Revision as of 12:56, 6 January 2021

Text

Engineering Rept Evaluation of Thermo-Lag Fire Barrier Sys
	ML20064M608
Person / Time
Site:	Comanche Peak
Issue date:	03/21/1994
From:	Madden T; TEXAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC CO. (TU ELECTRIC)
To:	;
Shared Package
ML20064M605	List: ML20064M601; ML20064M608;
References
	ER-ME-067, ER-ME-067-R03, ER-ME-67, ER-ME-67-R3, NUDOCS 9403280296
	Download: ML20064M608 (176)
	v • d • e

v, k.

i r

F L TU ELECTRIC ENGINEERING REPORT EVALUATION OF THERMO-LAG FIRE BARRIER SYSTEMS ER-ME-067 :

REVISION 3 ,

i l

March 21,1994 i

1 i

Prepared by b Reviewed by d~ .

Appro e y /

9403280296 940324 PDR ADOCK 05000445 N P- PDR

)

1 ER-ME-067 Rev.J ]

Page 2 of 176 i l Reason for Revision 1 This report is being revised to eliminate the use of Test Reports produced by industrial ,

l Testing Laboratories Inc. (IT_, and to incorporate tha result of the Texas Utilities Test Program conducted at Omega Point Laboratories. The report is also being revised to provide a basis for the approach used in the Texas Utilities Test Prc@.tm.

Due to the extensive changes to this report, no revision bars are used. Confirmation is l l

Required since the Omega Test Reports were not finalized at the time of issue of this report.

In addition further tests are currently planned.

Reason for Revision 2 This rt. port is being revised to incorporate the resu;is of the Texas Utilities Test Program i i

conducted at Omega Point Laboratories between November 4 and December 3,1992, and to l

incorporate the revisions. to the acceptance critena.

Due to the extensive changes to this report, no revision bars are used, confirmation is l l

Required since the Omega Test Reports were not finalized at the time of issue of this report.

In addition further tests (ampacity tests) are currently planned. See section 8.0 for open items.

Reason for Revision 3 This report is being revised in response to TXX-93061 dated January 28,1993 (Reference 10.22.7). Changes made via this revision include incorporation of final results of the Texas Utilities Test Program. Specifically, results from a confirmatory 1-hour fire endurance test of a 36 inch wide cable tray barrier and completion of ampacity derating testing described in TXX-93101 dated February 26,1993 (Reference 10.22.9) have been included These testing activities were performed between March 2 and 12,1993 at Omega Point Laboratories (OPL).

Additionally, results from a separate series of 1-hour firc endurance tests, conducted for qualification of various CPSES Unit 1 raceway barriers as described via TXX-93353 dated October 28,1993 (Reference 10.22.15) have been included. These testing activities, also conducted at OPL, were performed between August 11 and 17,1993. Accordingly, this revisiori also removes the " Interim" designation of the report as all testing activities relative to qualification of CPSES Unit 1 and Unit 2 Thermo-Lag fire barriors have been completed.

Due to the extent of changes to the report, no revision bars are used.

a ER-ME-067 Rev.3 Page 3 of 176 TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Title Pnq Reason for Revision . . . . . . . .. . .. . 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS . . ..... . . . . 3 FORWARD.. . . ... . 4 1.0 PURPOSE.. .. . . . .. 15

2.0 BACKGROUND

... . .. . ... 16 3.0 LICENSING BASIS FOR FIRE BARRIERS FOR CPSES ELECTRICAL RACEWAYS . . . . . . . .

18 4.0 THERMO-LAG FIRE ENDURANCE TESTS . ... ... 25 5.0 COMPARISON OF DESIGN / INSTALLATION REOUIREMENTS AGAINST TEST RESULTS . . . . . . . .. 45 6.0 AMPACITY DERATING FACTORS . . .... . ... 47 7.0 COMBUSTIBILITY OF THERMO-LAG .. ... . 56 8.0 OPEN ITEMS . .. . . .. . . .

57

9.0 CONCLUSION

S . . . . .. .. ..... .

57 10.0 REFERENCE .. . . ... . ..... 60 APPENDICES

' Test Summaries" 71 Appendix A ,

Appendix B 'Thermo-Lag Fire and Ampacity Derating Testing Summary

146 Appendix C 'Thermo-Lag Installation Review Matrix

154 Appendix D " Structural Steel Fire Proofing Evaluation" 170 Appendix E " Plan for Certifying CPSES Unit 1 Thermo-Lag" 173 t

ER-ME-067 Rev.3 Page 4 of 176 FORWARD .

This report documents the basis for the acceptance and continued use of Thermo-Lag as a fire barrier material at Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station (CPSES). The report defines and summarizes the qualification of the Thermo-Lag fire barriers used in the protection of safe shutdown related components and fire barriers within the plant. Included in this report are descriptions of the CPSES Fire Protection System and Thermo-Lag qualification, including licensing basis, methodology and performance acceptance criteria associated with fire barrier qualification testing.

