View source for Information Notice 1994-22, Fire Endurance & Ampacity Derating Test Results for 3-Hour Fire-Rated Thermo-Lag 330-1 Fire Barriers

{{Adams
| number = ML031060605
| issue date = 03/16/1994
| title = Fire Endurance & Ampacity Derating Test Results for 3-Hour Fire-Rated Thermo-Lag 330-1 Fire Barriers
| author name = Grimes B
| author affiliation = NRC/NRR
| addressee name = 
| addressee affiliation = 
| docket = 05000003, 05000010, 05000029, 05000133, 05000155, 05000171, 05000206, 05000213, 05000219, 05000220, 05000237, 05000244, 05000245, 05000247, 05000249, 05000250, 05000251, 05000254, 05000255, 05000259, 05000260, 05000261, 05000263, 05000265, 05000266, 05000267, 05000269, 05000270, 05000271, 05000272, 05000275, 05000277, 05000278, 05000280, 05000281, 05000282, 05000285, 05000286, 05000287, 05000289, 05000293, 05000295, 05000296, 05000298, 05000301, 05000302, 05000304, 05000305, 05000306, 05000309, 05000311, 05000312, 05000313, 05000315, 05000316, 05000317, 05000318, 05000320, 05000321, 05000322, 05000323, 05000324, 05000325, 05000327, 05000328, 05000329, 05000330, 05000331, 05000333, 05000334, 05000335, 05000336, 05000338, 05000339, 05000341, 05000344, 05000346, 05000348, 05000352, 05000353, 05000354, 05000361, 05000362, 05000364, 05000366, 05000368, 05000369, 05000370, 05000373, 05000374, 05000382, 05000387, 05000388, 05000389, 05000390, 05000391, 05000395, 05000397, 05000400, 05000409, 05000410, 05000412, 05000413, 05000414, 05000416, 05000423, 05000424, 05000425, 05000437, 05000438, 05000439, 05000440, 05000441, 05000443, 05000444, 05000445, 05000446, 05000454, 05000455, 05000456, 05000457, 05000458, 05000461, 05000482, 05000483, 05000498, 05000499, 05000508, 05000528, 05000529, 05000530
| license number = 
| contact person = 
| document report number = IN-94-022, NUDOCS 9403150511
| document type = NRC Information Notice
| page count = 14
}}
{{#Wiki_filter:UNITED STATES

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555 March 16, 1994 NRC INFORMATION NOTICE 94-22:  FIRE ENDURANCE AND AMPACITY DERATING TEST

RESULTS FOR 3-HOUR FIRE-RATED THERMO-LAG 330-1 FIRE BARRIERS

==Addressees==
All holders of operating licenses or construction permits for nuclear power

reactors.

==Purpose==
6 The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is issuing this information

notice to inform licensees of the preliminary results of fire endurance and

ampacity derating tests of Thermo-Lag 330-1 (Thermo-Lag) fire barriers

conducted by the NRC at Underwriters Laboratories, Incorporated (UL). It is

expected that recipients will review the Information for applicability to

their facilities and consider actions as appropriate to avoid similar

problems. However, suggestions contained in this information notice are not

NRC requirements; therefore, no specific action or written response is

required.

==Description of Circumstances==
As part of its continuing evaluation of Thermo-Lag fire barrier performance, the NRC Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR) conducted three full-scale

fire endurance tests and one full-scale ampacity derating test of 3-hour

fire-rated Thermo-Lag fire barriers. The principal objective of the tests was

to evaluate the performance of the barriers against the results of tests

previously reported by Thermal Science, Incorporated (TSI, the vendor).

