ML20129C321
| ML20129C321 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | LaSalle  |
| Issue date: | 05/28/1985 |
| From: | Massin H COMMONWEALTH EDISON CO. |
| To: | Harold Denton Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20129C327 | List: |
| References | |
| 0175K, 175K, NUDOCS 8506050466 | |
| Download: ML20129C321 (3) | |
Text
r Commonwealth Edison one First National Plaza. Chicago, Ilhnois Address Reply to: Post Othee Box 767 Chicago, Illinois 60690 May 28, 1985 Mr. Harold R. Denton, Director Office of. Nuclear Reactor Regulation U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555
Subject:
LaSalle County Station Units 1 and 2 Acceptance Criteria for Firecode CT Gypsum Fire Stops NRC Docket Nos. 50-373 and 50-374 References (a): June 24, 1983, letter from D.L. Farrar to J.G. Keppler regarding Firecode CT Gypsum Cement Fire Stops.
(b): August 5,1983, letter from C.W. Schroeder to J.G. Keppler on the same subject.
(c): November 23, 1983, letter from C.W. Schroeder to H.R. Denton regarding Fire Protection Commitments.
(d): February 10, 1984, letter from C.W. Schroeder to J.G. Keppler regarding same subject.
(e): Transco Test Report No. TR-161.
(f): Decerrber 10 and 13,1985, letters from R.J.
Smith of MSM Protection Consultants to D. Elias regarding Transco Test Reports TR-159 and TR-161.
(g): April 30, 1985, letter from R.J. Smith of M&M Protection Consultants to D. Elias regarding crack criteria.
(h): June 20, 1985 telecon between A. Bournia, R.
Ferguson, S. West, of your staff, and J. Marshall, H. Massin, et al of CECO.
Dear Mr. Denton:
'In reference (d) we committed to revise the Firecode CT Gypsum Fire
'Stop surveillance and installation procedures to incorporate the 1/32" acceptance criteria for cracks and separations. We agreed to this stringent requirement because we could not justify a larger separation criterion based on existing test reports.
M A
i
- 4 H. R. Denton May 28, 1985 On November 20, 1984, Transco successfully performed a fire test on two 9" x 14.5" penetration fire seals consisting of 5" CT Gypsum Cement and 4" CT Thermafiber with a 14.5" long by 1/4" wide through crack in the cement. In one penetration the cement was on the bottom or exposed side,
-and in the other penetration the thermafiber was on the bottom. Both penetratido seals passed the temperature criteria on the unexposed side as well as the IEEE-634 and ANI hose stream tests.' However, water did leak through one of the penetrations during the ASTM E119 solid hose stream test. This. test, which was witnessed by M&M, is documented in Transco Test Report No. TR-161, and this report was reviewed and approved by M&M (Refs.
(f) and (g)).
Because of this test HnM recommended that we expand the separation criteria for operability to 3/3:!" for initial installation and 1/4" for normal surveillance. However, H&M also recommended that we repair any seals with cracks wider than 1/8" evan if tre seal was_ considered to be operable (ref. (g)). Their.recommendaticns weTe applicable to all fire penetration seal configurations consis:Ing of 5" CT Gypsum Cement and 4" CT Thermafiber except those which could be sue.' acted to a solld hose stream (paragraphs 6 and 7 of Ref. (g)).
Since the fire penetration seals at LaSalle are similar in
. configuration to those describe: above, we propose to revise the acceptance -
criteria for cracks and separations in our installation and surveillance procedures for all CT Gypsum and Thermafiber fire seals except those in the refuel floor area as follows:
1.
Initial and Repair Acceptance Criteria (initial installation and after repairs)
Crack Width Corrective Action
< 3/32" None required.
25 3/32" Seal not acceptable -
must be repaired.
2.
Surveillance Acceptance Criteria Crack Width Corrective Action dC 5/32" None required L
2t5/32" and(1/4" Seal is operable and must be repaired
~
on an orderly schedule.
f it1/4" Seal is inoperable and must be repaired.
~.
