ML20196H573
| ML20196H573 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 08/24/1994 |
| From: | NRC OFFICE OF INVESTIGATIONS (OI) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20150F728 | List:
|
| References | |
| FOIA-97-180 NUDOCS 9707300244 | |
| Download: ML20196H573 (146) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:,, () -- o O R G' \\'A i OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS 1 l i \\ i Agency: Nuclear Regulatory Commission Inves tigativ 3 Interview of Title. Ilitoshi Takahashi (CLOSED) Docket No. i ( LOCATION: Freeland, Michigan DATE: Augus t 2 4, 1994 PAGES: 1 - 53 I i L I ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. l 3593 '.028 1250 I St., N.W., Suite 300 Wahington, D.C.20005 ( 9707300244 970724 (20pxWgpp4 5 ( PAGE,,1 0FkASESt(s) TE 180 PDR C(\\ } L 970 73 M7YW b~(,;.w if
... - _... ~ _, _ e e h f C' 1 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 1 2 OFFICE OF INVESTIGATIONS 3 t 4 X 5 In the Matter of: 6 INVESTIGATIVE INTERVIEW OF HITOSHI TAXAHASHI (CLOSED) 7 X 8 I 10 The above-entitled interview commenced pursuant to notice at 12:50 p.m. { 11 ] 12 13 APPEARANCES: 14 For the NRC: Mr. Richard C. Paul Senior Investigator and 15 Mr. Joseph M. Ulie U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 16 office of Investigation 801 Warrenville Road 17 Lisle, IL 60532 (708) 829-9672 18 For Dow Corning: Ms. Lynn Krauss, Esq. 19 2200 W. Salzburg Road, CO-1242 Midland, Michigan 48686 20 (517) 496-4081 i 21 22 23 i 24 l 25 I !O l l i t l 1
e o C I WITNESS: I 2 HITOSHI TAKAHASHI Examination by Mr. Paul 4 EXHIBITS (1-5) Retained by Investigator Paul 5 6 8 9 10 11 12 / 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 C B 2
_ ~ \\ e e l l f' 1 1 Freeland, Michigan 2 August 24, 1994 - 12:50 p.m. I 3 MR. PAUL: For the record, this is an 4 interview of H. Tak Takahashi, spelled 5 T-a-k-a-h-a-s-h-i, who is employed by Dow corning 6 Corporation, Midland, Michigan. Location of this l 7 interview is Freeland, Michigan. Present at the 8 interview in addition to Mr. Takahashi are Richard C. 9 Paul and Joseph M. Ulie, investigators with U. S. 10 Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of Investigation. 11 And Lynn Krauss, K-r-a-u-s-s, who is staff attorney l 12 with Dow Corning has agreed this interview is being / 13 transcribed by court reporter Yuvondra Fantroy. I 14 Subject matter of this interview concerns the Dow 15 Corning silicon RTV foam identified by the number 1 16 3-6548. I 17 Mr. Takahashi, could you please stand and raise 18 your right hand. ' ~ _. 19 Do you swear that the information you're about to 20 give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing 21 but the truth so help you God? 22 THE WITNESS: I do. 23 MS. KRAUSS For the record, I would like it t 24 to indicate that Mr. Paul has agreed to give us the 25 right to review the transcript upon its completion for i f 4 3 l
e l r 1 accuracy. I'd also like to note for the record that 2 Mr. Takahashi's first language is not english and I 3 would encourage anyone who does not understand anything 4 he is saying at the time to please stop him and clarify 5 it at the time as we go on. 6 EXAMINATION 7 BY HR. PAUL: s Q. okay. Mr. Takahashi, could you please give us your 9 educational background and your background relative to 10 the silicon foau? 11 A. I was born and raised in Tokyo, Japan. Graduated from i 12 Tokyo Metropolitan University. Bachelor's degree in 13 science / industrial chemistry in 1961. Then 14 l subsequently I acquired a master's degree in psychology 15 from the same university in '65. Then I have been 16 employed by Dow Corning since 1966. My involvement in 17 RTV foam is between 1979-1983 time frame. is I was senior marketing supervisor for the entire 19 fire stop product line and switched over to senior 20 technical service specialist at the beginning of 1983. 21 Remained in that job until and of 1987. 22 Q. In regards to the Dow corning product 3-6548, the i 23 silico'n RTV foam, when was your first involvement with 24 the marketing of that product to the nuclear industry? 1 25 A. Just about 1979 or beginning of 1980. O t 4
o e f' 1 Q. Previous to that had -- was that when the product was 2 initially sold to the nuclear industry or was that just 3 your involvement? 4 A. That is just my involvement. And the product was sold 5 to the nuclear industry prior to my involvement as a 6 marketing supervisor. I 7 Q. Do you know when it was first sold to the nuclear 8 industry? 9 A. That is -- that is very difficult for me to remember 10 exactly when but it was just about coinciding with 11 Brown's Ferry nuclear power plant fire. Then Nuclear 12 Regulatory Commission tightened up the regulation and 13 that was just about the time product was 14 commercialized, as I remember. I might be slightly 15 off, so. 16 Q. As far as the marketing of the product to the nuclear 17 industry, was that one of your functions? 18 A. Between 1979 and '83 time frame, matter of fact, and of 19 1982 that was my function to market this product, not 20 only for nuclear power plant fire stop applications but 21 for the commercial buildings, high-rise buildings, 22 hospitals and other types of institutional buildings 23 for the same purpose, fire stopping. 24 Q. Did you tarket the product directly to the utilities 25, or contractors constructing the power plant or did you r 5
o e I i
- /'
1 go through intermediary companies? 2 MS. KRAUSS: When you refer to marketing are; 3 you referring to selling or advertising, would you 4 clarify that, please? 5 Q. Whatever function it required for him to sell the f 6 product to the, whoever was the intermediary, or how it 7 -got to the power plant that is what I'm interested in4 ) 8 Whatever function he actually performed? 9 A. Marketing has a very broad meaning in Dow Corning and 4 10 we may not necessarily mean selling the product. But 11 this product, the particular product you're concerned i 12 about, 3-6548, has been sold to a nuclear power plant. g 13 and other types of power-generating facilities throug 14 the contractors. Dow Corning seldom sold the product 15 directly to the utilities. There may be a very 16 isolated occasion we accepted direct orders for seme 17 maintenance, VPR work. We might have sold some 18 directly to the customer -- to the utility companies. 19 I venture to guess 95 to 99 percent of sales to 20 utilities went through the contractors. 21 Q. When you would deal with the contractors was it a 22 requirement that you provided technical information 23 required by the nuclear regulatory commission to 1 24 fulfill certain commitments the contractor had to the 4 25 NRC7 e /*' i i 6
e e ? 1 A. To be honest with you, I don't understand your question 2 properly. By technical information you mean technical 3 information relative to the product or relative to 4 regulations? 5 Q. Relative to the product? 6 A. Relative to the product. By that do you mean how to 7 use information or test reports? 8 Q. Maybe I'll clarify a little bit. Were you aware of 9 what the end use of the silicon foam was going to be 10 within the nuclear power plant when you dealt with 11 these companies? 12 A. Yes. Yes, I did. 13 Q. And what was that? 14 A. Primary for the fire stop for the guidelines 15 regulation, guide -- whatavar the number was. 146 or 16 17 MR. ULIE: Do you remember which fire 18 standards, fire test standard that Dow Corning 19 identified to its customers that this particular 3-6548 20 met? 21 MS. KRAUSS: I want for the record to be 22 clear. You're assuming that we said that it met 23 certain of those requirements and I believe Mr. 24 Takahashi will talk later about who decided what 25 specific configurations the product -- we were a j ^ r l 7 l l 1
l
- /'
1 material supplier to contractors. 2 MR. PAUL: That's what we're trying to 3 determine at this point. 4 MR. ULIE: Right. 5 Q. Exactly what information, technical assistance, what 6 ever, you gave to the contractors in selling this 7 product to them? Let me ask a couple questions before 8 we get that far. 9 A. Sure. 10 Q. Were you aware that the end use of this product, the 11 silicon foam was involved with a configuration that was 12 regulated by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission? 13 A. Yes. 14 Q. And that there were certain standards that was, this 15 product was required to meet in its configuration? 16 A. Yes. 17 Q. I believe initially it was the ASTM standard E119. Up 18 until, sometime in the '80s then there was other 19 regulations or other standards but this was the initial 20 standard in this time frame we're talking about that 21 you were involved, '79 to '83, was that your 22 understanding of the, at least the test standard that 23 was being imposed upon the product? 24 A. Yes. That's my understanding and also there has been 25 some deviation from ASTM 119 test standard as far as /*N i t i 8 l
I-e C 1 NRC were concerned in those time frames. That is 2 backsight test requirement, post-stream test 3 requirement. Those are slightly different from the 4 E119 test standard. 5 MS. KRAUSS: For the record I would like to 6 clarify that our product in and of itself does not meet 7 or does not get tested under these test standards but a the product in specific configurations gets tested 9 under these test methods. 10 MR. PAUL: But the point is, and I asked him 11 and he answered, was he aware that the contractors and 12 ultimately the utility who owned the p3 ant was required r 13 to meet certain of these standards as set forth by the 14 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 15 THE WITNESS: Yes, I did understand. 16 Q. Although it may not have been Dow Corning's 17 responsibility but there was that responsibility with 18 the use of this particular product by the ultimate l 19 customer being the utility owning the license on the 20 nuclear power plant? 21 A. Yes, I did. 22 Q. With that understanding, did you provide test reports 23 to the companies that you were selling the product to? l 4 l 24 Qualification testing we're talking about, fire 25 que.lification testing? r t 9
e-1 A. Answer to that question is no. I have to qualify my no 2 by saying Dow Corning surely provided some test 3 reports, UL fire test reports or fire test reports 4 written by Portland Cement Association.- They're an 5 independent testing facility doing some testing, fire 6 testing, in accordance with ASTM 119 or currently 7 called E814. Yes, we provided cepios to some of the 8 customers upon request or voluntary. Doesn't mean that 9 we are providing design guide to the customers to use. 10 It was more of informational purposes like this, for 11 example, some concern design criteria may be very tough 12 test criteria for the -- this material to pass. 13 Q. Were you aware of any instances where the contractor or 14 the company you sold the product to would or did use 15 .thase tests to submit or qualify their installations to 16 the NRC requirement? 17 A. I heard some rumors that there are some third party is is using or misusing our test report in that wa'y.- 'But-I _. 19 don't have any of the solid evidence to pinpoint my 20 findings to any particular company. 21 Q. What were they allegedly doing? 22 A. Well, the rumor I heard stated some company took some 23 of the three-hour rated designs listed in the UL fire 24 resistant materials directory, transferred the design 25 and used the design in some of the power-generating (~ 1 10 I j
l i e e C 1 facilities. 2 Q. Do you know which facility was involved? 3 A. No, sir. 4 Q. Do you know where I can obtain additional information 5 on this matter? 6 A. That's very difficult for me to give you the crude -- 7 see, I have been away from this product line and market 8 for nearly eight years, since '77 -- no, excuse me, 9 '87. And my memory is not that clear about what was 10 happening in even the early ' sos, mid '80s. 11 Q. You heard this information was in the mid-80s or early 12 '80s? 13 A. Yes. 14 Q. When you were marketing the product for Dow Corning? 15 A. My involvement as a marketing supervisor was between 16 '79 and end of '82. And beginning of '83 I was a 17 technical service specialist for the same product line. 18 Q. So I understand what you just told me the silicon foam 19 which from here after we'll be referring to as 3-6548 20 for the matter of simplicity here. Is it listed, is 21 that a listed product with UL? 22 A. Yes, sir. 23 Q. Do you know in what year it became listed with UL? 24 A. I think it's first listing, which was two-hour rated I' 25 listings, were published either 1976 or '77, but I C l 11
~ o a j a r-1 don't remember clearly. 2 Q. By listed I mean used as a fire penetration seal? 3 A. That is just about that time frame. Somewhere between 4 '73 and '77. I don't remember exact year, so. 5 Q. Okay. And the information you had then was it someone 6 was using the listing for a two-hour to meet a 7 three-hour requirement? 8 A. No. That is not what I said. There are some 9 three-hour rated systems in the same book listed later 10 on, maybe '79, '80 time frame. Again, I don't remember 11 exact year when the three-hour systems came aboard. 12 But some companies might have used that design saying 13 this design qualification for three-hour rated 14 requirement set forth in NRC. And they might have gone 15 into the field and sold material based on that design. 16 That is a rumor I had, I can't pinpoint who did that 17 when, where. 18 MR. ULIE: Do you know where you would be able to obtain a list of tests that were provided to 19 20 your customers back at that time frame that would 21 identify what tests by test number, title? 22 MS. KRAUSS: Are you talking about test or -- 23 MR. ULIE: Test reports. 24 THE WITNESS: UL test reports might be 25 relatively easy to identify. Who were provided with r i 12
o e 1 .P 1 that test reports, that is going to be a very tough. 2 It might have gone with very simple carburetor or was 3 compliment from Dow Corning type of thing. There is no 4 restriction on the part of UL to, who are copies of UL 5 test reports going as long as we make an entirs copy of 6 the test reports. 9 7 MR. ULIE: The test reports that you were 8 referring to earlier, would those have only been UL -- 9 tests that were done for UL listings that would have 10 been passed on to customers, or could there have been 11 other tests that were done for Dow's purposes that j 12 could have been sent out? That is what I'm trying to r 13 make a distinction between, the difference between. 14 THE WITNESS: Now I understand your question. 15 Yes, there are some test reports done by Dow Corning 16 for the research purposes sent out to the customers 17 voluntarily like air -- presence of airborne and its 18 effects vs solid foam comparison test. They were 19 freely given to the customers just as sort of a design 20 guide. 21 MR. ULIE: And its that type of test, along i 22 with the UL listed type test, that my question, next i 23 questions is going to refer to. Is there some location 24 that would have a master list that you recall when you 25 were involved in the fire seal or fire stop area where g-t 13
O 4 r 1 you could obtain a master list of what test reports 2 were given out to customers commonly? 3 THE WITNESS: I don't know. I don't know 4 whether that is in the form of master file or not but 5 current custodian of all the Dow test library is Bob 6 Schroeder who is coming to the meeting later on and ha 7 maintains, he maintains very meticulous listings of 8 tests conducted under the Dow Corning sponsorship. 9 MR. ULIE He would be the better to answer lo that question? 11 THE WITNESS: He might be the better person 12 to answer that question. 13 MR. ULIE You, yourself, don't remember test 14 report numbers or titles? 15 THE WITNESS: Since I have been away from 16 this marketplace for nearly seven, eight years, no, 17 sir, I don't remember. 18 MR. ULIE: I understand. 19 THE WITNESS: I used to remember those 20 things at my fingertips. Not anymore. 21 Q. From my understanding you mentioned there is tests that 22 were conducted at Construction Technology Laboratories 23 at Portland Cement? 24 A. (Witness nods head.) 25 Q. Were there also tests conducted at Underwriter r l 14 l
i i i i a i F% 1 Laboratories for the purpose of listing this product? 2 A. Yes. Slightly different marketing purposes. Slightly 3 different objectives. Listings for UL book we call ths 4 orange book. The exact title is UL fire-resistant + 5 materials directory. That is to obtain national model 6 code group approvals. There are three national model 7 code books. Southern building code groups and basic a building code groups out of Chicago, and biggest one i s 9 out in California, ICBO is the name but I don't 10 remember what ICBO stand for anymore. But, anyway, 11 they all rely on the UL building materials directory to 12 qualify the alternative means of construction in ( 13 high-rise buildinga. And that is why we obtained 14 listings under UL. 15 Q. Were the UL tests provided to the nuclear customers or 16 the people who were ultimately going to be using the 17 material in nuclear facilities? Is A. Like I said earlier, this UL book is publicly 19 available. Anybody can purchase this book by paying 20 $30, 40, 50 per book and they can have access to the 21 design criteria and also a test report on which those 22 listings are based, are freely available from Dow 23 Cornin'g. So if somebody had some intention of using 24 those designs in power-generating facilities certainly 25 they could have done it. i f I 15 j
r 1 Q. Regarding the product itself, the 3-6548 was it always 2 a two-part product an A and B part that's mixed 3 together. Mas it always been that type of product? 4 A. Answer to that question is no. This product has a very 5 unique history which goes beyond my time which started 6 1979. This product was originally used, or should I 7 say qualified, by one of our contractors as a e four-component system. Actually we had a low density 9 silicon foam configuration, which are two parts. And 10 this contractor took a solid formulation compatible 11 with those low density foam formulations and solid 12 formulations are two parts. So they took twc of each 13 and made a four-component foam. The reason they needed 1 14 to do it is low density silicon foam didn't have much is of fire resistance and high density resimer was so 16 heavy and don't expand to fill the old nooks and 17 crevices. It wasn't very useful material. Therefore, 18 this innovative contractor took two of each and used it 19 in the fire stop application. And later on Dow corning 20 saw great potential in commercializing the 21 four-component system combining some of the 22 ingredients, making a two-part system out of it, so we 23 bought' the technology and decided to commercialize the 24 two component 3-6548. New to answer your question more 25 clearly, 3-6548 foam has always been a two-component i 16
I i system. Their predecessor was four-component system. 2 Q. Do you know what year 3-6548 was first sold to the 3 nuclear power industry? 4 A. Should be right after the Brown's Ferry fire, which is 5 1975. 6 Q. And was that, it was a two part at that time? 7 A. I believe that was two part. a Q. As far as the foam itself, is there any guideline as 9 to, and I'm asking~my questions based on my review of 10 the UL fire-resistant directory, that there is a 11 certain minimum thickness of material required for the 12 certain hour fire barrier rating. Does it burn at a r 13 certain rate, the material, in a standard 14 configuration? 15 A. To be honest with you there are no such things like a 16 standard configurations. There are so many variables 17 involved in that. is Q. What are those? 19 A. Size of openings, thickness of concrete, number of 20 penetrating items, presence of the fire resistant 21 board, with or without. Since there are so many design 22 variables I am quite sure the Nuclear Regulatory 23 commission says if you run a test for such and such 24 size openings you can use the design for that size 25 equal to or smaller-size openings. In the same token r o l 17
r-- 1 1 there are no such things such as standards in taking 2 penetrating items, pipes and cable trays, cable itself 3 could be power cables, control cables, jacketing 4 material, could be a whole bunch of variability. 5 Q. Is testing with an item such as a cable tray or conduit 6 going through it more conservative than just testing a 7 material with no items penetrating it, what is the most 8 conservative of those two of that example? 9 MS. KRAUSS: How do you mean conservative? 10 Q. Would be more, would be more likely the more severe on 11 the barrier having penetrating items than not having 12 penetrating items during a fire test? 13 Q. Do you understand what I'm asking? \\ 14 A. I don't know exactly what you're saying. And, again, 15 there are some variables involved. Nobody -- very 16 generally speaking, foam without penetrating items'are 17 easier to pass the test. Especially if there is a 1 i 18 supporting board present. And also size of openings 19 are limited to some degree than the relatively easy j 20 test to pass the fire test. Heavy penetrating items, 21 pipes, clamping pipes versus conduit, are tougher to 22 pass the test. By the same token if you're talking ^ 23 about cable trays, aluminum cable trays are tougher 24 than steel cable trays because of some are conductivity 25 or conduct the different servicing. C t 18
