Text

Forwards Evaluation of Fire Seal Selection Acceptance Criteria as Discussed in 861015 Meeting.Encl 2 Provides Addl Info Re Nelson Clk,Per 861118 Meeting Summary
	ML20207F840
Person / Time
Site:	Brunswick
Issue date:	12/31/1986
From:	Zimmerman S; CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT CO.
To:	; NRC OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION (ADM)
References
	NLS-86-448, NUDOCS 8701060239
	Download: ML20207F840 (23)
	v • d • e

n. ,

. . CD&L Carolina Power & t.lght Company SERIAL: NLS-86-448 REF: 10CFR50, Appendix R DEC 31 1986 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Attention: Document Control Desk Washington, D.C. 20555 BRUNSWICK STEAM ELECTRIC PLANT, UNIT NOS.1 AND 2 DOCKET NOS. 'm-124/ LICENSE NOS. DPR-71 & DPR-62 FIRE BARRIER TRATION SEALS Gentlemen:

Carolina Power & Light Company (CP&L) hereby provides additional information regarding fire barrier penetration seals as requested in your letter dated November 18,1986. This request stems from the meeting with your staff on October 15,1986, where CP&L presented an evaluation of Fire Seal Selection Acceptance Criteria for Brunswick Steam Electric Plant fire barrier penetration seals.

This selection criteria is used for the various types of penetration seals in use at Brunswick Steam Electric Plant. Seal types include cellular concrete, insulating cement (both previously accepted via Safety Evaluation Report), silicon-based sealants, fire-rated link seals, fire-rated dampers, and grout.

As discussed in this meeting and recommended by your staff we are transmitting our evaluation as Enclosure 1 for your review. Enclosure 2 prov,i des the additional information regarding Nelson CLK requested in your Meeting Summary letter dated November 18,1986, and includes (1) a summary of the test report,(2) a discussion of the equivalence between the tested seal configuration and the installed configuration at the Brunswick facility and (3) sketches of the as-tested and as-installed seal configuration.

This transmittal documents the information which was presented in the subject meeting.

your staff generally agreed Based that CP&Lon should the information provided at not stop installation of the subject the seals meeting,he while t staff performed its review of the enclosed documentation. This was because the information presented by CP&L did not appear to be inconsistent with that accepted by the staff for penetration seats at other facilities, it is CP&L's belief that the proposed seal acce alternative to the guidance of BTP ASB and 9.5-1,ptance the Company criteria provides believes that youran acceptable review will come to the same conclusion.

Should you have any questions with regard to this request, please contact Mr. M. Ronald Oates at (919) 836-606J.

Yours very truly, R'*t88?i 8tb88bu PDR 4Vp S. R. Zimm rman Manager PS/bmc (5082PSA) Nuclear Licensing Section Enclosures cc: Mr. W. H. Ruland (NRC-BNP)

Dr. J. Nelson Grace (NRC-RII) f Mr. E. Sylvester (NRC) 0 411 Fayettevene street e P. o Dox 1551

Rale +gh. N C 27602 \

pro.wpw a.mugsgm emu 2m.- 1 .

9 9

Enclosure I i

f i

I l

l I

(5082PSA/kts)

BRUNSWICK NUCLEAR PROJECT EVALUATION OF FIRE SEAL SELECTION ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA (5082PSA/kts)

Page 1-I. INTRODUCTION:

The purpose of this document is to establish Carolina Power A Light .

Company's (CPAL's) Licensing Basis for Fire Seal Selection Acceptance Criteria at the Brunswick Steam Electric Plant (BSEP). - l BSEP has been utilizing an NRC accepted seal design that meets the criteria of Appendix A to BTP APCSB 9.5-1. This design has been in use

>> since'1979. While this design meets Appendix A criteria, difficulties have been encountered with installation and maintenance. Consequently, CPAL investigated a broad spectrum of sealant materials, extensively reviewed test reports, evaluated the feasibility of installation and evaluated the cost-effectiveness of many seal designs. The objectives of this effort _were to identify seal designs that were:

Qualified for a fire resistance rating commensurate with.that required of the barrier in which fire seal is installed.