CPSES FIRE PROTECTION SYSTEM The overall Fire Protection Program was developed utilizing the defense in depth concept.

This concept is a combination of:

1. Preventing fires from starting

2. Quickly detecting and suporesdng fires that do occur to limit the extent of damage

3. Designing plant safety systems so that if a cesign basis fire occurs, in spite of the fire protection systems provided, the fire will not prevent plant safe shutdown functions from being performed.

i Measures have been taken to p' event fires from starting. The plant is constructed of either l

non combustible or fire resistant materials and transient combustibles not identified in the Fire Protection Report are managed through administrative controls. The active Fire Protection ,

System at CPSES detects, alarms, and extinguishes fires. It is comprised of two subsystems: l Fire Detection and Fire Suppression. The Fire Detection System is a plant-wide systen1 )

l designed to detect fires in the plant, alert the Control Room operators, and ale't the plant fire brigade of the fire and its location. The Fire Suppression Systern is designed to extinguish any design basis fire. It is comprised of a water supply system, fixed water sprinkler and spray systems, halon systems, fire hose stations, and portable extinguishers. Where redundar.t tire safe stnutdown equipment cabling outside containment is located in the same fire area and is not separated by a honzontal distance of 20 feet with nep"gible intervening combustibles or fire hazard, one train of this cabling, if not one hour rated cable, is enclosed by a one hour fire barrier with fire detection and fire suppression (or radiant energy shield insido containment) unless an alternate shutdown path is utilized or justifications for deviations are provided.

l l

. . . - . - - - - - --_ .. . = _ ._ -

4 ER-ME-067 Rev.3 Page 5 of 176 BACKGROUND During the process of selecting one hour raceway barrier systems, ampacity derating, material weight and thickness along with barriers used by other utilities were determining factors.

Thermo-Lag (Manufactured by Thermal Science, Inc. (TSI) of St. Louis, Mo.) was selected to provide a one-hour barrier for cable raceway systems. Thermo-Lag 330 Fire Resistant Material is a sacrificial barrier that operates on the principle of sublimation with partial intumescence.

TU Electric conducted a full scale fire endurance test at Southwest Research Institute (SWRI) in 1981 (Reference 10.12.10) in order to obtain a one hour fire rating for Thermo-Lag in accordance with American Nuclear insurers (ANI) Bulletin dated July,1979 (Reference 10.3.2) and ASTM E119 80 Time / Temperature requirements (Reference 10.1.1). The results of the test indicated that the protective Therrno-Lag envelope system successfully withstood the fire exposure and hose stream tests w'thout allowing the passage of flames as well as protecting the circuit integrity of the cables within the cable trays and conduit. An ASTM E84 (Reference 10.1.4) test determined that Thermo-Lag had a flame spread rating of 5, fuel contribution rating of 0 and smoke developed rating of 15. This is consistent with licensing commitments which requirt w .han 25 for each of these variables. The SWRI report was submitted to the ,

NRC for eva moon of Thermo-Lag as an acceptable fire barrier material for use at CPSES (Reference 10.22.2). In a letter dated December 1,1981, the NRC replied that they had evaluated the fire test report and concluded that it demonstrated that TSI Thermo Lag material / system exhibits characteristics equivalent or better than other approved materials, ,

and therefore can provide an acceptable fire barrier for cable trays and cables. The NRC j concluded that the use of the TSI material / system met the requiremer'ts of Appendix R to 10 l CFR Part 50 and is therefore acceptable. l Comanche Peak has consistently utilized the ANI acceptance criteria as our licensing basis for fire barriers for electrical raceways. As discussed below, TU Electric also agreed to use l

additional acceptance criteria in the tests conducted in November / December 1992. Based on concurrence from the NRC via SSER 27 (Reference 10.24.5) and to simplify the fire endurance test methodology, for testing performed subsequent to November / December 1992, TU Electric ,

opted to use the revised acceptance criteria only, in lieu of the ANI acceptance criteria. )

In June,1991, the NRC established a Special Review Team to review the safety significance and generic applicability of certain technical issues regarding the use of Thermo-Lag at nuctuar power plants. Prior to the issuance of the report by the Special Review Team, the NRC released to the industry a draft generic letter (92 XXX) on Thermo-Lag in February,1992.

(Reference 10.7.3) The draft generic letter identified several concems related to the acceptability of Thermo-Lag.

)

in light of the concems raised in the draft generic letter and the status of CPSES Unit 2 l 1 construction activities (Thermo-Lag installation was to begin in the very near future), TU Electric performed an extensive review to assess its position with respect to the continued use l

l

ER-ME-067 Rev.3 Page 6 of 176 of Thermo-Lag for CPSES Unit 2. Based on an NRC concern about the acceptance of previous Thermo-Lag tests, TU Electric performed independent full scale fire endurance testing of Thermo-Lag raceway assemblies that were representative of plant configurations and enveloped the range of installed commodity sizes. Applicable TU Electric specifications and installation and inspection procedures, site craft and OC personnel as well as CPSES stock material, as specified by the TU Electric Quality Assurance Program for procurement and installation were utilized for the testing. This testing was observed by NRC staff personnel. The testing progiam . ?monstrated that Thermo-Lag provides a qualified one hour fire barrier system.