C 1 Q. When you market or sold your product to contractors 2 representing the nuclear industry did you provide any 3 specific type of test, and what I mean by specific is 4 E119 test or UL type test, was there any specific type 5 that you would provide these nuclear power industry 6 customers as opposed to your commercial customers? 7 A. No, sir. With the exception, like I said earlier. We a provided some of the experimental fire test reports i 9 with and without board present to our regular l 10 contractors. Excluding those I don't think we 11 intentionally provided fire test reports to any of 12 these contractors. I 'f 13 MR. ULIE: Was there any disclaimer when 14 these tests were released that these individuals that 15 you were giving the test to were not to portray these 16 tests in any other light as being qualified tests or 1 l 17 that they were experimental tests? Simply my question 18 was was there any disclaimer given by Dow corning when 19 these tests were released to whoever you gave them to? 20 MS. KRAUSS: That Mr. Takahashi is aware of? 21 THE WITNESS: To the best of my knowledge I 22 don't think we attached a disclaimer, per so. We might 23 have s' aid those are some experimental results Dow 24 Corning conducted and here are the test reports sort of j 25 thing. But that is the extent of the explanation f"' l e 19
e I 1 attached to the test reports. 2 MR. ULIE: And do you recall any Dow Chemical 3 Company policy on release of test report information? 4 THE WITNESS: You mean Dow corning? 5 MR. ULIE: At that time? .,_ q, 6 THE WITNESS: You mean Dow Corning not Dow 7 Chemical? l l 8 MR. ULIE: Dow Corning. l 9 THE WITNESS: I don't think there is any lo policy I was aware of when I was involved in this line 11 of business. 12 BY MR. PAUL: l l \\ i 13 Q. Was the term Dow Corning power applicators, does that j l 14 have meaning to you? F 15 A. Yes. L 16 Q. In regards to the nuclear industry could you explain 1 17 what a Dow corning power applicator was? 18 A. Dow Corning power applicator is the internal name, 19 names -- name given to some group of customers 20 purchasing certain products from Dow Corning under some i 21 privileged arrangement. They required some 22 qualifications like quality assurance procedures, 23 meeting NRC regulations, some degree of fire test 24 libraries and financial stability, and far as criteria 25 I don't remember any more. L 20
l e 1 MR. ULIE: Was there a formal process an 2 agreement? 3 THE WITNESS: Yes, sir. We signed an 4 evergreen type agreement with each of the power 5 applicators. In return they guaranteed some minimal 6 purchase of Dow Corning product for specific purposes, 7 which is the power generating plant construction. l 8 MR. ULIE: I don't understand the first, 9 there was a signed agreement? 10 THE WITNESS: Yes. There is an evergreen, 11 meaning either party can terminate the agreement upon 12 30 days or 60 days notice to the other party. Until 13 the termination notice is given to the other party the 14 agreement continues,- type of situation. 15 MR. ULIE: That clarifies what I didn't 16 undecstand. j 4 17 BY HR. PAUL 18 Q. Do you recall how many power applicators there were in 19 regards to the nuclear industry? 20 A. As far as I remember there was at one time five or six 21 active power applicators on our list. I think *I can 22 recall some names Bisco or Brand Industrial. ICMS, I 23 think it stands for Insulation Consultants and 24 Management Services. Texsil, Promatec, this Promatec 25 went through some name changes. North -- r ( t 1 21
._______.______._m e e i i i i i { / 1 Ms. KRAUSS: North Brothers. ] 4 2 THE WITNESS: North Brothers, Transco. Those l 3 are the names I remember. There might have been one j 4 company out of Tulsa for a while. Insulation services 5 out of Tulsa, Oklahoma might. i j 6 Q. What is the name of the company? j 7 A. Insulation. s Q. Insulation services? 9 A. Yes. They may have been very dormant but I don't 10 remember any of the heavy activity with that company. 11 Q. So with these power applicators would you sell the i 12 product directly to them or directly to the utility? 13 A. We sold directly to the power applicators. Sometimes 14 they requested a drop shipment. By that they placed 15 the -- purchaser is a power applicator but they 16 specified the shipment goes to such and such .17 contracting jobsite like Millstone number 2 or 18 whatever. We were merely following their instruction 19 for shipping, shipping route. And we advised the power 20 applicator goes to who holds title for that drop 21 shipped material. 22 MR. ULIE: Did these power applicators go 23 through an installation training program? 24 THE WITNESS: We provided some consultetion 25 on some of the technical matters but they are pretty r I 22 i I
F e e l g, 1 much self-trained. They developed thsir own 2 installation procedures and many of then claim they 3 know more about our product than Dow Cerning does. 4 NR. ULIE: Was it typical insulators that 5 were actual 3y the installers of the product, based on l 6 your knowledge? 7 THE WITNESS: I believe the subchapter, local 8 chapter of piping insulators group claimed a union 9 jurisdiction for their job as far as unionized 10 contracting sites were concerned. Non-unionized site 11 they really couldn't do it, of course. 12 Q. In regards to your contract with the power applicators, 13 did Dow Corning provide anything other than materials 14 such as training or technical oversight in the use of 15 the product? 16 A. Like I said, yes, we provided some sort of a 17 consultation, at the power applicators facility or at 18 the jobsite, if they needed some kind of technical 19 services I was one, between the 1983, '87 time frame, I 20 went to many of the jobsites and worked with power 21 applicators employees on the jobsite. 22 Q. And was this work related to installation or was it 23 design' reviewed to determine if the material was 24 qualified in particular configurations as a three-hour 25 or whatever hour fire rated barrier? r 23
- - - -... - ~. -.. - o e /~ ' 1 A. Very limited design related work done or requested out 2 of me. There are two exceptions, however. One is the 3 Perry Nuclear Power Station. i 4 Q. Perry? 5 A. Perry in Cleveland. Right, Cleveland Power and Light. 6 They had some accident took place. And I was called 7 upon to investigate the cause of accident by reviewing a the design of the particular blockout seal it was 9 determined the material was abused. 10 Q. Abused? l 11 A. (Witness nods head.) Meaning that some air pocket l 12 behind had broke out seal where the hydrogen gas kind l l( 13 of accumulated which was seeped out aus exploded later 14 on type of situation. So that was one design related 15 work I did. Another design-related work was out in, I 16 don't remember the plant name. I think it was near New 17 York. But, anyway, again it was very peculiar 18 situation where the 3-6548 foam was used as 19 sound-deafening type application on computer control 20 room floor and it tended to buckle up from steel plate. 21 Again, design-related matter. 22 Q. But was it being used as a fire barrier? 23 A. I don't remember exactly what was purpose but main 24 purpose was sound-deafening. And could have been a 25 combination of fireproofing and sound-deafening. C 24
e = ,r l 1 Q. In regards, again to the power applicators, in your l i 2 contract was Part 21, are you familiar with that tera? 3 A. Yes. 4 MS. KRAUSS: You're referring to? 5 MR. PAUL: CFR21. 6 THE WITNESS: CFR21, yes, sir. i l-7 Q. 10CFR21, are you familiar with that, which is a quality l-8 assurance requirement? 9 A. Yes. 10 Q. Were they imposed upon Dow Corning in the contract when 11 you supplied materials to these nuclear power 12 applicators? 13 A. Yes. We were always required to provide 10CFR21 l 14 certification for the material we sold through the 15 power applicator network. I may have to qualify, there 16 are only four or five products we sold through the j 17 power applicator network. 3-6548. High density i 18 resimer which was primarily used for the neutron 19 shielding or radiation shielding type applications of 20 520 -- 5207 gel, g-e-1, and one part RTV sealant. I 21 think those are the only four products we provided to l 22 power applicators. l 23 MS. KRAUSS: Can I ask a clarifying question? 24 You said you always provided 10CFR21 for those 25 products? i ! /*~ l l l i 25 -ne-w r, g -y
o e i i i [% 1 1 THE WITNESS: Whenever they raquested. 2 MS. KRAUSS: Okay. 3 Q. Was all your product that was sold to the nuclear 4 industry manufactured under CA -- Appendix DQA 5 oversight? 1 6 A. I believe so. 7 'Q. All those four products I mentioned are made by our l 8 Elizabethtown plant down in Kentucky. And at the 9 entrance of the Elizabethtown plant there is a 10CFR21 l i 10 requirement or certification or something hanging -- 11 Q. Notification? 12 A. Notification, excuse me, hanging at the entrance. So I l 13 believe those four products has been always made to 14 that requirement. 15 Q. Again, in relationship to the power applicators, I have 16 a Dow corning memorandum from November 12, 1984 J j 17 addressed to Dow Corning power applicators and I 18 believe you've gotten copies of this, is that right? I 19 Have you seen this? 20 A. There have been so many memos floating around. j 21 Q. I would like to talk about this one so I'll show it for j 22 you, and for the record the first paragraph states that i 4 23 effective December 1, 1984 the formulation of Dow 24 Corning 3-6548 silicon RTV foam will be slightly 25 modified. i t I 1 26 J
.~. _. _ = _ _ - _. -. ..... ~. -. _. _.,.. -... ~.. O e i 1 1 lD 1 MS.' KRAUSS: Are you going to mark that as an l 2 exhibit? l 4 3 MR. PAUL: We will mark that as Exhibit 17 i 4 A. Yes, I received the copy of this note or memo when it J 5 went out, yes. 7 6 Q. Could you explain what was modified on the formula? 7 A. Original formulation of 3-6548 foam. One of the 4 I 5 formulations in ingredients in the very tight range l 9 like, if I remember, it's something like .4 parts plus i 10 minus 0.01 parts. A very tight range in the J 11 formulation put too much of strain on the manufacturing l 12 people. We decided to see opening up that tight range 1 1 13 and giving a more tolerance to the particular 4 14 formulation ingredient would be, would cause any 3 1 15 detrimental effect in product performance and we run 16 four or five side by side comparison fire tests between 17 old and new product formulation, determined pretty much 90 the slight modification in formulation rangs.of that J j 19 particular component would not affect the intended 1 20 performance of the product. So we justified the vital 21 tolerance and notified the customer. i j 22 Q. And what type of -- it references testing conducted at j i l 23 Portland Coment Association? \\ j 24 A. Yes. J 1 25 Q. And this was the side by side testing? l ("N 1 i l J 2 27 4 .[ J
C e 'N I ("i 1 A. Yes. ( 2 Q. Do you know when that testing was actually conducted? l 3 A. I think testing was done sometime around september, 4 October, 1984. Installation might have been done 5 slightly earlier than that. l 6 Q. At this point we've obtained three tests under the CTL 7 or Construction Technology Laboratorir-logo. And I'd l 8 just ask you if these represent the tests. If these f 9 are all of them or whether there is more. Can you -- l l 10 We will go off the record while he looks at these. l l 11 (Off the record.) l l 12 A. This test report identified as document ID1191E is l 13 definitely one of them. One of the tests, comparative i 14 fire tests. i 15 Q. Was there a test of the new formula or -- side by side. l 1 l 16 Is that the old formula? 17 A. This contained both new and old. j 18 Q. Oh, it contained both? 19 A. Yes. Which is identified at the appendix portion by 20 lot numbers. The second test report I'm looking at j l 21 document number ID1208-E, as in Elizabeth. This is 22 definitely a part of the test. This is truly a side by 23 side comparison. 24 Q. By that side by side he is referencing page 8 of the 25 second test. And do you know whether it is new or old? l r 28
O ( 1 A. I think -- I cannot answer that question because I 2 don't remember which is new and which is old. But 3 there le two definite lot combinations of material ~ 4 used, and which is old and which is new I cannot tell. 5 Q. One was old and one was now? 6 A. Yes. The third test report I'm looking at was no 7 document reference number, merely identified Dow Test 8 number 3 is also a part of comparative test. Again a 9 side by side comparison of two different lot 10 combinations. And to answer your earlier question 11 there are two more side by side or comparative fire 12 tests done during the same tima frame. Bob Schroeder ( 13 may have copies of those. 14 MR. ULIE: So there were a total of five side 15 by side. 16 THE WITNESS: If I remember correct, yes. 17 Q. So was it your conclusion that there was any change in 18 the fire resistive ability of the modified 3-6548? 19 A. That was my conclusion, yes. 20 Q. That there was no? 21 A. There was no change in intended performance of product. 22 MR. ULIE: Are you aware of any problems with the si'licon foam that were not existing prior to the 23 24 formula modification change but that began to occur 25 subsequently? r. l 29
W e a i i r i I i-t j gas i 1 THE WITNESS: Would you mind repeating your 2 question? 3 MR. ULIE: Are you aware of any problems with 5 4 the silicon foam that were not existing prlor to the 5 formula modification change but that began to occur 6 subsequently. That you may have gotten feedback a 7 through the power applicators that knew problems were 8 beginning to occur at this time frame thereafter, if 9 you will? } 10 THE WITNESS: In one portion of the question 3 j 11 you said that question stated the existance of silicon 12 foam? 13 MR. ULIE: I'll read it one more time. 14 THE WITNESS: Yes, please. 15 MR. ULIE: Are you aware of any problems with 16 the silicon foam that were not existing' prior to the 17 formula modification change but that began to occur 18 subsequently? I'm just trying to understand befora and 19 after the test, if there is any problems that were 20 identified after the new formula was being shipped? 21 THE WITNESS: Thank you so much for 22 repeatedly rereading your questions. No, it's been 23_ pretty much the same situation. of course in some 24 years, especially 1983, '84 time frame, there has been 25 relief from the nuclear moratorium took place and there C 6 30 l
a a p. 1 has been a rash of construction jobs that started all 2 over the southern that put us under some kind of a 3 cesnatraint in manuf acturing schedule and delivery and 4 logistic matters. That also put some scheduling 5 problem on the part of contractors. And thors have 6 been some gripings all over the place but that is the 7 extent of I know of some of the problems. Nothing 8 technical but more of the logistic matters. 9 MR. ULIE: My question is simply technical. 10 Any technical. 11 THE WITNESS: No. Answer to your question is 12 no. (* 13 MR. ULIE: Are you aware of any fire barrier 14 penetration seal test conducted on the same seal system 15 configuration that passed the fire test prior to the 4 16 formula modification change but failed conditions of 17 acceptance on the new formula modification change is material? 19 THE WITNESS: I was aware of one or two 20 isolated instances. The contractor clalmed the same 21 design passed the test criteria earlier, now repeated 22 test shows the failure in the same design ct.iteria. 23 There,are, if I recall, one or two incidences like 24 that. Now, and my argument, my contention to that 25 claim was there are so many variables in the fire test r i 31
__ _ _ _.... _ _ _ _ _. _.. _ _. _ _ _.. _. _. - _ _. _. _ - ~ _ _ _. _ _. -. - - _.. _ _ _ -. e s ) i jes 1 itself, first of all, design you claim you pasred first 2 time around may not necessarily be the single design 3 you subjected to the test and qualified for that l 4 design. You could run 100 tests, literally speaking. l 5 Literally you can run 100 tests for the same design. i 6 If one passes you can qualify that design. So was the l 7 situation. What my contention was you are stretching S the ability of the product way too thin and it might be 9 almost 50/50 chances of passing or failing, especially j 10 if you're careless in doing the installation that might 11 cause some failure. Those failures I nay have to, as 12 far as qualify what I'm saying, is not the failure took 13 place in the ten minutes or 15 minutes in the test. It 14 is more like two hours 45 minutes, two hours 50 i 15 minutes. Almost the tail and of the test duration. 16 Ten more minutes could have qualified that same design 17 again. Gone through, took place type of situation. 18 MR. ULIE: Were those tests other than the 19 five qualification tests that we spoke of earlier in 20 this discussion, other than the three tests that we 21 showed you and the two that you said there were two 22 additional tests that when you said somebody had 23 mentioned to you there were two other instances were 24 you referring to other tests that another contractor 25 had performed? . p. i 32
a o D 1 THE WITNESS: Yes. They are always conducted 2 by the other contractors. Dow Corning's involvement in 3 fire tests were pretty much limited to research 4 purposes, not so much of the design qualifications. so 5 we didn't stretch the performance of material way thin 6 like some of the contractors did. 7 MR. ULIE: Can you identify who the contract 8 was and just give us some background information on 9 that test that you're referring to? 10 THE WITNESS: One is, I am quite sure you're 11 aware that Transco run the fire test for, I believe it 12 is, Millstone project. And they failed in their v 13 _ design, three-hour design with 3-6448. It was two 14 hours 30 minutes or two hours 45 minutes into a test a 15 couple times. And I was requested to witness their 16 installation and quality assurance procedure at the 17 Portland Cement Association facilities and that is one 18 occasion. Another one it could be that Promatec or 19 Brand Industrial, but I don't remember exactly. 20 MR. ULIE And can you provide any general 21 information with respect to whether if it was Bisco or 22 Brand as far as what their concern was or what they ^ 23 said failed about that particular test? 24 THE WITNESS: Again, this, including this 1 25 Transco self fire test it was very,much stretching the r j L 33 I 1
e i i i
- I~'
l 1 design criteria and was sitting on the borderline or 2 pass or failure type of situation. 3 Q. As far as the time when the failura typically i l 4 occurred -- 5 A. Right. 6 Q. -- was this late in the test? 1 l 7 A. Right. Many of the contractors -- What contractors 4 8 are trying to do to save material costs and fixed price 1j' 9 contract they try to cut back the thickness of material 4 I 10 as thin as possible so they use less material and save 11 money on material portion. They don't do that for the 12 cost plus contract but fixed price contract, that is a 13 very important strategy. They take and they try to 14 qualify as thin material thickness as possible, which 15 sometimes causes the failure. They claim that they-16 pass the same design earlier and I said show me a fire 17 test report for the access fire test for this design ~ _. 18 you claim, and none of them showed me the design,. 19 successful fire test report. So neither Transco nor -- 20 Transco claimed they passed the test earlier with same 21 design but they haven't shown me the test report. And '22 the other company I don't remember exactly. Could be 23 Texsi5, or could be Bisco, I don't remember. But they 24 haven't shown me the earlier successful test report. 25 So I have to take their claim with a grain of salt. t 34
~. e f' \\ l 1 MR. PAUL: Okay. I would like the record to 2 i l 2 reflect that we will mark this as Exhibit 2. j 1 3 MS. KRAUSS: Are you going to mark the test 4 reporta you just discussed? 5 MR. PAUL: He identified them for the ] 1 6 record. 7 MS. KRAUSS: Will they be included with the ) 8 transcript? i 9 MR. PAUL: Yeah, we can do that. 10 MS. KRAUSS: Let me also state for the record 11 that Mi. Takahashi flipped through those test reports 12 very briefly and did not rr.ad them in detail. So we're i 13 assuming from a very cursory look. 14 MR. PAUL: We will make the test reports, 15 test report identified as Dow test one will be Exhibit 16 2, test report identified on the face of it as Dow test 17 number 2 is 3. And the Dow test number 3 will be 18 Exhibit 4 to the interview. 19 Q. And at this point we are up to 5. Five will be a Dow 20 Corning letter dated May 8, 1985. And it is addressed 21 to Transco Products Chicago, Illinois. It is three 22 Pages and it bears the purported signature of HT. 23
- r. Takahashi, could you look at that, please?
