIRE AREA DRAWINGS AND DATA SHEETS S

9

^

I I

O CB-FA-2A

-CB-FA-2D_

. -CONDulT CS262A

~~

Q

-TRAY 745 O~_-

f ED 7 l

)

g T

st"Ma?",

o

-CONDUlf L iA m

WDuiT L521 HVAC, EXHAUST iu, g

' "HVACISUPPLY TRAY 135 m

[TRj g' 4

^

-TRAY 126 TRA 744 C

DBNR t-NY 137 I

t

' g

\\

iCCE-FB02 -

l

/

I Ooc DRY CHEM EXTING.

=.

JoQ O

}

-CB-FA-2E-TFl.EPHONE w

$ $' "'" '*3 CB-FA-2C 60

• g t

ir oo HOSE REEL O

h

~

(

RED PHONE Z

l iI I

x x

=

=

=

qlgg a

.I I I I

- (

PLANT PAGE

@ FIRE DAMPER CONTRO.L BUILJIN.G ELEV. 322' CB-FA-2B lCCE-FB02 / MISC

C 5 - FA

'E B ensgl

~

PROTECTED PROTECTED REDUNDANT REDUNDANT

~

ENVELOPE CIRCUIT FUNCTION CIRCUIT FUNCTION

~

ICCE-FBol TRA7 i t3 MAMEUP AND TRA7 12 6 NAKEUP AND CIRCUIT C6Bd2.

SUPPdRT FullCTIdNS CIRCUIT L512.

SUPR1RT FUNCTJdNS CG805 LXtl CQ313 RCS TRESSURP_

LX42 RCS PRESSURE' CQ 323 SOURCE" RANG.E 56URCE - RANGE 7

EAl65 MONITORING RZZ N6NIToKING

~

h ELECTRTCAL PDWER RZ3 ELECTRICAL.fdWER SYSTEM 8

my LPZ3 3

LR23

~

RZl9 LX32 RZ ig

~MD68 RZi7 RY+

RZ 21 y

RY2.3 RZZE RZZ3 RZ33-RZ34-RZ35 RZ53 4

R255 TRAY 134 CIRCUIT CR3E2A L511A LSZIA F

LT11A TRAY 135 I

CIRCUIT L511A TIESE TABLES IDENTIFY ONLY THOSE CIRCUITS REDUNDANT TO A lb20 PROTECTED CIRCUIT IN A FIRE AREA / ZONE. WHEN A PROTECTED CIRCUIT HAS NO SPECIFIC REDUNDANT CIRCUIT IN A LSZI FIRE AREA. AS DESCRIBED IN THE EXEMPTION REOUEST. THEN LX41 THE PROTECTED CIRCUIT IS IDENTIFIED ON THE DRAWING ONLY.

Ly4g i

LX4-3 l

U gzig I

l_AN{ AN PAf,F ? _

_j

C B - F A

'2 B PA6E E PROTECTED PROTECTED

~

REDUNDANT REDUNDANT-ENVELOPE.

CIRCUIT FUNCTION CIRCUIT FUNCTION ICCE-F8o2.

TRAY l t3 MAKEUP AND TRA7136 MAKEUP AND CIRCUIT C6 802.

SUPPORT. FUNCTIONS CIRCUIT CR32ZA SUTPdRT FUNCTIQU5 CG805 L3 ZIA CQ313 KCS PRESSURE o

LTEIA KCS PRESSURE TRAY 137 l

CQ323 CIRCUIT CK302B SOURCE RANGE i

EA105 SOURCE RANGE MoNITdKING EA6822 NdNIToRIN6 Ep523C CR 312C.

ELECTRICAL POWER LPZ3 ELECTRICAL POWER CR319 LRZ3

-3YSTEM CR3;5 SYSTEN LX32 CR322A NP68 CR322E RY+

CR324 CR325 If RY2.3 CR 3%

LS2O LSZ1 LS2in LT 30 ME44 RZll LTZla

~

TRAY 138 CIRCUIT CR3028 CR305 '

CR306 CR 312C.

CR314-CR315 CR321E

'CK324 CR32E CR336 CONT. ON PA&E 3 A.,

C5-FA-Z B rase 3 -

E PROTECTED PROTECTED REDUNDANT REDUNDANT ENVELOPE CIRCUIT

. FUNCTION CIRCUIT' FUNCTION I C C E-F.B o 2.