RJ ELECTRIC TESTING PROGRAM The independent testing program for TU Electric Thermo-Lag was intended to accomplish the following objectives:

1. Demonstrate that Thermo-Lag is an effective fire barrier when properly configured

2. Demonstrate that cables are able to perform their safe shutdown functions when protected by Thermo-Lag h9 test program was conducted in five separate sessions.

. Sessions 1 and 2 were performed in June and August of 1992. These tests were

. . ducted using test assemblies constructed in accordance with CPSES installation '

,,iocedures in effect at the time and/or upgrades of structural joints and upgrados of small conduit barriers (additional thickness). Results of these tests are provided in section 4.0 and Appendix A of this report. During these tests, TU Electric learned that joints for Thermo-Lag board material must be reinforced for cable trays and box enclosures, small conduits must have additional Thermo-Lag material thickness, and raceway supports perform adequately without complete fireproofing.

Based on the results of these test 3 and discussions with the NRC Staff, TU Electric elected to conduct a series of confirmatory tests utilizing updated acceptance criteria for fire barrier integrity and cable functionality. The proposed acceptance criteria was transmitted to the NRC for review on S9ptember 24,1992. TU Electric met with the NRC staff on October 27, 1992, to discuss the proposed acceptance criteria. Further revisions to the acceptance criteria were agreed to during this meeting. On October 29,1992, the NRC transmitted to TU Electric "Thermo-Lag Acceptance Methodology for Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station-Unit 2" (Reference 10.22.1). This acceptance criteria was utilized in the confirmatory testing and is discussed in more detailin Section 3 of the report.

The third series of tests was planned with the following objectives:

I l

1. Confirm the adequacy of the small conduit upgrade configuration

1

. I ER-ME-067 Rev.3 Page 7 of 176

2. Confirm the adequacy of junction box and lateral bend condulet (LBD) ;

enclosure upgrade techniques

3. Confirm the adequacy of design configurations with Thermo-Lag 330-660 "Flexi-Blanket" on Air Drops I

4. Confirm the adequacy of the cable tray upgrade techniques l

5. Confirm the adequacy of conduit radial bend upgrade techniques. ;

Session 3 Independent testing was performed at Omega Point Laboratories on November 4, through December 3,1992.

In summary, satisfactory tests were conducted on the following test assemblies:

1. Conduit Assemblies (3/4" with 1/4" overlay,3" and 5" conduits without overlays, with LBD's and radial bends, and 3" conduits with LBDs and connected to junction boxes)

2. Junction Boxes (with both 1 and 2 layers of Thermo-Lag 330-1 panels. When two layers were used the first layer was flat panels and the second layer was

" ribbed" panels. Flat panels were used for the single layer configuration).

i

3. Air Drops (2 and 3 layers of Flexi-Blanket) !

4. Cables Trays without Tees (12",24", and 30")

5. Cable Trays with Tees (24" with stitching, and 30" without stitching)

6. A test for 1 1/2" and 2" conduit without overlay (test results required cable functionality evaluation)

This test session confirmed the upgrade requirements which had been incorporated into the i Unit 2 design and installation for Thermo-Lag raceway barriers. l Observations and results of the third series of tests were as follows:

i Conduit Tests Acceptable cable temperatures with no fire barrier bum through and no cable degradation (including acceptable Insulation Resistance (IR) test results) were observed for all Unit 2 conduit tests. These tests also confirmed the acceptability of the upgrade (reinforcement) .

M 17

- i;N

t i

ER.ME-067 Rev.3 i Page 8 of 176 details for the LBD enclosures and radial bends.

A Unit 1 test for 1 1/2" and 2" conduit without overlay which resulted in minor burn through, I high cable temperatures and some outer jacket damage, but no inner jacket damage, no loss of continuity, acceptable IR test results and a cable functionality evaluation that verified that ;

high temperatures would not impair the cables installed in Unit 1 1 1/2" and 2" conduits. The ;

results of this test were incorporated into the Unit 1 design only. I f

Junction Box Tests Acceptable cable and junction box temperatures with no fire barrier burn through and no cable degradation (including acceptable IR test results) were observed for the junction boxes with a double layer of 1/2" Thermo-Lag panels as well as for single layer configuration. These I

tests confirmed the joint reinforcement details for junction boxes.

