ML20126M707

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Provides Results of Completed Portion of NRC Fire Protection Research Program Re Effectiveness of Cable Tray Fire Retardant Coating Matls & Barriers in Retarding Combustion within & Propagation Between Horizontal Trays
ML20126M707
Person / Time
Issue date: 11/07/1978
From: Levine S
NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REGULATORY RESEARCH (RES)
To: Harold Denton, Minogue R
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, NRC OFFICE OF STANDARDS DEVELOPMENT
Shared Package
ML19250G967 List:
References
FOIA-81-201 NUDOCS 8106190365
Download: ML20126M707 (11)
v • d • e


Text

_ _

...._......_......__m.. .

i .i ' )

/  % uinicotuTcs

, g 1 IJUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMIEslON t' ./); j 9

{3.3 g(, .. $ .

r.nuncion, p. c. rozs

.~.. '

MEMORANDUM FOR: Robert. B. Minogue, Director

~U Office of Standards Development

1. . Harold R. Denton, Director N

Office of Necicar Reactor Regulation J.

[, fROM: Saul Levine, Director

- Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research

~

RESEARCH INFORMATI0ft LETTER I 46, " EFFECTIVENESS OF

SUBJECT:

d CABLE TRAY C0ATIrlG MATERIALS AND BARRIERS IN RETARDING '

? THE COMBUSTION OF CABLE TPAYS SUBJECTED TO EXPOSURE

.1 FIRES AND IN PREVENTING PROPAMTION BETWEEN CABLE TPAYS

.'. (HORIZONTALOPENSPACECONFIGURATION)"

References:

1. SAND 78-0518. " Preliminary Report on Fire Protection t'- Research Program Fire Retardant Coatings Tests," ~

f-Ma rch,1978.

2. SAND 78-1456 (NUREG/CR-0381), " Preliminary Report /
. i on Fire Protection Research Program Fire Barriers and fire Retardant Coatings Tests," September 1978. K

'/. '

3. Memorandum from Saul Levine to E. G. Case and R. B. Minogue,

Subject:

Research Information

},

. Letter #14 " Physical P1 ration Criteria for Electrical Cable Trays s..orizontal Open Space.

C

- onfiguration)," dated November 9,1977.

1.- 4. YREG/CR0376, "Models of Horizontal Electric Cables and Cable Trays Exposed to a Fire Plunn," September 7 1978.

):V r 9-

1.0 INTRODUCTION

, kk This memorando transmits the results of a completed portion of the

,l' NRC fire Protection Research program relating to the effectiveness C,.

of cable tray fire retardant coating materials and barriers in retarding the combustion within and propagation between horizontal F, . cable trays. The research results include a test method that can be used to evaluate the relative performance of these protective '

measures. Data were obtained on the effectivenest of candidate

" .I. " - fire retardant coating materials and barrier designs that are in

~*

..- use or are being considered for nuclear power plants.

s

.I! , *:.

4

. ~

g 82 0 2"W5 '

7 -

. t-b [')

R. ' B. liinogue and H. ' R. Denton .

2.0 '.

SUMMARY

r '

1-The research results support the following conclusions:

d

- An acceptabic test methodology uas developed for use in evaluating 2 . fire retardant coating ruterials and' barrier designs with hori-

J * - zontal cable trays.

? l - There was a significant decrease in fire damage to the cable in C both the fire retardant coating and barrier tests with cabic P.-

.x

" qualified to the IEEE-383 flame test standard. .

Moreover, with cabic qualified to the IEEE-383 flame test all fire coatings tested prevented propagation between trays without

[/ the use of additional barriers.

- However, fire did propagate between cabic trays with one fire retardant coating using cable not qualified to the IEEE-383 ,

. /, -

flame test standard. ,

f-

- . Fire propagation between cabic trays was prevented with all l barrier designs tested with cable not qualified to the IEEE-383 i'

,A

' flame test standard.

y,. All fire retardant coating materials and barriers studied offered L -

some additional protection for the cabics in a tray subjected to i( ,

the test fires.

i c. , .

3.0 BACKGROUND

.O.

3.1 Support for Staff Positions _

f, .