Sandia National Laboratories (SNL), Albuquerque, New Mexico, provided

technical assistance by designing and executing the test program and preparing

the test report. The base test specimens were constructed and instrumented at

SNL. The test specimen fire barriers were constructed at UL by trained

Thermo-Lag installers under the direction of SNL during October and

November 1993. The tests were conducted at UL under the direction of the NRC

and SNL during December 1993. The NRC staff informed the Nuclear Management

and Resources Council (NUMARC) of the test results during a public meeting at

NRC Headquarters on February 9, 1994. The final test results will be

documented in SNL Report SAND94-0146, "An Evaluation of the Fire Barrier

System Thermo-Lag 330-1." The staff will place this report in the NRC Public

Document Room after it is completed. The staff expects the report to be

completed during April 1994.                                                     _Efh-1X-
                                                                       9q 0 3 1(
9403150511   ,r

.    D9 qij4- o,2~.

af aqed 3/2!     5/Y                                             Il

<<J IN 94-22 March 16, 1994 Discussion

Each of the four base test articles was a U-shaped configuration laying

sideways which duplicated configurations, material specifications, dimensions, orientations, cable types and fills, and instrumentation, previously tested

and reported by the vendor. A single layer of cables was installed in each of

the fire test articles in accordance with the types and placements reported in

the vendor's test reports. The cable fill for the ampacity derating test

article is discussed under the "Ampacity Derating Test" section of this

information notice.

Each of the base test articles was protected by a 3-hour fire barrier formed

from two layers of nominal 3/4-inch-thick Thermo-Lag 330-1 preformed panel. SNL

purchased the Thermo-Lag preformed panels and trowel-grade material used to

construct the test article fire barriers from Texas Utilities Electric Company

(TU Electric). TU Electric performed a source inspection of the materials at

TSI and the NRR Vendor Inspection Branch conducted a receipt inspection of the

materials at the Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station when TU Electric

delivered the materials to SNL.

The fire barriers for Test Articles 1, 2, and 4, were constructed in

accordance with TSI Technical Note 20684, Revision V, "Thermo-Lag 330 Fire

Barrier System Installation Procedures Manual Power Generating Plant

Application," November 1985. The fire barrier for Test Article 3 was

constructed in accordance with the methods used by the vendor for Test

Article 4 of TSI Report 82-11-81, "Three Hour Fire Endurance Tests Conducted

on Test Articles Containing Generic Cables Protected with the Thermo-Lag 330-1 Subliming Coating Envelope System," November 1982. Table I summarizes the

test article characteristics.

The stress skin (an embedded wire mesh) for the inner barrier layer faced

toward the cable tray. The stress skin for the outer layer faced away from

the cable tray. All joints and seams were offset. The edges of the

individual panel sections were buttered with trowel-grade Thermo-Lag 330-1 material before they were joined and secured. This assembly technique, as

opposed to the dry-fit method, ensured that each Joint and seam was filled to

its full thickness with Thermo-Lag material. The individual barrier pieces

for Test Articles 1, 2, and 4 were banded with stainless steel tie wire. The

individual pieces for Test Article 3 were not banded. Instead, each seam and

joint was reinforced with stainless steel wire stitches and laces. In

addition, flanges were formed along the edges and butt Joints of the outer

layer. The flanges were bolted together with nominal k-inch-20 by 2-inch

machine bolts and hex-nuts. After the barriers were installed, the test

articles were cured for at least 30 days in a secure temperature-controlled

environment before the tests were conducted.

The instrumentation used to record test data, including the SNL data logging

equipment and the UL furnace-monitoring and control systems, was calibrated

using equipment traceable to National Institute of Standards and Technology

standards. NRC, SNL, and UL participated in and observed all four tests.

IN 94-22 March 16, 1994 Fire Endurance Tests

The following performance capabilities were evaluated: (1) the ability of the

Thermo-Lag barrier to keep the average temperature of the unexposed side of

the barrier (as measured on the exterior surface of the cable trays) from

rising more than 139 *C [250 OF] above the ambient temperature at the start of

the test, (2) the ability to keep the temperature of any single thermocouple

from rising more than 30 percent above the allowable average temperature rise

(181 'C [325 OF]), (3) the ability to maintain circuit integrity during the

fire exposure and hose stream test, (4) the ability to maintain the cables

free of visible fire damage, and (5) the ability to remain intact during the

fire and hose stream tests.