Suitable for a wide range of applications. _,

Relatively simple to install, utilizing cost-effective sealant materials and can be installed from one side of the fire barrier (thereby minimizing potential dual outage requirements).

CPAL has found suitable new candidate materials and designs, as identified in BSEP Specification 118-003, but has determined that some of these seals meet the industrially accepted 325*F temperature rise criterion rather than the 250*F temperature rise criterion specified in various NRC Staff guidance. It is CP&L's position, however, that the 325 F rise is a technically acceptable criterion for which justification has been provided in Section IV of this document.

A review of the fire seal test criteria in the Design Rasis Document (DBD)83219-1 demonstrates that Brunswick Steam Electric Plant (BSEP) meets the' intent of the NRC guideline (s).

II. NRC REQUIREMENTS / GUIDANCE:

Appendix A to BTP APCSB 9.5-1 incorporates by reference the specific test procedures outlined in ASTM Standard E119 (NFPA-251).

The ASTM E119 test was originally intended to determine the fire resisting capability of walls and floor assemblies. As such, it does /

not specifically address testing procedures for penetration seals.

The acceptance criteria of ASTM E119 states that the average temperature rise on the unexposed side of the test assembly should not exceed 250*F above ambient and that no single point should exceed 325*F above ambient. .

t i

Page 2 Further requirements for penetration seals are stated in paragraph III.M of Appendix R to 10CFR50, Appendix R. BSEP penetration seal designs were approved by SER under the Appendix A program, and as such requirements of Appendix R, paragraph III.M were not a backfit for BSEP. However, Appendix R paragraph III.M does establish the regulatory basis f or the NRC Staff guidance.

"III.M. Fire Barrier Cable Penetration Seal Qualification Penetration seal designs shall utilize only noncombustible materials and shall be qualified by tests that are comparable to tests used to rate fire barriers. The acceptance criteria for the test shall include:

1. The cable fire barrier penetration seal has withstood the fire endurance test without passage of flame or ignition of cables on the unexposed side for a period of time equivalent to the fire resistance rating required of the barrier;

2. The temperature levels recorded for the unexposed side are analyzed and demonstrate the maximum temperature is sufficiently below the cable insulation ignition temperature; and

3. The fire barrier penetration seal remains intact and does not allow projection of water beyond the unexposed surface during the hose stream test."

As can be seen, this requirement paraphrases the Appendix A guideline, but in very generalized terms. The acceptance criteria includes a limitation of temperature rise to a point "...sufficiently below the cable insulation ignition temperature..."

NUREG-0800 (BTP CMEB 9.5-1) Section C.S.a (3) states:

Penetration designs should utilize only noncombustible materials and should be qualified by tests. The penetration qualification tests should use the time-temperature exposure curve specified by ASTM E119, " Fire Test of Building Construction and Materials." The acceptance criteria for the test should require that:

a. "The fire barrier penetration has withstood the fire endurance test without passage of flame or ignition of cables on the unexposed side for a period of time equivalent to the fire resistance rating required of the barrier."

b. "The temperature levels recorded for the unexposed side are analyzed and demonstrate that the maximum temperature does not exceed 325'F."

c. "The fire barrier penetration remains intact and does not allow projection of water beyond the unexposed surface during the hose stream test. The stream shall be delivered through L

T -

Page 3

c. (Cont'd) a 1-1/2 inch nozzle set at a discharge angle of 30 with a nozzle pressure of 75 psi and a minimum discharge of 75 gpm with the tip of the nozzle a maximum of 5 ft. from the exposed face; or the stream shall be delivered through a 1-1/2 nozzle set at a discharge angle of 15 with a nozzle pressure of 75 psi and a minimum discharge of 75 gpm with the tip of the nozzle a maximum of 10 ft. from the exposed face; or the stream shall be delivered through a 2-1/2 inch national standard playpipe equipped with 1-1/8 inch tip, nozzle pressure of 30 psi, located 20 f t. from the exposed face."