.,=
H._R. Denton May 28, 1985 The acceptance criteria for'the fire stops in the refuel floor, the only.
area in the plant where solid hose stream nozzles are' installed, will remain at 1/32". References (a), (b), and (c) document the fire penetration seal configurations installed at LaSalle and their. basis.
All other commitments that we made in reference (c) regarding the training of plant personnel and the tracking of abnormal penetration seals will not be changed.
We request your prompt review of this issue and concurrence with our revised acceptance criteria. We have attached copies of references (a),
.(b), (e), (f), and (g) for your use.
Very truly yours, YOU H. L : Massin Nuclear Licensing Administrator 1m Attachments
-cc: ' Resident Inspector - LSCS A. Bournia.- NRR G. Diederich - LSCS D. Elias
-0175K.
i J
/
N Commonwealth Edison
[
0
) One First National Plaza. Chicago, tilinois D
(j] Addr ss Reply tc. P4st Offica Box 767
(
Chicago. Illinois 60690 I
1 June 24, 1983 Mr. James G. Keppler, Regional Administrator
- Region III U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
~799 Roosevelt Road Glen Ellyn, IL 60137
Subject:
LaSalle County Station Units 1 and 2 Firecode CT Gypsum Cement Firestops NRC Inspection Report Nos.
50-373/82-54 and 50-374/82-22 NRC Docket Nos. 50-373 and 40-374 References (a):
R. L. Spessard letter to Cordell Reed dated April 28, 1983.
(b):
D. L..Farrar letter to J. G. Keppler dated May 27, 1983.
(c):
D. L. Farrar letter to J. G. Keppler dated June 10, 1983.
Dear Mr. Keppler:
The subject inspection report requested that we address the following issues concerning the f t re endurance capability of U.S. Gypsum Firecode CT Gypsum cement firestops:
1.
Cracking and separation 2.
Breakthroughs 3.
Cable density 4.
Deviation from test configurations 5.
Mixture control-Attached is our response to these items and the documentation which justifies our position.
A list of the documentation that is enclosed is provided in Attachment 1.
As explained in Reference (c), our response regarding the Unit 1 wall penetrations will be submitted by August 5, 1983.
- ^
.--vio7 egg.
,. ~
~
J. G.'Keppler June 24, 1983 To.the best of my knowledge and belief the statements contained herein and in the attachment.are true and correct.
In some respects these statements are not based on my personal knowledga but upon informa-tion furnished by other Commonwealth Edison and contractor e'mployees.
Such information has been reviewed in accordance with Company practice 4-and I believe it to be reliable.
If there are any further questions in this matter, please contact this office.
Very uly you L=
D. L. Farrar Director of Nuclear Licensing Im b\\ al cc:
NRC Resident Inspector - LSCS 1/0
~
Attachment 6817N e
p+>+~4-)
o 1
ATTACHMENT Engineering Response to Inspection Report No 's 50-373/82-54-and 50-374/82-22 1.
Cracking and Separation The cracks and voids, which varied in width from hairline to 3/8",,found in
~
some penetration firestops of Firecode CT Gypsum Cement do not degrade the fire endurance capability of the seal.
Seven of the attached reports document cracking in fire seals that were successfully tested.
U.S. Gypsum (USG) fire test report no.'s 1, 3, 5, and 6 reference hairline cracks, USG report no. 7 and Transco report no. I reference 1/8" wide cracks, and USG report no. 2 references 1/2"' wide cracks.
The LaSalle penetration firestops also have a layer of Thermafiber CT. Felt in addition to the gypsum cement. Although the felt by itself can not withstand the hose stream test, it will prevent the passage of flame and hot gases.
Successful tests on penetration firestops containing only Thennafiber CT Felt
'are documented in USG report no.'s 6, 7, and 8.
In test no. 6, the felt pre-vented the cables above a cable pan penetration from burning (see Detail D1).
USG report no. 7 also documents a successful three-hour test on a cable pan penetration in which only felt was installed around the pan. USG report no. 8 documents a successful 2b-hour-test on many different types of penetrations containing only thermafiber. This test was terminated before three hours had expired because of problems with the penetrations containing galvanized pip.es.