Temperatures were measured by Teflon-insulated Type K thermocouples installed

on certain cables (as documented in the vendor test reports). In addition, thermocouples were installed on the cable tray side rails, on the unexposed

side of the Thermo-Lag panels, and in the air space between the cables and the

unexposed side of the Thermo-Lag panels. In keeping with the objective of

evaluating thermal performance against test results previously reported by the

vendor, the temperature results reported below were those measured by the

thermocouples installed on the cables and the cable tray side rails. Four

cables in each of the fire tests were connected to a separate low-voltage

power supply (28-VDC, 1 Amp) which was configured to conduct circuit-to- circuit (conductor-to-conductor), circuit-to-ground (conductor-to-ground), and

circuit-to-system (conductor continuity) integrity tests as documented in the

vendor test reports.

The three fire endurance tests were performed in the UL column furnace. To

facilitate duplication of the original TSI test configurations, UL modified

the nominal 10-foot by 10-foot by 10-foot furnace to allow the test to be

inserted into the furnace through one of the furnace walls. The standard

time-temperature fire from American Society for Testing of Materials (ASTM)
Standard E-119-75, "Standard Methods of Fire Tests of Building Construction

and Materials," was followed. UL technicians operated the test furnace and

recorded the furnace temperature data. SNL provided the instrumentation and

data acquisition system for obtaining and recording the test temperature and

circuit integrity data. During the fire exposure, visual observations were

made through viewing ports located in three of the furnace walls. The

following test results are summarized in Table 2.

Article I was tested on December 8, 1993. The ambient temperature at the

start of the test was 19 OC [66 OF]. Therefore, the average temperature rise

criterion for this test was 158 *C [316 OF] and the single-point temperature

rise criterion was 200 *C [392 *F]. The single-point temperature criterion

was exceeded about 1 hour and 5 minutes after the start of the test (1:05). A

conductor-to-ground fault was detected at about 1:16 and the average

temperature rise criterion was exceeded at about 1:20. The test was

terminated at 2:30.

Article 2 was tested on December 7, 1993. The ambient temperature at the

start of the test was 19 'C [66 OF]. Therefore, the average temperature rise

criterion for this test was 158 *C [316 OF] and the single-point temperature

\J

V   IN 94-22 March 16, 1994 rise criterion was 200 *C [392 'FJ. The single-point temperature criterion

was exceeded at about 0:55, a conductor-to-ground fault was detected at

about 0:59, and the average temperature criterion was exceeded at about 1:03.

The test was terminated at 2:00.

Article 3 was tested on December 6, 1993. The ambient temperature at the

start of the test was 20 OC (68 *F]. Therefore, the average temperature rise

criterion for this test was 159 'C [318 'F] and the single-point temperature

rise criterion was 201 *C [394 'FJ. The single-point temperature criterion

was exceeded at about 1:50, the average temperature rise criterion was

exceeded at about 1:58, and a conductor-to-ground fault was detected at

about 1:59. The test was terminated at 3:00.

For all three fire tests, when the tests were terminated, most of the

individual thermocouples exceeded the single point temperature criterion. In

addition, Thermo-Lag panels had fallen off the test articles exposing the

cable trays and cables to the fire. Most of the remaining Thermo-Lag had been

reduced to char. Post-test inspections revealed that all of the cable Jacket

and conductor insulation had been consumed during the fire exposures. Only

bare copper conductors remained in the cable trays. Detailed test results, including temperature data, observations and photographs will be provided in

SNL Report SAND94-0146.

The test plan specified that a standard ASTM solid hose stream test would be

performed at the end of the fire test. However, because of the early

termination of two of the three tests and the poor condition of all three

articles when the tests were terminated, the hose stream tests were not

conducted. Less severe hose streams were used, however, to extinguish the

burning Thermo-Lag material and to cool the test articles. These hose streams

washed away most of the Thermo-Lag that had not fallen from the articles

during the fire exposure.