TRA'iIt3 NAKEUP AND TRA'1 138 CONT MAKEUP AND CIKCUIT C6 802.

SUPPORT FUNCTIDMS CIRCUIT LT30 SUPPORT FUNCTJoMS CGB05' NE++

CQ313 -

RCS PRESSURE Kl l7 RCS PRESSURE' '

CQ 323 TRA7 744 CIRCUIT NES EA105 '

SOURCE RAN6E SOURCE RANGE TR Y NONITORING No TdKIN6 CIRC T NE5 fRC IT CR301B ELETKICAL bWER LP23 ELEC.TRICAL POWER 3YSTEM LRZ5 SYSTEM CR305 LX32 CH305

.ND68 tR312.c.

RY+

CR319 y

RY2.3 C R315' CR3Z2A CR311E CR324 C.R I ? S CR 336 LSlo LS11 l

LS11A LTilA LT30 net +

TNA7-1011 CIRCUIT CR32.tA LSilA

. L 511 A

~

LTZ.lA i

CONDUIT CS 162A i

CERCUIT CSZ61A CONT ON PA&E 4-

CB-FA-Z B ease 4 i

PROTECTED PROTECTED REDUNDANT REDUNDANT I

ENVELOPE CIRCUIT FUNCTION CIRCUIT FUNCTION IC C E-FB o 2.

TRAY l t3 MAKEUP AND CONDUIT EA 359 MAKEUP AMD CIRCUIT C6802.

SUPmRT FUKTJoNS CIRCUIT EA35t SurrdRT FUETIdNS C6865' CONDUIT ED307A C.Q313 RCS THESSUKE CIRCUIT ED307A KCS PRESSURE i

l CONDUIT L52 CQ 323 EA105 SOURCE RANGE.

CIRCUIT LS2.

SOURCE RAW 6E EAG8ZZ PfoNIToRIN6 CONDUIT LS11A MoMIToKIN6 ED523C CIRQUIT LSilA LPZ3 ELECTRICAL PdWEg f

L 512.

ELECTRICAL PdWER i

CO" LS LR23 SYS TEM SYS TEM CIRCUIT LSll LX32 COMDUIT L%ti t

Np68 CIRCUIT LSZO RY+.

LX+1 y

RY2.3 LXt2 9

LAt3 4

-___.--___.----_.----_.__--____-._-__-__..__-------._.--____-,_-_---__-__--.--__..-----,__-------__a__--_-_..--u_--

~

m 1

I O

.CB-FA-2A-

^~_

[I A

f

'A 7

HVAC SUPPLY HVAC EXHAUST Ph iCct-raos

)

O ii ii

,, ',,, I I,~"J!v'M. My--

_ h C0 2 EXTING.

s sa i-1 I

x DRY CHEM EXTING.

~

ho,,QQ

-CB-FA-2E

@ TELEPHONE 0]

CB-FA-2C O

U z

t ir

@fM HOSE REEL -

b

$=

f_

.( PLANT PAGE

( RED PHONE

=

h iI II I

4 pA A

l l

f~

@ FIRE DAMPER CONTROL BUILDING ELEV. 322'

~

CB-FA-27 ICCE-FB03 / MISC

C B - FA-l B:

PROTECTED PROTECTED REDUNDANT REDUNDANT ENVELOPE CIRCUIT FUNCTION.

CIRCUIT FUNCTION ICCE -FBo5 CONDUIT RE+65 STEAM GENERA 7dA TRA713t STEAM GENERATAR -

CIRCurT RE445 PRESSURE ANP CIRCUIT EA6851 A PRESSURE AND t

RE473 LEVEL f

EAG85f A LEYEL REFlo TRA7 136 u

R E51+

CIRCurT EA6851A i

EA685+A TRA7 13'7 l

CIRCUIT EA685fA i

EA6as4A TRh7138 CIRCUIT EA685)A I

EA685tA TRAYloll CIRCUIT EA6851A

}

EA685+A 1

6*

e 4

i

. _... _... ~......... _. -... _. _....

C B - FA - E B

~

REbUNDANT REDUNDANT PROTECTED PROTECTED-ENVELOPE.'

CIRCUIT FUNCTION CIRCUIT FUNCTION ICCE-FBo9 CONDUIT EAG912.