Paragraph (b), above, states that the maximum temperature should not exceed 325 F.- It is generally accepted that this value is arrived at by considering a 250' rise above the ambient laboratory temperature of 75 F.

III. BSEP FIRE SEAL TESTING / ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA:

CPAL's fire seal testing / acceptance criteria for BSEP constitute a conservative, responsible approach, and is a position based on current BSEP Regulatory Commitments and criteria selected from several industry and regulatory standards.

l.. Fire Exposure Testing Criteria Fire exposure curve per ASTM E119-83, with monitoring of furnace performance as defined in ASTM E119-83, Section 4.

2. Hose-Stream Testing and Acceptance Criteria The imposition of hose-stream testing, the hose-stream specifications, and acceptance criteria shall be in accordance with ASTM E119-83, ASTM E814-83, UL 1479 or equivalent.

3 Unexposed Surface Temperature Measurement and Acceptance Criteria At least one thermocouple shall be located on the unexposed surface of the sealant material. Additional thermocouples to be placed to permit measurement of temperature at the interface between the fire seal and any penetrating components. These thermocouple location criteria are based on the guidance of ASTM E119-83 and IEEE 634-1978.

Page 4 3 .

The temperature rise should not exceed 325'F above ambient, consistent with ANI/MAERP temperature rise criteria -(Source:

ANI/MAERP Standard Method of Fire Tests of Cable and Pipe Penetration Fire Stops; February,1976). Any temperature exceeding 325 F above ambient shall be analyzed, and if justifiable, dispositioned by an engineering evaluation performed by a fire protection engineer.

IV. TECHNICAL JUSTIFICATION FOR PROPOSED .125'F TEMPERATURE RISE ACCEPTANCE CRITdRIA:

CPAL has determined that some of the new penetration seals identified in BSEP Specification 118-003, although tested per generally accepted industry practices, varies somewhat from the NRC Staff guidance. The seals have been tested in accordance with the provisions of IEEE-634 and ANI/MAERP. The primary differences between these test methods and the NRC Staff guidance are the acceptance criteria for the unexposed side temperature rise. The NRC Staff guidance generally limits the peak temperature to 325 F. ANI/MAERP test methods specify 325 F above ambient. IEEE-634 states that the penetration surface temperature should be sufficiently below the self ignition temperature of the cable (consistent with Section III.M of Appendix R).

Original fire testing, performed in the late 1970s for BSEP, was conducted in accordance with the testing and acceptance criteria of ASTM E119. As noted in the January 1,1977 Fire Protection Program Review, fire barrier penetration seals were qualified to 3-hour rating per ASTM E119.

Paragraph D.3.d of Appendix A to BTP APCSB 9.5-1 specifies that penetration seals should, as a minimum, meet the requirements of ASTM E119, " Fire Tests of Building Construction and Materials". The acceptance criteria of ASTM E119 states that the average temperature rise on the unexposed side of the test assembly should not exceed 250 F above ambient and that no single point should exceed 325'F above ambient. The ASTM E119 test is intended for wall and floor assemblies. Thermocouples are placed at a number of locations on the test assembly in order to record the average temperature rise. When testing penetration seals, insufficient surface area is present to mount a number of thermocouples. Specific criteria for location of penetration seal thermocouples is not addressed in ASTM E119. Other test methods specifically address this issue and have been used by BSEP. These test methods contain a single point maximum rise of 325'F above ambient temperature and, therefore, was used to qualify penetration seals. This concept is reflected in the ASTM E814 (UL 1479) test method. ANI/MAERP test methodology also specifies a single point maximum temperature of 325 F above ambient.

4 u*E E *4.h.+J- m. A a*4ah .is

' I Page 5

_.~ ,

-It was'further recognized that the influence of penetrating elements such as pipe or rigid steel conduit could adversely affect localized temperatures.on the unexposed side of the seal,.thus providing cause for rejection of an otherwise acceptable seal.. Further complexity is

. introduced.by the widely variable unexposed surface temperature rise criteria, ranging from 250*F above ambient ( ASTM E119) to 700'F (IEEE 634).

