ML18040A786

Evaluation of Selected Fire Door & Door Frame Assemblies, Technical Rept

ML18040A786
Person / Time
Site:	Susquehanna
Issue date:	01/31/1985
From:	Dobson P, Knight S FACTORY MUTUAL RESEARCH CORP.
To:
Shared Package
ML17139D154	List: ML17139D153 ML17139D157 ML17139D159 ML18040A786 ML18040B119
References
NUDOCS 8509060203
Download: ML18040A786 (26)

Text

TECHNICAL REPORT EVALUATION OF SELECTED FIRE DOOR AND DOOR FRAME ASSEMBLIES By Samuel M. Knight Prepared for:

Pennsylvania Power and Light Company "Susquehanna Steam Electric Station" Route ll Salem Township, Pennsylvania 15635 FM Index No. 38492.55 NS January 1985 Approved by

<< .. 85090b0203'50904

' PDR'

".. ADOCK 05000387

'~. -"

P.,DR,'.~.,"J I

P. H. Dobson I

~

Senior Engineer FMRC Factory Mutual Research

)1St Boston- Provdence Turnpike Norwood. Massachusetts 02062

7

~ ~

FACTORY MUTUAL RESEARCH CORPORATION PURPOSE An evaluation of selected fire doors protecting safety-related areas was conducted for Pennsylvania Power and Light Company (PP6L) at Susquehanna Steam Electric Station Units 1 and 2. The purpose of the evaluation was to examine, selected fire doors to determine whether field modifications made to labeled fire doors (doors which have been tested and accepted by a nationally recognized laboratory) since their installation voided the fire resistance rating of the doors; and to examine other nonlabeled door assemblies and render an opinion on their fire resistance rating.

FACTORY MUTUAL RESEARCH CORPORATION

SUMMARY

AND CONCLUSIONS

1. The labeled fire door and frame assemblies and the labeled access panel are expected to provide the level of fire resistance stated on the label.

2. The special purpose (water tight) door and frame assembly examined should provide a minimum of l-l/2 hr fire resistance.

3. To meet FM recormendations ventilation louvers in the doors to the four chases containing electrical panels and cables at elevation 771 of the Control Building should be relocated to the face of the cable chase near the ceiling to achieve fast response.

3.3.

D FACTORY MUTUAL RESEARCH CORPORATION TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Title ~Pa e PURPOSE

SUMMARY

AND CONCLUSIONS INTRODUCTION FIRE DOOR EVALUATION 2.1 Fire Doors and Door Frame Assemblies and Access Panels 2 2.2 Special Purpose Door 4 2e3 Electrical Equipment Chases III RECOMMENDATIONS APPENDIX A FIRE DOOR OBSERVATIONS

1 g

FACTORY MUTUAL RESEARCH CORPORATION INTRODUCTION The plant was visited during January 7 and 8, 1985. The writer was accompanied by Messrs. T. Baileys, PP6L Fire Protection Engineer, and L. J. Mattern, FMEA, Resident Loss Prevention Specialist. Sixty-six doors and door frames, one labeled access panel, and one unlabeled special-purpose door were examined during this visit. These assemblies were located in the Control Building and Unit 1 and Unit 2 Reactor Buildings.

The writer is a Prospect Engineer with 20 years experience at Factory Mutual Research Corporation (FMRC). His primary responsibility is: 1) testing and determination of fire rating for fire doors; and 2) examination of installed unlabeled doors to determine their fire resistance rating for building authorities. The writer has served on the National Fire Protection Association "Fire Door and 'Jindow" Committee (NFPA 80) for 18 years.

~ ~

FACTORY MUTUAL RESEARCH CORPORATION FIRE DOOR EVALUATION Labeled fire doors and door frames, a labeled access panel, and an unlabeled special purpose door and frame were examined during this visit to Susquehanna Steam Electric Station at the request of Pennsylvania Power and Light Company (PP6L).

2.1 FIRE DOORS AND DOOR FRAME ASSEMBLIES AND ACCESS PANELS Sixty-six doors and door frames and one access panel were examined to determine whether 1) labels were in place and properly attached, 2) modifications had been made to the door or panel, and 3) modifications made would void the fire resistance rating of the door or panel.

Of the 66 doors examined, 62 doors were labeled, 4 doors were not labeled or had labels loosely attached. Forty-two of the labeled fire doors had been modified.