ELECTRICAL IMER CONDUIT EA16 ELECTRICAL POWER CIRCUIT EA6912.

SYSTEM CIRCUIT EA16 SYSTEM

~

CONDUIT EA518 CIRCUIT EA518 CONDUIT EA591 CIRCUIT EA591 CONDUIT EA592 CIRCUIT EASS2.

CdNDUIT EA6892 CIRCUIT EA4891 e

a G

e o

e 9

S O

9

g m

LJ S

I i

_CB-FA-2D_

O

.. CB-FA-2 A co, Hv^C [*HAust O

f,..-

oc A

O

~

O 7 ***"' '5l F--~**""'

7 5

~

0 avac'sumv -rj h,7;,,

y ]7",

h CO c*""'"

p 2 EXTING.

iccc-roo -

s J,-

'. I canor iE 2 h DRY CHEM EXTING.

C

--,B - F A-2 E

@ TELEPHONE 0]"

c3 OO CB-FA-2C q

O

]

HOSE REEL 0

E c

( RED PHON.E

~g g

~

~

( PLANT PAGE a

4q g

l 1

{~

@ FIRE DAMPER CONTROL BUILDING ELEV. 322' CB-FA-2B

' ' ~ ~ ~ ' " ~

ICCE-FBO9 / EA6912

~

o A

m E

i i

CB-FA-2A

- A-2D_

O Q

HVAC EXHAt15T -

~~

h~

A O

i

-g i

g g

I a

Hv.c sumv-m_n,.__

_ h CO EXTING.

~

2 i

@ DRY CHEM $XTING.

i

[D' '@a O O

_CB-FA-2E_

.@ TELEPHONE CB-FA-2C O

O t

i r

@_g-@ HOSE REEL

@ g

~_

.g

(

RED PHONE O

~

( PLANT PAGE z

mn a

I l

I

@ FIRE DAMPER CONTROL' BUILDING ELEV. 322' CB-FA-2B ICCE-FB10 / EA339

• = = = = **

e C

h w

~

Z i

i O

_CB-FA-2D_

0 Oce A

'^

g~d-Q' y.

/

O 0

y o

U

)

iiii CB-FA-2B

.cct_n,03__ g.

-,,.-. n _,'

}

W, _I

" g.

pg _pjkt I

-CB-FA-2E h CO

'EX TING.

N 1

2

= "l*;g O

e

<-@ DRY CHEM EXTING g

=

h I c_-3 j

O

@ TELEPHONE

]h Z

CONDUlT HVAC SUPPLY-TRAY 833 w

Z iii h HOSE REEL g

gc.oogc.ii

}-_

~

l-~

.(

RED PHONE r,

. W h-Ooo

(

PLANT PAGE I

I

-Mf+ FIRE DAMPER FH-FZ-5

@g i

i CONTROL BUILDING ELEV. 322' CB-FA-2C ICCE-FB03 / RE465, RE514, RE473, RE510 a'~~~.-~~~

~~

~-

CB-FA-2L

. PROTECTED PROTECTED REDUNDANT ENVELOPE CIRCUIT FUNCTION ~

CIRCUIT REDUNDANT FUNCTION DCCE-Fb63 CONDUIT RE4GS STEAN GENERhTsR CONOUIT EAGBZA-STEAn GENERATot CIRCUIT RE465 PRESSURE AND

' CIRCUIT EAGB51A PRESSURE AND RE 473 LEVEL f

EA685tA LEYEL RE 576 TRAY 138 P

KE 51t-CIRr_UIT EA6851A EA68StA CONDUIT RE163 CIRCUIT RE%7 R E+15 ret?9 ret 99 RE51f.

RE513 REE17 TRAY 533 CIRCUIT RE%7 RE +75 ret 79 RE t99 RE512 R E513

~

Y RE517 CONDUIT RE16t CIRCUIT ret 68 RE9 76 RE+80 P

- RE500 C6NDUIT RE478 CIRCUIT RE478 CoNPUIT RE526 CIRCUIT RE526 i

s E

i i

O

_CB-FA-2D_

0 c

A

' _ ^

oc O

~

Q 7

o I

~

g i,,i CB-FA-2B g

j(

l

.~

HVAC EXHAUST h

~

CB-FA-2E_

gc2C' oOO I

~~

,_,g g

@ _ h CO2 EXTING.

8 t

' CmDUti EA592---

- @ DRY CHEM EXTING.