The issue of temperature rise on the unexposed surface of fire barrier penetration seals centers around the concern over possible ignition of

. combustible materials in contact with-or in the immediate vicinity of the " cold" side of the seal, thus causing a secondary fire in the the unexposed zone. This issue is of primary concern for electrical cable penetrations, in.that (combustible) cable-insulation is in contact with

! the seal, and the conductors are heated by the fire. The concern is mitigated by the acceptance criteria in the' test, which states that no flaming of cable insulation shall occur on the cold side.

The potential for combustibles other than cable insulation being located in.the vicinity of the penetration seals is.small. There'are two reasons.for this. First, areas where penetration are located tend

, to be congested due to the penetrants thems0lves, tending to preclude

! the accumulation of transient materials. Second, administrative i controls dictate which materials are acceptable inside plant structures, where they may be located and used, and how they are to be !

contained. These controls also provide for independent surveillance for procedure compliance.

Should' combustible materials encountered in the nuclear. plant l environment be present in the vicinity of a barrier, their ignition by .

~L exposure to the unexposed surface of a fire barrier is considered to be '

unlikely. The basis for this position is that in the first place, 4 .

material will never experience the unexposed surface temperature unless it is in direct contact with the barrier. Even a small amount of separation will preclude heat transfer by conduction and only slightly more distance will eliminate any convective heating. Thus, in most

-cases, the sole or predominant heat transfer mechanism is by radiation. This would preclude the exposed materials from even closely

[

approaching the barrier surface temperature.

' In the second place, for the type of material normally found in the plant, the additional 75'F temperature rise would not introduce a '

significant risk factor to material ignition.

Thus, even assuming an absence of administrative controls, a secondary fire resulting from a barrier unexposed side temperature rise of 325*F

. is not credible.

For mechanical (piping) penetrations, the BSEP design objective, per DBD 83219-1, is to limit the temperature rise on the unexposed surface

, to 325'F above ambient, the same limit imposed for electrical cable penetrations.

s t-

_m-- . ,,r_,_. - . - , , , ,___

Page 6 e

The differential between the two acceptance temperatures (75 F) is inconsequential in light of the following reasons:

1. The margin of. safety afforded by the 325*F temperature rise

. limit is adequate. The IEEE 383 type cable at BSEP provides assurance that the self-ignition of cable insulation is not a credible occurrence, although a 75'F higher temperature rise is allowed by the BSEP acceptance criteria.

2 For each of the tested seal configurations, the maximum temperatures obtained on the unexposed surface of the seal remained well below the self-ignition temperature of the cable insulation, taken as a nominal 700'F as stated in IEEE-634 In the worst case cable-to-conduit seal temperatures measured, the highest temperature obtained was approximately 600*F (on 4

the conduit and on the cable), leaving a 100 F margin - below the auto-ignition, temperature of the cable insulation.

Additionally, this is not considered to be a failure due to the following statement in the ANI/MAERP test method:

"If a thermocouple on the fire stop material exceeds 325 F above ambient, the reason shall be investigated and if found to be high due to metal passing through the material, the reading shall be disregarded."

A survey of previously approved designs at other plants indicates that the NRC Staff position is consistent with ANI on this criteria.

' The current regulatory basis (though not applicable to BSEP per se) for the testing and qualification of fire barrier cable penetration seals is provided by 10CFR50, Appendix R, Section III.M. The criterion imposed for temperature rise on the unexposed side of the seal are stated in Section III.M.2: "The temperature levels recorded for the unexposed side are analyzed and demonstrate that the maximum temperature is sufficiently below the cable insulation ignition temperature".

Based on the above evaluation, CP&L concludes that the penetration seal design acceptance criteria for BSEP is technically acceptable as it will preclude the self ignition of combustibles on the unexposed side.