===Ampacitv Derating Test===
Test Article 4 was an ampacity derating test article constructed in accordance

with TSI Report 82-5-355F, "Ampacity Derating Test for 1000V Power Cables in a

tadder Cable Tray Protected with a Three Hour Rated Design of the

Thermo-Lag 330-1 Subliming Coating Envelope System,' July 13, 1982. The cable

tray was loaded to about 60 percent of the full tray depth with 20 lengths of

1/C, 2/0 AWG, 600-V cable; 58 lengths of 1/C, 4 AWG, 600-V cable; and 99 lengths of 1/C, 8 AWG, 600-V cable. One length represented one pass through

the cable tray. All of the cables of a given cable size were Joined together

into a single electrical loop. Each loop was instrumented with six 24-gauge

bare-bead Type K thermocouples with welded Junctions. In each case, the

insulation on the cable was slit so that the thermocouple Junction could be

installed below the insulation in contact with the conductor. Thermocouples

were also installed on the cable tray side rails, on the inner surface of the

fire barrier, and on the outer surface of the fire barrier. Three

thermocouples were installed to measure the ambient temperature in the test

chamber discussed below.

IN 94-22 March 16, 1994 Cable ampacity and temperature data was obtained for Test Article 4 before the

Thermo-Lag fire barrier was installed (baseline or unprotected cable tray

data). On October 14, 1993, Article 4 was placed in a high-ambient

temperature environmental test chamber set at 40 DC [104 OF] and allowed to

soak for about four hours. A separate power supply was connected to each of

the three cable loops and power was applied according to an initial estimate

of the ampacity of each cable. The amperage was adjusted over a period of

about six hours until it appeared that a steady state conductor temperature

near 90 *C [194 *F] at the hot spot for each cable size would be reached. The

test article was left to settle overnight (about 16 hours). The next day, final ampacity adjustments were made, and the test article was again allowed

to settle (typically two to three hours after each adjustment). Stable

conditions were achieved after the final adjustments when the cable

temperatures did not fluctuate more than +/-1 OC [1.8 *F] between repeated

10-minute interval data scans. After stable conditions were reached, the

baseline temperatures were logged at 10-minute intervals for a final 1-hour

period. Cable amperage readings were also taken at the beginning and end of

the final hour to verify the presence of stable source currents. Following

the baseline test, the 3-hour Thermo-Lag fire barrier described above was

installed on Article 4 and allowed to cure. On December 9 and 10, 1993, the

protected cable tray ampacity and temperature data were obtained in accordance

with the process used to obtain the baseline data.

Baseline and protected cable ampacity adjustment factors (AF) were calculated

for each cable size according to the following formula from Insulated Cable

Engineers Association (ICEA) Standard P-46-426, "Power Cable Ampacities:"
                     =r I,(AF,) W

c cc     &#xa2;
                                   IC  TcI

4(Tc 0 - T

T,a

234.5
                                                   245~~    T1 4
                                                  234.5 ++ Vc)
where the values with primes indicate the desired conditions and the values

without primes indicate the experimental data. Temperature units are degrees

Celsius. For both the baseline and the protected cases, the desired cable

temperature (T') was 90 *C [194 OF] and the desired ambient temperature (T')
was 40 'C [104 IF]. The measured baseline temperatures and ampacities and the

calculated baseline ampacity adjustment factors are provided in Table 3. The

measured temperatures and ampacities and the calculated ampacity adjustment

factors for the protected cables are provided in Table 4. For both the

baseline and protected cases, the average of the hot-spot cable temperatures

recorded at 10-minute intervals during the final hour were used to calculate

the ampacity adjustment factor for that cable.