The specific research upon which this RIL is based is outlined

? in the Research Support Branch Plan (Enclosure 1) for fire

@ Protection Research. The overall Fire Protection program is S. , ' based on the research need identified in the research request l.. SD 77-10 (August 19, 1977), the i;RR program support 25, 1976, letter of the review f, -

from B. Rusche to H. Kouts dated June l/-- the Browns ferry fire, as well as through consultation and

~

~" fonal review with the liRC user groups. The Fire Protection

, :4 , Research Review Group has been and continues to be the focal

,t .

point for both the formulation of the research program and evaluation of program results that fonn the basis of this RIL.

b) ' * - -

(Related to this is the fiRR/RES task force to evalua J4' .. .

impact on the fire protection research program of including lf'

" , full-scalereplicationtests.) - .

P -

1

..-..;.;.--.-... l

(.

R; B. liinogue cnd H. R. Denton .

[' The specific user requirement for the research conducted to date with cable tray fire retardant coatings and barriers is

)

q/. . based on the need to provide test data to confinn the guidcnce '

b given in Appendix A to the Branch Technical Position APCSB

  • I' ' 9.5.1, " Guidelines for Fire Protection for fluclear Power <

9 Plants," and in the draf t Regulatory Guide 1.120. " Fire Pro-4: tection Guidelines for flucicar Power Plants." Regulatory

i, Guide 1.75 (" Physical Independence of Electrical Systems")

./ . .. . requires only consideration of electrically initiated fires 9 '

.without consideration of any fuel source other than the cable

- insulation itself. The staff position for evaluation of the P. fire' protection capability is that exposure fires must be

..> considered. The type and size of the exposure fire cre to be

. based on a fire hazards analysis and will vary from plant to plant and will also be different for different locations y within the plant. The tests conducted to date and the conclu-Q sions presented in this RIL comprise an assessment of the i effectiveness of cable tray fire retardant coatings and barriers i ~

in preventing the propagation of exposure fires in horizontally

/, oriented cable trays. ,

j- 3.2 Testing Rationale,

,e ' Previous exposure fire testing showed that even with cable

- ,! qualified to the IEEE-383 flame test additional protection beyond the 5-ft (1.5-m) vertical and 3-ft (0.9-m) horizontal separation distance defined in R.G.1.75 may be required

,, between redundant safety divisions. k'ork was undertaken to

[: -

study the effectiveness of cable tray fire retardant coating materials and barriers in preventing the spread of fire be-y tween redundant safety divisions.

W Specifically, the scope of this RIL covers evaluation of the

,' . effectiveness of certain cable tray fire retardant coating i '

materials and cable tray barriers in retarding combustion and

- i.- preventing propagation of closely spaced cable trays subject to exposure fires. .

,{:

  • ~

' g ' . '.

h..

4: .,

s

.l' r ..

. g ..

. . I. .

. .- - . . -. . .. s. . -. .

4

8. B. Sinogue end_11. R. D:nton .

a 4.0 JESTS ,

Test Configurations f... .

4.1 F The test configuration simulates cables placed in the horizontal h open space of a plant uhere the effects of reficcted heat from the walls and ceiling are minimized. One cnd tuo tray tests p;

~~ '

were conducted each using 18-inch-wide (0.45-m) open-ladder steel cable trays 12-ft (3.7m) long. As with previous hort-1 zontal open space cable tray tests the separation'between 6 trays was 10.5 inches (26.7 cm).

,F r Fires were started using both propane burners cnd diesel fuel.

~4 The propane burner test fire had previously been shown to bc

)

of sufficient intensity and size to consistently result in a 1, - fully developed fire in the ignition tray (SMD71-1424).

.f Measurements made of the test dicsci fuel fire show'that it is

' t.. .

comparable to the propane burner test fire in terms of heat

' J.

flux produced if the fire surface area and burn times are

!J similar. Bothignitionsourcesexposeda3-ft.(0.9-m)section of the cabic tray to the flame. Air flow was traintained to f' simulate nonral ambient plant air flow in plant open space areas. All tests used cabic trays that had a random fill c,

3_ pattern with the cable loaded to the top of the side rails, 4 This resulted in a cable loading less than the maximum volu.netric fl

- loading of 40% pennitted by the Insulated Power Cable Engineering l Association. Previous tests showed that the random fill patterns (withminimumfueldensityandmaximumairspaceina f- ,.

fully loaded cable tray) represented the worst allowable case with regard to combustion and propagation and was used on all i cable tray coati.ng and barrier tests.

k ~. Tests were conducted with cable that was qualified to the f.; j 4* flame test standard of IEEE-383-74 and also with cabic that p could not qualify to this standard.

E .

In an effort to obtain a more basic understanding of the f ~

combustibility of candidate fire retardant coating materials, p :~ u small-scale furnace tests were conducted on all coating materials u

used in the full tray tests. The tests were conducted using a

['; .