Air Droo Tests i

Acceptable cable temperatures with no fire barrier burn through and only three cables with minor cable jacket swelling (with no other cable degradation and acceptable IR test results) were observed for the air drops using Thermo-Lag 330-660 Flexi-Blanket. The smaller (2" and i less) diameter air drops were covered with 3 layers of 1/2" Flexi-Blanket while the larger air l drops were covered with only 2 layers of Flexi-Blanket. j 12" Wide Trav Test i Acceptable cable and tray rail temperatures with no fire barrier burn through and no cable l degradation (including acceptable IR test results) were observed. These tests confirmed the !

upgrade details were acceptabic.

l 24" Wide Trav Tests Acceptable cable and tray rail temperatures with no fire barrier burn through and no cable - !

degradation (including acceptable IR test results) were observed. These tests included one tray with a horizontal 24" Tee The bottom panel of the Tee section under the fire stop sagged during the hose stream test which resulted in opening of the fire barrier envelope.

The attachment detail of the bottom panel to the fire stop was revised and tested satisfactorily in Scheme 14-1 (30" tray).

30" Wide Trav Tests Acceptable cable and tray rail temperature with no fire barrier burn through and no cable degradation (including acceptable IR test results) were observed. These tests included one with a tee, and were conducted with and without " stitching" of the butt joints.

1

ER-ME-067 Rev.3 Page 9 of 176 The fourth series of tests was planned with the following objectives:

1. Confirm the adequacy of cable tray upgrade techniques (without stitching of the butt joints) for a 36" wide cable tray

2. Confirm that Thermo-Lag barriers can adequately perform their function without imposing a 30 day cure time

3. Confirm the adequacy of cable ampacity derating values used in the CPSES cable sizing design basis. A separate test method as described in Section 6 was utilized for determination of cable ampacity derating values Session 4 Independent testing was performed at Omega Point Laboratories between March 2 and 12, 1993.

In summary, a satisfactory test was conducted for a 36" wide cable tray upgraded with application of external stress skin and trowel grade material only, i.e., no stitching of butt joints was utilized. Acceptable cable and tray rail temperatures with no fire barrier burn through and no cable degradation (including acceptable IR test results) were observed. The test was performed following a 7 day cure of the Thermo-Lag barrier. This test confirmed the applicability of the previously established upgrade methods for 36" cable tray barriers and that a 30 day cure time is not required for a functional barrier.

Additionally, cable ampacity derating testing was conducted for the following 1-hour Thermo-Lag barrier configurations:

1. 3/4" conduit with 1/2" thick preshaped sections and 1/4" thick overlay containing a single three conductor cable (3/C #10 AWG)

2. 2" conduit with 1/2" thick preshaped sections and 1/4" thick overlay containing a single three conductor cable (3C/#6 AWG)

3. 5" conduit with 1/2" thick preshaped sections containing four separate single conductor cables (1/C 750 kMCil)

4. 24" cable tray with 1/2" thick panels upgraded with stitched butt joints and extemal stress skin with trowel grade material buildup applied over longitudinal and butt joints. The cable tray contained 126 passes of single three conductor cable (3C/#6 AWG)

5. Air drop configuration with 3 separate single conductor cables (1/C 750kMCil) covered with 3 layers of 330-660 Flexi-Blanket 4

aq

~ __ . . .

1 ER-ME-067 Rev.3 I Page 10 of 176 l

6. Air drop configuration with a sing!e three conductor cable (3C/#6 AWG covered '

with 3 layers of 330-660 Flexi-Blanket See Section 6 for details of the cable ampacity derating testing. 1 The fifth series of tests was planned with the following objectives:

1. Evaluate the performance of less extensive upgrades for 12" - 24" wide cable j

trays than those qualified during Test Session 3

2. Evaluate the performance of less extensive upgrades for 330-660 Flexi-Blanket -

coverage on air drop cables than those qualified during Test Session 3

3. Evaluate the performance of flexible stainless steel mesh with trowel grade l

material buildup to reinforce radial bend areas on protected conduits and regions where 330-660 Flexi-Blanket on air drops interfaces with cable tray coverage i

4. Evaluate the performance of Thermo-Lag " box design" enclosures constructed with a single layer of panels to envelope air drop cables extending from cable trays t

5. Evaluate the performance of 2 layers of 330-660 Flexi-Blanket installed to protect large power cables in exposed cable trays 1

Session S Independent testing was performed at Omega Point Laboratories between At'qust 11 and 17, 1993.

In summary, satisfactory tests were conducted on the following test assemblies:

1. Cable Trays without Tees (12" tray without upgrade and 24" tray with stress skin and trowel grade buildup applied along longitudinal joints only)

2. Air Drops (2 layers of Flexi-Blanket on 1 1/2" and 2" diameter cable bundles)

Conduit Radial Bends (stainless steel mesh with trowel grade buildup) q 3.

4. Air Drop / Cable Tray Interfaces (stainless steel mesh with trowel grade buildup)

5. " Box Design" Enclosures for Air Drops (single panel layer with joints reinforced using stress skin and trowel grade buildup)

4 ER ME-067 Rev.3 Page 11 of 176

6. Large Power Cables in Exposed Tray (2 layers of Flexi-Blanket) .

This test session confirmed that less extensive upgrade methods could, in some instances, be incorporated into the Unit 1 Thenno-Lag barrier backfit effort.