The ampacity derating factor (ADF) for each cable type is the ratio of the

reduction in current carrying capacity (protected ampacities) to the original

;.                                                         '_.<J

IN 94-22 March 16, 1994 current carrying capacity (baseline ampacities).      The ADF for each cable type

was calculated using the following formula:
                       ADF    Ibaslne      jIProtected (100)
                                    Ibasollne

In this format, the ADF is expressed as a percentage drop in current-carrying

capacity. The calculated ampacity derating factors were 46.4 percent,
36.0 percent, and 35.3 percent for the 8 AWG, 4 AWG, and 2/0 cables, respectively. Table 5 provides a comparative summary of the ampacity data and

ampacity derating factors from the SNL/UL test and the results reported by the

vendor in TSI Report 82-5-355F. Table 5 also shows the results of

recalculations performed by SNL of the test data reported in TSI

Report 82-5-355F. Detailed explanations of the two-sted recalculations, which

were needed to allow comparisons of the SNL/UL test resulte with the reported

vendor test results, will be documented in SNL Report SAND94-0146.

This information notice requires no specific action or written response. If

you have any questions about the information in this notice, please contact

the technical contact listed below or the appropriate Office of Nuclear

Reactor Regulation (NRR) project manager.

Brian K. Grimes, Director

Division of Operating Reactor Support

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

Technical contact:   Steven West, NRR

(301) 504-1220
Attachments:
1. Table 1, 'Summary of Test Article

Characteristics," and Table 2, "Summary

of Fire Endurance Test Results."
2. Table 3, "Baseline (Unprotected Cable

Tray) Ampacity Test Data and Calculations,'
      and Table 4, "Protected Cable Tray Ampacity

Test Data and Calculations."
3. Table 5, Comparative Summary of Ampacity

Test Data and Derating Factors."
4. List of Generic Communications Concerning

Fire Barriers

5. List of Recently Issued NRC Information Notices

;y t achment I

IN94-22 March 16, 1994 Table 1. Summary of Test Article Characteristics

Article     Tetjye     IDescription                          Barrier Design

1          3-Hour      6-inch-wide by 6-inch-high,          Based on TSI

Fire        solid-bottom, steel cable tray       Technical

Endurance   based on Test Article 2 of TSI       Note 20684, Report 82-5-355B, "Three-Hour        Revision V,
                        Fire Endurance Test on               November 1985.

Thermo-Lag 330-1 Subliming

Coating Envelope System for

Washington Public Power Supply

System-Nuclear Projects,'
l _____  _ .July              1982.                        ,_l

2           3-Hour      12-inch-wide by 4-inch-high,         Same as Article 1.

Fire        ladder-back, steel cable tray

Endurance   based on Test Article 4 of TSI

Report 82-11-81, November 1982.

3           3-Hour      Same as Test Article 2.              Methods documented

Fire                                             in TSI Report

Endurance                                        82-11-81, November 1982.

4           Ampacity    12-inch-wide by 4-inch-high,         Same as Test

Derating    ladder-back, steel cable tray        Article 1.

based on TSI Report 82-5-355F,
lI                      July 13, 1982.

Table 2. Summary of Fire Endurance Test Results

(All times in Hours:Minutes from the start of the test)
   Article    Single Point     .    Average               Time to      Test

Temperature           Temperature           Circuit      Duration

Criterion and Time    Criterion and Time    Fault

to Exceed             to Exceed

1          200 -C [392  F]       158 *C [316 -F]
              1:05                  1:20                  1:16         2:30
   2          200 *C [392 *F]       158 *C [316 *F]
              0:55                  1:03                  0:59         2:00
   3          201 oC [394 OF]       159   C [318 *F     l

l           1:50                  1:58                  1:59         3:00

\--itachment 2 IN 94-22 March 16, 1994 Table 3. Baseline (Unprotected Cable Tray)
            Ampacity Test Data and Calculations

Cable  Tc (0C)     Ta (C) lI (Amps)        AFc     Ic (Amps)

===Size                                             I===
8 AWG    91.1        io.5        23.8     0.996       23.7
4 AWG    91.2        40.5        38.0     0.995       37.8
2/0      92.0        40.5       115.0     0.988       113.6 Table 4. Protected Cable Tray

Ampacity Test Data and Calculations

Cable  Tc l-C) lTa (C)      j Ic(Amps) j   AFC     I'c (Amps)
8 AWG    92.9         40.1  l    13.0     0.977        12.7
4 AWG    93.2         40.1       24.8     0.975       24.2
2/0      91.6         40.1  I    74.4   1 0.988       73.5 Key for Tables 3 and 4:
           TC =  Average of cable temperatures recorded at 10-minute

intervals during the final hour.