IL, J O

5 g h ny,c som_ "

'}-

TELEPHONE b

Z RR$

A

~

@ HOSE REEL ii w

guu

(

RED PHONE I

I

(

PLANT PAGE.

FH-FZ-5

,NV'* FIRE DAMPER Q,

u n-CONTROL BUILDING ELEV. 322' CB-FA

-2C

~

ICCE-FBO9 / EA6912 e

C 5 - FA - 2.C.

PROTECTED PROTECTED REDUNDANT REDUNDANT ENVELOPE CIRCUIT FUNCTION CIRCUIT FUNCTION 1CCE-FSO S CoNOUIT EA6912.

ELECTRICAL PONER CONDUIT EAs.92 ELECTRICAL POWER CIRCUIT EA6912.

SYSTEfl CI5CUIT EA592.

SYSTEM 4

g e

G 9

4 I

e O

O S

O e

e

I I

O CB-FA-2D_

a g

IA 3

oc

&'y Y

U y

O f

iiii a

CB --F A-2B y

j/

gi ij

.mc cxnmst-k

+

Q' 0],,[TT@ l llrE _CB-FA-2E_

@ CO 2 EXT!NG.

c3 cgg reusg

[]

- @ DRY CHEM EXTING.

CT g

• cTj!

j* ""

TELEPHONE t

z LL: 1

- g b nuc sumvf

@ HOSE R EL i

i E

O 3

~

n n a

~ (

RED PHONE o

W Duu

(

PLANT PAGE

@ FIRE DAMPER I

I FH-FZ-5

@n i

CONTROL BUILDING ELEV. 322' CB-FA-2C ICCE-FB10 / EA339 a

~

C 5 - FA - 2C.

PROTECTED PROTECTED REDUNDANT REDUNDANT ENVELOPE CIRCUIT FUNCTION

' CIRCUIT FUNCTION ICCE-FBIO CONDUIT EA339

' ELECTRICAL FOWER CONDUIT EA3S+

ELECTKIdHL P8WER CIRCUIT EA339 SYSTEM CIRCUIT EA35+

SYSTEM CONDUIT EAG856 CIRCUIT EA6856 CONDUET EAGB24-CIRCUIT EAb82+

TRAY

• 138 CIRCUIT EA6824 e

e O

e e

g 4

i e

e e

}

L2sJ 4

-HVAC EXHAF AA4CB-FA-2F I

I iccc-mo4, 4

CB-FA-2A

_y I

/_

gy c gg,,

I g

-THAY 144

/

O

.\\fy y

1 I

1 Ii I k_

ig CB-FA-28 v-v

-Y

_CB-FA-2E_

\\/

g igg gg CB-FA-2C o

0 O-L I f~

~

U l~

l i

I O

g A

A A

CB-FA-2G

@ DRY CHEM EXTING.

( RED PHONE

@ TELEPHONE h CO EXTING.

( PLANT PAGE 2

'@ HOSE REEL

,/W* FIRE DAMPER CONTROL BUILDING ELEV. 322' CB-FA-2D ICCE-FBO4 / CH602

w-

C5-FA-2.D

~

~

PROTECTED PROTECTED ~

REDUNDANT REDUNDANT ENVELOPE

CIRCUIT, FUNCTION

' CIRCUIT FUNCTION

~

ICCE-FB09-CONDUIT CH60 2.

RCP THERNAL TRA71+4 RCP THERMAL CIRCUIT CH&02.

BARRIER CodLIE CIRCUIT C6681 BARRIER CdOLIN6 4

C6 68+

SEAL IMECTIoN e

a m

O O

W

- "v^C E*^"S',%4CB-FA-2F x

~

CB-FA-2A gs,,c sogg,

'^

E A

p o

i ICCE-FB05--+

l I

I I Ii 1 CB-FA-2B h'

ig I

I v

v

\\)

Y

_CB-FA-2E_

T

'ao00 CB-FA-2C o

0 L

I I

_~

l I 'l I

@ ~_

O

- I A CB-FA-2G a

@ DRY CHEM EXTING.

( RED PHONE 2 EXTING.