Observations and results of the fifth series of tests were as follows:

12" Wide Trav Test Acceptable cable temperatures and no cable degradation (including acceptable IR test results) were observed. The cable tray barrier was tested without upgrade and demonstrated that such nonreinforced envelopes installed on straight horizontal and vertical tray runs including radial bends (except tees), can maintain electrical cables free from fire damage.

24" Wide Trav Test Acceptable cable and tray rail temperatures with no fire barrier burn through and no cable degradation (including acceptable IR test results) were observed. The cable tray barrier tested was upgraded with a layer of external stress skin and trowel grade material buildup to reinforce longitudinal joints only (no stitching or butt joints). Additionally, at horizontal support locations Thermo-Lag panel strips were secured to the underlying panels on the support member. These panel strips effectively reinforced the region where panels installed on the underside of horizontal tray portion abuts the panels used to cover the horizontal support members. This test demonstrated that less extensive upgrades than those previously ,

qualified can be successfully applied to straight horizontal and vertical tray runs including radial bends (except tees) for envelopes installed on 18" - 24" wide cable trays.

Air Droo Tests Acceptable cable temperatures (with one exception) with no fire barrier burn through and no cable degradation (including acceptable IR test results) were observed for air drop cables protected with 2 layers of 330-660 Flexi-Blanket. The air drop cable bundles transitioned between 1 1/2" and 2" conduits and a 24" wide cable tray protected with Thermo-Lag panels.

Additionally, the interface region where air drops entered the top surface of the cable tray envelope was reinforced using stainless steel mesh and trowel grade material buildup. One thermocouple on a cable within the bundle emanating from the 2" conduit exceeded single maximum temperature criterion at 59 minutes, however no visual degradation of the cable was observed and IR test results were acceptable. This test comonstrated that less extensive upgrades than those previously qualified can be successfully applied to air drops with a nominal cable bundle diameter of 1 1/2" and 2", including the interface regions with protected cable trays.

l I

\

ER ME-067 :

Rev.3 Page 12 of 176 Conduit Test An ptable conduit surface and cable temperatures with no fire barrier burn through and no cable degradation (including acceptable IR test results) were observed for radial bond coverage upgraded with stainless steel mesh and trowel grade material buildup. This test demonstrated that less extensive upgrades than those previously qualified can be '

successfully applied to conduit radial bend areas.

Cable " Box Desion" Enclosuto Test Acceptable cable temperatures and no cable degradation (including acceptable IR 'est !

results) were observed. This test demonstrated that air drop cables which transition between protected cable trays and embedded "through wall" sleeves can be satisfactorily protected when enclosed in " box" enclosures constructed using a single layer of Thermo-Lag panels.

Laroe Power Caoles in Exoosed Tray Test Acceptable cable temperatures wkh no fire barrier burn through and only minor cable jacket 1 deterioration (including acceptable IR test results) were observed. Excessive temperatures were however recorded by thermocouples installed on bare -#8 AWG copper conductors installed within the individual protected cable bundles. See Appendix A for further di ,cussion i of the test acceptance basis. This test demonstrated that acceptable cable temperatures for j

1/C 750kMCil cables protected with 330-660 Flexi-Blanket can be maintained when such protective cable bundles are routed in exposed cable trays.

I CONCLUSIONS i

As a result of tests conducted during the 5 test sessions summarized above, TU Electric has l

concluded: i

1. Thermo-Lag performs its design function if properly corfigured

2. Thermo-lag installations for 3/4 and 1 inch diameter conduits perform their design function when upgraded by addition of 1/4 inch thick overlays

3. Thermo-Lag installations for 1 1/2 and 2 inch diameter conduits perform their design function without addition of overlays as demonstrated by cable functionality evaluation .

4. Thermo-Lag installations for 3 inch diameter and larger conduits perform their design j

- function without addition of overlays

5. Thermo-Lag installations for lateral bend condulets (LBDs), junction boxes, pullboxes, etc. perform their design function when joints and conduit interf aces are reinforced l I

with extemal stress skin and trowel grade material buildup.

i l

l 1

ER ME-067 Rev.3 Page 13 of 176

6. Thermo-Lag installations for conduit radial bends perform their design function when configured as follows:

a. 3/4 and 1. inch-addition of 1/4 inch thick overlay and external stress skin or stainless steel mesh in conjunction with trowel grade material buildup

b. 1 1/2 inch and larger - addition of either external stress skin or stainless steel mesh in conjunction with trowel grade material buildup

7. Thermo-Lag installations for 12 inch wide cable trays perform their design functions when configured as follows:

a. Straight horizontal and vertical runs including radial bends - no upgrade or reinforcement of joints is required

b. Tee sections - unsupported bottom butt joints require reinforcement with either external stress skin and trowel grade material buildup or stitching, and longitudinal joints require reinforcement with external stress skin and trowel grade material buildup