To = Average of ambient (test chamber) temperatures

recorded at 10-minute Intervals during the final

hour after reaching desired stable conditions.

IC a Measured cable ampacity at the end of the

final hour.

AFC = Cable ampacity adjustment factor.

I'C a Adjusted cable ampacity.

I   tachment 3 IN 94-22 March 16, 1994 Table S. Comparative Summary of Ampacity Data and Derating Factors

Cable Size     Data Source     Baseline       Protected        Derating

Ampacity      Ampacity          Factor

(Amps)         (Amps)           (Percent)
8 AWG          SNL              23.7          12.7             46.4 TSI 1            17.46         14.64            16.15 TSI 2            20.38         13.89            31.84 TS13             23.96         14.83            38.11
4 AWG          SNL              37.8          24.2             36.0
               TSI1             35.77         29.74            16.86 TS12             41.75         28.21            32.43 TSI3             41.75         28.21            32.43
2/0            SNL             113.6          73.5             35.3 TSP1            105.91         87.18            17.68 TSI2            123.60         82.69            33.10
               TSI 3           131.60         84.82            35.55
1 Data reported in TSI Report 82-5-355F, July 13, 1982.

2 Inverted term in ampacity adjustment factor (AF) equation corrected.

3 Measured individual conductor temperatures used to calculate ampacity

adjustment factors for each cable size.

_.>2tachment 4 IN 94-22 March 16, 1994 List of Generic Communications Concerning Fire Barriers

Information Notice 91-47, 'Failure of Thermo-Lag Fire Barrier Material

to Pass Fire Endurance Test," August 6, 1991 Information Notice 91-79, "Deficiencies in the Procedures for

Installing Thermo-Lag Fire Barrier Materials," December 6, 1991 Information Notice 92-46, 'Thermo-Lag Fire Barrier Material Special

Review Team Final Report Findings, Current Fire Endurance Tests, and

Ampacity Calculation Errors," June 23, 1992 Bulletin 92-01, "Failure of Thermo-Lag 330 Fire Barrier System to

Maintain Cabling in Wide Cable Trays and Small Conduits Free from Fire

Damage," June 24, 1992 Information Notice 92-55, "Current Fire Endurance Test Results for

Thermo-Lag Fire Barrier Material," July 27, 1992 Bulletin 92-01 Supplement 1, "Failure of Thermo-Lag 330 Fire Barrier

System to Perform Its Specified Fire Endurance Function,"

===August 28, 1992===
Information Notice 92-82, "Results of Thermo-Lag 330-1 Combustibility

Testing," December 15, 1992 Generic Letter 92-08, "Thermo-Lag 330-1 Fire Barriers,"

===December 17, 1992===
Information Notice 93-40, "Fire Endurance Test Results for Thermal

Ceramics FP-60 Fire Barrier Material," May 26, 1993 Information Notice 93-41, "One Hour Fire Endurance Test Results for

Thermal Ceramics Kaowool, 3M Company FS-195 and 3M Company

Interam E-50 Fire Barrier Systems," May 28, 1993

A 9chment 5 Io-4-22 March 16, 1994 LIST OF RECENTLY ISSUED

NRC INFORMATION NOTICES

Information                                   Date of

Notice No.            Subject                 Issuance    Issued to

94-21         Regulatory Requirements        03/18/94     All fuel cycle and materials

when No Operations are                      licensees.

being Performed

94-20         Common-Cause Failures          03/17/94    All holders of OLs or CPs

due to Inadequate                           for nuclear power reactors.

Design Control and

Dedication

94-19          Emergency Diesel               03/16/94    All holders of OLs or CPs

Generator Vulnerability                    for nuclear power reactors.

to Failure from Cold

Fuel Oil

Accuracy of Motor-             03/16/94    All holders of OLs or CPs

Operated Valve Diag-                       for nuclear power reactors.

nostic Equipment

(Responses to Sup- plement 5 to Generic

Letter 89-10)
94-17          Strontium-90 Eye Appli-        03/11/94    All U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

cators: Submission of                      Commission Medical Use

Quality Management Plan                    Licensees.