( PLANT PAGE O TELEPHONE h CO FIRE. D AMPER

@ HOSE REEL CONTROL BUILDING ELEV. 322'

~

CB-FA-2D ICCE-FB05 / RU288

- 025J

- HVAC EXHAUST A/N CB-FA-2F I

I CB-FA-2A

~-

~

g,,c sug,<,

a

.I d~

~

, p.y

'[

O I

y ICCE-FB06 -

1 I

I If I

~

-~ k-ij CB-FA-28 i

1 I

V V

Y Y

_CB-FA-2E_

g igg gg CB-FA-2C

.o 0

-~

O-L

1. f-

~

U l

I I

I 2

~

A A

CB-FA-2G

@ DRY CHEM EXTING.

( RED PHONE

@ TELEPHONE h CO EXTING.

( P.LANT PAGE 2

@ HOSE REEL FIRE DAMPER

~ CONTROL BUILDING ELEV. 322' CB-FA--2D ICCE-FB06 / RU282

'" *"'~'"""

CB-FA-2F I

I h

_CB-FA-2D-

~

w V

o h CO EXTING.

f iiAi

~

2 CB-FA-28 J

@' DRY CHEM EXTING.

_g_

'M O

TELEPHONE I

_g

'@ HOSE REEL

'~

O g

M1

~

(

RED PHONE i r CB-FA-2C iw c

_v

(

PLANT PAGE g_,,_

h FIRE DAMPER C

CB-FA -2G

~

l l

Wg Ouu ou FH-FZ-5

~

CONTROL BUILDING ELEV. 322' CB-FA-2E ICCE-FBO7 / EA6041 A

" ' ^ ^ " " ' " " * * * " ' ' " " " '

g

_,p7 p-uvac cxa.ust

@. CO EXTING.

ii s

2

(

h DRY CHEM EXTING.'

i

-CB-FA-2D_

_"v^c "

@ TELEPHONE

_l y

@l-h HOSE REEL W. ')

D

(

RED' PHONE I

II4i

~

g g[,cco.nm.

( PLANT PAGE

~ ^ ~

V

- {

M FIRE DAMPER N

]

~

JO

-CB-FA 72E j

O CB-FA-2C iI I

~

aq q a

CB-FA-2G Wg r) o u uu

~

[

FH-FZ-5

\\ \\

CONTROL BUILDING ELEV. 322' CB-FA-2F ICCE-FB08 / CH201 A, CH2018

-'a3-_A.,M4_shm4 71St.

4:4

,bl**b 4+=

hkMO k

b'M 9-4+

A A

C B-FA - 2. F PROTECTED PROTECTED REDUNDANT REDUNDANT ENVELOPE CIRCUIT FUNCTION CIRCUIT FUNCTION ICCE-FBo8' SPLICE box S-fro MAKEUP AND TRAY 137 MAKEUP AND.

CIRCUIT CHZolA.

SUPPdR1 FLWCTJdNS CIRCUIT CKZls SllrPURT FUNCTJdMS

{

CH20lB CONDUIT CH20lA CERCUIT CH26th CONDUIT CH2018 CERCUIT CH201B TRA7 1017 CJRCUIT CH201A TRAY 137 CIRCUIT CMZolh f

CH2 DIS e

h 6

w 4

0

CB-FA-2F

_CB-FA-2 o

~

O CO EXTIN'G.

2

@ DRY CHEM EXTING.

+N Y

~

@ TELEPHONE C

@ HOSE REEL

- CB-FA-2

(

RED PHONE

~

65 o

(

PLANT PAGE

-/#+ FIRE DAMPER e7 3

l l

wg oou ou E

FH-FZ-5 rn 0

CONTROL BUILDING ELEV. 322' CB-FA-2G

'ICCE-FBO7 / EA6041 A a'~~~ ~ ~ v - '

~

-TRAY 125 q

1 IW I

mAY 248

=

h CO EX TING.

g._,,cyny_.g co-r^-so 2

t--mAY 247 cSESYE59

@ DRY CHEM' EXTING.