8. Thermo-Lag installations for 18 through 24 inch wide cable trays perform their design function when configured as follows:

a. Straight horizontal and vertical runs including radial bends - longitudinal joints require reinforcement with external stress skin and trowel grade material buildup. Unsupported bottom butt joints at support locations only, require reinforcement with external stress skin and trowel grade material buildup or additional Thermo-Lag panel strips attached to the horizontal support member coverage

b. Tee sections - unsupported bottom butt joints require reinforcement with either external stress skin and trowel grade buildup or stitching, and longitudinal joints require reinforcement with extemal stress skin and trowel grade material buildup

9. Thermo-Lag installations for cable trays wider than 24 inch perform th3ir design function when configured as follows:

a. Straight horizontal and vertical runs including radial bands unsupported bottom butt joints on horizontal portions and top and botum butt joints on vertical portions require reinforcement with either rxtemet stress skin and trowel grade material buildup or stitching, and longitudinal joir.ts require reinforcement with extemal stress skin and trowel grade material buildup

1 8 4

4 4

ER-ME-067 Rev.3 t

Page 14 of 176 l

b. Tee sections - unsupported bottom butt joints require reinforcement with either external stress skin and trowel grade buildup or stitching, and longitudinal joints require reinforcement with external stress skin and trowel grade material buildup

10. Thermo-Lag installations for air drop cables perform their design function when configured as follows:

a. Cable bundle diameter less than 1 1/2 inch - three (3) layers of 330-660 Flexi-Blanket are required

b. Cable bundle diameters greater than or equal to 1 1/2 inch - two (2) layers of 330-660 Flexi-Blanket are required

11. Thermo-Lag " box design" installations for air dn a cables when adequately supported perform their design function with a single layer of Thermo-Lag panels

12. Thermo-Lag installations for single large power cables (i.e.,1/C 750kMCil) wrapped with 2 layers of 330-660 Flexi-Blanket and routed in exposed cable tray perform their design function, however addition of a third layer is necessary to ensure complete thermal protection of the cables

13. Cable ampacity derating factors applied at CPSES are sufficient to assure cables will j perform their design function i

i in addition, these tests demonstrated that plant installation of supports with structural members protected for a nominal 9 inch distance from the raceway envelope is acceptable l and that a fog nozzle hose stream test is an effective hose stream test.

i

ER-ME-067 Rev.3 Page 15 of 176 1.0 PURPOSE The purpose of this report is to evaluate the acceptability of Thermo-Lag for use as a fire barrier for CPSES.

Section 2.0 provides background information related to Thermo-Lag and its role in providing defense-in-depth for fire protection at CPSES.

Section 3.0 provides the licensing basis for fire barriers for CPSES.

Section 4.0 describes the qualification tests and their results for Thermo-Lag for CPSES, and compares those results against the CPSES licensing basis.

Section 5.0 describes the overall programs utilized for installation of upgraded Thermo-Lag barriers in Unit 2 and upgrade of existing Thermo-Lag barriers in Unit 1.

Section 6.0 evaluates the CPSES ampacity derating testing and calculations for cables installed in electrical raceways that have a Thermo-Lag fire barrier.

Section 7.0 discusses the combustibility effects of Thermo-Lag.

Section 8.0 identifies the additional actions that TU Electric is planning to ensure the adequacy of Thermo-Lag for CPSES.

Section 9.0 provides TU Electric's conclusions regarding the acceptability of Thermo Lag for use as a fire barrier for CPSES.

I 1

, m--- - Dr' w

1 I

ER-ME-067 Rev.3 Page 16 of 176 l

2.0 BACKGROUND

The purpon of the Fire Protection Program at CPSES is to protect the ability to safely shut down the plant in the event of a fire.

The overall Fire Protection Program was developed utilizing the defense in depth concept.

This concept is a combination of:

1. Preventing fires from starting

2. Quickly detecting and suppressing fires that do occur to limit the extent of damage

3. Designing plant safety systems so that if a de.*ign basis fire occurs, in spite of the fire protection systems provided, the fire will not prevent plant safe shutdown functions from being performed.

Measures have been taken to prevent fires from starting. The plant is constructed of either non-combustible or fire resistant materials, and transient combustibles are managed through administrative controls.

The active Fire Protection System at CPSES detects, alarrns, and extinguishes fires, it is comprised of two subsystems: Fire Detection and Fire Suppression. The Fire Detection System is a plant-wide system designed to detect fires in the plant, alert the Control Room operators, and alert the plant fire brigade of the fire and its location. The Fire Suppression System is designed to extinguish any design basis fire. It is comprised of a water supply system, fixed water sprinkler and spray systems, halon systems, fire hose stations, and l portabit, ixtinguishers. l The passive Fire Protection System at CPSES protects safe shutdown systems from the effects of fires. In particular, the plant is divided into fire areas which are separated by three-hour structural fire barriers to limit the impact of a postulated fire to a local area.