We consider a fire seal acceptable if it contains no cracks, voids, or sepa--
rations greater than 3/8" wide. Cosmetic factors such as surface smoothness, ripples, craters, fine surface cracks, chips, gouges, and all other minor blemishes are also acceptable. Any crack in the CT Gypsum cement greater than 3/8" wide is to be cleaned and repaired with the gypsum cement.
2.
Breakthroughs Breakthroughs, the addition of cables to a seal, do not degrade the integrity of the firestop if the spaces around the new cables are filled with gypsum cement. USG report no.1 and both Transco reports document successful three-hour fire tests on penetration firestops containing b*eakthroughs.
In the USG test, four cables were removed from two openings and two cables were added to two penetrations. Transco report no. I documents a test on a penetration fire seal that four cables were added to. The second Transco report describes a
-testeon a penetration fire seal with two breakthroughs. ~Although one of the two cables that were added ignited, no openings in the seal occurred. This cable was not qualified to IEEE 383 and did not ignite due to the passage of flame or hot gases. The copper conductors in the cable transferred enough heat.to cause the cable jacket on the unexposed side to auto-ignite.
Since breakthroughs do not degrade the fire seal because the new gypsum cement bonds to the old cement, there is no limit on the number of breakthroughs in the seal as long as the cable fill density has not been exceeded. A fire seal with "n+1" cables has the same integrity as a seal with "n" original cables
- and to which a cable is added.
ws - %b
_m,.~,.-
m
.,__y
t* '
3.
Cable Density No cable tray peletration in a three-hour fire rated wall in Unit 2 or in a three-hour fire ated floor in either unit has a cable density greater than the maximum density tested. The maximum cable pan density tested is 40% for floor penetrations (USG report no. I and both Transco reports) and 51% for wall penetrations (esG report no.'s 5 and 7). As documented by the S&L letters, no floor penetration has a _ cable density greater than 40%, and the maximum density in a Unit 2 wall penetration is 49.1%.
For your infonnation, the cable pan density is calculated by dividing the sum of the cross sectional area of the cables by the cross sectional area of the cable pan and multiplying by 100. The attached S&L letter dated June 17, 1983,.
explains the relationship between the cable pan density (CD) and the S&L design index (DI) for vertical cable riser penetrations. For horizontal cable pan penetrations, the formula is:
CD = (TT/4) X DI X 100 2
As stated in reference (c), we _will furnish our response regarding the Unit I wall penetrations by August 5, 1983.
4.
Deviation from Test Configurations The design of all the penetration firestops at LaSalle is verified by the at-
~'
tached test reports. The installed penetration seals are either identical or similar to at least one of the penetration configurations that were tested.
Some of the tests also represent a more severe service condition on this type of seal than it can experience in the plant because thermafiber felt was not.
used in the test or the stress on the test specimen was greater.
a.
Control Room Floor Penetrations
- The fire endurance capability of the control room floor penetrations is
~
verified by the two attached Transco test reports. Transco report no.
TR-109 describes a three-hour. fire test on a 32" X 109.5" penetration containing Firecode CT Gypsum cement. Although the surface area of the test specimen is 26% smaller than the 28" X 170" control room floor pene-tration, they have similar configurations. Both penetrations are long and narrow and have the same thickness of gypsum cement. However, the test specimen was subjected to a more severe service condition because it had cable trays, which increase the loading and heat conduction, and therma-fiber felt.only inside the cable trays. The control room floor penetration fire seals have no cable trays and have a layer of felt throughout'the seal. The test specimen is also four inches wider, and for these types of penetrations, the maximum stress that the seal can withstand decreases as the width increases but varies very little with changes in_the length.
Therefore, the hear transfer rate per unit area and the stress on the test penetration is greater.
- an.
m
- ' s'. s 3_.
1 The other Transco report describes a test on a 5' X 6' penetration which is only 10% smaller than the 28" X'170" control room floor penetration.