24 A. Yes. 25 Q. You authorized that document? C 1 35
e e r 1 A. Yes. Yes, I did. 2 Q. In the document it identifies certain conditions 3 relative to the Dow corning foam. It identifies foam 4 shrinkage, foam delamination and they have section 3, 5 waiting period between foam pours and mixing ratio 6 check? 7 A. Yes. 8 Q. Specifically the first two identifies that it is, there 9 was a nominal shrinkage of the silicon foam? 10 A. Yes. 11 Q. And the foam delamination? 12 A. Yes. 13 Q. In your review is that a condition that's normal with 14 the foam? 15 A. Very much so. The foam shrinkage, foam shrinkage is an 16 inherent characterization of silicon foam which is 17 caused with two, combination of two elements. One is 18 this particular foam 3-6548 is exothermic material. By 19 that I mean it generates heat while it is curing. In 20 other words, when the foam is cured in place its 21 temperature goes up roughly 20 degrees in Fahrenheit or 22 so above ambient temperature. It is a very elementary ~ 23 physics when material cools down there is a shrinkage 24 of volumn takes place. 25 Also several structures of the foca which is blevn -~ 36
. ~... _ _. - -. -. - -.. ~ e s 9 r 1 out by hydrogen gas which is internally generated i j 2 during a chemical reaction process, hydrogen being very i 3 low molecular material dissipates from the 4 i 4 self-structure of the foam as time goes by and this i 5 pressure release causes the additional shrinkage. l 6 Q. In regards to delamination? 4 { 7 A. Delamination is more complex matter and sometimes it 2 l 8 has something to do with shrinkage of foam, this volume 9 contraction may show up as a concave surface on the 10 topside or maybe shown as a gap formation on the side 11 of a penetrating openings -- I'm sorry, openings of the 12 -- openings where the penetrating items pass through or 13 it could be shown as delamination inside of the foam. 14 Also there are other factors which contribute to the 15 formation of delamination, very high humidity 16 conditions when the installation is done in high 17 humidity, high temperature atmosphere you see more of 18 the delanination. Also you can induce a delamination 19 artificially by smearing the surface of previously 20 cured foam layer with water or grease or anything and 21 pour tha foam on top of it, foam is definitely 22 delaminates. There are so many factors involved in 23 delamination. 24 Q. Either of these conditions affect the fire performance 25 of the product in a fire seal? ] O t 37
4 e 1 A. No, sir. My theory is this. If you pour the set 2 amount by poundage of material in a given opening, to 3 bond that poundage of material requires same amount of j 4 thermal energy. Whether you are, whether you see the l 5 delamination or gap formation, it's a very elementary l 6 physics. The calorie required to bond X poundage of 7 foam is the same. I 8 MR. ULIE: Let me ask you an example on this 9 foam shrinkage where in a tested configuration, for 10 example, nine inches was the minimal depth? 11 THE WITNESS: (Witness nods head.) 12 MR. ULIE: In a plant, if you should have 13 shrinkage less than nine inches, because you don't 14 really measure the volume when you're doing it, you 15 will still, and this is the question that I'm asking, 16 do you not need the minimum thickness that was used for 17 the test to qualify a particular configuration, when is you're in the plant you need that particular minimum 19 depth? 20 THE WITNESS: Absolutely, yes. Absolutely. 21 But nine inches of foam may not be truly as solid foam 22 going from bottom of the opening to the top or side, from bne side to 'another. There may be some gap 23 24 formation takes place at edge of opening which meant in 25 my theory should not be as detrimental to the intended r \\ 38
.-- ~ _. - -.. - _. -.. - - A 1 performance of the material. If that gap goes through 2 from one sina to another definitely material doesn't 3 perform as its smoke seal and, therefore, you have to 4 do caulking or some repair work. 5 MR. ULIE: In the sentence it says if your l 6 gaps are no more than one-third of the total depth of 7 the silicone foam and are no larger than three-eighths 8 in width there should be no adverse effect on the fire l l 9 seal or silicon assembly. That would be okay as long 10 as the minimum depth of the silicon foam configuration 11 is not less than the depth that was qualified by the 12 fire test; is that correct? 13 A. Yes, that's correct. ) 14 Q. On the memo or the letter, the May 8 Dow corning i 15 letter, as far as item 2 the foam delamination l 16 layering, Dow Corning conducted tests in regards to j 17 this phenomena? 18 A. Yes, sir. Again, a side by side comparative test with 19 and without delamination. Delamination was 20 artificially induced and there were two or three layers 21 of delamination. And I'm quite sure that comparative 22 fire test reports are available from report. I think ^ 23 there was only one comparative test done. That test 24 report could be made available through Bob Schroeder. 25 Q. So the delanination didn't have any adverse effect on r-I 39
____..m l l 4 7-~ 1 the performance of this fire seal? i d A. As far as results of the side by side comparison goes, 3 no. 4 Q. In regard to the foam shrinkage phenomenon was there 5 any testing done relative to that? 6 A. Not in the name of Dow Corning, unfortunately, but I 4 7 have witnessed many of the -- I shouldn't say many. At 4 8 least two tests conducted by one of the contractors who 9 did installation a few weeks ahead of the testing and 10 foam sure enough showed some of the edge gap formation 11 and it was successfully passed the test. Actually what 12 happened is soon as test assembly was subjected to the 13 fire heat conducted from fire side to known fire side 14 where the gap was forming earlier. Pretty much close 15 up the gap because of the expansion of the foam. 16 Regardless of the process of gap formation takes place 17 during a fire test because of the temperature rise was 18 in the material. 19 Q. Okay. Are either of these phenomena specific as to pre 20 or post formula change? 21 A. No, sir. I can say for sure those were inherent 22 characteristics of the foam. If you can find me a 23 pre-c6ange, pre-modification foam result I can show you 24 they're causing the same exact phenomena, pre or post, 25 doesn't matter. r 40
i i 1 Q. It l's inherent in the foam and not in the formula t l 2 change? 3 A. Absolutely not. 1 } 4 Q. Mr. Takahashi, are you aware of a U.S. Nuclear j 5 Regulatory Commission information notice, it is 6 information notice 8856, potential problems with 4 7 silicon foam fire barrier penetration seals? a 8 A. I heard about it but I didn't go through the details. l 9 But I think a notice came to your -- I think that i 10 notice came about after I left the previous job as a 11 technical service supervisor, I believe. At least it i 12 didn't come to Dow Corning's attention while I was on 4 13 the previous job. ( 1 14 Q. Did you perform any analysis or any work related to 15 this information notice? l 16 A. No, sir. Was that a specific jobsite related issues? 17 MR. ULIE To Wolf Creek. i is THE WITNESS: Wolf Creek. I was' invited to_. I 19 go over to Wolf Creek by Promatec, which was primary i 20 fire stop contractor, and I viewed some of the 21 penetration seals at the plant and pretty much 22 identified it was power installation or lack of quality 23 assurance provisions. It was a wavy surface on the 24 foam on wall indicating they didn't fill up the 25 penetration openings up to the top. That is pretty C t 41
I e e l 1 much my determination and I say that to Bectoril, who 2 was primary contractor, and to the guy from Wolf Creek. 3 And Promatec didn't like it but that is what I found i 4 out. l 5 Q. So your conclusion was installation related as opposed 6 to product performance related? 1 7 A. Absolutely. They didn't remove the damming board to 8 observe the fill rate of material in wall penetration j 9 and left shooting material in dark, so to speak, that lo is my old technical jargon. You are supposed to be ) l 11 l removing damming board after the installation, make 12 sure material is filled up to top. If you don't do l 13 that and terminate your filling operation without 14 knowing how high material might have rised you may and 15 up leaving a gap on top of the opening which is shown 16 as wavy surface. 17 Q. Would that particular condition effect the performance j 18 of the fire seal? 19 A. Absolutely, yes. That is clearly definite in the gap 20 formation I talked about earlier. 21 Q. Were you involved in any analysis or in regards to 22 Sharon Harris and their fire penetration seals 23 condition they had in North Carolina or the Carolinas? 24 A. Name sounds familiar, would you please mind pointing l 25 out where the Sharon Harris is close by in terms of ! r^ t i f i 42
t e e
- I' i
l 1 (~ l I cities? i 2 Q. Alls I know it is in the Carolinas. North or South 3 Carolinas. i' 4 A. I think I made a couple visits to either north or l. 5 south. Robinson is one, definitely I clearly remember i 6 Robinson. The other one I don't remember. Could be 7 Sharon Harris. Can't be 100 percent positive sure. 8 Q. Do you recall anything specific about that plant? ) 9 A. If I recall, it is very vague memory I'm working out 4 10 of. There was some delsmination issues, very severe q ) 11 delanination of material took place in that plant. } j 12 Q. Did you determine what caused the delamination? j 13 A. Again, I have to speak out of my memory and I think it i a 14 was very severe when condition, very hot and humid like 15 90 degrees 95 degrees plus maybe a particular lot 16 combination might have been, quote, unquote, hot i 17 material. Hot material means tends to snap up, cure up j i is real quick causing more of the pressure, stress was in 19 the material itself. Could have been that.
- But, 20 again, I'm speaking out of memory and I may be l
21 completely wrong, so. 22 Q. Do you recall if this condition would effect the 23 performance of the seal? 24 A. Recalling the severity of the delamination, if I'd be 25 talking about the same plant location that would be r s i 43
r: 1 definitely more than we could tolerate, as I described 2 in this memo (Indicating), there is some limit of 3 delamination you can build into the material. If it is 4-too much of the air pocket existing within the material 5 then you're not talking about same mass of material. 6 You are talking about air -- real big air pocket 7 existing in material which would not help you to a prevent the fire propagation from one side to another. 9 Q. Have Dow corning or you ever determine the limits as 10 far as air pockets? 11 A. Yes. We conservatively determined, based on this 12 comparative fire test, roughly ten percent to 15 13 parcent by volume, total volume of material goes into 14 the hole. It is just about conservative limits of air 15 pocket allowed. 16 MR. ULIE: You mentioned just a little bit 17 earlier that the example about Wolf Creek that the is damming board should have been removed and a visual 19 inspection would have identified if there were air 20 voids and problems along those lines. I was just 21 trying to understand. When we talked earlier about 22 training did the power applicators receive some sort of 23 instructions with respect to inspection of a finished 24 configuration or finished seal and what to inspect to 25 determine if it was acceptable or not? .r 44
e ?' 1 THE WITNESS: Dow Corning has a brochures, 2 two kinds of brochures pinpointing or identifying what 3 to look for when installing fire stop materials. 4 Doesn't necessarily mean that all power applicators 5 followed our suggestions 'oceause they are the ones who 6 developed their own installation techniques, 7 installation procedures, and curing specifications and 8 so on and so forth for their own qualification 9 purposes. Some people used Dow Corning brochures as a 10 reference material, some completely ignored it. 11 Q. Can you identify what two brochures those are or do you 12 know? 13 A. One is entitled installation guide -- excuse me. 14 Application guide for 3-6548. Silicon RTV foam. The 15 first one is a six-page brochure. Second one is how to 16 install 3-6548 foam. 40 page brochure. I may be wrong 17 in the second brochure's title. 18 MR. ULIE: Mr. Schroeder would probably know 19 this, do you think? 20 THE WITNESS: Bob should have copies of those 21 brochures available. 22 MR. ULIE: With respect to the power ^ 23 applicators' agreement. If the applicators did not use 24 these guides was there any sort of disqualification 25 from Dow Corning to the applicators that said C [ 45
e s ? 1 essentially that the product may not work effectively? 2 THE WITNESS: I think there is some kind of 3 statement or clause in agreement similar to the effect, 4 similar to what you just said, but I don't think Dow 5 Corning ever exercised that option. 6 MR. ULIE: And where would that be found, 7 that potentially -- that statement or that -- 8 THE WITNESS: That should have bosn. 9 MR. ULIE: Or words to that effect. 10 THE WITNESS: That should have been built in 11 to that power applicator agreement. 12 MR. ULIE: And I have one other question. 13 With respect to formula modification change. Other < i 14 than the November 12, 1984 memo that we talked about, 15 was there any other time that you're aware of that Dow 16 Corning implemented a formula modification change? 17 THE WITNESS: During my tenure as a technical is service specialist there was one more qualification, 19 side by side qualification test done which involved the 20 filler material going into this product formulation. 21 Actually this filler material is single sourced by one 22 supplier and Bander wanted to be qualified as second mine.' This filler material is natural quarts grounded 23 24 into very tiny particles and they were us'ing one mine 25 exclusively to supply Dow Corning's needs. 46
o s 1 1 MR. ULIE: Sir, I don't want to interrupt you 2 but I didn't understand -- 3 THE WITNESS: Quartz. SiO2, like for 4 crystal. Anyway, natural quartz mine particular vendor 5 was using was pretty much depleted and they wanted to 6 switch over to second mine. To qualify the second mine 7 we went to the Portland Cement Association, run side by 8 side, one material made out of old mine versus second 9 mine material. It was not the formula modification but 10 it was more the qualification of the second mine. They 11 didn't see any difference, so. 12 MR. ULIE: What was that time frame? 13 THE WITNESS: I think it was either '85 or 14 '86. Middle of '85 towards early '86, I believe. 15 BY MR. PAUL 16 Q. Couple of other things, going back to the subjects you 17 were talking with Mr. Ulie on the application guide, 18 the brochure. Was it ever, did Dow Corning ever 19 provide that to a power applicator in the nuclear 20 industry as a requirement of the contract, either this 21 particular application guide or any other training 22 related to the application? 23 A. I don't think so. Brochures, I talked about, were \\ 24 readily available to power applicators. They claimed 25 they knew more about how to install materials than Dow 47
o s r~ 1 Corning. Everybody in Dow Corning put together. 2 Q. As far as the application, is machinery uniform or does 3 each power applicator have their own machinery that 4 they used to make and apply the product? 5 A. Component of machines, mixing machines or dispensing 6 machines, if you will, are pretty much the same. 7 Bick's, they provided Dynamix mixer which was industry a standard and pump to suck the material out of the 9 container or reservoir are pretty much, who was the 10 supplier -- Graco was pretty much a standard supplier 11 for that pump. But assembly itself are pretty much 12 done by the applicators themselves. So each machine 13 looked quite a bit different. 14 Q. Are you aware of Dow Corning filing any part 21 15 notifications to the NRC in regards to this problem? 16 MS. KRAUSS: You referring to a notification 17 that there was a defect in the material? 18 MR. PAUL Right? 19 A. No, I don't recall anything. That question could have 20 been best answered by quality assurance manager of 21 Elizabethtown's plant at that time if, in fact, there 22 was a filing done by Dow Corning should have been 23 maintained by the QA manager of the plant not by me. 24 Q. Were you aware that there was a Part 21 filed by 25 Promatec in regards to the fire stop installation seal? r' t 48
e r~ 1 A. Yes, I heard about it. 2 Q. Did you do any analysis to the conditions that it 3 identified, by it I mean Part 217 4 A. When the news came to Dow Corning's attention I think I 5 left my previous job and my successor might have done 6 some of the investigation on his own. But not me. 7 Q. And that would have been Bob Schroeder? 8 A. Let me see. Could have been another person by the name 9 of Warren Frank. 10 Q. Could you please spell the last name? 11 A. Last name is Frank, F-r-a-n-k. And his first name is 12 W-a-r-r-e-n. Warren Frank. 13 Q. Is he still employed by Dow Corning? 14 A. I believe so. 15 Q. Were you aware of any lawsuits between Dow Corning and 16 any of the power applicators over this particular 17 product? 18 A. Yes. 19 Q. And could you give any specifics you're aware of in 20 regards to these lawsuits? 21 A. You have to qualify for me by lawsuits. Would that be 22 the Dow Corning and power applicator fighting in the 23 court for some matters. 24 Q. Court or threatening to go to court over the product? 25 A. (Witness nods head.) r l 49 i
i l p, 1 Q. Could you give me any specifics you're aware of? 2 A. Yes, I remember two or three power applicators 3 threatened Dow Corning for extensive damages allegedly 4 related to the material causing some of the excessive [ 5 defects in the field. By that I mean pretty much l 6 related to the delamination of material, excessive l 7 delamination. l 8 Q. Was it ever your analysis or your finding that there l 9 was any problems with the product in these instances? l l l 10 A. It was not -- product was not the single source of the l l l 11 problem. I can definitely say. If you analyzed the 12 old delamination claims that everything took place in 13 southern plant construction sites during the summer. 14 Again, my theory of high humidity, high temperature l 15 bears out. Instead of fighting the matter in the court 16 and leaving bad will in the mind of power applicators I l 17 think we might have settled all those things outside 18 the court. 19 Q. If I understand you right, there are certain 20 environmental factors relating to this delamination 21 condition? l 22 A. Absolutely. 23 Q. Have you ever issued any notices to your power 24 applicator or to the NRC regarding this phenomena? 25 A. Not to NRC but we have warned power applicator, I think i r j t i I 50 I
e /~' i 1 it is my own letter went to power applicators just 2 about between January 1983 through June '83 there was a 3 three-page letter I signed. I clearly remember giving 4 the instructions or should I say suggestion how to 5 avoid delanination in the field. 6 Q. Wnen was that letter, '937 7 A. No '83. 8 Q. '837 9 A. Early part of '83. 10 Q. Do you know if that information is part of any 1 11 marketing literature you provide the power applicators? l 12 A. No, it was strictly addressed to each and every power 13 applicator who signed agreement with Dow Corning. But 14 it was not the printed piece of literature. 15 MR. ULIE: Last question, going back to the 16 November 12, '84 formula modification change note that 17 we had talked about earlier could you just identify 18 specifically what was the formula modification change 19 that took place again, please? 20 THE WITNESS: Actually natural catalyst used: 21 in part B of 3-6548 foam was likely so tightly ranged, 22 manufacturing people had a real tough time of 23 follosing. In making the material was in that given 24 range we opened up tolerances without moving the center 25 point of material in the original formulation but we r r 51
l l r 1 widened up the range allowed and tested highest range 2 in the new formulation, center range which is 3 essentially the old formulation and lower range, which 4 is outside of the original formulation. Those three 5 lot combinations were tested side by side. 6 MR. ULIE: Thank you. That is all that I 7 have. 8 MR. PAUL Can we go off the record for a j 9 couple minutes. 10 (Off the record.) l l 11 MR. PAUL: Back on the record. l 12 Q. Mr. Takahashi, have I or any other NRC representative / 13 threatened you in any manner, offered you any rewards i 14 in turn for this statement? 15 A. No. 16 Q. Have you given the statement freely and voluntarily? 17 A. Yes. 18 Q. Is there anything further you care to add for the 19 record on this matter? 20 A. No. 21 MR. PAUL: The interview is concluded. l 22 MS. KRAUSS: Thank you. 23 MR. PAUL: As I said, sometime in the future 24 here, it will probably be a month or so, we will give 25 him an opportunity to review the transcript for t l l 52
..... ~ ~ _ _.... l -o e I L 1 1 accuracy. 2 (whereupon, at 2:35 p.m. The interview was 3 concluded.) 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 -13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 \\ 1 23 24 25 C l l 53
- -.. ~ SY l 6 e REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE I( i This is to certify that the attached proceedings before the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission In the Matter of: NAME OF PROCEEDING: Interview of Takahashi DOCKET NUMBER: PIACE OF PROCEEDING: Freeland, MI were held as herein appears, and that this is the original transcript thereof for the file of the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission taken by me and thereafter reduced to typewriting by me or under the direction of the court reporting company, and that the ,'l transcript is a true and accurate record of the foregoing proceedings. UumndnA W/ 0 0 official Reporter Ann Riley & Associates, Ltd. O e EXHIPIT 8 r.y. E f5_ OF /Y6 PAGE(S)
E HB l I WU/ / L-~~-.. f f November 12, 1984 l l Tot DOW CORNING POWER N'PLICATOlt3 i Effective December 1, 1984 the formulation of DOW CORNINQe 3 6548 Silicone RTV foes will be slightly modt fled. Dow corning has condected E.814 testing et.the Fortland Cement Assectation, e nationally receptred independent testing egeney. This testing shows that this pedified formuletton seats er exceeds the proper. tiet of the entsting DOW CORN!NQ* 3 6548 Silitene RTV. foem. Copfes of these test r,eports are eve 11ebl6 fran my ef fice upon request. Effective November to,1984, the shelf Ilfe of STLeRD* 170 fast cure stitcone elsstemer MB will be theressed to 12 montht. Yoor request for.en increase of the shelf fire of SYLCARD* 527 M8 tilfeone dieleetle vel !s still under inves t iget ton. few will be advised if and when we een make this thenge. [ 5Ineerely, w._.. N i Janet L. Elles Senter Market Supervisor Ff rest,op Marketing mit:LEft:D3 l l l i l f Y EXHIBIT D PAGE 5 6 OF b PAGE(S) l
= 54 e R3 port to 32(. s DOW CORNING U.S.A. Midland, Michigan 48640 d" FIRE AND HOSE STREAM TESTS OF PENETRATION SEALS - DOW TEST NO. 1 l t by j Michael Gillen 3 N I Submitted by FXHIBIT 5 CONSTRUCTION TECHNOLOGY LABORATORIES A Division of Portland Cement AssociatgiR9E M OF I46 PAGE(S) 5420 Old Orchard Road Skokie, Illinois 60077 October 1984 l_ CR5465-4324 -l DEPdSITION Doc. ID 461191E EXHIBIT ffM*W q)fi i
. ~ - ~.. _. ~ -. ~..__ e FIRE AND HOSE STREAM TESTS OF PENETRATION SEALS - DOW TEST NO. 1 Ah j, by Michael Gillen" i INTRODUCTION At the request of Dow Corning U.S.A. (DOW) and as authorized by Purchase Order No. 17262-N, Construction Technology Labora-tories (CTL) performed a series of five fire and hose stream tests on silicone penetration seal systems. This report describes results of the first test in the series, performed on six 9-in. thick seal systems. The penetration seal systems consisted of Dow Corning 3-6548 l Silicone RTV Foam. The 9-in. thick foam seal systems were in-I l j stalled in four 8-in. diameter and two 4-in. diameter openings, i contained in a 48x48x9-in. concrete slab. Slab construction was Performed by CTL personnel. Seal systems were installed by DOW personnel with construction assistance provided by CTL. The fire and hose stream tests were conducted at the fire research facilities of CTL on September 20, 1984. The slab con-taining the six penetration seals was subjected to a 3-hr fire exposure in accordance with the time-temperature relationship and procedures specified in ASTM Designations: E119 III** and E814.(2) Immediately after the fire test, the specimen was l removed from the furnace and subjected to a hose stream test in { accordance with provisions of ASTM Designation: E119. " Senior Research Engineer, Fire Research Section, Construction Technology Laboratories, a Division of the Portland Cement Association, Skokie, IL 60077.