2.1.1 Labeled Doors with No Modifications Labeled doors were visually examined to determine that there t

was no physical damage to the door and that hardware supplied as part of the assembly functioned properly to close and latch the door when the door was released from the open position.

Fire door assemblies which have not been modified should have the fire resistance rating indicated on the label.

2.1.2 Labeled Fire Doors and Panel with Modifications Fire door and door frame assemblies which have been tested by a nationally recognized laboratory, such as Factory Mutual Research Corporation (FMRC) or Underwriter's Laboratories (UL), have a label attached to both the door and the frame. The fire resistance rating is noted on the label.

A generally accepted precept of FMRC and UL is that any alteration of the assembly from the successfully fire tested construction voids the fire resistance rating indicated on the label. However, there are reasons in the nuclear industry for modifying a fire door assembly; a major reason is security. Care must be used when adding security hardware to the door and/or frame to assure that this hardware will have minimum impact on fire resistance rating,'of the assembly.

PACTORY MUTUAL RESEARCH CORPORATION 1 In the examination, fire door assemblies with modifications had one or more of the following additions or alterations:

1. Switches or electromagnets attached to the header of the door frame.

Wiring is in rigid metal conduit from the card reader to the face of the door frame.

2. Steel or aluminum angle strips 2 in. to 4 in. wide, 1/8 in. thick, and 4 in. to 6 in. long attached to the top of the door by machine screws. The angle strips act in concert with the switch or electromagnet.

3. Weather stripping used to minimize air leakage around doors where a pressure differential exists between adjoining areas. Weather stripping was attached to the door or door frame by means of machine screws.

frames.

The labeled fire doors examined are identified in Appendix A. Also included in this Appendix are comaents on additions/modifications to doors and A 1-1/2 hr labeled access panel No. 7006 is located in the Control Building at elevation 754. The'panel is 3 ft by 3 ft and is equipped with a microswitch on the frame.

Modifications made to labeled fire doors and frames and the access panel are not expected to affect the fire resistance rating of these assemblies.

2.1.3 Fire Doors Not Labeled Door No. 111 (elevation 670, Reactor Bldg. Unit 1) and Door No. 201 (elevation 683, Reactor Bldg. Unit 1) had no labels. These doors were compared with Door No. 110 (elevation 670, Reactor Bldg, Unit 2) which had a l-l/2 hr label with the following results:

All three had the same dimensions (height, width and thickness) and the same identification tags (except for the opening number) riveted to the latch edge of the door.

2. The spacing of internal horizontal stiffeners was determined to be approximately 8 to 12 in. on center on all three doors. This was done by means of a stethoscope.

FACTORY MUTUAL RESEARCH CORPORATION

3. The same type of insulation was used in the core of all three doors (glass fiber batts). This was established by removing screws from door hinges on all doors and extracting door filler material.

4. The thickness of the metal face sheet on all doors was the same (0.045 in. or 18 ga). This was determined by measuring metal thickness by means of a specially adapted micrometer.

Door No. 115 (elevation 670 of Reactor Bldg. Unit 1) also had no label.

This door was apparently designed as a bullet proof door with hinges welded in place. It could not be internally examined in the manner described above.

The door was manufactured by the Chicago Bullet Proof Door Company. Other doors made by the same company were located in the Control Building (Door 462 at elevation 729) and in the Reactor Building (Door 571 at elevation 818).

Both the above doors have l-l/2 hr labels. All three doors have 1) the same dimensions, 2) the same hardware, 3) a solid core. Based on the writer' experience auditing fire door manufacturing plants it is believed that Door No. 115 would also have a l-l/2 hr fire rating. However, since the door could not be internally examined, the manufacturer would have to be contacted and asked to compare the construction of this door with the 1-1/2 hr fire rated doors to confirm the aboVe.

Door 587 had a loosely attached label. This door would normally be treated as if it had no label. The door was not physically examined as above because it was located in a short corridor with a labeled fire door on either side (Door 586 and a stairway door).

2.2 SPECIAL PURPOSE DOOR An evaluation was made of an unlabeled special-purpose (flood) door to determine whether it would provide a 1-1/2 hr fire resistance rating. The door examined was at elevation 645 in the Core Spray Pump Room of Unit 1 ~

This area is indicated as Area 1-1B in the "Fire Protection Review Report".

The door was 3 ft by 7 ft and consisted of 1/4 in. plate steel with 1 in. x 2 in. x 3/16 in. steel channel for peripheral framing and horirontal stiffening 10 in. on center. The door was latched by twelve 1 in. square, steel bar latches engaging the 5/8 in. thick steel frame on the top, bottom and sides. Gasketing is employed to make a waterproof seal with the 5/8 in.

thick steel frame.