Add'tionally, where redundant tire safe shutdown equipment cabling outside of containment is located in the same fire area and is not separated by a three hour fire barrier or a horizontal distance of 20 feet with negligible intervening combustibles or fire hazard, one train of this cabling, if not one hour rated cable,'is enclosed by a one hour fire barrier with fire detection and fire supp,'ession unless an alternate shutdown path is utilized or justifications for alternato protection schemes are provided.

At CPSES, Thermo-Lag is utilized to provide this one-hour fire barrier. Thermo-Lag Fire Resistant Materials operate on the principle of sublimation with partial intumescence. The ,

performance of the product is based on the integrated effect of sublimation, heat blockage derived from endothermic reaction and decomposition and increased thermal resistance of the char layer developed through the process of intumescence and the effect of reradiation.

In short, Thermo-Lag is a sacrificial barrier and during the course of a fire, Thermo-Lari is

- *m- --.wy.. mw ,,,w, - ,e.e-y- , e-i #uime-a w---..- 4 --- w--e - -e' T Pye--S

Mt?M"C'7'"- ^-?

i ER-ME-067 Rev.3 Page 17 of 176 8

designed to be consumed through the sublimation and decomposition process.

Thermo-Lag is used at CPSES to provide a one-hour fire barrier between redundant trains of fire safe shutdown equipment. In this use, the materialis installed as a protective envelope around essential commodities, such as a raceway, junction box, or pull box which contain safe shutdown cables, in these applications, the Thermo-Lag material is used to preclude .

fire-induced damage to the cables thereby protecting safe shutdown function.

Thermo-Lag is also used as a fireproofing material for the protection of structural steel. This use is evaluated in Appendix D of this report.

l I

'l l

i l

i I

I

^~ -- - . _ . - - ._, _ _ _

I l

ER-ME-067 Rev.3 l Page 18 of 176 3.0 UCENSING BASIS FOR FIRE BARRIERS FOR CPSES ELECTRICAL RACEWAYS 3.1 NRC Regulations The applicable NRC regulations are contained in 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix A, General Design Criterion (GDC) 3, which states in its relevant part:

Structures, systems, and components important to safety shall be designed and located to minimize, cone' stent with other safety requirements, the probability and effect of fire and explosions.

Specific direction to implement GDC 3 is provided in 10 CFR 50.48 (e).

Appendix R to Part 50 (Reference 10.4.2) also contains provisions related to fire protection.

However, Appendix R only applies to plants that were licensed to operate prior to 1979.

Since CPSES was not licensed to operate prior to 1979, Appendix R does not constitute a requirement for CPSES. However, c discussed below, Appendix R does provide guidance for CPSES.

3.2 NRC Guidanco As stated in NRC Supplemental Safety Evaluation Report (SSER) 21 for CPSES (Reference 10.24.2), Appendix R to Part 50, Appendix A to STP APCSB 9.5-1 (Reference 10.4.1) and Generic Letters (GD 81-12 and 8610 (References 10.7.1 and 10.7.2) provide guidance for the CPSES Fire Protection Program.

Section Ill.G of Appendix R to Part 50 states that, when redundant trains of systems necessary to achieve and maintain hot shutdown are located in the same fire area outside containment, means shall be provided to ensure that one of the redundant trains is " free of fire damage". This section also states that one acceptable means consists of the following:

Enclosure of cable and equipment and associated non-safety circuits of one redundant train in a fire barrier having a one-hour rating. In addition, fire detectors and an automatic fire suppression system shall be installed in the fire area.

The statement of Considerations for Appendix R also states that the standard test fire for l rating barriers is defined by ASTM E-119 (which is similar to NFPA 251) (References 10.1.1 l and 10.2.1).

Section D.1(a) of Appendix A to BTP APCSB 9.5-1 states that redundant safety systems should be separated from each other so that both are not subject to fire damage. With respect to cables and cable tray penetrations, Section D.3 (d) stated as follows: 1 Cable and cable tray penetration of fire barriers (vertical and horizontal) should be i

1

ER-ME-067 ,

Rev.3 Page 19 of 176 sealed to give protection at least equivalent to that fire barrier. The design of fire barriers for horizontal and vertical cable trays should, as a minimum, meet the requirements of ASTM E 119," Fire Test of Building Construction and Materials,"

including the hose stream test.

Section 3.1 of Enclosure 2 to GL 86-10 contains provisions related to qualification tests for fire barriers. This Section states that, in accordance with NFPA 251, the temperatures of the unexposed side of conduit and cable tray fire barrier wrap should not exceed 325'F during qualification tests. However, it also allows temperatures to exceed 325'F if justification is provided, which "may be based on an analysis demonstrating that the maximum recorded temperature is sufficiently below the cable insulation ignition temperature." This section also identifies criteria that should be met if the field configuration cannot exactly replicate the tested configuration.

Applicable NRC guidance for fireproofing is discussed in GL 86-10 and states that compliance with the NRC guidance is not required, and a licensee may deviate from this guidance if the deviation is identified and justified.