4

, - -- ,wr- - , - - -- ,- y y- w - + - -

Page 7 i

V. CONCLUSIONS:

The penetration seal DBD 83219-1 meets the intent of the NRC Guideline (s):

1. Fire Exposure Conditions NRC criteria specify the use of the ASTM - E119 fire exposure test.

RSEP DBD 83219-1 meets this NRC Guideline.

2. Hose-Stream Testing Conditions The ASTM E119 hose-stream test is consistent with the NRC hose-stream testing alternatives.

Therefore, BSEP DBD 83219-1 meets this NRC Guideline.

3. Unexposed Surface Temperature Measurement and Acceptance Criteria

a. Location:

NRC criteria does not precisely specify the placement of thermocouples on the unexposed surface of the test sample. The criteria used by BSEP DBD 83219-1, which is based on IEEE-634 appropriately meet the intent of the NRC temperature measurement guideline,

b. Temperature Rise:

Various industry criteria specify a maximum acceptable temperature rise of 325*F above ambient, and new seal designs have been selected accordingly.

Where localized temperatures (adjacent to metal masses) have subsequently exceeded this value for obvious and justifiable reasons, these temperatures have been dispositioned in the evaluation of the fire test results.

BSEP meets the guidelines set forth in various industry standards for penetration fire seal.

The BSEP acceptance temperature criterion of 400 F (325'F plus nominal 75'F ambient) ensures that a substantial thermal safety margin is maintained for the unexposed surface of BSEP fire seal designs, i.e., the maximum temperature remains sufficiently below the cable insulation ignition temperature.

i

- o ..

Page 8 In this context, the margin of safety afforded by a 250*F temperature rise limit is not significantly greater than:

that established by the 325*F limit. Accordingly, the BSEP

.. temperature rise criterion is consistent with the intent of the (nonspecific) temperature rise criterion of Appendix R,Section III.M.2.

Therefore, RSEP DBD 83219-1 meets the intent of the NRC guideline.

9 I

J

?

e 4

i

Enclosure 2 i

r l

r i

l l.

l l

[

l (5082PSA/kts) t 1

ADVANTAGES OF NELSON ELECTRIC SEALS Simple to install.

No specialized training required.

Tested for a wide range of applications, for example cable-to-conduit or pipe-to-sleeve seal designs.

No expensive equipment needed to install seals. No mixing or pouring required.

Utilizes cost-effectiv'e sealant material . '

Possesses desirable properties such as nonshrinking, waterproof, high adhesion, snoke and gas tight, easily repenetrated.

No cable derating required.

Can be installed from one side of the barrier.

l DESCRIPTION OF NELSON ELECTRIC SEAL COMPONENTS l (1) Nelson RSW - Rockwool treated with an intumescent material.

(2) Nelson CLK - Silicone rubber based fire sto'p caulk. Service temperatures: -49' to 284 *F 1

1

~

.O P t f

l' .

r ;

' SKETCH A PI PE-TO-SLEEVE 4 CONDUIT-TO-SLEEVE -

This seal Figure 1).configuration was fire tested with a single layer of Nelson CLK on the " cold" side of the Nelson RSW (See No fire tests were conducted with the CLK on the fire side in the referenced fire tests. The BSEP seal design specifies a layer of CLK on both sides of the RSW (see Figure 2). This ensures that a seal design is provided consistent with the tested configuration regardless of which side of the barrier the fire originates.

(1) Sleeve 36 (3720F) _ SEAL INSTALLATION SIDE N (2) Nelson CLK 63-(2950F) " (0.5" thick)

_35 (2210F)

( ., M 2

6r [1 (3) Nelson RSW 3

),.- 't****$* 1

, . I} 3-Hour Rated l

' -^

e CF **.*

(8.0" thick) i'*

f ,* , ,

f g Concrete Wall ".1 (4) Conduit or Pipe 3 1 L or Floor , ,

2 1 (S) Back damming Material r 3 5 3-Hour Rated Nelson RSW c.; Kaowool Concrete Wall (see NOTE bick page)

, or Floor FIRE SIDE (6). Inner Layer of CLK (0.5" thick)

BSEP SEAL DESIGN FIRE TESTED CONFIGURATION INSTALLATION CONFIGURATION FIGURE 1 FIGURE 2 Maximum fesp. = 325 + 68 = 393*F Nelson Electric b

Nelson Test Report 057. Configuration P2

Test conducted in accordance with CAN4-SilS, Standard Method of Fire Tests of Firestop Systems ( ASTM E814).