6-inch-square (15-cm-square) sample of coated cable. . The test furnace provided controlled air flow and radiant heat flux.

h 'i The specimens were heated in a controlled temperature environ-it .i ment in the presence of a pilot ignition source and basic . ',

j ' ,. ~).

combustibility measurements rade' to establish the time to .

, i
  • ignition, time to maximum heat release, and cumulative heat F 'rel ease. Radiant heat fluxes similar t6 those encountered in (approxicately 4 ff l the full tra

, watts /cd). y ignition testing were used

{j s . .

Y '*',

' :;";: ~^:: q .

.  : ,: s ..:.. .....

O* O. .. .. .. ..

c. . . .

R. B. Iinogue cnd H. R. Denton [

g- .

The full-scale test used six different fire retardant contin

  • materials; five of the six coatings cere sprayed on to the' g K . manufacturers' recomended wet thicknesses. The sixth fire 4 retardant coating'uas applied with a trowel in cccordance utih '

i the manufacturer's specification. In cddition to the cable'

'y tray fire retardant coatings, tests were conduc'.ed using colid

?. bottom cable trays without covers, solid bottom cabic ' trays uith vented covers, cable trays with solid ' covers (open ladder bottom), ladder cable trays covered with a ceramic fiber

~

/

' 'c

~' '

blanket, c;nd two open ladder cable trays with a solid fire barrier between trays. The full-scale testing covered both J. ; one- and two-tray tests. The singic tray te'sts were conducted

./.- . to study the degree to which combustion was retarded and the 1,'

two-tray tests were conducted to study the degree to Ubich i propagation between trays was prevented. (Note: In the two-7 tray tests, a barrier above the upper tray simulated the Q

. boundary of a third tray.) Propane burners and diesel fuel

r. exposure fires were utilized. The propane burners were arranged E to provide an exposure fire identical to that utilized in

"; . prior unprotected cable tray tests, and as in previous testing V the propane burners were used in 5-minute burn cycles with a' f: thermal barrier above the ignition tray during the burn period.

. The diesel fuel exposure fires were contained in an enclosure

..- 36 inches by 18 inches (0.9-m x 0.4-m) the same distance below

'l the' tray as the propane burners. Two gallons of fuel ucre 9 ignited to create a fire which burned for about 13 minutes.

'. (Therewasnothermalbarrierabovetheignitiontrayforthe

~

T diesel fuel fires.) -

4.2 Test Specimen Standards

f r i The significance of the research covered by this RIL should be if./ viewed primarily as the development of a test methodology by

.. which passive fire protective measures can be evaluated. The '

?. . ' tests developed can be perfonned by suppliers and plant operators to justify alternate fire retardant coatings and barriers not

' Je.

M. tested by NRC or to demonstrate the effectiveness of those

'9 '. .

- measures tested by the NRC in situations where the design

.. basis fire is significantly different than the test case fires

b. used in this research. Furthennore, suppliers of fire retardant

^

), - coating and barrier materials may change their. products or

'; . recomended practices which may require further verification i . of their effectiveness. In conducting this research, currently

.i

, accepted design practices and materials were used when available.

In the absence of accepted des,fgn practice, supp1fer reconmendations L'.. were used. With the exception of the solid barrier between f .'. .

.): "

trays, no NRC test guidance is currently availabic for any of

); the passive fire protective measures evaluated.

lG *

. 4 P- . - . . - . - . . - - _ . _ . _ - ,- . ,

n

()' (,)

R. B. finogue cnd H. R. Denton

2. ., .

4.3 _ Test Limitations .

g In evaluating these or other tests results for the fire retardcnt

.J. .

coatings and barriers, particular care should be exercised 9 'with regard to (1) the thickness of the fire retardant coat'ing i.*

y materials used, and (2) the method of installation of the

?; ceramic fiber blanket. No attempt rias made to determine the y caount of uncovered blanket or degraded fire retardant coating that would alter the test results with regard to the propa- -

gation of a fire between cable trays, nor was there any aticmpt

.f ,

to evaluate in a quantitative way the significance of the vent t

b area in the test of solid bottom trays with vented covers.

Unrestricted use of the cable tray fire retardant coating test results also requires caution since there are cany untested

/ . variables which can influence the selection of a cable tray i, -

coating. The following items were not covered in the research r '

completed thus far:

4,_.

7, .