This test also represents a more severe service condition for the firestop because the test specimen had eight cable trays and no thermafiber felt.
The stresses at the side of the test seal are also greater because the hose stream produces a greater bending moment, and the gypsum cement has less surface area to adhere to than in long and narrow type penetrations.
-b.
Floor Penetrations with 12" X 30" Cable Trays
-Although none of the attached reports describe a test on a penetration firestop with a 12" X 30" cable tray, many of them describe tests on pene-trations with similar or multiple cable trays. USG report no. 's 1 and 4 -
document a test on a 30" X 4" and 36" X 4" cable tray, respectively. The Transco reports describe tests on penetration seals with three and eight cable trays and the sum of the cross sectional area of the cable trays used in each test is greater than the 12" X 30" cable tray. This increases the heat transfer rate and loading of the seal. Thus, the test specimens
.were subject to a more severe service condition than the field installations can experience.
5.
Mixture Control The attached USG letters provide additional information regarding Firecode CT Gypsum Cement. The June 8,1983, letter describes what gypsum cement is, how it is.made, what happens when water is mixed with it, and how temperature af fects it. The other USG letter furnishes additional information on the water-- -
to-plaster ratio and the dry density _ range. As explained in these letters,'
the effectiveness of the gypsum cement fire seal is not a function of this ratio or density, it is dependent on the integrity of the seal after it is installed.
Therefore, based on the inspection results, we consider the seals to be operable.
Please note that USG Research Center analyzed a portion of a seal that had been 3
removed and found that its density was within the range of 25 to 30 lbs/ft,
9 O
e Q
me r
= h-g
f f.i..:,4 1
List of Attached Documentation A.
U.S. Gypsum Fire Test Reports 1.
Concrete Floor Fire Stop Test of Nonqualified IEEE 383 Cable Penetrations Protected with Firecode CT Gypsum and Thermafiber Felt dated March 14, 1980.
2.
Fire Stop Systems Without Cable in a Three-Hour Fire Rated Wall dated September 6, 1979.
3.
Concrete Floor Fire Stop Test of IEEE Qualified Cable Penetrations dated' August-13, 1979.
4.
Poke-Thru Wall Fire Test dated May 21, 1979.
5.
Firestop Systems for Electric Cable Penetrations Thru Three-Hour Fir,e Rated Wall dated March 20, 1979.
6.
Fire Test of Concrete Floor Slab with Electrical Cable Penetration Firestops dated December 7,1978.
7.
Firecode CT Gypsum Thermafiber Access Firestopping for Walls dated July 24, 1978.
8.
Thermafiber Access Firestopping for Floors dated June 19, 1978.
~
~
B.
Transc'o Fire Test Reporte 1.
Report No. TR-109, Fire and Hose Stream Tests of TCO-001 Cement (USG Firecede CT Gypsum Cement), dated April 7, 1983.
2.
Fire Endurance Test on Transco Penetration Seal Systems in a Concrete Floor Utilizing Firecode CT Gypsum Cement dated August 5, 1981.
C.
Letters 1.
June 17, 1983, letter from Mr. J.S. Esterman of S&L to Mr. T.E. Watts (SCE-1829).
2.
June 14, 1983, letter from Mr. J.S. Esterman of S&L to Mr. T.E. Watts (SCE-1827).
3.
June 8,1983, letter from Mr. R.G. Lange of USG to Mr. E.L. Seckinger.
4.
June 3,' 1983, letter from Mr. R.L. Bartlett of USG to Mr. E.L. Seckinger.
w 0
A V
r
~.
I Commonwealth Edison One First National Plaza. Chicago. Illinois
~
Address Reply to: Post Office Box 767 Chicago, Illinois 60690 l
August 5, 1983 Mr. James-G. Keppler, Regional Administrator
- Region III U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 799 Roosevelt Road Glen Ellyn, IL 60137
Subject:
LaSalle County Station Units 1 and 2 Firecode CT Gypsum Cement Firestops -
Supplemental Information I.E. Inspection Report Nos.