--- TRAY 22 O

TELEPHONE

+---HVAC EXHAUST b8 1

[

@ HOSE REEL y

(

RED PHONE

(. PLANT PAGE A/ + FIRE DAMPER CB-FA-38 1

Il l

i i

CB-FA-3C

.h

. MANUAL SPRINKLER SYSTEM O

TOTAL' FLOOD CO2 SYSTEM CONTROL BUILDING ELEV. 338' CB-FA-3A ICCG-FB01 / RZ59 e m.om

.wo,

I CB-FA-3A PROTECTED PROTECTED ^

REDUNDANT REGUNDANT ENVELOPE CIRCUIT FUNCTION CIRCUIT FUNCTION ICC6-FBal CONDUIT RZ.59 ELECTRICAL FDWER TRAY 125' ELECTR5 CAL MWER CIRCUET R259 SYSTEM CINCUIT Gill SYSTEM TRAY E4-7 CIRCUIT Gili TRAY Z24 CIKC UIT 6171 TRAY Et8 CIRCUIT Gl11 h

~

0 G

s a

___._____.=_______,r t

y-

CONDUli MDB CONDUli ME8

-TRAY 125

~

CONDUIT MD7 E6 CONDuti RP72 -

l l

1 CB-FA-3D 6.' 6 d

S

~pFLYg TRAY 248 e

.-HVA

~ E8"8tlM8#^

J h CO EXTING.

ICCG-FBOS 2

TRAY 220 -.

TR AY 247

% vic c m must h DRY CHEM EXTING Q

~

n W

W TELEPHONE

~

@ ' HOSE REEL

/

/

(

RED PHONE

/

(

PLANT'PAGE

\\

1" i

l l

l l

@ FIRE DAMPER i

CB-FA-3C TOTAL FLOOD CO2 SYSTEM g

M ~u < see,Nx<<e svs1<-

CO\\ - RO_ 3U _J \\ G E_EV. 338' CB-FA-3A ICCG-FBO5 / RV28 o ~ ~~~~=~5

CB-FA-3A PROTECTED PROTECTED REDUNDANT REDUNDANT ENVELOPE CIRCUIT FUNCTION CIRCUIT FUNCTION I CC6 -FB65 CONDUIT R V 2.8

. RC.P THERMBL TRAY 115 SEAL IWiTECTIOU CIRCUIT RVZg BARRIER CodLIN6 CIRCUIT MD68 TRA7 2+8 CIRCUIT MD68 TRA7 197 CIRCUIT NDGSA ND66 U

MD68 TRA7 EZo l

CIRCUIT NDGSA 4

MD66 CdNDUIT ND8 CIRCUIT NPS CONDUIT NE8 CIRCUIT MES CONDUIT MD7 CIRCUIT MD7 CONOUIT RP72 CIRCUIT NPG5A MD66 V

MDGB CONDUIT HD73A r

. CIRCUIT MD73A C6NDUIT ND71 CIRCUIT MD7/

C6NDUIT RVZ8 CIRCUIT RY3t3 P

t 4

I I

I CB-FA-3A Q

CB-FA-3D CONDUlf ME11 h

CO2 EXTING.

CONDUlf LX41 CONDUIT ME86 CONDU,T RR,02

/ p_lDU,,,z,,g,,Tz", -

["" "

h DRY CHEM EXTING.

A mov.c txn

'Ic _(([ +CONDUlT RZ59[

// 'V_-

O TELEPHONE m4Y i2s CONDuff RZ1

~+

- G(N 8 RSP

- [3 J !-

.--mAY 989.

-W HOSE REEL su yy-TM

(

RED PHONE Lm4Y 2ss icco-reO2 I-CONDUli RZ1A e

=

TRAY 21,4

(

PLANT PAGE i

^

y CB-FA-7C FIRE DAMPER I

I I

I

- Q TOTAL FLOOD CO2 SYSTEM MANUAL SPRINKLER SYSTEM g

CON TRO_

B m _J N G E _EV. 338'

@N C]

TA 33 ICCG-FB02 /.RY5,

RY6, LX52

~

0:setaurEacseessNacsUesc83ereo2

CB-FA-3B PAGEl~

~

PROTECTED PROTECTED REDUNDANT REDUNDANT ENVELOPE CIRCUIT.

FUNCTION

-CIRCUIT FUNCTION I C CG - F502.

CONDUIT RP71 ELECTRICAL PdWER TRAY 126 ELT'.TRICAL. POWER CIRCUIT L%5Z.

SYSTEM CIRCUIT LTl25 SY, TEM R75 RZi R76 R2:2.

RZ3 RZB

~

R213 R214 RZl5 R216 R2.11 R12l RZ21 RZ23 K233 K23+

RZ35 RZ53 g

R Z 5 5' TRAY 255 CIRCUIT LT125

-LX6i

~

LX62.