1 - No evaluation has been made of the aging characteristics ,

'; of the fire retardant coating materials. This topic has a number of different aspects. There is the possibility of a l .( long term reaction of the fire retardant coating material uith lr .

the cable jacket. There is also the question 'of chemical and c ,f '

' mechanical stability of the fire retardant coating material itself as it ages. The fire retardant coatings all have .

ll

~

different trace materials and exhibit differ'ent mechanical p,,. properties when cured. The significance of these differences was not evaluated, although work is planned on the . aging of lj d-

  • fire retardant coating materials.

1 ,<, .

'l 2 - The method of installation of the fire retardant coating N requires specific consideration and depends upon the supplier's recormended thickness for cable tray application and the

'S >

lication (i.e., sprayed or troweled). The wet l{ 1 method of app (which may be affected by shelf life) ray have a i,f consistency

.V.

significant effect on the ability to apply the material evenly.

If the material is sprayed, the spraying equipment ray also

.i! . . play an important role in obtaining a uniform layer of coat-L. .

ing. The cerrent practice is to measure the thickness of the lj' t.

viet coating material on the top cables.the However, de cnd thespraying .

wet consistency of the material, the degree to which the

~

coating raterial is forced down into the tray between cables l '. : ' '

uill' vary. The degree to which the coating material can fill i' #

the voids in the cable tray was shown to be an important 4

variabic affecting the ability of the coated cable trays to l{1 f '

resist damage fr'om exposure fires. . ,

l.

j'

W 1

lT ,

.. : - .. ~

l

(

O t

.t , -

,. R. B. liinogue cnd H. R. Denton * '

.t, .

C, ' '

- 3 - Ho attempt was n3de in this research to evaluate coatings uith equal thickness cpplications. The research was inten'ded to be confirTaatory of the products being sold cnd with tha  :

i .

specifications recormended by the supplier.

lp.

q '

I, 4 - The question of intumescence was not evaluated except as' it affected the effectiveness of the fire retardant contings with the fully developed test fires. It is possibic that the (y. properties of a coating could change because of intumescent O' . . ,

behavior before it is exposed to the intense portion of the

~.f fire. The fire. retardant coatings were not evaluated with regard to their effectiveness in slowly developing fir.cs. l 6, Also the slowly developing fire might also be important for a l fire redardant coati.ng that depends primarily on the release

.?>

y- ', of uater cnd or gas to retard the conbustion of the ccble.

5.0 _RESULTS_ -

t./. PriortestdataandtheRESevaluationinRIL014(Ref.(3)showed

(". that the most important factor in determining if a cable tray fire p will develop is the spacing between cables within a. given tray

f,,

since this spacing establishes the air-fuel mixture at the burning .

surface. It was established by measurement and observation of the f*

prior test films that the fire propagation from one tray to a tray T'-

c above it depended on the collection of hot gaseous fuel released

/,- -

from the cable exposed to fire. Fire propagation occurred by T '. . ignition of the gaseous fuel above the cabic tray to which the fire is spreading, with a subsequent spread of the flame down into the tray itself.

f

'j / ' .

Subsequent to the writing of RIL #14 this conclusion has been i verified by additional. tests without fire retardant coatings and 4 barriers and also during the fire retardant coating and barrier tests at Sandia Labora' tories. Furthermore an analytical report i.:W .

5- NUREG/CR-0376 (Ref. f4) "Models of Horizontal Eicctric Cables and f

^ Cable Trays Exposed to a Fire Plume" completed by the Applied y Physics Laboratory (APL) verifies these conclusions. The APL f, . research provides mathematical correlation of the experimental determined favorable conditions for the development and propagation R. of. fires in horizontally oriented cable trays. Specifically the b

l'

' equation governing mass flux of the flannabic gas indicates that it

t. 1 is roughly ?ropo'rtional to the mass flux of fire plume gas fromItthe tray uhose >ottom side is being heated by the , ignition tray.

~

is

,t  :

the spacing between cables th'at enables the fire plume, gas to pass

.'t. j through the tray and collect above it.

I

}: ; , :'

h\ **

Z '

I .f.

g

{. '

,.i . . .. .. .. . .. ... . . _. ..... .. . ..._ .. .

'.' ()

, (.[.)

L R; B. Itinogue cnd H. R. Danton '. . '

/ .