- Numbers in parentheses designate References on g3ggggf.
ff '{ $
- h5hSbbfo$
l ^o s l 324 1 l
SUMMARY
OF RESULTS j The test assembly, consisting of 6 penetration seal systems i in a 9-in. thick concrete slab, was subjected to a 3-hr fire l test and subsequent hose stream test. Seals were installed in four 8-in. diameter and two 4-in. diameter openings penetrating through the concrete slab. The seals consisted of 9-in. chick-nesses of Dow Corning 3-6548 Silicone RTV Foam. The following are significant test results: 1. No passage of flame occurred through any of the six seal systems during the 3-hr fire test. 2. Limiting end point temperature criteria ' defined by ASTM Designation: E814 were not exceeded on the unexposed surface of any of the six seal systems during 1 the 3-hr fire test. 3. No water projected beyond the unexposed surface of l Penetration Seal Nos. A-3, A-4, A-5, or A-6 (see Fig. 1) during the 14 second ASTM Designation: E119 hose stream test. 4. Water did project beyond the unexposed surface of Penetration Seal Nos. A'-1 and A-2 during the 14 second ASTM Designation: E119 hose stream test. TEST ASSEMBLY A 48x48x9-in. thick concrete slab specimen containing 6 circular openings. 4 and 8 in. in diameter, was fabricated by j l l CTL personnel. The openings were located in a nominal 32x32-in. l square area Central area of the slab. Openings were numbered i ExmmT 3 pggE or l'*,_ P AGE (S) construction technology laboratories
,o l 324 1 l 8" 6" ;, 5" g 10" 5" 6" 8" m l Approx. limit of fire exposed oreo u c___
- e l
1 + l l + l l Ul .9 l A-4 A-3 l l ^-8 h h ^-5 A-2 A-1 = 1O Ol ll + l 1 + l l
- e t___
_a a
- e v
A-l through A-4: 8"diometer through openings A-5, A-6: 4"diometer through openings Slob thickness: 9" FIG. l . CONCRETE SL AB LAYOUT WITH OPENING LOCATIONS l 5 IXHIBIT .- 7., y 6 0 0F $ PAGE(S)
3~24 1 l I A-1 through A-6, as shown in Fig. 1. The slab was allowed to l cure for approximately one week following casting and subse-l quently force-dried at elevated temperature to reduce internal moisture content of the concrete. Seal materials installed in the slab openings were provided by Dow Corning, U.S.A. Seal materials consisted of Dow Corning l 3-6548 Silicone RTV Foam. l INSTALLATION PROCEDURES 1 Silicone foam seals were installed in openings in the con-l 1 crete slab by DOW personnel with construction assistance provided by CTL. The concrete test assembly was placed in a horizontal position and a styrofoam damming board was attached flush with the exposed surface of the slab. Silicone foam materiais were mixed and placed by hand in approximately 1-1/2-to 2-in. lif ts to a thickness of 9 in., in each opening. Lot numbers, densities, and snap times of foam materials installed in Penetration Nos. A-1 through A-6 are given in Appendix A. l After foam had set, damming boards were removed from the exposed side of the slab and foam in each opening was trimmed flush with the unexposed concrete slab surface. Foam was allowed to cure for about 2 days prior to fire testing. l i l l i 5 r,xHimT _ l PACE y op MPAGE(S) _4_ construe tion technology laboratories l \\
~_. _, ,o e 324 TEST EQUIPMENT & PROCEDURES The following sections briefly describe. equipment and pro-cedures used to conduct fire and hose stream tests of the assembly containing the six penetration seal systems. Furnace The test assembly containing the six penetration seal systems was subjected to a 3-hr fire exposure utilizing the small slab furnace at CTL's Fire Research Laboratory. This furnace provides for testing of small-scale specimens in a horizontal position. Approximate area of fire-exposure is 32x32 in., as shown in Fig. 1. Furnace atmosphere temperatures were monitored by three Type K Chromel-Alumel, protected thermocouples located 12 in. below the exposed face of the test assembly. The fire exposure was controlled according to the tine-temperature relationship prescribed by ASTM Designation: E119, and is tabulated in Appendix B. Furnace atmosphere pressure was maintained close to ambient laboratory air pressure or slightly negative (-0.02 to -0.08 inches of water). For this test, the average draft was -0.08 inches of water. Specimen Instrumentation Eighteen thermocouples were used for measuring temperatures on the unexposed surface of the test assembly during the fire test, at locations shown in Fig. 2. Sixteen thermocouples were i used to measure temperatures on seal surfaces, concrete / seal FXHtmT 5 g,,7 ~ ggp $ PAGE(S) cons'ructio'n technology laboratories t
t-i ( l 324 1 a s A-4 A-3 4y X l l 17 X j 12 X 9 23 A-6 21 A-5 8 24 X 16 1 X5 l I 13 X i A-2 A-1 X-Thermocouple location FIG. 2 UNEXPOSED SURFACE AND INTERFACE THERMOCOUPLE LAYOUT i 5 -6 T X H "T 'P : bC $ OF _NG PAGE(S)
h interfaces, and concrete surfaces on the unexposed side of the test assembly. Six thermocouples were used to measure foam temperatures at a depth of 2 in. below the unexposed surface of the seals. In addition, two thermocouples were used to monitor concrete surface temperatures. A list of thermocouple locations is provided in Appendix B. Data Acquisition Furnace atmosphere and specimen thermocouple temperatures were monitored at 5-minute intervals throughout the 3-hr fire test. The automated data acquisition system consisted of a Hewlett-Packard HP3455A digital voltmeter and a series of HP3495A data scanners. The data acquisition system controller was an HP9845T desktop computer. Hose Stream Test The. hose stream test specified for this test was that des-cribed in ASTM Designation: E119 and E814 Test Standards. A i 30 psi solid stream was delivered through a 2-1/2 in, diameter hose equipped with a' National Standard Playpipe with a 1-1/8 in. diameter discharge tip from a distance of 20 ft. Duration ~ of the hose stream test was 14 seconds. l TEST RESULTS The test assembly containing the six penetration seal systems was subjected to a 3-hr fire exposure at the fire d5 i EXHIP.lT l pggg _gg[ gp }$ PAGE(S) ! construction technology laboratories
.o t 324 1 research facilities of CTL on September 20, 1984. Views of the 1 exposed and unexposed surfaces of the test assembly prior to j testing are shown in Figs. 3 and 4. A listing of furnace atmosphere temperature measurements and i variations from the standard are given in Appendix B. Variation of the arasured furnace temperatures from the standard was e approximately 0.04%, based on comparison of total area under the j l time-temperature curves. This was well within the 5.00% varia-tion permitted by the test standard.I1) Average furnace draft pressure was -0.08 inches of water. A listing of measured unexposed concrete and seal tempera-tures is also given in Appendix B. The maximum allowable tem-l perature rise of.325*F+ ambient as defined by ASTM Desig-nation: E814(2) was not exceeded on the' unexposed surface of any of the six penetration seala during the 3-br fire test. No passage of flame occurred through any of the six penetra-tion seals during the 3-hr fire test. After the 3-hr fire exposure, the test assembly was removed Irom the furnace, as shown in Fig. 5, and subjected to the 14 second hose stream test. Exposed and unexposed surfaces of test assembly are shown before hose stream testing in Figs. 6 and 7. No water projected beyond the unexposed surface of Pene-tration Seal Nos. A-3 A-4 A-5, or A-6 during hose stream test-l ing. Water did project through Penetration Seal Nos. A-1 and A-2 during hose stream testing. Exposed and unexposed surfaces EXHIP.!T _ S Pact C10F $PAGEG) '8-construction technology laboratories
a l e i 324 I i 1 v. g " _. ' r* y n ~., - n = :. :.. t i '.e. * ( w n, j .7 i k- ..-R.*,., '/. j g g,..;q.:n ^ .-f s t } a.. g * ~ E *** a
- eien, 1
1 1i Fig. 3 Exposed Surface of Test Assembly Prior to Test i k-T, - %w .,,a v.<'c > %.*. ~W, g.6..,. -
- 1s -
- %.w_
_ ;= ~ S ,m ~ l %,.o
- .~.@4#% a
) ~'#' fl. &-,. 'lV p **~,, ' - ~. E.?>% @th.. M
- . ?g:
l lL ~
- y ',
g~ les . j - f4 ..^r r. M. m" m ~-~ --
- g.3
',,e j .gg - ' e j,' __ .. J.. _. r. ...._.,m. [ ^# n g .==* = u-
- N
. -o;. .,;* ' '_'..~-
- },- f _l.'
r.. Fig. 4 Unexposed Surface of Test Assembly Prior to Test F.XHIBtT pgt R OFj PAGE(S) construction technology laboratories
I i o 324 1 si e i i j i 1 i i } i j s. _...s_,......_..-.. { j t, w 4. . ?l ,d.. ..... s, g e i i i l i i i 1 Fig. 5 Specimen Removed from Furnace After Fire Testing 4 4 i h i, 1 1 1 J 1 l i t l l i i 1 1 1 J 1 i i 4 1 E i O EXHIB!T
- 0;- $ P AGES i
p construction echnology laboratories l s w v J
1 1 e 324 I pg(* f. > U#@", .ML _" C Q s ', *j*,. -Rene.y p. e...y;Lrn.. a 7,. :.". :'(:; y . q ...i'.;:.: ~_ M., y,; Z ? L sn.,_,,-a .re. --->n.r i ,,,: ~,,:,- w--.,.-L L y**: u-s~ ' l % ~g.:;?'>,, - n v lc : ' "' >f'r' % :. ?..-;i'. E' - - i J. g-. / e .] -l -..'),.. j
- q. c, v 4
f, [.
- b ~
..f_ ^ Q _.. - .;c _ g L p A*[:.3:, %K r., j
- q
- .
-.,v, . '.c i
- ~.
e. ~::;. ' l T/
- 7... - f.
l.: q _,. V, l p 3., .....,-s. e _. '^ ' ' '= g ... w ac.
- r.t '
.. ;x ,p.. g er _ 34 -o,' - - - c. y ., y .. ; y A.* w.. l 3 - 1 R.~.. J .-%y. { g ~ q Y, A p% O,*s /,&,, ** '- }+.x.'; 9( f', p %. ..,.. A-im I Fig. 6 Exposed Surface of Test Assembly Prior j to Hose Stream Testing i 4 4 a f ynsey,w I' [d5 b5 +lSy W,%g.%[A ~ M ac..n t. 3 ei, st'g:... gh, .y y 3,g,, ~ .,.s... 4 ,xy w
- y., ;.,e
.? m. 4^ ~ . p.-..- 3_; ~ .., 4, P. u- -e.e.m g l . Y.,. Q, ;"*;_ a.. .. ~ ,%,x, .-[f: <* '. y -f t '. "- ky,. - ^ .,.? '.=
- gj.
g 'gs q.=.4 (%~ 4 f. y ?o - s-2 * .If '. Y- .,k.,,m-?,?. Y- /, ph . (L m.2$ ' ~.- ? h~-.
- r. 3 e
~ i d u b. / sy [pa.:f:...a.a"r.c. .w e 1 W :.. r M%.'=. CQ't;M.d,....g;p. M..fMD% r MG:.4 N v./ ?.WW4,d .._.. ' : c '. R.. W.. W 'e., - ~.. j Fig. ? Unexposed Surface of Test Assembly Prior j to Hose Stream Testing i S j tv.WT l vr JQG P AGE (S) { construction 6cKnology laboratories i e i 1
. -. =.. - . ~. ~.. 8 l e s 324 1 of the test assembly after hose stream testing are shown in Figs. 8 and 9. Following the tests, measurements were made of the thickness L of remaining silicone seal material from each opening. Fig. 10. l l Remaining thicknesses of unburned materials are given below in l l Table 1. l TABLE 1 - THICKNESS OF UNBURNED SILICONE FOAM L i Remaining l Penetration No. Foam Thickness. in. A-1 1 1/4 to 1 3/4 in. A-2 1 1/4 to 1 3/4 in. A-3 1 7/8 to 2 3/8 in. 1 A-4 2 in'. A-5 1 3/4 to 2 in. A-6 3 in. LABORATORY RESPONSIBILITY l The Construction Technology Laboratories is a Division of the Portland Cement Association and was not involved in the design of the Penetration Seal System. Personnel of the Con-struction Technology Laboratories make no judgment of th+ suit-ability of the materials or seal systems for particular end point uses. Acceptance of the test results for guidance for i field installation is the prerogative of the authority having jurisdiction. CONCLUDING REMARKS This report described fire and hose stream tests conducted' on six silicone penetration seal systems. Significant test l I results are presented in the section entitled
SUMMARY
OF RESULTS at the beginning of this report. l E F.XHIBIT corEiru^ck.
- ..S?
Nob
i 324 1. c m uw.: u..g. s. x ~ ..g-x 1 :, k . ~,.. t,.,b C * .,...ig dn a ny-Y ij ?fk fff' ~ ~- ?% y,.w w :...%,l W...w 5 y>.1e '. +e c. - -. - - ~ ' '.~4; J, pf e .,j
- s. 7 m?gy
- p. s::*.
-w+ y r-., e j,Q Y :. YM....' 5h.-? q. 3. %g <d e#,*t y.a %.4 j, '. '. / -3, -w
- * =
n . & " pl$3yeb2 4 r.- .:w c, .u.%.... p ;2y' .. M F,. e* ~g~~ 4.L;5Yg**?-. e. A .. m .7 -. w. a j., y,. ,Y y.; J ^ .,. L k * ** v. s t t. " Q g m y"5-9.y Qt -m ,~..,...,1 }. ., F -i, - g ;. ... ~ - ::. k_: %,[','.% L'.*x ^= 1.' ~.. -_ ?~ ~ h_ g. 'd' y ~, ' > s. -$ s^ k _ k h_r. Fig. 8 Exposed Surface of Test Assembly After Hose Stream Testing 7$ 23 ar-g) 8.e ~ s .*r; e P Y l Fig. 9 Unexposed Surface of Test Assembly After Hose Stream Testing $ g,g,3, q _
- "9f,_"j[ M N N)
I
~. -.. -...... - -. - -. - - - -. _. ~ -. _.... ~....... -. e g f 1 3 324 1 i !i J s v-2 mp?eEWF.w -.,;u g*.v,,-:. ;., sty * ,,;2.+..,. .,p w w.~ p.. ..J..,T. . ;_J. *- ' s..p,'
- t. :
s-s:-... y s, m,w,s 4... L %,',.. s. J.e .... ti ;. q.,. t t v' uw!*, a ;: .. / > ?, e g* d h... 7.'..,d, c..
- 2. : m.-
s.s Q e,. -. ; ; ' -. P.,J e. '. '....'C ,.s... w .. x. .. ;1 ] %.. tr. -c g yo,..,,. 7 t.;cy 7-. r... ez.,._;,.;,;...( ,w i u.-.-<! ;.. w y. M I E d
- M 7 [ % :;'s;
T ' ~ '- A N -h M \\ 'WM: .. ~ - ,.x. ~ L ' &h'YO : .y .4. 4 .p 2.% 5 v . *a - p 9 'ej ,~. .-c
- 4.,,.