LX 63 A

.NE86 RZlA RZl5 RIZA

~

RZ28 RZ4 RZ 5-K Z.6 KZ3A RZ35 1

CONT. dM PA G E 2_

1 C B-FA - 3 B ease 2.

PROTECTED PROTECTED ~

REDUNDANT REDUNDANT ENVELOPE CIRCUIT FUNCTION CIRCUIT FUNCTION 1 C CG -FB0 2.

CONDUIT RP71 ELECTAICAL PDWER TRA7 255 CdNT.

ELECTRICAL PdNER CIRCUTT LX52 SYSTfM CIRCUIT RI8A SYSTEM i

RYF RZ8C U

RY6 RZ8B RZl3 RZl4 i

RZ l5-KZi(,

RZl7 RZIB RZl5 RIZlA RZZlB RZ22A RZ118 RIZ3A RZ235 RZ33A RZ3tA RZ348 R135A RZ358 RZ %

R15315 RZ55 U

RZ.%

TRAY 2/4 CIRCUIT RZl8 RIZE RZ35 KZF R Z.6 RZBC d

RZ 215 rnLT_QN PAGE 3

C B-F A - 3 8 eacE 3 PROTECTED PROTECTED REDUNDANT REDUNDANT ENVELOPE CIRCUIT FUNCTION CIRCUIT FUNCTION ICC6-FBd2 CONDUIT RP71 ELECTRICAL POWEA TRAY Zlt CONT.

ELECTRICAL POWEK

'CIRCUET RZ ZZB SYSTE M CIRCUIT L152 SYSTEM l

RYF KZ3tB t

RY6 RI355 H

ME86

~

TRAY ZlF CIRCUTT MEB6 RZ.15 RIZ5 KZ35 KZS RZ6

R2BC, RZ.215 KZZ15 RZ3tB

' f R2.355 TRAY 35.9

- CIRCUIT RZ.lh RElB REZA~

RZ 2 5 RZ 3 A RZ 35 RZ 4 RZBA RZ85 RZ8C.

RZl8 KZ.19 RZ 2fA R Z.215 R ZZ*ZA 1

R122 B CDNT DN PAGE 4

C 5-FA -3B vAss. d PROTECTED PROTECTED ~

REDUNDANT RE UNDANT ENVELOPE CIRCUIT FUNCTION CIRCUIT FUNCTION ICC G - FBo Z CONDUIT RP1i ELECTRICAL 70WER TRA1989 C0NT.

ELECTKICAL POWER CIRCUIT LX52.

SYSTEM CIRCUIT R2.23A

~

RYS SYSTEM ~

't R16 RZ 23B RZ 33A KZ39A RZ3tB RE35A R135B RZ 36 RZ53B

~

4 RZ56 CONDUIT RIl CIRCUIT KLl RZ2.

RI3 RZ8 R Z.2.1 R Z2.2.

RZ23 RI 33 RZ3+

RZ 35-F RZ53 CONDUIT R2.1 A CIRCUIT R2.lA l

R Z2.A RZ3A

~

RZ BA RZZlA RIZ2A RZ23A RZ33A 7

RZ34A

~

aau r nu on< e 3 I 3FA

C B-FA - 3B' rase s PROTECTED

' PROTECTED REDUNDANT REDUNDANT ENVELOPE CIRCUIT.

FUNCTION CIRCUIT FUNCTION I CC6 -FBd 2.

CONDUIT RP71 ELECTKICAL PdWER CONDUET RZ.l A Cd N T.

ELECTRICAL PdWEK CIRCUIT LX52.

SYSTEM CIRCUET RZ.53B SYSTEM RYS CONDUIT LX41

' f

~

RYG CIRCUIT LK61

~

~

LY62 v

LX63A CONDUIT R7_13 CIRCUIT R2.13 R Z.19 RZ.15 R2%

R Z 55' v

RZ56 CONDUIT RLIB CIRCUIT R188 RZ.18

~

U RZl9 CONDUIT RZ.66 CIRCUIT RZ60 CONDUIT RZ59 CIRCUIT HZ.59 CONDUIT NEli CIRCUIT NEli CONDUIT ME86

~

CIRCUIT MEBG CONDUIT RRidZ.

CIRCUIT LT12.5 CONDUIT LXf-3 CIRCUIT LX63A 1

l

CB-FA-3A CB-FA-3D @ CO 2 EXTING.