Time / temperature curve E119.

Maxista annular space - 5" from pipe to sleeve (392 in.2 max.).

F rating - 3 hours3.472222e-5 days 8.333333e-4 hours 4.960317e-6 weeks 1.1415e-6 months (as established by test).

T rating - 3 hours3.472222e-5 days 8.333333e-4 hours 4.960317e-6 weeks 1.1415e-6 months (as established from T/C readings on seal surface as defined in DBD) '

Passed hose stream (as established by E119 equivalent hose test). ,

}

r f*

_ NELSON TEST REPORT NO. 057, JANUARY 1986 Test Report:

Type Seal: Nelson Test Report No. 0$7 (Nov.1985)

Cable-to-Conduit, Pipe to Sleeve (Sketches A, B, C)

Vendor:

GS Nelson Electric Testing Lab.: UL of Canada Witnesses: Nelson Electric, ANI, ULC Test Date: January 1986 Test conducted in accordance with CAN4-S115 Standard Firestop Systems.

J Standard time / temperature curve per ASTM E119.

Minimun of 3 T/C's on seal surface Hose stream intnediately in 3accordance after hour test. with CAN4-5115 applied to test assem NOTE:

This seal design is normally installed with work accomplished from both sides of the barrier. This enables accurate measurements and confidence that the Nelson CLK is of the proper depth. When installed from one side of a barrier, additional control is desirable to assure the proper depth of the internal (fBr side) Nelson CLK seal. This is assured by the use of a backdamming material. Af ter installing a tight fitting plug of mineral fiber in the penetration, measurements are taken. A layer of CLK is installed and nieasurements again taken to assure the minimum depth is present. The remainder of the seal can then be installed.

I

SKETCH B CABLE-TO-CONDUIT 4

sa( (1) Nelson CLK O.5"THK.

ff _3, 3 ,,y) (2) Nelson RSW f 20343*r)

(3) Conduit or Pipe

. , :) *,.

h. r.

4 .,.*.f. k ",f (4) Cables e

\ Y.(h *[.

s , <

2 3 -HOUk RATED 8.0"THK. % ) CONCRETE WALL

)j OR FLOOR .

FIRE SIDE Maximum Temp. = 325 + 68 = 393*F .

,

Tested configuration similar to installed configuration. ~

Nelson Electric Nelson Test Report 057 Configuration P3 Test conducted in accordance with CAN4-S115 Standard Method of Fire Tests of Firestop Systems (ASTM E814).

Time / temperature curve E119.

F rating - 3 hours3.472222e-5 days 8.333333e-4 hours 4.960317e-6 weeks 1.1415e-6 months (as established by test).

T rating - 3 hours3.472222e-5 days 8.333333e-4 hours 4.960317e-6 weeks 1.1415e-6 months (as observed from T/C readings on seal surface as defined by the DBD) j Passed hose stream (as established by hose test).

l

t t

NELSON TEST REPORT NO. 057. JANUARY 1986 Test Report: Nelson Test Report No. 057 (Nov.1985) 1 Type Seal: l Vendor: Cable-to-Conduit, Pipe to Sleeve (Sketches A, B, C)

GS Nelson Electric Testing Lab.: UL of Canada Witnesses: Nelson Electric, ANI, ULC Test Date: January 1986 Test conducted Firestop Systems. in accordance with CAN4-S115. Standard Method of F Standard time / temperature curve per ASTM E119.

Minimum of 3 T/C's on seal surface.

Hose stream in immediately accordance after 3 hour3.472222e-5 days 8.333333e-4 hours 4.960317e-6 weeks 1.1415e-6 months test. with' CAN4-S115 applied to test assembly e

S e

e e

B C

4 e

9 g- r q". i *- - - - . . - . - , , , , , . , . . . - , . . . - - , , , - - - . . - - , - , ., . . - - - ,- -. , .