i .. m... e { p$. . 4 s. .* '2 -.p. ~~;.. g.c Q?- >.4/ D_ ' l , w. % '.'?. s. _s g. ~,.. 's .... s, n x.! : '.v: w,.. a[, I , f,. ) * .**4-e.J h *\\ -Q ' [, y* 7 9 h;h
- hr h, *
'fw ..",I ' Fig; 10 Unburned Silicone Foam Material from Penetration Seals 1 i F.XHINT ,. ; j[ OF _ /Yd'P AGE (S). Construction technology laboratories i
._- ~.= _- -. . _. -. = _ -. _. e.' g 324 i REFERENCES 1 1. ASTM Designation: E119, " Standard Methods of Fire Tests-of Building Construction and Materials " American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, PA, 1983. 2. ASTM Designation: E814, " Standard Method of Fire Tests of Through-Penetration Fire Stops," American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, PA, 1983. i l l l l t l l l l i i l l l l t F.XH!n!T 5 construction?1 OF 2: - PAGE(S) technol ratories
i t 324 1 l i f APPENDIX A Dow Corning 3-6548 Silicone RTV Foam i Material Lot Numbers Foam Densities Foam Snap Times l I j l 1 i l l l-1 i t s EXHIBIT _ C pf,cE $ OF /'[1 Pt F'*~ Ib construction technology laboratories
~. ' e 324 1 DOW CORNING 3-6548 SILICONE RTV FOAM INSTALLATION Date of Installation: September 18, 1984 Mixing Technique: Hand Ungreased Cup Silicone Components Density Snap Time, Lot Combinations lb/ft3 min:sec EZO94001A/EZO94001B 20.9 1:40 EZO94002A/EZO94001B 21.2 1:57 EZO94002A/EZO94004B 21.7 1:53 EZO94003A/EZO94004B 21.1 2:08 Concrete Slab Penetration Openinc Nos. Lot Nos. Installed A-1 EZO94001A/EZO94001B A-2 EZO94002A/EZO94001B A-3 EZO94002A/EZO94004B A-4 EZO94003A/EZO94004B A-5 EZO94001A/EZO94001B A-6 EZO94002A/EZO94004B EXHPIT E 11 o > : GM_ OF Jh PAGEIS) construction technology laboratories a
e 324 1 i t t l l l 1 APPENDIX B t Furnace Atmosphere Temperatures Specimen Thermocouple Reference Chart l Specimen Temperature Readings Test Comments I i f-i I i l l l. l i e S EXHfPIT ($ P! c E.d OF /@ AGE (S) construction technology laboratories
. e, i e 324 1 CR5465 - DOW CHEMCIAL - 09/20/84 FURNACE ATMOSPHERE TENFEPATURE (DEG. F) TEST TIME, FURNACE ASTM E119 VARIATION FROM Hr: Min TEMP. TEMP. ASTM TEMP. F F F 0:00 80 68 12 0:05 952 1000 -48 0:10 1280 1300 -20 0:15 1397 1399 -2 0:20 1466 1462 4 0:25 1511 1510 1 0:30 1558 1550 8 0:35 1578 1584 -6 0: 40 1613 1613 0 0:45 1643 1638 5 0:50 1659 1661 -2 0:55 1680 1681 -1 1:00 1685 1700 -15 1:05 1716 1718 -2 1:10 1737 1735 2 1:15 1740 1750 -10 1:20 1763 1765 -2 1:25 1782 1779 3 1:30 1795 1792 3 1:35 1785 1804 -19 1: 40 1813 1815 -2 1:45 1841 1826 15 1:50 1852 1835 17 1:55 1857 1843 14 2:00 1877 1850 27 2:10 1866 1862 4 2:20 1877 1875 2 2:30 1888 1888 -0 2: 40 1896 1900 -4 2:50 1921 1912 9 3:00 1939 1925 14 ARER UNDER CURVE = 294723 DEG. F-MINUTES AREA UNDER ASTM E119 CURVE = 294600 DEG. F-MINUTES i VARIATION FROM ASTM CURVE = 00.0418 /. 3 l ...,T 19 .7d_0F M AGEW 6
- - - -. -...~... . s. '*., e [h f CR5465 - Dou CHENCIAL - 09/20e64 THERN0 COUPLE REFERENCE CHART i FRAME PRINT THERNOCOUPLE THERNOCOUPLE HO. HO. HO. LOCATION 11 1 1 A-4 2 IN. DOWN FR. TOP SURF. 11 2 2 A-4 UNEXPOSED SURFACE 11 3 3 A-4 UNEXPOSED SURFACE 11 4 4 A-4 PEH. INTERFACE l 11 5 5 A-2 2 IN. DOWN FR. TOP SURF. 11 6 6 R-2 UNEXPOSED SURFACE 11 7 7 A-2 UNEXPOSED SURFACE 11 8 8 R-2 PEN. INTERFACE 11 9 9 R-6 2 IH. DOWN FR. TOP SURF. l 11 10 10 A-6 UNEXPOSED SURFACE 11 11 11 A-6 PEN. INTERFACE 11 12 12 UNEXPOSED CONCRETE SURFRCE H. l 12 1 13 A-1 2 IN. DOWH FR. TOP' SURF. 12 2 14 A-1 UNEXPOSED SURFACE 12 3 15 A-1 UNEXPOSED SURFACE 12 4 16 R-1 PEN. INTERFACE l 12 5 17 R-3 2 IN. DOWN FR. TOP SURF. 12 6 18 A-3 UNEXPOSED SURFACE 12 7 19 A-3 UNEXPOSED SURFACE 12 8 20 A-3 PEH. INTERFACE 12 9 21 A-5 2 IH. DOWH FR. TOP SURF. j 12 10 22 A-5 UNEXPOSED SURFACE 12 11 23 A-5 PEN. INTERFACE 12 12 24 UNEXPOSED COHCRETE SURFACE S. l l ~ l l i i ~ FXH P.8T 3 2g pt,? r.,$ OF.8#1 P AGE (S)
-,_.... - ~. _ _ _ 4, e CR5465 - DOW CHEMCIAL - 09/20/64 e UNEXPOSED TEMP. READIHCS (DEG. F.) TEST TIME, T/C HO. Hr: Min 1 2 3 4 5 6 0:00 80 78 78 77 79 78 0:05 78 77 77 76 78 77 0:10 79 78 78 77 78 77 0:15 78 77 77 77 78 77 0:20 78 77 77 76 78 77 0:25 79 77 77 76 78 77 0:30 79 77 77 76 78 77 i 0:35 78 77 77 76 78 77 0: 40 79 77 77 76 78 77 0: 45 79 77 77 76 78 77 0:50 78 77 77 75 78 77 0:55 79 77 77 75 78 77 1:00 79 77 77 74 78 77 1:05 79 79 77 73 79 77 1:10 79 78 78 72 79 77 1:15 79 78 78 71 79 77 1:20 80 78 76 69 80 78 1:25 81 78 78 68 81 78 1:30 83 78 78 66 82 78 1:35 84 78 79 65 84 79 1: 40 87 79 79 64 86 79 1: 45 90 79 80 76 89 80 1:50 95 80 81 100 94 80 1:55 101 81 82 104 ?. 02 81 2:00 108 82 83 107 114 82 2:10 128 84 85 114 155 84 2:20 156 86 89 121 222 88 2:30 192 90 93 128 310 93 2: 40 239 96 99 134 428 101 2:50 308 103 107 141 580 112 3:00 420 112 117 148 712 124 1 ry,Ht m T _ 8 2.1 N OF $ PAGE(S)
,e 'e hf CF5465 - DOW CHEMCIAL - 09/20/84 a UNEXPOSED TEMP. READ 1HCS (DEG. F.> TEST TIME, T/C HO. Hi-: M i n 7 8 9 10 11 12 0:00 78 78 79 78 78 78 i 0:05 77 77 78 77 77 77 0:10 77 77 78 77 77 77 0:15 77 77 78 77 77 77 0:20 77 77 78 77 77 77 0:25 77' 77 78 77 77 77 0:30 77 77 78 77 77 77 0:35 77 77 78 77 77 77 0: 40 77 78 78 77 77 78 0:45 77 78 78 77 78 78 0:50 77 79 78 77 79 79 0:55 77 81 79 77 81 81 1:00 77 83 80 77 33 83 1:05 77 86 81 78 86 86 1:10 77 89 84 78 91 90 1:15 77 94 87 79 97 94 1:20 77 100 92 79 104 99 1:25 78 106 98 81 114 104 1:30 78 114 105 82 126 110 1:35 78 121 113 84 136 116 1:40 79 128 121 86 145 123 1: 45 79 135-131 88 153 130 1:50 79 140 141 91 151 137 1:55 80 143 150 93 152 144 2:00 81 145 160 96 155 151 2:10 82 151 177 100 161 163 2:20 86 158 196 104 171 172 2:30 92 164 219 108 175 177 2: 40 100 170 241 til 178 182 2:50 113 178 258 114 183 185 3:00 130 185 273 117 186 187 r EXHIBtT 5 U PACEIOF M PAGE(S) l
.. _. ~ _. - _ _ _ _. _ _ _ _ _ _... _. _.. _.. - - _. g -e ',- e CR5465 - DOW CHEMCIAL - 09/20/84 f UNEXPOSED TEMP. READINGS (DEG. F.) TEST TIME, T/C HO. I Hr: Min -13 14 15 16 17 18 0:00. 79 78 78 78 GO 78 i l 0:05 78 77 77 77 78 77 0:10 78 77 77 77 79 77 0:15 78 77 77 77 78 77 L ) 0:20 78 77 77 77 78 77 0:25 78 77 77 77 78 77 i 0:30 78 77 77 77 78 77 0:35 78 77 77 77 .78 77 0: 40 78 77 77 77 78 77 0:45 78 77 77 77 78 77 0:50 78 77 77 77 78 77 0:55 78 77 77 77 79 77 I 1:00 78 77 77 77 79 77 1:05 78 77 77 78 79 77 1:10 79 77 77 78 79 77 1:15 79 77 77 78 80. 77 1:20 79 77 77 78 80 77 1:25 80 77 77 79 81 77 1:30 81 77 77 85 83 78 1:35 82 78 77 87 85 '78 1:40 84 78 78 86 88 78 1: 45 87 78 78 93 91 79 1:50 91 79 78 90 95 79 1:55 96 80 79 86 101 79 2:00 102 80 79 85 108 80 2:10 120 83 81 85 127-81 2:20 150 86 83 86 158 83 2:30 200 90 87 88 200 85 2: 40 261 98 92 90 246 88 2:50 340 109 100 94 295 93 3:00 462 126 110 95 350 99 I I a 13 P/,T. OF /6 PAGE(S)
f.n e e CR5465 - DOW CHEMCIAL - 09/20/84 UNEXPOSED TEMP. READINGS (DEC. F.> b TEST TIME, T/C HO. Hr: Min 19 20 21 22 23 24 0:00 78 78 79 78 78 78 0:05 77 77 78 77 77 77 0:10 77 77 78 77 77 77 0:15 77 77 77 77 77 77 0:20 77 77 78 77 77 77 0:25 77 77 78 77 77 77 0:30 77 77 77 77 77 77 0:35 77 77 77 77 77 77 0: 40 77 77 78 77 77 77 0: 45 77 78 78 77 78 78 0:50 77 78 78 77 79 79 0:55 77 79 78 77 81 81 1:00 77 80 79 77 83 83 1:05 77 81 80 78 85 86 1:10 77 82 82 78 88 89 1:15 77 84 85 79 92 94 1:20 77 86 88 80 94 98 1:25 78 88 92 81 101 104 1:30 78 90 97 82 106 110 1:35 79 93 103 84 116 116 1: 40 79 95 109 86 115 123 l 1: 45 80 98 117 88 126 130 1:50 80 101 125 91 131 137 1:55 81 103 134 93 127 143 2:00 82 107 143 95 133 149 2:10 84 112 159 101 134 160 2:20 87 120 181 106 136 167 2:30 90 127 225 til 137 173 2: 40 95 134 0 116 142 177 2:50 101 143 312 119 147 181 3:00 109 150 371 125 150 184 l 1 PACc W% /%PAGE(S 1.4
- _ ~ c, o e CR5465 - D011 CHEMCIAL - 09/20/84 (, 'l TEST COMMENTS 0:15:00 PEN A-1 THRU A-6 EXPOSED SURFACES APPEAR INCANDESCENT. 01: 30:00 PEN A-1 THRU A-6 NOTED TO BE RISING UPWARDS 3:00:00 NO SMOKE OR OTHER OCCURANCES NOTED. HOSE STREAM TEST: NO WATER PROJECTED BEYOND THE UNEXPOSED SURFACE DURING ASTM E-11 STREAM TEST FOR 14 SEC. IN PEN A-3 & A-4 & A-5 AND A-6. MATER DID PROJECTED BEYOND THE UNEXPOSED SURFACE DURING ASTM E-STREAM TEST IN PEN. A-1 & A-2. NOTES: DRAFT RUN AT.08 NEG. RM. TEMP AT START = 75 DEG. F. RM. R.H. AT START = 58'4 T/C #4 WAS REPAIRED T/C #21 WAS REPAIRED I 'T/C #1-5-10-13-17-21 WERE INSTPLLED 2 IN DOWN FROM THE UNEXPOSED SURFACE. GOOD FORM REMAINING IN PLACE AFTER FIRE TEST A-1 1 1/4 1 3/4 IN. < BLOWN OUT DURING -HOSE STREAM) A-2 1 7/8 - 2 3/8 IN.< BLOWN OUT DURING HOSE STREAM) R-3 1 7/8 - 2 3/8 IN. R 2 IN. A-5 1 3/4 - 2 IN. A 3 IN. ) i 3 F,X H I P.IT _ p,..c 31 0F -[L PAGE(S: o
j s, -o CR5465 - DOW CNEHCIAL - 09/20/84 fg TEST COMMENTS l J 0:15:00 PEN A-1 THRU A-6 EXPOSED SURFACES APPEAR INCANDESCEHT. l 01:30:00 PEN A-1 THRU A-6 HOTED TO BE RISING UPWARDS 3:00:00 HO SMOKE OR OTHER OCCURANCES NOTED. HOSE STREAM TEST: HO WATER PROJECTED BEYOND THE UNEXPOSED SURFACE DURING AST STREAM TEST FOR 14 SEC. IN PEH A-3 & A-4 & A-5 AND A-6. WATER DID PROJECTED BEYOND THE UNEXPOSED SURFACE DURING AS) STREAM TEST IN PEH. A-1 & A-2. H0TES: DRAFT RUN AT.08 HEG. RM. TEMP AT START = 75 DEC. F. RM. R.H. AT STRRT = 58'./ T/C #4 WAS REPAIRED l T/C #21 WAS REPAIRED T.'C #1-5-10-13-17-21 WERE INSTALLED 2 IN DOWN FROM THE UNEXPOSED SURFACE. GOOD FORM REMAINING IN PLACE AFTER FIRE TEST R-1 1 1/4 1 3/4 IH.(BLOWH OUT DURING HOSE STREAM) A-2 1 7/8 - 2 3/8 IN.(BLOWN OUT DURING HOSE STREAM) A-3 1 7/8 - 2 3/8 IN. A 2 IH. A-5 1 3/4 - 2 IH. A 3 IH. EXHIP.'T l P/ ^.E,k OF 8/G PAGE(S) o
c Report to h [, DOW CORNING U.S.A. Midland, Michigan 48640 FIRE AND HOSE STREAM TESTS OF CABLE TRAY SEALS - DOW TEST NO. 2 j by Michael Gillen Submitted by CONSTRUCTION TECHNOLOGY LABORATORIES l l A Division of Portland Cement Association [ 5420 Old Orchard Road Skokie, Illinois 60077 October 1984 CR5502-4324 Doc. ID #1208E I F.XHIP!T g DEPOSITION I EXHIBIT nt,tr.,8 OF MP A.GE'S) lDb'4.'f 'AN -
4 g FIRE AND HOSE STREAM TESTS OF PENETRATION SEALS - DOW TEST NO. 2 l by Michael Gillen* INTRODUCTION i At the request of Dow Corning U.S.A. (DOW) and as authorized by Purchase Order No. 17262-N, Construction Technology Labora-tories (CTL) performed a series of five fire and hose stream tests on penetration seal syscens. This report describes results of the second test in the program, performed on two cable tray penetration seals. The penetration seal systems consisted of Dow Corning 3-6548 Silicone RTV Foam and a 1-in. thick layer of Fiberfrax Hotboard ceramic fiber damming board. The 9-in. thick foam seal systems were cast around two cable tray assemblies installed in a 30x30-in. opening within a 48x48x12-in. concrete slab. The 30x30-in. opening was divided into two 14-1/2x30-in, areas by a 1-in. thick piece of insulation board, as shown in Fig. 1. Slabs were constructed by CTL personnel. Seal systems and cable j trays were insta-11ed by DOW personnel with construction assis-i tance provided by CTL. The fire and hose stream tests were performed at the fire research facilities of CTL on October 15, 1984. The slab con-taining the two cable trays and penetration seals was subjected' i to a 3-hr fire exposure in accordance with the time-temperature
- Senior Research Engineer,' Fire Research Section, Construction 1
Technology Laboratories, a Division of the Portland Cement i Association, Skokie, IL 60077. I F.XH UNT J[ ~ p/,0,C,$1 OF./_brPAGE(S) construction technology laboratories
l l 4 324 1 i 1 AlN ( a Approx Limit of Fire Exposed Areo 8.. . b..- F l., '. '. '. 1 .o 9 nnnnnnnnnnnn 15" Uuuuuuuuuuuuu \\ l I" insulation Board \\ Silicone [ i / Foam 1 4"xl8" Cable Troy y C f obles 15" nnnnnnnnnnnn Uuuuuuuuuuuuu .p-p.'..L_ _) . y. - l~ o a 9,. u g ..\\- b. .4..p,..-Q.,. g. 8" 1". 30" I "_. 8" PLAN VIEW FIG. I LAYOUT OF CONCRETE SLAB WITH TWO SILICONE FOAM SEALS AND PENETRATING CABLE TRAY ASSEMBLIES L EXHtRIT S pp5, M OF /b PAGE(S)
d t relationship and procedures specified in ASTM Designations: i E119( } and E814.I I Immediately after the fire test, the specimen was removed from the furnace and subjected to two hose stream tests in accordance with provisions of IEEE 634( and ASTM Designation: E119.
SUMMARY
OF RESULTS The test assembly, consisting of two cable trays and pene-tration seal systems,was subjected to a 3-hr fire test and subsequent hose stream tests. Seals were installed in two 14-1/2x30-in. openings per.etrating through the 12-in. thick concrete slab. The openings were separated by'a 1-in. thick piece of insulation board. The seals consisted of 9-in. thicknesses of Dow Corning 3-6548 Silicone RTV Foam and 1-in. thick Fiberfrax Hotboard ceramic fiber board. The following are significant test results: 1. No passage of flame occurred through either of the two seal systems during the 3-hr fire test. 2. Limiting end point temperature criterion defined by ASTM Designation: E814 was not exceeded on the unexposed surface of eitt9r of the two seal systems during the 3-hr fire test. Limiting end point temperature rise defined by ASTM Designation: E814 was exceeded at several measuring points on cables in both penetrations. Limiting end point temperature criterion defined by IEEE 634 was not exceeded on either of the two seal systems. l
- Numbers in parentheses designate References on Page 18. FNH"T 5
r 6Esimhenno MGfdA e
4 r 21 2! /t 1 No water projected beyond the unexposed surface of 3. either of the two penetration seals during the 14 second IEEE 634 hose stream test. 4. No water projected beyond the unexposed surface of either of the two penetration seals during the 24 second ASTM Designation: E119 hose stream test. TEST ASSEMBLY A 48x48x12-in. thick concrete slab specimen containing a 30x30-in. square opening was fabricated by CTL personnel. The opening was located in a nominal 32x32-in. area in the central area of the slab. The slab was allowed to cure for apprdxi-mately one week following casting and subsequently force-dried at elevated temperature to reduce internal moisture content of the concrete. Seal materials installed in the slab openings were provided by Dow Corning, U.S.A. Seal materials consisted of Dow Corning 3-6548 Silicone RTV Foam and 1-in. thick Fiberfrax Hotboard ceramic fiber board. INSTALLATION PROCEDURES Installation of cable tray assemblies and seal systems are described in the following sections. Cable Trays Assemblies Two cable tray assemblies were installed in the concrete test slab, as shown in Fig. 1. Cable trays were nominal 18-in. wide x 4-in. high 16 ga. galvanized steel ladder-back trays. i EXH!mT_ I ~4-f - Md PAGE(E Sn.,-stru;;4Mn N50togg11boratones
-. -. - -... - _ -. -.. - ~ _ - - - _ _.. - e e 21:2 zL 1 Trays were Model No. PLMS-SS12-1800-4-12 manufactured by U.S. I Gypsum Company. Certification for trays is provided in Appen-dix A. Trays were cut to 5-ft lengths. Two types of. cables were installed in each cable tray: 600v . single conductor McM350 copper power cable with i'nsulation Type XHHW and 600v AWG10/3C cable with XLP neoprene jacket. Cables were cut into 5-ft lengths prior to installation in the cable trays. Cable fill in each tray consisted of 14 lengths of t MCM350 power cable and 40 lengths of AWGlO/3C cable. Cables were secured to trays with nylon tie-Vraps. ' Completed cable tray assemblies were installed so chat ends l of trays extended 12 in. below the exposed surface of the test r slab and 3 ft above the unexposed surface of the test slab. i Trays were bolted to a steel angle framework on the unexposed side of the concrete slab to provide rigid support and minimize l l tray movement during seal construction and testing. Seals Seals were. installed in openings in the concrete slab by DOW personnel with construction assistance provided by CTL. The concrete test assembly was placed in a horizontal position and 1-in. thick pieces of ceramic fiber damming board were attached 9 in. beloit the unexposed surface of the slab. The ceramic fiber board was Fiberfrax Hotboard manufactured by Carborundum. The damming board was cut to fit tightly around projecting cable l' tray assemblies. Small gaps between the ceramic fiber board and [ cables were filled with pieces of CeraFiber ceramic fiber 1 blanket manufactured by Johns-Manville. f EXMPIT 3 P'SE..N OF M PAGE@ -5. construction technology laboratories . ~. y-
O 1 32 opening was subdivided into two 14-1/2x30-in.4 1 The 30x30-in. openings using a 9x30-in piece of 1-in thick insulation board. The insulation board was Fiberfrax Hotboard. The board was installed in the opening as shown in Fig. 1. Silicone foam materials were mixed and placed both by hand and machine in approximately 1-1/2 to 2-in. lifts to a thickness of 9 in. in each opening. Lot numbers, densities, and snap times of foam materials installed in both penetrations are given in Appendix A. After setting the foam in each opening was trimmed flush with the unexposed concrete slab surfaces. Foam was allowed to cure for approximately 7 days prior to fire testing. TEST EQUIPMENT & PROCEDURES l The following sections briefly describe equipment and pro-cedures used to conduct fire and hose stream tests of the l assembly containing the cable tray penetration seal systems. ( Furnace The test assembly containing the two cable tray penetration seal systems was subjected to a 3-hr fire exposure utilizing the small slab furnace at CTL's Fire Research Laboratory. This furnace provides for testing of small-scale specimens in a hori-zontal position. Approximate area of fire-exposure is 32x32 in., as shown in Fig. 1. Furnace atmosphere temperatures were monitored by three Type F"4! PIT J P.:?E _70 OFdPAGE(S) construction technology laboratories
324 1 l K. Chromel-Alumel, protected thermocouples located 12 in. below the exposed face of the test assembly. The fire exposure was controlled according to the time-temperature relationship pres-cribed by ASTM Designation: E119, and is tabulated in Appendix B. Furnace atmosphere pressure was maintained close to ambient laboratory air pressure or slightly negative (-0.02 to -0.08 inches of water). For this test, the average draft was -0.08 inches of water. l Specimen Instrumentation A total of 30 thermocouples were used for measuring tempera-tures on the unexposed side of the test specimen at locations shown in Fig. 2. Six thermocouples were used for measuring temperatures of electrical cables and cable trays at a distance of 1-in. above the unexposed surface of the test assembly during i the fire test. Twenty-two thermocouples were used to measure temperatures on seal surfaces, concrete / seal interfaces. cable / seal and tray / seal interfaces, and concrete surfaces on ~~ _. the unexposed side of the test assembly. Two thermocouples were used to measure foam temperatures at a depth of 2 in below the unexposed surface of the seals. A list of thermocouple loca-tions is provided in Appendix B. Data Acouisition l Furnace atmosphere and specimen thermocouple temperatures were monitored at 5-minute intervals throughout the 3-hr fire test. The automated data acquisition system consisted of a EXHMIT dE Q m M PAGEi construction technology laboratories
324 1 . b. y .,g.. g. A. =
- d,,.. X 3
26 24 ^ .g. xxx X 30 X 27 25 4Xl;: S 28X X29 eTroy 6 2X X 1
- 2 X7 I" Insulation BoardN
= 8X by6vemMB6%Yhbwaweshwwwmm X23 m X9 i 12 X :]:: 13 ll X Xio MTroy 14 18X X 19 gg .6.. h. ~ Xis X 21 Xi7 X20 X22 _ l5 q.j + n p*o s .%'A.. p N. 30" X-Thermocouple Locottons FIG. 2 UNEXPOSED SURFACE AND INTERFACE THERMOCOUPLE LOCATIONS S r.XHIP.!T -- -s-Pr,., $z or MP/.GT9
324 1 Hewlett-Packard HP3455A digital voltmeter and a series of HP3495A data scanners. The data acquisition system controller was an HP9845T desktop computer. Hose Stream Test Two hose stream tests were conducted after fire testing of the test assembly. Hose stream test procedures were those des-cribed in the IEEE 634 and ASTM Designation: E119 Test Stan-dards. Equipment and procedures for these tests are as follows: IEEE 634 - A 75 psi hose stream was delivered through a ~ 1-1/2 in. diameter hose equipped with a fog nozzle set at a discharge angle of 30' from a distance of 10 ft. The spray was delivered over an exposed area of 36x36-in. for a duration of 14 seconds. ASTM E119-A 30 psi solid stream was delivered through a 2-1/2 in. diameter hose equipped with a National Standard Playpipe with a 1-1/8 in. diameter dis-charge tip from a distance of 20 ft. The stream was delivered over an exposed area of 48x48-in. for a duration of 24 seconds. TEST RESULTS The test assembly containing the two cable tray penetration seal systems was subjected to a 3-hr fire exposure at the fire research facilities of CTL on October 15, 1984. Views of the exposed and unexposed surfaces of the test assembly prior to testing are shown in Figs. 3 and 4. FXHf"'T 8 P l.^ i 9 _ OF PAGE(S: constructio)n technology labo ~
e i 1 1 32L 1 i .t '\\ 1 j j \\ t ~ l i 4 l l
- f..'