50-373/82-54 and 50-374/82-22 NRC Docket Nos. 50-373 and 50-374 References (a):
D.L. Farrar letter to J.G. Keppler dated June 24, 1983.
(b):
D.L. Farrar letter to J.G. Keppler dated July 6, 1983.
Dear Mr. Keppler:
Attached is the information that the NRC requested on the coef fi-cient of expansion for Firecode CT Gypsum cement and cable densities in Unit 1 cable tray penetrations.
This completes our response to the subject inspection reports.
Commonwealth Edison Company is prepared to discuss this and other related information with your staff.
Please contact this office if further discussion is desired.
Very truly yours, C.
W. Schroeder Nuclear Licensing Administrator 1m cc:
NRC Resident Inspector - LSCS 7098N Gaa s.ran,,
e-
k '
J '.
I l
ATTACHMENT Supplemental Response to Inspection Report No.'s i
50-373/82-54 and 50-374/82-22 1.
Cracking and Separation - Thermal Expansion When Firecode CT Gypsum cement is heated, it will expand to fill or decrease voids in the seal.
Its thermal coefficient of linear expansion is between 8.35 and 8.60 x 10-6 in/in/oF inclusive.
-Gypsum cement also expands about 0.12% during setting.
The attached July 21, 1983, letter from U.S. Gypsum provides additional information on this subject.
3.
Cable Density - Unit 1 Wall Penetrations As documented in reference (1), the maximum cable fill density tested in a wall penetration with a cable tray is 51%, and two Unit 1 cable tray penetrations in three-hour fire rated walls, AB2135 and AB2142, have cable fill densities greater than the tested limit.
Penetrations AB2135 and AB2142 have cable fill densities of 51.4% and 52.6%,
respectively.
The attached July 27, 1983, Sargent and Lundy.
letter lists all of the Unit I wall penetrations with cable fill P-densities greater than 40%.
Both penetrations are located in the wall between the cable spr~eading room (fire zone 401) and the cable area (fire zone 5A4) at elevation 749' in tne auxiliary building.
This wall is approximately 12" thick, and the firestop in both penetrations consist of 5" of Firecode CT Gypsum cement and a layer of Thermafiber CT felt in the cable tray and 2" of cement and 6" of felt in the area around the cable tray.
Since the cable fi11 densities in these two penetrations are less than 2% above the test limit, we do not believe that the fire endurance capability of the firestops is degraded.
However, to provide additional assurance that the seal eeets the requirements for a three-hour fire rated barrier, we propose to enlarge the firestop in each penetration by filling in the remainder of volume in the opening with gypsum cement and felt.
Thus, each penetration will contain the equivalent of two three-hour fire rated seals.
This work,
will be completed within three months after NRC concurrence.
To prevent any other penetrations from exceeding the cable fill density limit, we will revise existing engineering procedures by December 31, 1983, to ensure that this item is reviewed in the design of modifications.
The station will review its procedures and revise them as necessary to ensure that any design changes involving Safe Shutdown Analysis - required fire seals be submitted to engineering for review and approval.
To assist the station, engineering is in the process of issuing electrical drawings that list all electrical firestops in fire rated walls or floors.
7098N w
..y.
y7 ti.
..e,1 y
.,'...\\.,.
3 7
2.-. g 3.-g 3,,
L. '
N b.N T.~"~
._~~ '
j.y
~ \\
,. (.... i.
UNITED STATES GYPSUM COMPANY
.I
.--- a-. et;. s e.- n e,,,
'oi s w.c... on.
+
.i C'"caso. m.ao s ecsos airnsi-sooo.
3,.a gp.,y. p....
1...
..v
- ._.14.L : a
~
N g
i July 21,-1983 s
s-
- u -
firA E. L. reckinger Commonwealth Edison - SNED
'P.O. Box 767 Chicago, IL 60690
~
SUBJECT:
LaSalle County Station g USG Fire Stop Systems,.