Steel doors of this type have not been tested for fire resistance in this country. The construction of this door was compared to the Rules of the Fire Offices Committee (FOC), Section 1, Specification 1, from Great Britain,

1]

FACTORY MUTUAL RESEARCH CORPORATION 1 which states that doors fabricated in accordance with those rules may be expected to provide 6 hrs'ire resistance when there is one door on each side of the opening. This is based on numerous successful fire tests of these doors in that configuration.

Fire tests on single doors of this design, conducted to requirements of British Standard 476, Part 8, have satisfied requirements of that standard for '

hours. This test method is equivalent to the test procedure used in the U.S., ASTM E-152, in determining a door's fire resistance rating, with one exception: a hose stream test is not required in BS476. This exception is not considered critical for steel doors since the hose stream is applied to the hinge side of the door which drives the door against the frame stop.

Rules of the FOC require two point latches of no less than 3/8 in.

diameter steel in such doors. The waterproof door in question has twelve 1 in. square steel latch bars which engage the frame; hence, the desired l-l/2 hr fire resistant performance can reasonably be expected in a fire situation.

2.3 ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT CHASES An evaluation was made .of doors to chases containing electrical equipment at elevation 771 in the Control Building. These doors were numbered 594, 595, 598, and one unnumbered. The doors are fitted with a fusible link-actuated louver (ll in. x ll 1I in.) located in the top third of the door. The doors and louvers bore l-l/2 hr UL labels ~

FM does not approve labeled fire doors with louvers. However, UL tests and lists louvers for installation in labeled fire doors. The National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) allows the use of louvers in labeled fire doors where the opening is not in an exit or located where products of combustion flowing through the louver opening prior to its operation could jeopardize the use o f exits.

The wall construction of the cable chases consists of two 1 in. thick layers of Type X gypsum wallboard on steel studs. The wallboard is on the corridor side only with no sheathing provided on the chase side of the studs.

This is not a tested fire rated construction.

To meet FM recommendations louvers should be relocated to the face of the cable chase near the ceiling to achieve fast response. Louver openings in the door should be closed with 16 gage sheet metal with a minimum 2 in. overlap around the opening. The sheet metal covering should be attached with machine screws 5 in. on center.

FACTORY MUTUAL RESEARCH CORPORATION The cons'truction of the electrical equipment chase is such that a l-l/2 hr fire resistance can be expected if fire exposure is on the corridor side.

However, if the fire exposure came from within the chase, fire resistance rating would be minimal. Expansi'on of the exposed steel studs due to a fire inside would result in movement of fasteners holding the gypsum wallboard in.

place with possible loss of structural integrity of the wall.

FACTORY MUTUAL RESEARCH CORPORATION RECOMMENDATIONS Eight door assemblies in Control and Reactor Buildings, require the following:

Door No. 115 (Elevation 670, Reactor Building, Unit 1): The manufacturer should be contacted to determine the fire rating of this door.

~ Door No. 559, Elevation 771, Control Building: The latch mechanism on this fire exit device needs repair. Latching is not reliable and-i' bolt retraction is erratic.

3. Door No. 586, Elevation 783, Control Building: This door was prepared for a dead bolt which has not been provided. The 1 in.

diameter hole in the face sheet should be covered with 16 gage sheet metal fastened with machine screws.

To meet FM recoamendations ventilation louvers in the doors to the four chases containing electrical panels and cables at Elevation 771, i Control Building (Doors .No. 594, 595, 598, and one unnumbered) should, be relocated to the face of the cable chase near the ceiling to achieve fast response. Louver openings in the door should be closed

-~

with 16 gage sheet metal with a minimum 2 in. overlap around the

~ ~ ~ ~

opening. The sheet metal should be attached with machine screws 5 in. on center.

Door No. 601, Elevation 779 Reactor Building: One bolt attaching the frame to the wall is missing and should be replaced. Also, the closer attachment to the frame header is loose and should be tightened.