Q 9 .. - i., -.n:. \\ ~ , i l l 4 1 a l l Fig. 3 Exposed Surface of Test Assembly Prior to Test l 5. \\ & N 1 Ifd )~ i ,e ' \\.,/. e = 4 o ' 112)
- s. '. r, -.
~. o 1- .. ' t)' - M' I ' 8-J' ~ I c, _ /,1 s. w & ;' I w., .a,./ -{ l -< g,. p y' t J l a : ,, T. # d.t # i 5 l .4 = a.. = ,' y 1 3amonsumuss===, J 3 i Fig. 4 Unexposed Surface of Test Assembly Prior to Test l i j t F"t-PIT _ $ 7.. ,fk OF M Pt.GC(-f construction technology laboratone 1
4 w 324 A listing of furnace atmosphere temperature measurements and variations from the standard are given in Appendix B. Variation of the measured furnace temperatures from the standard was approximately 0.10%, based on comparison of total area under the time-temperature curves. This was well within the 5.00% varia-tion permitted by ASTM Designation: E119. Average furnace draft pressure was -0.08 inches of water. A listing of measured unexposed concrete, interfaces, cable, and seal temperatures is also given in Appendix B. The maximum allowable temperature rise of 325'F+ ambient as defined by ASTM Designation: E814(2) was not exceeded on the unexposed sur-face of either penetration seal during the 3-hr fire test. Limiting end point temperature rise defined by ASTM Designation: E814 was exceeded at several measuring points on cables in both penetrations. Limiting end point temperature criterion defined by IEEE 634 was not exceeded on either of the two seal systems. No passage of flame occurred through either penetration seal during the 3-hr fire test. After the 3-hr fire exposure, the test assembly was removed from'the furnace, as shown in Fig. 5, and subjected to the IEEE 634 and ASTM Designation: E119 hose stream tests. Views of exposed and. unexposed surfaces of test assembly before hose stream testing are shown in Figs. 6 and 7. Views of hose stream tests are shown in Figs. 8 and 9. No water projected beyond the unexposed surface of either j penetration seal during hose stream testing. Views of exposed and unexposed surfaces of the test assembly after hose stream testing are shown in Figs. 10 and 11. M4f mT I cons &dction.tYMy Yi N
l c E 324 1 J i e f i 1 e 1 \\ l ) J l l 1 i 8 i V 1 a l l l i ~ .v,1 i ,s "g ~ip _ f i i ~1 .a a. f l Specimen Removed from Furnace After Fire Testing l Fig. 5 l I l f i l r"4'D'T I M ~ construction technology laboratories
i 9 0 324 1 i E
- . j 3
~ ' '~}-, 4*
- * ' - ('[
. t, - - i y ee.a a / j i M> -G j i -.e= A.,, e l M s'""" -~~ [ ~ ~g ' s y.w
- y
- g. - a 4
W~AW b s.'. e. y, 7 y.~_M:5+.: e s (... \\ -- l_. 1.. s \\ 4 e ,.s' 7Q; ~g..++ .r 3 v, g-;,,,, .<- s i 'f t y2:- ,..w Fig. 6 Exposed Surface of Test Assembly Prior l to Hose Stream Testing l l t 'r ~~~ u' > l ( 'x t l l., .f , w; - L y' i l.. ) ' L *r 27, J.. s.w... - t,2. /...,.,j,, 6, e L,.
- V
./.- t e e I ~ .a l q } i . g gu A u M &F H ~ i s !. ' s.. r2-,'~<= .I ~ e.1 e lh - W f.-' Fig. 7 Unexposed Surface of Test Assembly Prior to Hose Stream Testing 1 n'H!ntT 8 D_. OF /N PME(S' cor,:*ruction technology laboratories i 1 ~ -. - - - -..
1 = { 4 4 324 1 l l i p_3. l - I:- t ~ 3 i (.' e h I ,,.z.. p.-- - ~J 88 's6s ~., l V. ~ 9 t.. .J,,. o m. l
- "Mi Q:m.,' m_ -
4 6 .c. 9 _.,f' v.f '~- 21 y_ _ r,gy 5 4# ( Fig. 8 IEEE 634 Hose Stream Test t 'T. e, /.).- s, 1SP ' " fN . ~ g .f. T e t w 3 y.. p ~, t e 1 J D, 4,.~upwg l_wp...;1r,N9Rf e,
- J.
3 z $ a A p.r -b ';w 3 w r-c. a.: +:'- .s jl ...... w. _. i .. s ..e : s f f j'T M W i.E d if-j .s.. w c~5:. '- + -* *y: ?p p'" m .~ ....-:s P, w, .. s_ .~7s g,.. ;:y ', _ _.,. .c*.. . ' ' ' ~ ^ r 7 .. -^ .... - :... 93.. =y. p q. ~ 4s.. ., 4 s. ,g. = Fig. 9 ASTM E119 Hose Stream Test i 5 EXH10!T . ^: 3k OF - .- P* ~ r construction technology laboratories I 4" ---
l. I i 324 1 g. '. - = = l l l m 1 1 l I cs' Fig. 10 Exposed Surface of Test Assembly After l Hose Stream Testing N.,. e. . yeres 'f? [. u pg.. y'f, , ;*'[ ft .g.., ..(,., , b., 4 ,y. h.,,, -x . ?i ~ .i 1 I +.
- c.a
- r
. j\\ n, ;b s g. n A 9 r a y &? ;Wi gQ, _; f .?
- 4.. k -
.N ~ N k4, j \\ . x %....; .,,, n.
- ' g s.
Fig. 11 Unexposed Surface of Test Assembly After Hose Stream Testing I F.XHP!T _ r - N_ IJ _ I co...... n.,,, ract,noroov taboratories l
l 324 1 l Following the hose stream tests, measurements were made of the thickness of remaining silicone seal material from each opening, as shown in Fig. 12. Remaining thicknesses of unburned materials are listed in Table 1. TABLE 1 - THICKNESS OF UNBURNED SILICONE FOAM Measurement Thickness. inches Location
- Tray No. 1 Tray No. 2 West end of seal 7
7 West leg of tray 6 5-1/2 Mid-point of seal 4-1/2 4-1/2 East leg of tray 5-1/2 5 East end of seal 7 6-3/4
- See Fig. 1 for orientation.
LABORATORY RESPONSIBILITY The Construction Technology Laboratories is a Division of the Portland Cement Association and was not involved in the design of the Penetration Seal System. Personnel of the Con-struction Technology Laboratories make no judgment of the suit-ability of the materials or seal systems for particular end point uses. Acceptance of the test results for guidance for field installation is the prerogative of the authority having jurisdiction. CONCLUDING REMARKS This report described fire and hose stream tests conducted on two silicone penetration seal systems. Significant test re-sults are pres'ented in the section entitled
SUMMARY
OF RESULTS at the beginning of this report. F.XM!T .. :- /po, OF M Ph.GE(S) construction technology laboratories
324 1-a
- 4%...
,y 4 ..,.m.~.
- M y
{. f ?<v ,-~~>~,, ,f .,b' s f t,. .r ~, i . y 6..., .._..,......w. .,-..~:-. c.- p w t ..,N.3 t* ~ i '..' '., '.L ; t v., '( ~ ' .3:;-:.rg$.. L. ,.{ n ..... ~.. _ y ; eg:. ' tg gg,s,._,, ,,;..f ...s e= y ~. Fig. 12 Unburned Silicone Foam Material from Penetration Seals A = Tray No. 1 B = Tray No. 2 F.XMtT ' :loTL m/f(,_ ems) _ r7_ construction technology laboratories i
e ~ hf REFERENCES 1. ASTM Designation: E119, " Standard Methods of Fire Tests of Building Construction and Materials," American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, PA, 1983. 2. ASTM Designation: E814 " Standard Method of Fire Tests of Through-Penetration Fire Stops," American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia. PA, 198.3. 3, Standard IEEE 634-1978, "IEEE Standard Cable Penetration Fire-Stop Qualif' ration Test," The Institute of Electrical and Electronic L.'.gineers, Inc., New York, NY. ( S F.XHe5T __ eecto2 or!fePA.GE(S) _1,_ construction technology laboratories
I e 324 1 APPENDIX A Dow Corning 3-6548 Silicone RTV Foam Material Lot Numbers ' Foam Densities Foam Snap Times Material Certification for Cable Trays EXH!r>!T 8 p:. c(05. orM P *"'* li b Constru?llon technology laboratories
l c 324 1 i DOW CORNING 3-6548 SILICONE RTV FOAM INSTALLATION Date of Installation: October 9 - 10 1984 Mixing Technique: Hand and Machine Ungreased Cup Silicone Components Density Snap Time, Lot Combinations Ib/ft3 min:sec EZO94001A/EZO94001B Hand mix 18.9 1:56 Hand mix 18.1 2:04 Machine mix 17.6 1:35 Machine mix 17.5 1:37 EZO94003A/EZO94004B Hand mix 18.3 3:20 Machine mix 17.9 2:45 j i Concrete Slab Penetration Openino Nos. Lot Nos. Installed i Tray No. 1 (south) EZO94001A/EZO94001B Tray No. 2 (north) EZO94003A/EZO94004B l I l \\ l 4 i F.XH!mT fi e - fg y, OF IN PAGE(S) 10 construction technology laboratories
I UNIT $D STATES GYPSUM COMPANY O20 1 Penckneystle. tilinois 62274 September 28, 1984 Portland Cement 5420 Old Orchard Road PCA 3562E Building E Skokie, Illinois 60077 Attention: Tom Rowe
Reference:
Otto Frankenbush Order No. 90015 U. S. Gypsum Order No. GT-913561
Dear Mr. Rove:
This is to certify that the material furnished on the above order has been fabricated in accordance with standard U. S. Gypsum procedure. The material and galvanizing conform to ASTM A569 and ASTM A525. Sincerely, ba su s w s Susan Heumann Quality Technician SH/gm cc: S. Leach File EXH'?'T pj,0.E M[OF h. P ' ^~"') u ,, k. yl
i 324 i e i APPENDIX B Furnace Atmosphere Temperatures Specimen Thermocouple. Reference Chart Specimen Temperature Readings Test Comments I DtH!"'T _. - lp k c;- M P W E(S) a-construction technology laboratories
e CR5502 - DOW - 10/15/84 FURNACE ATMOSPHERE TEMPERATURE (DEG. F) TEST TIME, FURNACE ASTM E119 VARIATION FROM Hr: Min TEMP. TEMP. ASTM TEMP. F F F 0:00 78 68 10 0:05 1056 1000 56 0:10 1342 1300 42 0:15 1367 1399 -32 0:20 1425 1462 -37 0:25 1471 1510 -39 0:30 1532 1550 -18 0:35 1592 1584 8 0: 40 1620 1613 7 0: 45 1653 1638 15 0:50 1665 1661 4 0:55 1665 1681 -16 1:00 1694 1700 -6 1:05 1719 1718 1 1:10 1739 1735 4 1:15 1753 1750 3 1:20 1768 1765 3 1:25 1793 1779 14 1:30 1794 1792 2 1:35 1813 1804 9 1:40 1812 1815 -3 1: 45 1819 1826 -7 1:50 1826 1835 -9 1:55 1843 1843 -0 2:00 1846 1850 -4 2:10 1876 1862 14 2:20 1876 1875 1 2:30 1899 1888 11 2: 40 1902 1900 2 2:50 1911 1912 -1 3:00 1927 1925 2 AREA UNDER CURVE = 294887 DEG. F-MINUTES AREA UNDER ASTM E119 CURVE = 294600 DEG. F-MINUTES VARIATION FROM ASTM CURVE = 00.0974 F.XH!'t!T .$I 23 m --/Q OF[Yd P.S.GQS) t
z... = CR5502 - DOW - 10/15/84 THERMOCOUPLE REFERENCE CHART FRANE PRINT THERMOCOUPLE THERMOCOUPLE NO. NO. NO. LOCATION 9 1 24 T2 SURF FID DIST 9 2 25 T2 2 IH. DOWN FR SURFACE 9 3 26 T2 SURF MID DIST 9 5 27 T2 1 IN. OUT FR INST. CABLE 9 6 28 T2 INST CABLE INT l 9 7 29 T2 1 IH. UP OH INST CABLE 9 8 30 T2 1 IH. DUT FR TRAY 11 1 1 T2 1 IH. UP ON POWER CABLE 11 2 2 T2 POWER CABLE INT. I 11 3 3 T2 PEN INTERFACE 11 4 4 T2 SURF MID DIST 11 5 5 T2 1 IH. UP DN TRAY 11 6 6 T2 TRAY INTERFACE 11 7 7 T2 1 IN. OUT FR POWER CABLE 11 8 8 CONCRETE SURFACE WEST 11 9 9 T1 1 IN. OUT FR INST CABLE i 11 10 10 T1 1 IH. UP ON INST CABLE 11 11 11 T1 INST CABLE INT 11 12 12 T1 SURF MID DIST 12 1 13 T1 1 IH. UP DN TRAY l 12 2 14 T1 TRAY INTERFACE 12 3 15 T1 PEH INTERFACE 12 4 16 T1 1 IN. OUT FR TRAY 12 5 17 T1 SURF MID DIST 12 6 18 T1 POWER CABLE INT 12 7 19 T1 1 IN. UP ON POWER CABLE 12 0 20 T1 2 IH. DOWN FR SURFACE 12 9 21 T1 1 IH. OUT FR POWER CFPLE 12 10 22 T1 SURF MID DIST 12 11 23 CONCRETE SURFACE EAST l S EXM!"T l
- 2. i 7
- (o) or M Pr"'91 I
m._.- e CR5502 - DOW - 10/15/84 s UNEXPOSED TEMP. READINGS (DEG. F.> TEST TIME, T/C HO. Hi-: Min 1 2 3 4 5 6 0:00 80 80 80 80 80 80 0:05 84 85 79 79 79 79 0:10 114 115 79 79 80 81 0:15 159 159 79 79 85 86 0:20 215 220 79 79 91 94 0:25 262 265 79 79 99 104 0:30 304 310 79 80 108 116 0:35 333 345 79 80 118 128 0:40 358 383 79 81 126 141 0: 45 381 391 79 81 134 152 0:50 400 415 80 82 142 163 0:55 417 439 80 b; 149 173 1:00 430 453 80 84 156 183 1:05 441 456 80 84 161 190 1:10 453 465 81 85 166 199 1:15 463 492 81 86 171 206 1:20 473 487 81 87 177 214 1 1:25 486 533 82 88 181 219 1:30 499 550 82 89 187 226 1:35 510 571 82 89 190 232 1: 40 518 580 83 90 192 238 1: 45 521 584 83 90 194 240 1:50 526 595 84 91 197 246 1:55 530 604 84 92 2C0 250 l 2:00 535 610 85 93 204 254 2:10 547 630 86 94 209 262 2:20 560 656 88 96 218 271 2:30 573 676 89 97 224 279 2: 40 582 689 91 99 230 286 2:50 591 701 92 100 236 291 3:00 599 714 94 102 242 297 i F.XM!T ' m r /07. o-Mif. Pr.aes) 2s
l e. i i e CR5502 - DOW - 10/15/84 UNEXPOSED TEMP. READINGS (DEG. F.> l T!:ST TINE, T/C HO. f l Hr: Min 7 8 9 10 11 12 i l 0:00 80 80 80 81 80 80 0:05 79' 79 79 78 79 79 0:10 82 79 79 69 85 79 0:15 90 79 80 56 97 79 0:20 102 79 81 126 114 80 l 0:25 119 79 82 150 133 80 0:30 140 79 84 176 155 80 l 0:35 160 79 86 201 173 80 l 0: 40 177 79 87 222 192 81 0: 45 191 79 89 244 213 81 0:50 201 79 91 266 231 82 0:55 209 80 93 284 249 83 1:00 215 80 95 299 267 84 l 1:05 220 80 96 313 279 84 1:10 225 81 98 326 291 85 1:15 230 81 100 339 305 86 1:20 235 81 101 352 321 86 1:25 242 82 103 363 331 88 1:30 252 82 106 378 339 89 1:35 'U t 82 107 390 350 89 1: 40 26i 83 107 401 362 90 1:45 264 83 108 409 373 91 1:50 268 84 109 417 383 91 1:55 272 84 109 423 394 92 2:00 278 85 110 431 403 93 2:10 285 86 til 443
- d. 24 95 2:20 298 88 114 454 441 96 2:30 308 89 115 465 455 98 2:40 319 91 117 476 468 100 l
2:50 331 93 120 486 479 103 f 3:00
- 342, 95 122 496 191 105 i
k Dt4'"'T I ; //0 OF M PAGE(S) i 2.G
e o e CR5502 - DOW - 10/15/84 UNEXPOSED TEMP. READINGS (DEG. F.) TESI TIME, T/C HO. He-: M i n 13 14 15 16 17 18 0:00 80 80 80 80 80 80 0:05 79 79 79 79 79 S1 0:10 81 82 79 79 79 101 0:15 85 89 79 79 79 131 0:20 91 98 79 79 80 176 0:25 98 108 79 80 81 220 0:30 107 120 79 81 83 262 0:35 115 133 79 82 85 306 0: 40 123 144 79 84 88 336 0: 45 131 156 80 85 91 353 0:50 139 167 80 67 94 366 0:55 146 178 80 89 96 382 1:00 152 188 81 91 99 390 1:05 158 196 81 94 101 405 1:10 163 205 82 95 104 416 1:15 169 214 82 98 106 429 1:20 174 222 83 99 109 427 1:25 179 229 84 102 112 437 1:30 186 237 84 104 115 449 1:35 190 243 85 106 118 462 1:40 193 249 86 108 120 475 1: 45 195 253 86 110 122 486 1:50 198 259 87 112 124 497 1:55 201 264 88 114 126 506 2:00 204 269 89 116 128 516 2:10 209 278 90 119 131 535 2:20 216 287 92 123 134 551 2:30 221 297 95 126 137 564 2: 40 227 306 97 130 140 575 2:50 232 316 99 133 142 585 3:00 237 324 102 136 145 593 CUl'"'T /// c-Mh r m, 2n I l
( o l e CR5502 - DOW - 10/15/84 [ UNEXPOSED TEMP. READ 1 HGS (DEG. F.) l l TI:ST TIME. T/C HO. Hi-: M i n 19 20 21 22 23 14 I 0:00 80 80 80 80 80 81 0:05 83 79 79-79 79 79 0:10 ill 79 80 79 79 70 0:15 151 79 82 79 79 79 0:20 206 79 97 80 79 80 0:25 259 79 95 81 79 80 0:30 302 79 106 82 79 81 0:35 336 80 119 84 79 82 is:40 364 80 133 06 79 83 0: 45 391 81 150 88 79 84 0:50 414 83 165 90 79 85 j 0:55 431 85 177 92 79 87 1:00 446 87 188 94 79 88 1:85 460 90 199 96 80 90 1:10 473 94 209 98 80 91 1:15 485 98 218 101 80 92 1:20 494 102 225 103 80 94 j l 1:25 507 107 232 105 81 95 1:30 519 112 241 107 81 97 1:35 528 117 247 109 81 98 1:40 536 123 251 til 82 99 1: 45 543 128 254 113 82 100 1:50 549 134 257 115 83 101 1:55 555 141 259 116 83 102 2:00 562 147 263 118 84 ~103 2:10 575 160 268 121 85 105 2:20 588 173 274 124 87 108 j 2:30 598 186 279 128 89 110 2: 40 605 200 285 131 91 112 2:50 613. 213 292 134 93 115 3:00 620 227 298 137 95 117 FNH '"'T I N - ~ ~ /[I _ GF/_k r' vr9)
c. e i s e 324 1 s CR5502 - DOW - 10/15/84 UNEXPOSED TEMP. READ 1 HGS (DEG. F.) l TI:ST TIME, T/C HO. Hr: Min 15 26 27 28 29 30 0:00. 80 81 81 80 80 81 0:05 79 79 79 80 80 79 l l 0:10 79 79 79 88 90 79 0:15 79 80 80 104 106 80 0:20 79 80 81 126 127 80 0:25 79 81 83 151 152 81 0:30 79 82 87 179 176 81 0:35 79 83 93 200 200 82 l 0: 40 79 85 99 226 222 84 0:45 80 87 106 247 244 85 l 0:50 80 89 113 266 264 87 i 0:55 80 90 122 284 281 89 l 1:00 81 92 130 297 296 90 1:05 81 94 139 310 310 92 l 1:10 82 96 147 321 322 94 1:15 82 97 155 333 333 96 1:20 83 99 162 345 343 98 1:25 84 100 168 354 351 100 1:30 84 102 173 364 360 102 1:35 85 104 178 377
- 370, 104 1:40 86 105 182 397 379 105 1: 45 86 107 185 411 388 107 1:50 87 108 189 422 398 109 l
l 1:55 88 109 193 433 404 .110 1 2:00 89 110 197 446 413 111 -2:10 90 113 204 470 426 114 2:20 92 116 211 486 439 117 2:30 95 118 217 500 447 119 2:40 97 121 221 512 459 122 l 2:50 99 124 225 522 470 124 I 3:00 102 127 227 532 479 127 l 0 4 l l i i i EXH P'T [ _. _ g4 PACE 8 1 m M ~ 4
..__m o i e CR5502 - DOW - 10/15/84 TEST COMMENTS l 0:02:00 MELTING OF CABLE JACKET MATERI AL NOTED ON EXPOSED SURFACE 0:10:00 BLUE & GREEN FLAf'ING NOTED IN FURNACE 0:15:00 T/C #10 CORRECTED 0:35:00 T/C #19 ON TRAY #1 FAILED T RATING 0:35:00 T/C #1 ON TRRY #2 FRILED T RATING 0:41:00 LIGHT SMOKE NOTED FROM POWER CABLES IN TRAY #1 0: 41:00 LIGHT SMOKE NOTED FROM POWER CABLES IN TRAY #2 0:41:00 BLUE & GREEN FLAMING NO LONGER NOTED IN FURNACE HOSE STREAM TESTS: NO WATER PROJECTED BEYOND THE UNEXPOSED SURFACE DURING IEEE-634 HOSE STREAM TEST FOR 14 SEC. NO WATER PROJECTED BEYOND THE UNEXPOSED SURFACE DURING ASTM E-119 HOSE STREAM TEST FOR 24 SEC. NOTES: RM TEMP AT START = 73 DEC F. R.H. AT START = 70% DRAFT RUN AT.08 NEG. FIBERFRAX HOTBOARD REMAINED IN PLACE AFTER THE FIRE TEST MOST OF THE FIBERFRAX HOTBOARD REMAINED IN PLACE AFTER THE HOSE STREAM AFTER REMOVING THE SLAB FROM THE FURNACE IT WAS NOTED TO STILL BE BURNING ON THE EXPOSED SURFACE l i I 1 3 1 EMH19'T [ i 36 PTE /ld GF _$ Pr,GErs) a
l 0_s. 324 1 FIRE AND HOSE STREAM TESTS OF L PENETRATION SEALS - DOW TEST NO. 3 by I __ l DEPOSITVM4 Michael Gillen* J EXHIBM L INTRODUCTION l l At the request of Dow Corning U.S.A. (DOW) and as authorized l by Purchase Order No. 17262-N, Construction Technology Labora-tories (CTL) performed a series of five fire and hose stream tests on penetration seal systems. This report describes j results of the third test in the program, performed on two cable tray % penetration seals. l The penetration seal systems consisted of Dow Corning 3-6548 1 Silicone RTV Foam and a 1-in. thick layer of Fiberfrax Hotboard l ceramic fiber damming board. The 9-in. thick foam seal systems j 1 i were cast around two cable tray assemblies installed in a l 30x30-in. opening contained in a 48x48x12-in. concrete slab. l The 30x30-in. opening was divided into two 14-1/2x30-in. areas by a 1-in. thick piece of insulation board, as shown in Fig. 1. Slabs were constructed by CTL personnel. Seal systems and cable 1 trays were installed by DOW personnel with construction assis-l l tance provided by CTL. The fire and hose stream tests were performed at the fire 1 research facilities of CTL on October 17, 1984. The slab con-l taining the two cable trays and penetration seals was subjected to a 3-hr fire exposure in accordance with the time i ~ " Senior Research Engineer, Fire Research Section, Construction Technology Laboratories, a Division of the Portland Cement i Association, Skokie, IL 60077. FXM!rT [__ r. : //n a /M PftGEfS) ~~ construction technology laboratories
324 i 1 n H N .g., Approx L!mit of Fire Exposed Area 8,,
- p..-
["- ]. '. '. ~. 1" .p Q 15" ouuuuuuutxm> \\ I" insulation Board MWM i Silicone S i Foam 4"xl8" Cable Troy j gCobles 15" uuuuuuuuuuuuu I l .p- .p,',.{ j. "g u u 9,. 8" w . g ', . 4. .,. A. -..r. 8" I ", 30" I ",. 8" PLAN VIEW FIG. I LAYOUT OF, CONCRETE SLAB WITH TWO SILICONE FOAM SEALS AND PENETRATING CABLE TRAY ASSEMBLIES EXH!r'!T [ ; ' ^ l /Y OF _ P f " '"' t t
m 3 324 1 temperature relationship and procedures specified in ASTM Desig-nations: E119( ) and E814.( } Immediately after the fire test, the specimen was removed from the furnace and subjected to two hose stream tests in accordance with provisions of IEEE 1 I } 634 and ASTM Designation: E119.