SKETCH C CAB '.E-TO-CONDUIT s 4 So(soq J 2 8.0"THK. (1)

Nelson CLK s

r

< -84399W (2) Nelson RSW mG (.3 beer) p f, ; ., ,- 'I , e, g. / (3)

)9 5

t..

"9

< 8* -

.- ?.*a. 6.t . i Conduit or P1pe

$ iblie

[ (4) Cables

( 1

'] _

)

1 3-HOUlt RATED' 0.S,,THK., w ) CONCRETE WALL OR FLOOR FIRE SIDE '

Maximun Temp. = 325 + 68 = 393*F

,

Tested configuration similar to installed configuration.

a

!

Nelson Electric -

Nelson Test Report 057 Test conducted in accor Configuration P4

of Firestop Systems (ASTM E814). dance with CAN-S115, Standard Method of F

Time /tenperature curve E119.

l

F rating - 3 hours3.472222e-5 days 8.333333e-4 hours 4.960317e-6 weeks 1.1415e-6 months (as established by test).

' defined by the D80)T rating - 3 hours3.472222e-5 days 8.333333e-4 hours 4.960317e-6 weeks 1.1415e-6 months (as observed from T/C readings o Passed hose stream (as established by hose test).

NELSON TEST REPORT 'NO. 057. JANUARY 1986 Test Repor't:

Type Seal: Nelson Test Report No. 057 (Nov.1985)

Vendor: Cable-to-Conduit, Pipe to Sleeve (Sketches A, B, C)

GS Nelson Electric Testing Lab.: UL of Canada Witnesses: Nelson Electric, ANI, ULC Test Date: January 1986 Test conducted Firestop Systems.in accordance with CAN4-S115, Standard Method of Fire Tests of Standard time / temperature curve per ASTM E119.

Minimum of 3 T/C's on seal surface.

Hose immediately streamafter in accordance 3 hour3.472222e-5 days 8.333333e-4 hours 4.960317e-6 weeks 1.1415e-6 months test.with CAN4-S115 applied to test assembly t

t s

O 6

i r- = a g4 - 9- --,yr-- w.-w-g+,--rw--w----+r-- -<,c w .- - . e,-s-em, - , - e e-,, em.,-e-,- - - - --- --- -* . * - --

SKETCH D CABLE-T0-CONDu!T This fiber seal (Seeconfiguration Figure 1). was fire tested with a single layer of Nelson CLK on the " cold" side of the Kaowool ceranic +

No fire tests have been conducted with the CLK on the fire side. The BSEP seal design specifies a layer of CLK on both sides of the Kaowool (see Figure 2). This ensures that a seal design is provided consistent with the tested configuration regardless of which side of the barrier the fire originates.

~

SEAL INSTALLATION SIDE 3 (1) Nelson CLK 38 (3340F) (0.5" thick) 33 (3470F) 32 (3430F) k h *

(2) Ceranic Fiber (Kaowoul)

(2.0" thick)

. I' 3-Hour Rated '

j '. \ . i Concrete Wall a

* ' 3-ilour

Rated (3) Conduit or Pipe

! \~ i \ - Concrete Wall l or Floor i

/Ea \

(4) Cables or floor (S) Back danning Material Nelson RSW or Kaowool (see NOTE back page)

FIRE SIDE (6) Inner Layer of CLK

(0.b, thick)

! BSEP SEAL DESIGN FIRE TESTED CONFIGURATION INSTALLATION CONFIGURATION FIGURE 1 FIGURE 2 i

Maximum Temp. = 325 + 68 = 393*F Fire Protection Energy Ir$corporated/ Nelson Electric Report on Service Penetration Assemblies for Fire Protection Energy, Inc.

UL of Canada, File CR1644, Configuration P7.

Test in accordance with CAN4-SilS, Standard Method of Fire Tests of Firestop Systems ( ASTM EB14).