(QMP), Calibration, and

Use

94-16          Recent Incidents Resulting     03/03/94    All U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

in Offsite Contamination                   Commission material and fuel

cycle licensees.

94-15          Radiation Exposures during     03/02/94    All U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

an Event Involving a Fixed                 Commission licensees author- Nuclear Gauge                              ized to possess, use, manu- facture, or distribute

industrial nuclear gauges.

OL - Operating License

CP = Construction Permit

IN 94-22 March 16, 1994 current carrying capacity (baseline ampacities).       The ADF for each cable type

was calculated using the following formula:
                        ADF =    baseline -   protected (100)
                                        baseline

In this format, the ADF is expressed as a percentage drop in current-carrying

capacity. The calculated ampacity derating factors were 46.4 percent,
36.0 percent, and 35.3 percent for the 8 AWG, 4 AWG, and 2/0 cables, respectively. Table 5 provides a comparative summary of the ampacity data and

ampacity derating factors from the SNL/UL test and the results reported by the

vendor in BI Report 82-5-355F. Table 5 also shows the results of

recalculations performed by SNL of the test data reported in TSI

Report 82-5-355F. Detailed explanations of the two-step recalculations, which

were needed to allow comparisons of the SNL/UL test results with the reported

vendor test results, will be documented in SNL Report SAND94-0146.

This information notice requires no specific action or written response. If

you have any questions about the information in this notice, please contact

the technical contact listed below or the appropriate Office of Nuclear

Reactor Regulation (NRR) project manager.                              diginslignedby

Brian K. Grimes, Director       dan K.Grimes

Division of Operating Reactor Support

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

Technical contact:    Steven West, NRR, (301) 504-1220
Attachments:
1. Table 1, "Summary of Test Article Characteristics," and

Table 2, "Summary of Fire Endurance Test Results."
2. Table 3, "Baseline (Unprotected Cable

Tray) Ampacity Test Data and Calculations,"
       and Table 4, "Protected Cable Tray Ampacity

Test Data and Calculations."
3. Table 5, "Comparative Summary of Ampacity

Test Data and Derating Factors."
4. List of Generic Communications Concerning Fire Barriers

5. List of Recently Issued NRCInformation Notices

DISTRIBUTION

SPLB R/F           SWest

LNorton, OIG       GMulley, OIG       EPawlik, RIII/Ol

*SEE PREVIOUS CONCURRENCE

SPLB:DSSA*Tech Ed.* EELB:DE*       SPLB:DSSA* SPLB:DSSA* OIG*           (No

SWest      RSanders CBerlinger     CMcCracken MVirgilio &sect;Mulley objection)
02/23/94 02/15/94 03/10/94         03/03/94      03/0 v4       3/01/94 OGCB:DORS*            OGCB:DORS*
RKiessel              JLBirmingham

03/08/94              03/11/94                   03/IA/94 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY   94-22.IN

IN 94-XX

March xx, 1994 current carrying capacity (baseline ampacities).          The ADF for each cable type

was calculated using the following formula:
                       ADF = Ibaseline      -    protected (100)
                                        Ibasaeline

In this format, the ADF is expressed as a percentage drop in current-carrying

capacity. The calculated ampacity derating factors were 46.4 percent,
36.0 percent, and 35.3 percent for the 8 AWG, 4 AWG, and 2/0 cables, respectively. Table 5 provides a comparative summary of the ampacity data and

ampacity derating factors from the SNL/UL test and the vendor's test. Table 5 also shows the results of recalculations performed by SNL of the test data

reported in TSI Report 82-5-355F. Detailed explanations of the two-step

recalculations, which were needed to allow comparisons of the SNL/UL test

results with the vendor's test results, will be documented in SNL

Report SAND94-0146.