SUMMARY
OF RESULTS The test assembly, consisting of two cable trays and pene-i tration seal systems in a 12-in. thick concrete slab, was sub-jected to a 3-hr fire test and subsequent hose stream tests, l Seals were installed in two 14-1/2x30-in. openings penetrating i through the concrete slab. The openings were separated by a 1-in. thick piece of insulation board. The seals cons 2:ted of i 9-in. thicknesses of Dow Corning 3-6548 Silicone RTV Foam and 1-in. thick Fiberfrax Hotboard ceramic fiber board. l The following are significant test results: 1. No passage of flame occurred through either of the two seal systems during the 3-hr fire test. ~2. Limiting end point temperature criteria defined by ASTM Designation: E014 were not exceeded on the unexposed surface of either of the two seal systems during the 3-hr fire test. Limiting end point temperature cri-terion defined by IEEE 634 as 700*F was exceeded on Tray No. 2.
- Numbers in parentheses designate References on Page 17.
F.XH!"'T dI~ M construction technology laboratones
- b
- 1 p
324 L 3. No water projected beyond the unexposed surface of either of the two penetration seals during the 14 second IEEE 634 hose stream test. 4. No water projected beyond the unexposed surface of either of the two penetration seals during the 24 second ASTM Designation: E119 hose stream test. TEST ASSEMBLY A 48x48x12-in. thick concrete slab specimen containing a 30x30-in. square opening was fabricated by CTL personnel. The opening was located in a nominal 32x32-in. area in the central area of the slab. The slab was allowed to cure for approx 1-mately one week following casting and subsequently force-dried at elevated temperature to reduce internal moisture content of l 1 the concrete. l Seal materials installed in the slab openings were provided by Dow Corning, U.S.A. Seal materials consisted of Dow Corning i 3-6548 Silicone RTV Foam and 1-in thick Fiberfrax Hotboard l ceramic fiber board. INSTALLATION PROCEDURES l Installation of cable tray assemblies and seal systems are described in the following sections. l C.able Trays Assemblies Two cable tray assemblies were installed in the concrete test slab, as shown in Fig. 1. Cable trays were nominal 18-in. } wide x 4-in. high 16 ga. galvanized steel ladder-back trays. ExH!mT dF - // $ A: _h Po.GEIS) construction technology laboratories
V b f Trays were Model No. PLMS-SS12-1800-4-12 manufactured by U.S. Gypsum Company. Certification for trays is provided in Appendix A. Trays were cut to'5-ft lengths. Two types of cables were installed in each cable tray: 600v single conductor MCM350 copper power cable with inculation Type XHHW and 60'Jv AWG10/3C cable with XLp neoprene jacket. Cables were cut into 5-ft lengths prior to installation in the cable trays. Cable fill in each tray consisted of 14 lengths of MCM350 power cable and 40 lengths of AWG10/3C cable. Cables were secured to trays with nylon tie-wraps. Completed cable tray assemblie's were installed so that ends cf' trays extended 12 in. below the exposed surface of the test slab and 3 ft above the unexposed surface of the test slab. Trays were bolted to a steel angle framework on the unexposed side of the concrete slab to provide rigid support and minimize tray movement during seal construction and testing. Seals Seals were installed in openings in the concrete slab by DOW^ personnel with construction assistance provided by CTL. The concrete test assembly was placed in a horizontal position and 1-in. thick pieces of ceramic fiber damming board were attached 9 in below the unexposed surface of the slab. The ceramic fiber board was Fiberfrax Hotboard manufactured by Carborundum. The damming board was cut to fit tightly around projecting cable tray assemblies. Small gaps between the ceramic fiber board and cables were filled-with pieces of CeraFiber ceramic fiber -blanket manufactured by Johns-Manville. DN!*!T [ ~ g- /$$( pgggg. hr fichnoT59778boratones ) constructio
.e 324 L The 30x30-in. opening was subdivided into two 14-1/2x30-in. l-openings using a 9-in. widex30-in. long piece of 1-in. thick . insulation board. The insulation board was Fiberfrax Hotboard. The board was installed in the opening as shown in Fig. 1. Silicone foam materials were mixed and placed by hcnd and by machine in approximately 1-1/2 to 2-in. lifts to a thickness of 9 in. in each opening. Lot numbers, densities, and snap i times of foam materials installed in both penetrations are given in Appendix A. After foam had set, the foam in each opening was trimmed flush with the' unexposed concrete slab surfaces. l Foam was allowed to cure for about 7 days pr.ior to fire j testing. l l TEST EQUIPMENT & PROCEDURES 1 The following sections briefly describe equipment and pro-l cedures used to conduct fire and hose stream tests of the assembly containing the cable tray penetration seal systems. i Furnace l t L The test assembly containing the two cable tray penetration l l seal systems was subjected to a 3-hr fire exposure utilizing the small slab furnace at CTL's Fire Research Laboratory. This furnace provides for testing of small-scale specimens in a hori-l zontal position. Approximate area of fire-exposure is i 32x32 in., as shown in Fig. 1. i Furnace atmosphere temperatures were monitored by three Type i i 4 [ eyu'm7 . /Me" /M P AGE (S) construction technology laboratories
324 1 4 - K. Chromel-Alumel, protected thermocouples located #12 in. below the exposed face of the test assembly. The fire exposure was controlled according to the time-temperature relationship pres-cribed by ASTM Designation: E119, and is tabulated in Appendix .s. Furnace at:nosphere pressure was maintained close to ambient 1 laboratory air pressure or slightly negative (-0.02 to -0.08 ] . inches of water). For this test, the average draft was -0.08 inches of water. ) l Specimen Instrumentation l A total of 30 thermocouples were used for measuring tempera-j tures on the unexposed side of the test specimen at locations shown in Fig. 2. Twelve thermocouples were used for measuring temperatures of electrical cables at a distance of 1-in. above the unexposed surface of the test assembly during the fire test. Sixteen thermocouples were used to measure temperatures on seal surfaces, concrete / seal interfaces, cable / seal and tray / seal interfaces, and concrete surfaces on the unexposed side of the test assembly. Two thermocouples were used to measure foam temperatures at a depth of 2 in. below the unexposed surface of the seals. A list of thermocouple locations is provided in l Appendix B. Data Acouisition Furnace atmosphere and specimen thermocouple temperatures l were monitored at 5-minute intervals throughout the 3-hr fire test. The automated data acquisition system consisted of a EXH!O!T P!G[1/_ OFM PAGE(S) _7 construction technology laboratories
q 324 1 \\ h N .'.N .A... ..z..- 3.. g. ' d,' . '. ' ' X, ,i, 3
- f.
X2e X25 30X 2 X,"' 5 X 28 X27 X 26 " Troy "6 X7 X8 X3 X4 1" insulation Boards = 16X Sm6M%W@w/6ys.wsym//mmemoys X24 8 X 14 1 i ~ X 13 ",2 15X X 10 X9 4-Troy '1 ul9 43 v . b. - ('. "20 XI8 X 21 X X23 22 y. A. vi7 v y,.o .~
- 4
.%**A.. .:q.- p. 30" X-Thermocouple Locotions 1 FIG. 2 UNEXPOSED SURFACE AND INTERFACE THERMOCOUPLE LOCATIONS l j 1 EXH!O!T , P,c./JQ-OF Pf.G E(5
l f s 324 i L Hewlett-Packard HP3455A digital voltmeter and a series of HP3495A data scanners. The data acquisition system controller was an HP9845T desktop computer. Hose Stream Test Two hose stream tests were conducted after fire testing of the test assembly. Hose stream test procedures were those des-cribed in the IEEE 634 and ASTM Designation: E119 Test Stan-dards. Equipment and procedures for these tests are as follows: 1EEE 634 - A 75 psi hose stream was delivered through a 1-1/2 in, diameter hose equipped with a fog nozzle set at a discharge angle of 30' from a distance of 10 ft. Duration of the test was 14 seconds. ASTM E119-A 30 psi solid stream was delivered through a l 2-1/2 in. diameter hose equipped with a National 1 Standard Playpipe with a 1-1/8 in diameter dis-charge tip from.a distance of 20 ft. Duration of the test was 24 seconds. l TEST RESULTS f The test assembly containing the two cable tray penetration seal systems was subjected to a 3-hr fire exposure at the fire research facilities of CTL on October 17, 1984. Views of the j exposed and unexposed surfaces of the test assembly prior to t testing are shown in Figs. 3 and 4. tXHm!T [ t l ee%de/!$c95 &laT&E 1
J4 E, /bo / b ///gf d IMAGE EVALUATION %Q/ %,j/,f@ //// "g. /' TEST TARGET '(MT-3) g 4 jp l.0 5msa yljRE 1,1 [m IlWM 1.8 i.25 i.4 i.6 4 150mm 6" s[y&+% /<$% i + W45
- W
///3 h 'O hp PHOTOGRAPHIC SCIENCES CORPORATION 6 h 770 BASKET ROAD t $k I P.O. BOX 338 6% WEBSTER, NEW YORK 14580 g0 1 p'., (716) 265-1600 f: /+
d* ~NQi? l llff/g b t IMAGE EVALUATION f[% ////p d' *# gf O v ///// [.[ h/ 1 TEST TARGET '(MT-3) g, 4 /g, 3 h 1.0 lf a K4 yll EE i,l l m Illlln l.8 1.25 1.4 1.6 150mm 6" b4% f<*4
- ??f,,b, PHOTOGRAPHIC SCIENCES CORPORATION +h$
//// g h <$ h 770 BASKET ROAD [gt + ({1,\\ l P.O. BOX 338 gA WEBSTER, NEW YORK 14580 4 I% (716) 265-1600
$ ~\\f/ l, l////o k 39 k ((//pY /g8#'4 IMAGE EVALUATION 4 7//// i. 72/ 4 TEST TARGET '(~MT-3) 4 /4,,,, // I i 1.0 lf lla E n ' 9_ L E d l m i 1 I.I [* lM 1.8 i 1.25 1.4 1.6 4 150mm l 4 6" t k,., # f'
- $ (;
'S + ,7, .//g( 4 h l 770 BASKET ROAD /gt, 4 j P.O. BOX 338 WEBSTER, NEW YORK 14580 4 (716) 265-1600 f /~d
'4 s 32c 1 A listing of furnace atmosphere temperature measurements and variations from the standard are given in Appendix B. Variation of the measured furnace temperatures from the standard was approximately 0.02%, based on comparison of total area under the time-temperature curves. This was well within the 5.00% varia-tion permitted by the Test Standard.III Average furnace draft pressure was -0.08 inches of water. A listing of measured unexposed concrete, interfaces, cable, and seal temperatures is also given in Appendix B. The maximum allowable temperature rise of 325'F+ ambient as defined by ASTM I) Designation: E814 was not exceeded on the unexposed sur-face of either penetration seal during the 3-hr fire test. No passage of flame occurred through either penetration seal during the 3-hr fire test. After the 3-hr fire exposure, the test assembly was removed from the furnace, as shown in Fig. 5, and subjected to the IEEE 634 and ASTM Designation: E119 hose stream tests. Views of exposed and unexposed surfaces of test assembly before hose stream testing are shown in Figs. 6 and 7. No water projected beyond the unexposed surface of either penetration seal during hose stream testing. Views of exposed and unexposed surfaces of the test assembly after hose stream testing are shown in Figs. 8 and 9. Following the hose stream tests, measurements were made of the thickness of remaining silicone seal material from each opening, as sh'own in Fig. 10. Remaining thicknesses of unburned materials are listed below in Table 1. F'NT 5 -l - construc[ionyechno ogy Eboratones J1 ~ OF/ P '.G PS)
- y*
32? 1 g;i _V, y-o
- g (.-, s
~ g, v- ' br I k.f _ _ h _' ? [- .gr,. or < g.y.g v;-.. I " {' ',: - (; A.,, { '~ o 6d 1 u ., w _ _ s .. g., l . l .? Il#. '[MII) Fig. 3 Exposed Surface of Test Assembly Prior to Test 4 f 3,'. II. s a i.- i E i ',. i
==, i, 4 .j ik am -a c r. ..,4, / ki \\ ry..-{. s.yQ ___ i ___ _ ' 1 Fig. 4 Unexposed Surface of Test Assembly Prior to Test [ F.XM!P'T pl,CE Mh 0F/ P ' ' ' " construction technology laboratories l
ls_ - - _ _. -. _ _ _ _. i I 324 1 -J yf ) ..% I i .~ -c. -.. ,, ^ ~-- c .- me _ - l t i I Specimen Removed from Furnace After Fire Testing Fig. 5 i l l l 1 ii l . F"t!'9 tT _' [ i i ./._2. OF -M P ' " ~ '" I j i~~7 4 construction technology laboratorie- ) }
A 324 3.j .3
- 1.. y.. :
( y ' DJ44 '.8 .s f;s - .'s. i 5 . s-I I i I l l I l Fig. 6 Exposed Surface of Test Assembly Prior to Hose Stream Testing
- *:i ' ; -[ Q.'ti W \\_, :c.
~"u; R -' <r r- ,2 .c. gs, 4. s. t... ~a.#- a L e.] $ , j. t 4 ,,, h.. [. ~ T~ Mi ' (1:- k
- s. & '.p. +.
M x ...g y .fs. 'g .. p (, _... N'-}' vE.q-. ~~ T e n., v.. , '..'^' ._ ~
- ps l
^ N.,. - [' ' '46 \\ ~ l e .a n ~ q. ' .y 2 s ,1 3. _. ' 8~ i;; ; e _2 Fig. 7 Unexposed Surface of Test Assembly Prior to Hose Stream Testing py umT . .f E OF. PAGE'S) ..........__....,_,_.,. -,.-.+,
i e I i 324 1 1 I i i .m a 1 4 I Fig. 8 Exposed Surface of Test Assembly After Hose Stream Testing 1 e e+ * {, IgNij['iby ' - s + ~ - l . ' m *=r .- v .. i _...a. r 1 I,.. g-j t ! ;', \\. tp.... - _.,,, i ~ .:.. y. l. t%., ~ ~ ~ ~ g$..;.',...h{ f ~ g ,, c b - - Q : b -i ['")h'.~;; '2 l ,(.. \\ '(
- /
J' ,% W': i i' y.? _$ J j - ~ Fig. 9 Unexposed Surface of Test Assembly After Hose Stream Testing ("*.p es t T 5 i - - /,2 7 0:- /fd r ' " - construction technology laboratories
l c. 324 1 l _ w - -c. , -.,v 3 1 hid [' hii gg[.o,, ,[ 3 .r-f
- .3 t
- k -,, z.. i l t s 1 I B ' Fig. 10 Unburned Silicone Foam Material from Penetration Seals p ".?!m 7 of /U or }4d ren~m 1s. .-.. --,~..,,,,,,,,,,,,,
o ,e 21 22 Il 1 TABLE 1 - THICKNESS OF UNBURNED SILICONE FOAM Measurement Thickness. inches Location
- Tray No. 1 Tray No. 2 West end of seal 7
7 West leg of tray 5 5 Mid-point of seal 6 4-1/2 East leg of tray 5 5 East end of seal 7-1/2 7 I
- See Fig. 1 for orientation.