NRC Allegation Regarding Thermal Expansion Dear fir. Seckinger In reply to the NRC requesting' additional infezmation~that FIRECODE CT Gypsum Cement expanded during' a fire, we offer the following for their consideration.
On_ page 100, Table VIII, of the Manual of Lathing ar;d Plastering, John R. Diehl' AIA Author, Copyright '1960, F.A'C Publishers Association, refers
- to typical properties of gypsum as reperted by tht2 Gypsum Association in which the Thermal Coefficient of Linear Expancion is one of the prop-erties listed (copy attached). - The Thernal Coefficient of Linear Ex-pansion (in/in/0Fx10-6) of gypsum aggregated with vermiculite aggregate ranges from 8.35 to-8.60 x 10-6 FIRECODE CT Gypsum Corrent is aggregated with vermiculite aid falls within this rance.
'In addition to thermal expansion, gypsum expands during setting. FIRECODE CT Gypsum Cement has a setting expaasion of 0.12% and unlike portlant cement mixes which shrink, always has a net expansion.
If you require further informatio N please contact me.
Very truly yours, UNITED STATES GYPSUM COMPANY f
~
~
+,
R. L. Bartlett Technical Representative.
RLB/dlh i
attachment cci
- 151 R. G. Lange Mr. Tem !!off i
- 173 P. G. Smith TRANSCO, Inc.
- 440-3 E. L. Witeside.
.55 E, Jackson nivd.
Chicago, IL 60604
. / ;m t f.,
3,.:.s c r r **. s m.;.--it
.t. r w r.tti.
~.. <
.y *
's.
4 s
-:g 1..
fil f
100 e
ElANUAL OF LATIIING AND PLASTERING
~
]i
'g
[.;
Table Vill.
Properties of Gypsum Job. Mixed Basecoat Plasters y.'j Sand Perlite Vennicuhte W<w=1 Filesni to Sanil i *.
'n. '. i I
N' 1:2 1:3 1:2 1:3 1:2 1:3 1:0 1:1 f
7,i Compressive Strength j,j Pounds per sq. in.
775-1050 525-700 600-800 450-600 400-525 250-325 1750 2350 3 ]j*li Tensile Strength
}
Pounds per sq. in.
150-200 100-150 165-170 90-150 130-160 70-100 2804 00 24,0-2',0 5
g j'
Stodulus of Elasticity 5, j Pounds per uz. in. x 104 1.0 1.15-1.20 0.21-0.33 0.028 0.65-0.75
< >q ';
e 7
Density In-Place l I;,';-
s j ;l $1I:.
Pounds per cu. ft.
106120 104-120 50-56 41-45 50-55 42-45 79 82 m
$.. j i g; Coefficient of Linear 3
Espamion
$ j{.,
?
inches / inch / degree t
.,(j t.
F x 10-8 6.50 6.75 7.35 7.30 8.35 8.60 9.30
-..'i.t Thermal Conductivity h
'e. !
BTUhq. ft./ hour /*F/.
Y li inch thickness 5.51 5.60 1.Gl 1.31 1.74 1.42 3 15 G
Semrce: C pum Asweiation.
g 3
4
., t j.,;'t a relatively high percentage of cementitious mate-
~
Table IX.
3
- 3 e
rial) are gencrally subject to greater initial shrink-l,
- E age upon drying than are tcan raises. It is generally C fculated Tensile Strains at Failure for Various j - s ';
recommendt.d that mixes tending toward the Ican Gypsum Plasters'
.. ; d side be used for exterior plaster, due to the mate-
{
f' rials used and the presence of environmental condi.
C.usiru
.g.,,, linl
. :,3 h d k; j tions producing movement. Along with this are the Tensile hinclutus of at Failure M
- l more severe consequences of possible cracking re.
Plaster Strength Elasticity hiicroinches/
h ib, sulting from movement than would be the case in Proportions Lbs.he3. in.
I bs./wi. in.
in./in.
- k } ; '.
irsterior applications.
Wood. Fibered d (
Summary tabulations of some of the properties Cyp== Plaster 290 753.000 388
.}
7' of gypsum plasters are in Tables Vill and IX.