FACTORY MUTUAL RESEARCH CORPORATION

'le FIRE APPENDIX A DOOR OBSERVATIONS lof 3 DOOR ELEV- DOOR BUILDING "

NO ~ ATION LABELED MODIFICATIONS COMMENTS CP m C4 4J C4

~ rf 4l 4

Ol 4J Q O cO 4l C3 O CONTROL 263 698 Yes X BLDG 317 698 Yes X 457 729 Yes X 462 729 Yes X 463 729 Yes X 465 729 Yes X 466 729 Yes X 468 729 Yes X 538 754 Yes

,) 542 544 553 754 754 771 Yes Yes Yes X 554 771 Yes X 555 771 Yes X 556 771 Yes X 557 771 Yes X 558 771 Yes X 559 771 Yes X See Section III 560 771 Yes X 561 771 Yes X 562 771 Yes X 563 771 Yes X 564 771 Yes X 567 771 Yes X 568 771 Yes X 569 771 Yes X 570 771 Yes X 571 771 Yes X 572 771 Yes X 573 771 Yes X 580 783 Yes 585 783 Yes 586 783 Yes See Section III Jy

]

h

'll FACTORY MUTUAL RESEARCH CORPORATION 2of3 APPENDIX A FIRE DOOR OBSERVATIONS DOOR ELEV- DOOR BUILDING NO ~ ATION LABELED MODIFICATIONS COMMENTS O

m e Pe Ll C

~ rl Q CO 0 Clj C7 m

0 '0 0 4 0 4J

'."L CJ Q D CONTROL (See BLDG 587 783 Note 1) X 594 771 Yes X See Section III 595 771 Yes X See Section III 598 771 Yes (See See Section III +l Note 2) 730 806 Yes X in' 731 806 Yes X X 7006 754 Yes Microswitch on frame,(see Note 3)~ Ii REACTOR BLDG UNIT 1 70 670 Yes 109 670 Yes X X Extra heavy duty hinges 111 670 No X Appears same as Door No. 110 (elev. 670 Reactor Bldg. Unit 2) ~

115 670 No Appears same as Door No. 462 (elev. 729 Control Bldg.) and Door No. 571 (elev 818 Reactor Bldg.)

I 201 683 No X Appears same as Door No. 110 (elev. 670 Reactor Bldg. Unit 2) 'I 415 . 719 Yes X,.

419 719 Yes X 421 719 Yes X 425 719 Yes X 517 749 Yes X 519 749 Yes X 523 749 Yes X 525 749 Yes X 571 818 Yes X X 601 779 Yes X See Section III 627 779 Yes X X 803 818 Yes X X 806 818 Yes X 807 818 Yes X X 10

0 FACTORY MUTUAL RESEARCH CORPORATION 3of3 APPENDIX A FIRE DOOR OBSERVATIONS DOOR ELEV- DOOR BUILDING NO. ATION LABELED MODIFICATIONS COMMENTS 0 e 4J g4 C

~ r4 0

'00 M rr 0

Cg

'4 gd ol

<g ~ 4J

<<0 m

o e e O

REACTOR BLDG UNIT 2 72 670 Yes X 110 670 Yes X 112 670 Yes X 113 779 Yes X X Air lock switch 114 779 Yes X X Air lock switch 116 670 Yes X X 518 749 Yes X New closer reinforcement on face of door ieNOTES: The label on this door has minor damage attached. This casts a questioners to and is loosely its legitimacy. In this instance, the question is moot, as this location is in a short corridor with an acceptable fire door on either side of it, (Door No. 586 and a stairway door.)

2~ There is a fourth door ad ~scent to this door with no opening identification.

3~ This is a 3 ft x 3 ft, l-l/2 hr rated access panel.

SUSQUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 6 2 PIRE PROTECTION PROGRAM - CONCERN 81 DOCKETS NO. 50-387 50-388 APPENDIX A - EXEMPTION REQUESTS EXEMPTION REQUEST NO. 3 ATTACHMENT 2

P 'I C

i'I

Factory Ilutual Research 1151 Boston-Providence Turnpike P.O. Box 9102 Norwood, Massachusetts 02062 Telephone (617) 762 4300 August 16, 1985 Telex 92.4415 Mr. Thomas Gorman Nuclear Plant Engineering A-63 Pennsylvania Power and Light Company Two North Ninth Street Allentown, PA 18101

Subject:

Fire Door Evaluation

Dear Mr. Gorman:

The -following is the report of Sam Knight's visit on May 7, 1985 to evaluate fire resistance of four doors and frames in the Unit 1 and 2 Reactor Buildings.

g~H Paul H. Dobson Senior Engineer PHD/)mal ceo Do Kohn, PP&L P. H. Dobson, FMRC L. J. Matern, FMEA Phil.

S. Knight, FMRC R. W. Newcomb, ABO Waltham

Q(