1 LABORATORY RESPONSIBILITY The Construction Technology Laboratories is a Division of the Portland Cement Association and was not involved in the design of the Penetration Seal System. Personnel of the Con-struction Technology Laboratories make no judgment of the suit-ability of the materials or seal systems for particular end point uses. Acceptance of the test results for guidance for field installation is the prerogative of the authority having jurisdiction. 1 I j CONCLUDING REMARKS This report described fire and hose stream tests conducted on two silicone penetration seal systems. Significant test results are presented in the section entitled
SUMMARY
OF RESULTS at the beginning of this report. l \\ l I l p? pun rr JT" /fo OF /N PAGE(S)
g 324 a~ REFERENCES I .1. ASTM Designation: E119 " Standard Methods of Fire Tests of Building Construction and Materials," American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, PA, 1983. l 2. ASTM Designation: E814 " Standard Method of Fire Tests of Through-Penetration Fire Stops," American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, PA, 1983. 3. Standard IEEE 634-1978, "IEEE Standard Cable Penetration Fire-Stop Qualification Test," The Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers, Inc., New York, NY. J l j l l j l l I l J IMTNT .. IS L or 4 P ~ '~' j
ll 4 324 1 APPENDIX A Dow Corning 3-6548 Silicone RTV Foam Material Lot Numbers Foam Densities Foam Snap Times Material Certification for Cable Trays i l l 4 t l l l l l 1 i F?N'"'T _ f, ty c Jak= h/4 r'"' i l j
- /
a i l .DOW CORNING 3-6548 SILICONE RTV FOAM INSTALLATION t l Date of Installation: October 9 - 10, 1984 l Mixing Technique: Hand and Machine i i t Ungreased Cup l Silicone Components Density Snap Time. Lot Combinations Ib/ft3 min: cec EZO94001A/EZO94001B Hand mix 18.9 1:56 Hand mix 18.1 2:04 Machine mix 17.6 1:35 I Machine mix 17.5 1:37 t EZO94002A/EZO94004B Hand mix 18.0 2:52 i Hand mix 18.2 2:41 Machine mix 17.8 2:34 l Concrete Slab Penetration Openino Nos. Lot Nos. Installed Tray No. 1 (north) EZO94002A/EZO94004B Tray No. 2 (south) EZO94001A/EZO94001B i \\ I i l l i I i e * [f F M pf,qgy i
a \\ a JNITED STATES GYPSUM COMPANY 32g 1 Penckneyville. Ilknois 62274 September 28, 1984 l Portland Cement 5420 Old Orchard Road PCA 3562E Building E Skokie, Illinois 60077 Attention: Tom Rowe l
Reference:
Otto Frankenbush Order No. 90015 U. S. Gypsum Order No. GT-913561
Dear Mr. Rove:
This is to certify that the material furnished on the above order has been f abricated in accordance with standard U. S. Cypsum procedure. The material i and galvanizing conform to ASTM A569,and ASTM A525. Sipctrely, auss s l Susan Heumann i Quality Technician I l SH/gm l cc: S. Leach File l l I'"">'T f ~ ~ /,Jfc-/k p, e.,,,. k .. I
i l v' a r 1 1 l 1 + 324 1 l i l \\ l l^ I i l I I APPENDIX B l Furnace Atmosphere Temperatures t l-Specimen Thermocouple Reference Chart ~ Specimen Temperature Readings i l Test Comments 4 1 h t k f i i t i s l 5 I l i 1 a e [-'".t m t 7 ,[ j 1 r - /3.5w /.%nws> i' 1 I M a...
- - ~.
e
l O a 05ti(2 - W: - 10 :- 54 h FURNA E R1MOsrHERE 1EnFERRTURE ( I' E G. F) TEST TIME, FURNRCE RSTM E119 VARIR110H FROM Hr: Min TEMF. 1 EMF. ASTM TEMF. F F F 0:00 85 68 17 l 0:05 1857 1000 57 0:10 1317 1300 17 0:15 1404 1399 5 0:20 1418 1462 -44 0:25 1484 1510 -26 0:30 1540 1550 -10 0:35 1577 1584 -7 0: 40 1615 1613 2 0:45 1635 1638 -3 0:50 1658 1661 -3 0:55 1671 1681 -10 1:00 1710 1700 10 1:05 1717 1718 -1 1:10 1740 1735 5 1:15 1740 1750 -10 l 1:20 1769 1765 4 1:25 1790 1779 11 i l 1:30 1792 1792 -0 1:35 1810 1804 6 1 l 1: 40 1816 1815 1 1: 45 1822 1826 -4 1:50 1831 1835 -4 1:55 1634 1843 -9 2:00 1858 1850 8 2:10 1658 1862 -4 2:20 1870 1875 -5 2:30 1900 1888 12 2: 40 1902 1900 2 2:50 1906 1912 -6 3:00 1929 1925 4 RRER UNDER CURVE = 294649 DEG. F-M1HUTES RRER UNDER RSTM E119 CURVE = 294600 DEG. F-HINUTES VARIRTION FROM RSTM CURVE = 00.0166 '4 F.XMP'T [ ' 2,1
- .2.&4(4 - -
l~ - - - -
~ 5' d CstSe: - 00w - le 2-e h[ [ THERMOCOUPLE REFEFENCE CHA81 i FRAME PRINT THERMOCOUPLE THERN0 COUPLE HO. NO. NO. LOCATION = 9 1 25 T1 SURFACE MID DIST. f 9 2 26 T1 1 IH. UP DN INST. CABLE 9 3 27 71 N CABLE I 9 5 28 T1 1 !H. DUT FR hsd@A CABLE '/ 6 29 T1 SURFACE MID DIST. 9 7 30 T1 1 IH. DUT FR TRAY 11 1 1 T1 PEN INTERFACE 11 2 2 T1 SURFACE MID DIST. i 11 3 3 T1 2 IN. DOWN FR SURFACE 11 4 4 T1 1 IH. DUT FR POWER CABLE l 11 5 5 T1 TRRY INTERFACE 11 6 6 T1 1 IN. UP ON TRRY j 11 7 7 T1 POWER CRBLE INTERFACE l 11 8 8 T1 1 IH. UP OH POWER CABLE 11 9 9 T2 INST. CABLE INTERFACE 11 10 10 T2 1 IN. UP ON INST. CABLE 11 11 11 T2 TRRY INTERFACE 11 12 12 T2 1 IN. UP OH TRAY 12 1 13 T2 1 IN OUT FR INST CABLE 12 2 14 T2 2 IH.' DOWN FR SURFACE 12 3 15 T2 SURFACE MID.DIST. 12 4 16 CONCRETE SURFACE WEST 12 5 17 T2 PEN INTERFACE 12 6 18 T2 1 IH. DUT FR TRAY 12 7 19 T2 1 IN. UP ON POWER CABLE l 12 0 20 T2 POWER CABLE INT 12 9 21 T2 1 IH. DUT FR POWER CABLE 12 10 22 T2 SURFACE MID DIST. l 12 11 23 T2 SURFACE MID DIST. 12 12 24 CONCRETE SURFACE EAST l l 1 i f'I'Di a l} Q OF h r M ~ ses
e 324 1 C F MO: -IN - :e 1-e= j UNExF OSED TEMF. R E 61184 C 5 (IEF. F.) ( l TI:S T TIME, T/C HO. H : Min 1 2 3 4 5 6 l 0:00 50 80 81 80 80 80 l 0:05 79 79 80 79 80 79 0:10 79 79 80 79 83 82 0:15 79 79 80 80 90 80 0:29 79 79 80 83 101 99 0:25 79 79 80 86 114 110 0:30 79 79 81 93 129 125 0:35 79 80 81 101 144 138 0: 40 80 81 81 111 159 151 0: 45 80 81 81 121 173 161 l 0:50 81 82 82 132 185 170 0:55 81 83 83 143 197 180 1:00 82 84 83 154 208 189 1:05 82 86 84 163 218 .t 96 l 1:10 83 87 86 172 226 201 l 1:15 83 88 87 179 234 206 1:20 84 90 88 186 241 211 1:25 85 91 90 192 247 217 1:30 85 93 92 198 253 220 1:35 86 94 94 204 259 225 ^ ~~" 96 96 209 263 228 1: 40 87 1: 45 87 97 98 214 268 232 1:50 88 98 101 219 272 235 i 1:55 89 100 103 224 277 238 2:00 90 101 106 228 281 242 l 2:10 92 104 112 238 288 249 2:20 94 107 118 247 296 255 l 2:30 95 109 124 254 302 258 2: 40 97 112 131 264 315 266 2:50 99 114 137 273 321 276 3:00 101 116 145 281 327 281 l r"M F.'T I i ' ; Mk OF ((_d_ Pt.GE(S) U( l l r
324 1 E,m. u.m. a. " " UNEXF OSEIi T E MF. F E AI IN05 (IEr, F.) TI:SI TIME, T/C HO. H - : M i r. 7 6 9 10 11 12 0:00 81 81 80 81 80 80 0:05 84 84 79 81 80 79 0:10 110 109 80 89 85 82 0:15 152 147 83 103 94 E8 0:20 213 205 87 123 106 98 0:25 266 261 90 145 119 108 0:30 313 309 97 169 134 121 0:35 348 346 104 192 148 133 0:40 384 376 211 163 145 0: 45 408 402 116 229 176 155 l 0:50 430 418 118 246 188 165 0:55 448 432 120 261 201 175 1:00 460 446 123 274 213 184 1:05 475 460 125 288 22'; 191 1:10 488 473 130 300 233 198 1:15 503 482 133 312 241 204 1:20 517 491 133 323 249 209 1:25 530 500 134 332 258 214 1:30 544 508 136 341 264 219 1:35 556 516 139 350 271 223 1:40 567 523 140 360 276' 225 1: 45 576 530 140 366 281 231 1:50 586 535 146 376 286 234 1:55 595 540 147 385 292 238 2:00 603 545 146 393 298 242 2:10. 619 556 154 409 309 250 2:20 632 564 153 419 318 258 2:30 643 573 155 431 324 260 2: 40 656 582 158 440
- 334, 269 2:50 666 587 160 450 341-274 3:00 676 596 162 456 348 278 Ne F.XH!"'T __.
2s e.= e !) t. w M
~_ t 05: 50. - 1 06. - le 17 54 UNEMF OS E D 1 EMF. FEADINGS (LEF. F.) l T I'.S T TIME, T/C HO. H * : M i ri 13 14 15 16 17 16 0:00 80 81 80 80 _80 79 .0:05 80 80 79 79 79 79 0:10 80 80 79 79 79 79 0:15 80 80 79 79 79 79 0:20 82 81 79 79 79 CO 0:25 84 80 79 79 79 80 0:30 88 81 80 79 80 82 0:35 93 81 81 79 80 84 0: 40 99 81 81 80 81 87 0: 45 106 81 82 80 81 89 l 0:50 113 82 83 80 82 92
- 0:55 121 83 84 80 83 95 1:00 130 84 86 81 83 98 1:05 138 85 87 81 84 101 1:10 147 86 88 82 85 104 1:15 155 88 90 82 86 107 1:20 163 90 91 82 87 109 1:25 171 92 92 03 88 112 1:30 179 94 9.4 84 89 114 1:35 186 96 95 84 90 117 1: 40 193 99 96 85 91 119 1: 45 199 102 98 86 92 121 1:50 204 105 99 87 93 123 1:55 210 108 100 88 94 126 2:00 215 111 102 89 95 127-
~ _. 2:10 224 117 105 91 98 132 2:20 233 124 107 93 100 136 2:30 240 131 109 94 102 138 2: 40 248 138 111 97 105 142 2:50 256 145 113 100 108 146 3:00 263 152 116 102 111 149 rT-!!9T T l /kOFM PAGE(S AQ
t* - CF!*C; - I OW 10 17 64 p UNE );F O S E I' T E r1F. R E AI'I NGS ( IiE F. F.) TI:ST TINE, T/C NO. H : Min 19 20 21 22 23 24 0:00 81 80 80 80 80 80 0:05 88 88 79 79 79 79 0:10 122 119 80 79 79 79 0:15 175 166 82 79 79 79 0:20 240 223 87 80 80 79 0:25 292 275 94 81 81 79 0:30 334 320 104 83 04 79 0:35 368 356 115 86 87 79 0:40 399 388 127 88 90 80 0: 45 424 410 138 91 94 80 0:50 444 426 150 94 98 80 0:55 462 447 160 98 102 81 1 1:00 478 465 169 101 106 81 1:05 493 485 177 104 110 81 1:10 504 500 184 107 114 82 1:15 516 515 191 lie 117 82 l 1:20 526 528 197 112 121 82 1:25 539 542 203 115 124 83 l 1:30 549 554 209 117 127 83 1:35 558 565 214 119 130 84 1: 40 566 575 219 121 133 04 l 1: 45 577 588 223 124 135 85 1:50 583 600 228 126 138 86 1:55 590 612 232 128 140 87 2:00 597 624 237 129 143 87 2:10 610 647 246 133 147 89 2:20 624 666 254 136 152 91 2:30 633 677 262 139 154 93 2: 40 645 690 270 141 158 95 2:50 654 702 279 144 161 97 3:00 667 715 288 146 165 99 i 1 r /Y[_ OF /I((a.PAGE(: 27
p.- CGitt: - I.CM 10 17. E 4 UNEXPDSEI' 1 E t1F. R E AI'1 HG5 (DEF. F.> TI:S T TIME, T/C NO. H : Min 25 26 27 26 29 30 0:00 80 81 79 80 80 80 0*05 79 81 79 80 79 79 0:10 79 92 80 80 79 79 0:15 80 107 82 80 80 79 0:20 80 126 85 81 81 80 0:25 80 144 e6 83 82 80 0:30 81 164 91 88 84 81 0:35 83 183 93 93 86 82 0: 40 84 200 94 100 89 83 0: 45 86 215 97 107 92 85 0:50 88 231 99 114 95 86 0:55 90 246 101 121 98 89 1:00 92 258 102 127 100 91 1:05 95 271 101 133 103 94 1:10 97 282 103 137 106 96 1:15 99 292 105 140 108 99 1:20 101 302 105 142 111 102 1:25 104 311 107 144 113 104 1:30 106 321 108 147 115 107 1:35 108 330 110' 149 117 109 1: 40 lie 338 111 150 119 111 l 1: 45 112 346 113 153 121 113 1':50 114 358 114 156 123 115 1:55 115 368 116 159 125 117 2:00 117 376 116 161 126 119 2:10 119 392 120 165 130 123 2:20 122 407 122 168 133 127 2:30 124 420 126 170 135 128 2: 40 126 429 131 173 139 132 2:50 129 438 142 175 142 135 3:00 131 446 140 176 145 138 ) i I c u s.i e r, ty g ap OF_ I'f.G Eff
05m xx. " "'" 324 1 TE!1 COMMENTS l 0:02:00 CABLE JACKET MATERIAL NOTED TO FE MELTING ON EXPOSED SUF. FACE 0:13:00 LLUE L GREEN FLAMING HOTED INSIDE FURNACE 0:50:00 LIGHT SMOKE NOTED FROM CAPLE TRRY el 0:50:00 LIGHT SMOKE NOTED FROM CABLE TRAY #2 0:56:00 BLUE L GREEN FLAMING HO LONGER NOTED INSIDE FURNACE I:00:00 AREA AROUND T/C #25 NOTED TO BE RISING I:55:00 ARER AROUND T/C #25 NOTED TO HAVE DIFLECTED BACK TO ORGINAL HEIGHT H0SE STREAM TESTS: NO WATER PROJECTED BEYOND THE UNEXPOSED SURFACE DURING IEEE-634 HOSE STREAM TEST FOR 14 SEC. N0 WATER PROJECTED BEYOND THE UNEXPOSED SURFACE DURING ASTM E-119 HOSE STREAM TEST FOR 24 SEC. NOTES: RM. TEMP AT START = 79 DEG. F. R.H. AT START = 41*< DRAFT RUN AT.08 NEG. FIBERFRAX HOTBOARD REMAINED IN PLACE AFTER THE FIRE TEST. MOST OF THE FIBERFRAX HOTBOARD REMAINED IN PLACE AFTER THE HOSE STREAMS AFTER REMOVING THE SLAB FROM THE FURNACE IT WAS NOTD TO STILL BE BURING OH THE EXPOSED SURFACE. 4 I l r gi.e m!T [ l ': MP AGE (E 29
w. L .d DOW CORNING r.
- :v.-t;gr3-;
a ~ IW @# % h... DOW CORNING U.S.A. May 8, 1985 f MIDLAND, MICHIGAN 48640-0994 Telephone:(517) 496-4000 Transco Products, Inc. (MW l O 55 East Jackson Blvd. Chicago, IL 60604 mANSCO INC. 2 [. Attention: Mr. Greg Jarocz Technical Manager Subj ect: DOW CORNINCO 3-6548 SILICONE RTV FOAM This letter is to confirm what was expressed as the technical opinions of DOW CORNING during the meeting at Millstone Unit 3 on April 16, 1985. [ 1. Foam Shrinkage It is normal to observe nominal shrinkage of the silicone foam 24 to 48 hours after its installation, which is attributed to gradual pressure relief upon completion of the foaming reaction and thermally induced contraction when the material is cooling down from the mildly exothermic reaction. The nominal shrinkage of the silicone foam may be observed as either concave surface or gap formation at perimeters of penetration openings, depending on sizes l of openings, adhesion of the foam to the side of an opening, etc. If such gaps are no more than one third of the total depth of the ~ silicone foam and are no larger than 3/8 inch in width, there should be no adverse effects on the fire resistant performance of l the silicone foam firestop assembly. If, however, gaps are deeper and/or wider than the above limits, repair work is recommended. Applying beads of DOW CORNING @ 96-081 RTV Adhesive / Sealant to fill gaps in approximately one inch depth is the recommended repair ( procedure. 2. Foam Delamination (Layering) There are external and installation conditions which are identified to cause foam delamination. Included are high moisture content in air (absolute humidity) when the foam is installed, air-borne contaminants, and poor installation techniques. Adhering to a proper installation procedure ensures to minimize foam delamination [ as long as there is no gross air-borne contamination in existence. 1 [ g on m i l DEPOSmON ~YOF M. I "'? l --~'~; 1 EXHIBIT fM-W N. l 9 v
t1? 7 A three-hour rated ASTM E-119 fire exposure and hose stream test run by Portland Cement Association, Skokie, IL compared fire resistive properties of the silicone foam with and without de-lamination. The results of the comparison test established that the presence of air voids in the range of 10 to 15% of the total thickness of the silicone foam does not adversely affect the intended performance of the product. (
Reference:
Construction Technology Laboratories, Portland Cement Association Test Report No. CR5142 dated July 1983). The installation procedure of Transco Products, Inc., was reviewed, and it is considered that it adequately addresses the prerequisite for minimizing foam delamination. 3. Waiting Period Between Foam Pours A penetration sealing design which incorporates alumint.-silicate boards as permanent damming along with minimum.9 inches of the silicone foam, is considered to have additional safety factors built in to pass the 3 hour rated ASTM E-119 test criteria. While l more critical sealing designs constructed with a 12 inches thick j foam without permanent damming boards require special precautions j to optgmize installation of the foam in a larger free area (over j 400 in without any penetrating items in a floor opening), foam installation in designs with the permanent damming boards can be handled in an expedient manner. For example, instead of waiting for 15 minutes between the foam pours, a 5 minute waiting period should be sufficient for installation of the foam in a foam / perma-nent damming design. 4. Mixing Ratio Check It is recommended to conduct mixing ratio check of foam dispensing equipment at least once every shift at the beginning of each shift. During the field observation which followed the meeting, I had oppor-tunity to inspect two silicone foam penetration seals which had been suspected of posing foam shrinkage problems. Neither one of the EXH19Fr 6I ___ p;cE 4( OF !%. P'" ^ Q-G.,
4 v. l seals exhibited gaps greater than the maximum allowable limits described earlier in this letter. The appearance of those two foam seals was a typical one I have seen.at many other nuclear power plant's, and I could not find any defects in them. If you have any questions on the subjects covered in this letter, please let me know. Yours truly, H. Takahashi Sr.. Technical Service Specialist Technical Service'and Development cc: W. G. Carter - Stone & Webster Engineering, Corp., CT. J. P. Carter - Stone & Webster Engineering, Corp., CT. l i l l D3/J/ sis EXH!DtT C I J'f k OF JNQ_ P age'* 3 .}}