4 p q.,.
1 : 4 Vermicuhte j.j Brown Coat 80 175,000 457
- i. j. j.P MIXING THE MATERIALS g.
timg,,og;ng 3
Finish Coat 70 111.000 (13 1 k
.\\tising consists primarily of two operations:
k ~,. ;' l first, measuring the components according to the Qra
'f t
310 985,000 315 g
retpiired proportions and adding them to the mix.
{
'f; ing box or machine; sectmd, combining the omn.
! : 3 Sand ponents into a homogeneous mixture while adding Brn=n Cuat 210 730.(XX) 2Hn d i- ),I s,'s h
k 1*@b.l ri
_y u n % _-2m m2.
_y'
-r_yz-rm q w s w n,
= wr m y=.
p Ten 5 N
A
~
,j.e SARGENT & LUNDY ENGINEERS SS C AST MONROE STREET CHIC AG O. ILLIN OIS 6 06 0 3 13121 269 2000 TWX 910 221 2807 SCE-1853 l
July 27, 1983 Project No. 4267-02 Commonwealth Edison Company La Salle~ County Station - Unit 1 Cable Tray Fill Density for Horizontal Cable Tray Wall Penetration Fire Seals
.Part of Sargent & Lundy Punchlist Item 3.96 Mr. T. E. Watts Commonwealth Edison Company P. O. Box 767-Chicago,. Illinois 60690
Dear Mr. Watts:
~
After completing our work identifying all electrical openings in Unit 1 that require fire seals, we have prepared a list of the horizontal cable tray wall penetrations that exceed 40 percent of cable' tray volume.
This information was requested in your letter of May_12, 1983, to Mr. R. H. Pollock.
Routing Nearest Cable Required By Electrical Drawing-Routing
. Design.
Fill Safe Shutdown
~
Opening No.
Number Point Inder
- Density, Analysis
-AB2076 1E-1-3665 386B
- 1. 25...
49.1%
Yes AB2081 1E-1-3665 445D 1.18 46.3%
Yes AB2101 1E-1-3665-373B 1.20, I,7.1%
Yes AB2135 1E-1-3667 592E 1.31.
51.4%
Yes AB2142 1E-1-3667 577B 1.34 52.6%
AB2146 1E-1-3667 564B 1.15 45.2% ~
Yes Yes RB2053 1E-1-3653 1395B 1.06 41.6%
No RB2054~
1E-1-3653 1395B 1.06 41.6%
No AB2207 1E-1-3669 653B 1.15' 45.2%
Yes
~
(Unit 2)
AB2210 1E-1-3669 652B 1.15 45.2 No (Unit 2)
A32023 1E-1-3663 286A 1.14 44.8%
Yes AB2059 1E-1-3664 430A 1.24' 48.7%
Yes AB2065 1E-1-3664 426A 1.02 40.1%
Yes TB2086 1E-1-3680 2113A 1.18, 46.3%
No TB2145 1E-1-3683 2370A 1.39 54.6%
No
@@FY
~
. 'y.
s' RGENT & LUNDY A
EN GlN EE RS CHICAGO Mr. T. E. Watts July 27, 1983 Commonwealth Edison Company Page 2 The 3-hour fire walls were found using figure 9.5-1 of La Salle County FSAR Chapter 9.
These 3-hour fire walls were compared with figure H.2-1 of Appendix H to verify that the 3., hour walls with electrical openings were required by the safe shutdown analysis.
Cable fill density is calculated by using the following formula and is equivalent to.the method specified in your letter:
(Cable Fill Density)
T-
% Tray Fill 4 x Design Index x 100
=
If you have any questions concerning this, please give me a call.
Yours very tr,uly, J.S.ESTERMAN J.
S. Esterman Electrical Engineer JSE:smg In duplicate Copies:
B.
R. Shelton R. H. Holyoak G. J. Diederich E. L. Seckinger D. L. Shamblin R. H. Pollock i
@oFY
.4
-