CONDUli ME5 !

CONDUlT LS12 CONDUli AM321 h DRY CHEM EXTING.

A

/

/

TELEPHONE HVAC EXHAUST. h /

- h AuryllI/km /

sE " EEL

~

~

(

ED NWE

~

b g

/Hvic sueety,

(

PLANT PAGE y.

9'

,9 L

-A '+ FIRE D AMPER TRAY 255 CONDUIT LX43 TRAY 214 rw N

y CB-FA-3C

. TRAY 215 MANUAL SPRINKLER SYSTEM TOTAL FLOOD CO2 SYSTEM CO N ~~R O B

_ J N G E _ EV.

33:8' CB TA 33

@N ICCG-FB03 / MD57, MD87 0 set ~1tnoseeesnacsuosce2eroo3

CB - FA -3B PROTECTED PROTECTED REDUNDANT REDUNDANT 7'

ENVELOPE CIRCUIT FUNCTION CIRCUIT FUNCTION =

lCCG-FS03 C6NDUIT MD57 ELECTRICAL PDWEK TKA1 126 CIRCUIT MD57 S YS TEM CIRCUIT LSil.

ELECTRICAL IDEER SYSTEM

~

LX41 LXt2.

LX+3 TRA7 255 CIRCUIT L312

~

LXtl LXt2.

LXt3 V

NE56 TRA7 2.lt CIRCUIT Mf%

TR A 7215' CIRCUIT MEF6 TRAY 516 CIRCUIT ME57 CdNDUIT LSIZ CIRCUIT L511

(

NE56 CONDUIT L Y4-1 CIRCUIT LXtl CdNDUIT LXt3 CIRCUIT LXt3 CONDUIT ME5 CIRCUIT HE5' CONDUIT AH321 CIRCUIT ME57 6,

4

^

I IW CB-FA-3A CB-FA-3 TING.

h DRY CHEM EXTING.

TELEPH'ONE Ik HVAC EXHAUST RAIc suePov

[

h HOSE REEL RED PHONE HVAC SUPPLY a-d

(

PLANT. PAGE AV+ FIRE D AMPER ICCG-FBO4 --+

1 rw CB-FA-3C p

O 1014< F<ooo Co2 svs1<u u su < seei~xt<a svs1Fu

. g

@N C O \\ ~~ R O _.

B

_ J \\ G E _ E V. 338' CB TA 3B

~

' ' " ^ " " " " ' " ~ ' " " ' ' " " ' ' " " *

• ICCG-FB04 / RG201

a 1

IU CB-FA-3A CB-FA-3 CO2 EXTING.

h DRY CHEM EXTING.

A TELEPHONE g

HVAC EXHAUST L

l ICCG-FB05 C SUPPLY

(

RED PHONE nvicSugeat n

-g PLANT PAGE AV* FIRE DAMPER rw y

CB-FA-3C

~

O MANUAL SPRINKLER SYSTEM TOTAL FLOOD CO2 SYSTEM

@N CO\\- RO_

3

_J N G E_EV. 338' C3 TA 33 ICCG=FB05 / RV28

"'^^""'"""'""'5"*'c""

'r

h CD EXTING.

h HOSE REEL 2

@ DRY CHEM EXTING.

(

RED PHONE O TELEPHONE

(

PLANT PAGE N

)

CB-FA-2B ij h

~

gt a g o O O

-CB-FA-2E_

CB-FA-2C. O O

J

=

t ir Oh H g e e

b b

CB-fX-2G

1. f-] R A

1 F

I I

)

wg ou O

l g

+-- M A Y 19 3 E

MAY 629

@n

@U y,

CONTROL BUILDING ELEV. 322' FH - FZ-5

• ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

ICCE-FB01 / CR232C, CR362, CR3658 J

.~

FH-FZ-5 PROTECTED PROTECTED REDUNDANT REDUNDANT ENVELOPE

CIRCUIT,

- FUNCTION.

CIRCUIT FUNCTION ICCE-FBol CONDUIT CR Z32C MAKEur FUNCTJoNS TRA7 825 MAKEUP FllNCTIoNS CIRCUIT CR2.31C CIRCUIT RE345 CR362 KCP THERMAL TRAY 193 SEAL INirECTIdM CR 365B BARRIER CMLTM CIRCUET C. ngl 6 9

e o

5

+

e O

O 4

_..