The'se experimental and analytical conclusions verify that the Sandia fire retardant coating and barrier tests covered vorst case '.

d, ' '. conditions for horizontally criented cable trays insofar cs the c .', cable spacing and . loading cre concerned. ,

y. y E; , The following specific conclusions can be drawn from the tests and cnalysisconductedRef.(1)cnd.(2):

7 i 1 - All coating materials studied offer some protection against 'the

' . test fires; however, there was a wide range of effectiveness cno.ng ,

e J the coatings in.both their cbility to retard combustion when t:- exposed to a fire and in their ability to prevent fire propagation -

., r ,

from one tray to another. Two of the coati,ngs tested (type D cnd

'c , type E) prevented ignition for six five-minute burn cycles. .

t 2 - With cable qualified to the IEEE-383 flame test standard, 7 all coatings tested prevented propagation between trays; however .

with one coating tested (type C), relatively high cable temperatures fy. (in excess of 1000*F) were measured in the upper tray. With another

coating tested (type A), cable temperatures in the upper tray in '

?'- excess of 800*F were measured. .

(;

(- 3 - With cabic not qualified to the IEEE-383 flame test standard,

.- l one of the coatings tested (type C) did not prevent fire propaga-tion between trays.

4, . .

's the small-scale, T, 4(2)- There was good correlation of data between (1)(4) two-tray sing 1c-tray,(3)two-traypropaneburner,and diesel fuel fire tests indicating that any of the test procedures f developed as part of this research can be utilized for further evaluation. However, verification of the ability of a cable tray

@:[J

.4 fire retardant coati.ng o'r barrier to prevent tray-to-tr,ay propa-iy gation can only be accomplished with one of the two tray tests developed. A comparison of the diesel fuel fire and the propane

[j - burner fire showed that if the surface area and burn times of the rs fires are the same the two are very similar with regard to the heat

}, - flux produced, m

h'., '

  • 5 - All barrier designs studied offered some protection against the J- .

test fires. For the tests of propagation through barriers, the

). .. experiments were conducted only with cable that is not qualified to the IEEE-383 flame test standard, and in all cases propagation was prevented. .

P.,-$ 6 - h'ith all barrier designs tested with cable that is not qualified D

to the IEEE-333 flame te'st, fire did develop in the , ignition tray 3:

- i,n either one or two-burn cycles.

);

3' f.

II . '

1

. )

  • . 1

. . . . . . . . . . ~ ,- , w. a : . , ;. .

' ~ "

  • 1 N:.' . . .

l 1 , ;.l.. . , 0 . .

0 = . . . . : . u.

1

' (' .

  • i l .f ,

it. B. l'inogue cnd 11. R.' Denton l

1. .* .

e

  • 7 - The barrier designs (" solid bottom no cover" cnd "colid bottom - '

1

.C ~ vented cover") cnd the fire retardant coatings (type D cnd E) il ' tested in single , tray tests with cable qualified to the IEEE-383 ,

flame test offered protection against the ignition and electrical I

' is li; failure in the cable tray exposed to the test fire.

Q 8'- There was a distinct improvement in performance in both the

.'fc

i. coating cnd barrier tests with cable qualified to the IEEE-383-7 .

.. . flame test standard. '

N,' 6.0 . EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

' The data presented in this RIL, and an cdvance draft copy of the RIL, h( ,. have been reviewed with members of the Fire protection Research Review Group. There is general agreement with the contents of this RIL eith d?. the' exception of the RES reconnended minimum thickness cnd inspection to guarantee total blockage of all space between cables.

f>

5;' - The data discussed in this RIL are of primrry concern in those y cases where a per;ranent rated barrier has not and cannot be utilized c between safety divisions. previou's testing as discussed in RIL (14

$ (Reference 3) showed that use of cable qualified to the IEEE-383 0-flame test standard is not in itself a sufficient defense against

')

- the propagation of fire across a 5-ft (1.5-m) vertical cnd 3-ft (0.9-m) horizontal separation distance if exposure fires are con-t sidered credible. l The data discussed in this RIL showed that protection against tiie

?.

propagation of fire between cable trays can be obtaine'd with both

.4 cable tray coating materials and various cabic tray barrier designs.

J.'

flowever, there is a distinct improvement in the degt_e of protec-tion offered when cabic qualified to the IEEE-383 flame test standard EV is used. . .

i . *

g. .

For those cases where the cable is not qualified to the IEEE-383

{c p

flame test standard, all of the coating materials and barrier designs tested exhibited poorer performance with regard to their 1.i :. - ability to retard combustion. However, with the exception of 4.,

i- .

coating Type C all coatings and barriers prevented fire propagation between cable trays.

