ML20211D134
| ML20211D134 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | LaSalle  |
| Issue date: | 10/14/1986 |
| From: | Allen C COMMONWEALTH EDISON CO. |
| To: | Harold Denton Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| 2264K, NUDOCS 8610220114 | |
| Download: ML20211D134 (6) | |
Text
j'
[,m)7 Commonwealth Edison 6
One First National Plaza, Chicago, Illinois i
\\ *-
Kddress Reply to: Post Office Box 767 Chicago, Illinois 60690 - 0767 October 14, 1986 Mr. Harold R. Denton, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation U.S. Nuclear. Regulatory Cennission Washington, DC 20555
Subject:
LaSalle County Station Units 1 and 2 NPF-11, License Condition 2.c.(25).(d)
NRC Docket Nos. 50-373 and 50-374
Dear Mr. Denton:
Attached is the UL letter from D.J. Kaiser to R.J. Janowiak (S&L) dated September 15, 1986.
In this letter UL reviewed the-construction for the applied stops on the door frames of openings 377, 380, 446, 447, 452 and 453. UL has concurred that the metallic part construction and application i
are the same as currently used on Pioneer's UL listed fire door frames.
Also attached is the UL letter from H.J. Gruszynski to R.J. Janowiak dated October 8, 1986, reporting the results of the chemical tests performed by UL on the gasketing material. SNED has reviewed this letter and has concluded the following:
1.
The appearance and dimensions of the tested gasketing material are within tolerances for Pioneer's UL labeled material, 2.
The material tested appears to be similar to Pioneers UL labeled material and 3.
Although the chemical test results are inconclusive, the test results do not indicate that incorrect material was used.
Based upon our October 1, 1986, telephone conversation with the NRC, this transmittal should close out license condition No. NPF-ll, 2.C.(25)(d).
8610220114 861014
'0' PDR ADOCK 05000373 0
F PDR
)c'
\\
l
H. R. Denton October 14, 1986 Please direct any questions you may have regarding this matter to this office.
y truly yours,
- c. M. Allen Nuclear Licensing Administrator im Attachments cc:
Dr. A. Bournia - NRR Resident Inspector - LSCS D. Notley - NRR J. Muffett - Region III 2264K i
y UNDERWRITERS LABORATORIES INC.
333 PFINGSTL% ROAD %f 4tTHRRfM10LILLi%tMS A0062 8
a n independen t, not-for-pro, tit orga n rzation testingfor pubtle safety October 8, 1986 Sargent & Lundy Engineers Mr.
R.
J. Janowiak 55 E. Monroe St.
Chicago, IL 60603 Cear fir. Janowiak:
UL established Project 86NK21853 to conduct the investigation
-described in UL's letter dated September 11, 1986.
The purpose of the investigation was to review the installation frames installed in La Salle County Station.
-.4 -
The investigation was conducted as outlined in the Application forwarded with UL's September 11, 1986 letter.
The anticipated field inspection was conducted by James Urban on September 13, 1986.
The inspection was to review the "as installed" conditions of the specified openings.
The following summary represents the judgment of Underwriters Laboratories Inc., based upon the results of the examination as it relates to established principles and previously recorded data.
In prior reports you have been furnished with the~ observations made at La Salle.
This letter will describe the results of the examination of the gasketing material which was removed from opening 377 and brought to UL for examination.
The following is-a summary of what was found.
1.
The appearance and dimensions of the material were compared to the gasketing material used on Pioneer's UL Labeled frames and were within the tolerances for the material.
2.
The following chemical identification _ tests were conducted.
-Qualitative pyprolytic-gas chromraphfc analysis of the removed sample was compared to the pyrogram for material eligible to be used in Pioneer's UL Labeled frames.
The results of the comparison were inconclusive.
Look For The @ listing or Classification Mark On The Product M.ae (*124 272 Scot asce es.4 tee : 2S4-3343 Csame UUssC fsORTestsNX* %
MCI fews os. 6502543343 Tewcos.ee 1312 272-4'29
0 e
Page 2 October.8, 1986 Thermogravametric analysis of the removed sample was compared to an analysis of the material eligible to be used in Pioneer's UL Labeled frames.
The results of the comparison were inconclusive.
The results of the comparison showed that the materials were similar but there were some differences.
- However, it could not be determined if the differences resulted from different materials or if they were introduced by the natural aging affect of the rubber compound and/or the presence of foreign substances (paint, dirt, etc) being absorbed into the material during its installed life.
For your general information, we have enclosed a copy of the @6A s
comparison and copies of the CRGC charts.
In no event shall UL be responsible to anyone for whatever use or nonuse is made of the information~ contained in this report and in no event shall UL, its employees, or its agents incur any obligations or liability for damage, including, but not limited to consequential damages arising out.of or in connection with the use, or inability to use, the information contained in this report.
The issuance of this report in no way implies Listing, Classification, or other recommendations by UL and does not authorize the use of UL Listing or Classification Marks'or other reference to UL on or in connections'with the product or system.
With this Report, we-conclude our work on Project 86NK21853.
Very truly yours, Reviewed by:
AW W'
,H. J. GRUS K
J)MES J. URBAN Senior P t Engineer
@gineering Group Leader Fire Protection Department Fire Protection Department HJG/JJU:mjw LTR4
1 l
U
' UNDERWRITERS LABORATORIES INC
= m - -...
m.
oes.iu m.
an independent, nct-for profit organization testingfor public safety September 15, 1986 Sargent'& Lundy Engineers Mr. R.J. Janowiak 55 East Monroe Street 1
Chicago, IL 60603 Our
Reference:
NC963, 86NK21853
Dear Mr. Janowiak:
UL established Project 86NK21853 to conduct the investigation described in UL's letter dated September 11, 1986.
The purpose of the investigation was to review the installation of materials at LaSalle station.
The investigation was conducted as outlined in the Application.
forwarded with UL's September 11, 1986 letter.
The anticipated field inspection
.was conducted by Mr. James Urban on September 12, 1986.
The inspection was to review the "as installed" conditions of the specified openings.
The following summary represents the judgment of Underwriters Laboratories Inc., based upon the results of the examination as it relates to established principles and previously recorded data.
As anticipated; the construction of the applied stops on the door frames of openings 377, 380, 446, 447, 452 and 453.were reviewed.
It was found that the metalic part constructions and application are the same as presently used on Pioneer's UL Listed fire door frames.
A sample of the gasketing material, randomly removed from opening 377, as representative of the material in all six openings, was selected for chemical test verification.
The material was removed so as not to adversely affect. the frame's anticipated performance under fire exposure.
The results of the chemical check tests will be furnished,in a seperate report i
~
l 1
Look For The @ Listing or Classification Mark On The Product
UNDERWRITERS LABORATORIES INC.
September 15, 1986 Page 2 In no event shall UL be responsible to anyone for whatever use or nonuse is made of the information contained in this report and in no event shall UL, its employees, or its agents incur any obligations or liability for damage, including, but-not limited to consequential damages arising out of or in connection with the use, or inability to use, the information contained in this report.
The issuance of this report in no way implies Listing, Classificaiton, or other recommendations by UL and does not authorize the use of UL Listing or Classification Marks or other reference to UL on or in connections with the product or system.
Ve truly yours, DANIEL J. KAISER Senior Project Engineer Fire Protection Department Reviewed by:
H.J. GRUSZ
' Senior Project Engineer Fire Protection Department DJKidp l
l L
-