This information notice requires no specific action or written response. If

you have any questions about the information in this notice, please contact

the technical contact listed below or the appropriate Office of Nuclear

Reactor Regulation (NRR) project manager.

Brian K. Grimes, Director

Division of Operating Reactor Support

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

Technical contact:   Steven West, NRR, (301) 504-1220
Attachments:
1. Table 1, "Summary of Test Article Characteristics," and

Table 2, "Summary of Fire Endurance Test Results."
2. Table 3, "Baseline (Unprotected Cable

Tray) Ampacity Test Data and Calculations,"
      and Table 4, "Protected Cable Tray Ampacity

Test Data and Calculations."
3. Table 5, "Comparative Summary of Ampacity

Test Data and Derating Factors."
4. List of Generic Communications Concerning Fire Barriers

5. List of Recently Issued Information Notices

===DISTRIBUTION===
SPLB R/F           SWest

LNorton, OIG       GMulley, OIG          EPawlik, RIII/Ol

*SEE PREVIOUS CONCURRENCE

SPLB:DSSA*Tech Ed.*   EELB:DE*     SPLB:DSSA*       SPLB:DSSA*   OIG*      (No

SWest      RSanders   CBerlinger   CMcCracken       MVirgilio    GMulley objection)
02/23/94 02/15/94     03/10/94     03/03/94         03/04/94     03/01/94 OGCB:DORS*            OGCB:DORS   pl,4a             D: DORS

RKiessel              JLBirminghaifi                BGrimes

03/08/94              03/ //94                      03/ /94 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY IN_94_XX.SW4]

&I

I k

Y   94-XX

March XX, 1994 current carrying capacity (baseline ampacities).           The ADF for each cable type

was calculated using the following formula:
                               ADF   =     baseline           td (100)
                                               Ilal / protected

baseline

In this format, the ADF is expressed as a percentage drop in current-carrying

capacity. The calculated ampacity derating factors were 46.4 percent,
      36.0 percent, and 35.3 percent for the 8 AWG, 4 AWG, and 2/0 cables, respectively. Table 5 provides a comparative summary of the ampacity data and

ampacity derating factors from the SNL/UL test and the vendor's test. Table 5 also shows the results of recalculations performed by SNL of the test data

reported in TSI Report 82-5-355F. Detailed explanations of the two-step

recalculations, which were needed to allow comparisons of the SNL/UL test

results with the vendor's test results, will be documented in SNL

Report SAND94-0146.

This information notice requires no specific action or written response. If

you have any questions about the information in this notice, please contact

the technical contact listed below or the appropriate Office of Nuclear

Reactor Regulation (NRR) project manager.

Brian K. Grimes, Director

Division of Operating Reactor Support

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

===Technical Contact:===
Steven West, NRR, 301-504-1220
      Attachments:
      1. Table 1, "Summary of Test Article Characteristics," and

Table 2, "Summary of Fire Endurance Test Results."
      2. Table 3, "Baseline (Unprotected Cable

Tray) Ampacity Test Data and Calculations,"
             and Table 4, "Protected Cable Tray Ampacity

Test Data and Calculations."
      3. Table 5, 'Comparative Summary of Ampacity

Test Data and Derating Factors."
      4. List of Generic Communications Concerning Fire Barriers

5. List of Recently Issued Information Notices

DISTRIBUTION

SPLB R/F              iest

LNorton, OIG        Gt4ulley, OIG                  , RIII/O1 SPLB:DSSA Tech Ed.      EELBO         S     zDSSA    SPLB:Dypy OIG

ISWest      RSanders     C~erlinger    CMcCracken MVI.rg ilio      G~ulley objection}
      02/aS/94   02/%s/94        /01/&deg;/94   (5/3/94        s/g/94      A llG/94            d, OGCB:DORR MGCB:DORS     D:DORS

RKiesse! tugler         BGrimes

03/9 /9i 02/ /94        02/ /94     OFFICIAL RECORD COPY [G:\THERMOLA\IN_94_XX.SW4]}}

{{Information notice-Nav}}