}.

If fire retardant coatings are utilized the quality control of the y(:

? '

, application is important. Based on the experience, gained in con .

ducting the fire retardant coating tests at Sandia and observations

((:

.i '

of actual cable tray applications it is concluded that a minimum thickness should be established for use of fire retardant

) .< .

in nuclear power plants.

j; l'

  • .. s- ,

.................._.....C I,'.. .

.. : ~ . . .; . ~ .= : . lg . ' : . ,

o

\. O' .

.; 10- _

  • R. B. I;inogue cnd II. R. 0::nton , , .

i- .

!. .Therefore, if cable tra'y coatings cre used it is reconmended tha 1/8-in (0.3-cm) dry thickness 'bc rcquired. ,

/.4

by the suppliers of coatings A, B, C, cnd G is 1/8-in (0.3-cm) tret.  !

. The suppliers of coatings D cnd E reconwanded a coating u 1/4-inch (0.6-cm)thickwhentiet.

[f

(,

this thickness specification to 5/32-inch (0.4-cm) uet before the ,

e last portion of the test program uithout cny noticable cht.nge in!!owc the relative performance of the coatings tested.

j, . ' ~' ' coatings are required to be applied to the stme thickness it my be y' that the differences in their effectiveness till be reduced.

. Because of cpplication cnd the cmount of cater in the uet condition -

i- (30 to' 40%) it is unrealistic to expect thickness tolerances better

? i than + 25% cfter drying.

A ,

l- Based on the experience gained in conducting 'th j that whatever protective measure is utilized it should present a

.t solid barrier to the fire and not allow the passage of combustible JJ If fire retardant gas through the cable bundle within the tray.

...' cable tray coatings are used consideration should be given to 4;.

surrounding the cabic with the fire retardant material, and a suitable check should be required to ensure that all air passages N,

l rl '

through the cabic bundic have been blocked by the fi coating mterial.

( ,'g intensity lomp placed below the tray may be useful.

l I*- Fire retardant coatings and barriers can be utilized to prevent 0.-

tray-to-tray fire propagation with cable capabic o lk y fires similar to those on which the fire retardant coa uere conducted.

' (' '

perfortnance with cable qualified to the IEEE-383 flame test st ,

li 1

at the nominal recomnended thickness of 1/8-inch (0.3-cm) uet, 5

  • ' verification from applicants using the Sandia two-tray configuration N should be requested with the 1/8-inch (0.3-cm) dry thickness to if ensure an adequate mtrgin in preventing propagation.

fe .

Fire retardant coating types A, B, D cod E can be utilized to 7

prevent tray-to-tray fire propagation uith cable l/ ' l

'- M fires similar to those on which the fire retardant coating tests -

I D. ~

i ,.t ucre conducted. . . .

.i 4.- E .

.n '  %

y  : .

1- '

s,

F.g: -

~

3,7z. g . ,

~

i 0'  :. ~ Q ;,:.s.s; ,. . . G ..' p.:-::.;:.

.. 1:, .. ..

4, .

. . . . .,. . . . a.w. 7 . :: .

l'inogue and H. R. Danton ~11- . - - . - .

. l R.- _B. ,

b, ' .

~

Thebarrierdesignstestedccnbeutilizedtopreventtrcy-to-trcy .

- fire propagation with cable not qualified to the IEEE-383 fic.m3 '

test standard with cable tray configurations similar to those on - ' " . '

uhich the barriers uere tested at Ssndia.

Q;  ; 7.0 . COORDINATION CONTACT For coordination of any further evaluation of these results and for

' ft discussion.and future experiments the reader is cdvised to contcct-Mr. Ronald Feit, Fire Protection Research Program I'anager, RES,

~4' ' '

Telephone 427-4272.

.,)t'

,j }

f.

hg' . . .

t -

Saul Levine, Director Office of Huclear Regulatory Research

.J: 9 ,

i~:-

Enclosures:

As stated p  : -

i, - .

8 a g ,

s., .

g. . ..

't ..

)',I. . .

.s.

p .

i- .

..: ~ .

.. .... - glg.-:.:.s,.

1. . " :.y. ,

i * *

i! A -

1,t ,

1. . . ,

J ~ . . .-. .-.y.- ., , _ . ~ . . , _ . . , . _,,,-,,-~rc . , ,_ .-..~, ,, . ,.- . -c.,,_., , . , . .. . m. - ,,, -

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML20126M707&oldid=2904945"