F rating - 3 hours3.472222e-5 days 8.333333e-4 hours 4.960317e-6 weeks 1.1415e-6 months (as established by test).

T rating - 3 hours3.472222e-5 days 8.333333e-4 hours 4.960317e-6 weeks 1.1415e-6 months (as established froin T/C readings on seal surface).

Passed hose strean (as established by E119 equivalent hose test).

UNDERWRITERS LABORATORY OF CANADA, FILE CR1644, OCTOBER 1985 Test Report: UL of Canada, File CR 1644 Report on Service Penetration Assemblies for Fire Protection Energy, Inc.

Type Seal: Cable-to-Conduit (Sketch D)

Vendor: Fire Protection Energy, Inc.

Testing Lab.: UL of Canada Witnesses: Fire Protection Energy, Inc., ULC, ANI Test Date: October 1985 Test conducted in accordance with CAN4-S115, Standard Method of Fire Tests of Firestop Systems.

Standard time / temperature curve per ASTM E119. - -

Minimum of 3 T/C's on seal surface.

Hose stream in accordance with CAN4-5115 applied to test assembly inmediately after 3 hour3.472222e-5 days 8.333333e-4 hours 4.960317e-6 weeks 1.1415e-6 months test.

NOTE:

This seal design is normally installed with work accomplished from both sides of the barrier. This enables accurate measurements and confidence that the Nelson CLK is of the proper depth. When installed from one side of a barrier, additional control is desirable to assure the proper depth of the internal (far side) Nelson CLK seal. This is assured by the use of a backdenming material. Af ter installing a tight fitting plug of mineral fiber in the penetration, measurements are taken. A layer of CLK is installed and measurements again taken to assure the minimum depth is present. The remainder of the seal can then be installed.

e SKETCH E LIE SEAL W/ NELSON CLK.

SL(,29o*F)

- 5Ktf4*P) (1) Sl eeve 4

,9&od 3 2 0.5"THK. (2) Nelson CLK 1

(3) Conduit or Pipe a ** *. ~. "*}, *' ,M a . q . .; ,*

'. ",- Existing non-fire (4) 1;*-

- rated link seal mez a '

\

3-HOUR RATED 4 2 CONCRETE WALL 4 Od FLOOR 0.5"THK FIRE SIDE Maximum Temp. = 325 + 82 = 407'F

Tested configuration similar to installed configuration.

Test in accordance with ASTM E814, Fire Tests of Through-Penetration Fire Stops.

F rating - 3 hours3.472222e-5 days 8.333333e-4 hours 4.960317e-6 weeks 1.1415e-6 months (as established by test).

T rating - 3 hours3.472222e-5 days 8.333333e-4 hours 4.960317e-6 weeks 1.1415e-6 months (as observed from T/C readings on seal surface as defined by the D8D)

Passed hose stream (as established by test). Subjected to all 3 hose streams of ANI/MAERP.

. , _ . _ m. . _ _ _ _ , -

_-e

a 4

SwRI PROJECT NO. 01-8821-0289 Test Report: SWRI Project No. 01-8821-0289

~

Type Seal: Link Seal with 1/2" CLK Both Sides (Sketch E)

Vendor: GS Nelson Electric Testing Lab.: Southwest Research Institute Witnesses: NUS, CP&L. ANI, Southwest Research Institute, Williams Electric Test Date: August 4, 1986 Test conducted in acccrdance with ASTM E814.

Standard time / temperature curve per ASTM E119.

Minimum of 3 T/C's on seal surface.

Hose streams in accordance with ANI/MAERP applied to test assembly, imediately after 3 hour3.472222e-5 days 8.333333e-4 hours 4.960317e-6 weeks 1.1415e-6 months test.

+

4 e

e S

e 9

9

. .-e- - - _g. . . , , . - -

.+ _ , e , _ _ . - , , . . , _ - . _ _ _ . - _ _ _ _ _ , , _ y, , , _.,,_c- _ , . . , _ , _ ,

ML20207F840

Text

Navigation menu

Search