3.3 TU ELECTRIC COMMITMENTS ;

The Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR) (Reference 10.6.1) and the Fire Protection Report (FPR) (Reference 10.6.2) for CPSES are the primary sources of TU Electric's cornrnitments related to fire protection.

Section 9.5.1 of the CPSES FSAR states:

Where redundant fire safe shutdown systems, required to bring the plant to a hot standby condition, are located within the same fire area and are subject to damage from a single fire hazard a Fire Hazards Analysis Evaluation demonstrates and documents corr. ; lance to that recommended in the guideline by protecting the function with one of the following:

For systems located outside the Containment Building the following is provided:

1) A one-hour fire barrier or one hour fire rated cable for one set of required fire safe shutdown cabling and, based on the fire hazards of the area, automatic fire suppression and fire detection are provided.

2) Attemate shutdown capability

3) Fire detection and suppression, adequate for the hazards of the area, accompanied by 20 feet of horizonal separation with negligible intervening combustibles or fire hazards, unless justified as described in the Fire Protection Report.

4 sii & - J 4e4 e +4.- 4 ER-ME-067 Rev.3 Page 20 of 176

4) Separation of redundant required sets of fire safe shutdown systems and components by a fire barrier having a 3 hour3.472222e-5 days 8.333333e-4 hours 4.960317e-6 weeks 1.1415e-6 months rating, unless justified as described in the Fire Protection report.

The FSAR and the FPR do not contain any provisions governing the procedures or acceptance criteria for qualification tests for fire barriers for electrical raceways. In particular, neither contain a commitment to qualify fire barriers for electrical raceways in accordance with ASTM E-119 (although such commitments are contained for fire barriers for other components, such as penetrations). The NRC reviewed and accepted the CPSES Fire Protection Program in SSERs 12,21, and 23 (References 10.24.1 through 10.24.3), which similarly address the criteria to be used for fire barriers for electrical raceway.

However, other licensing correspondence between the NRC and TU Electric did discuss qualification testing of Thermo-Lag for CPSES electrical raceways, in particular, in a letter dated November 18,1981 (Reference 10.22.2), TU Electric requested the NRC to evaluate a qualification test report for Thermo-Lag to determine its acceptability to meet the requirements for fire barner material. As stated in the test report, the qualification tests were run using the following procedures and acceptance criteria:

e Use of the ASTM E 119 time / temperature cu;ve for the fire test.

e Use of the ANI Standard #5 (July 1979) for instrumentation, hose stream test, and acceptance criteria for circuit integrity and continuity.

With the exception of the time / temperature curve, ASTM E-119 was not used in this qualification test, because it is not applicable to raceway fire barriers. ASTM E-119 was intended to demonstrate in terms of fire endurance (time) the ability of a wall or floor assembly to contain a fire or to retain the structural integrity (including beams and columns) or both during the test conditions imposed by this standard. The standard was not specifically developed for testing of cable raceway barriers and as such does not contain provisions which address the inte grity of the circuit. This was recognized in later ANI guidelines (Reference 10.3.1 and 10.3.2).

By letter dated December 1,1981, from Robert L Tedesco to R.J. Gary (Reference 10.22.3),

the NRC concluded that, based upon its review of the test report, The,mo-Lag provides an acceptable fire barrier for cable trays and cables, meets the requirements of Appendix R, and therefore is acceptable.

The ANI standard identifies a number of requirements for conducting a test, including the following:

Materials and components in the system, with the exception of the cable, shall be rated as non-combustible, i.e. flame spread, fuel contribution and smoke developed of 25 or less.

n ER-ME-067 Rev.3 Page 21 of 176 o Tne test exposure fire shall be the standard temperature-time curve in ASTM-E-119 for a minimum of one hour.

After completion of the test exposure fire, the assembly shall be subjected to a hose stream.

Cables shall be energized during the test. >

Thermocouples shall be located on the surface of the cables, and temperatures shall be recorded throughout the test.

The ANI standard states that the tests are acceptable if circuit integrity is maintained during the fire test and the hose stream test.

Applicable NRC guidance for fire proofing is discussed in GL 86-10 and states that compliance with NRC guidance is not required, and a licensee may deviate from this guidance if the deviation is identified and justified. This is the basis for the usage of Thermo-Lag as a Fireproofing material which is discussed in Appendix D to this report.

3.4 APPUCATION OF ANI CRITERIA BY TU ELECTRIC As discussed above, the TU Electric acceptance criteria (used for the first and second series of tests in June and August 1992, respectively) was based upon ANI Bulletin 14o. 5, ;

"ANI/MAERP Standard Fire Endurance Test Method to Qualify a Protective Envelope for Class !

IE Electrical Circuits" (Reference 10.3.2). TU Electric has interpreted this bulletin to require j that the cables be free of fire damage such that the electrical circuits remain functional during l the test. l Functionality can be demonstrated by one or more of several means.

Circuit intearity l I

The cables are monitored throughout the fire endurance test to ensure that circuit integrity is 1 maintained. This low voltage monitoring assures that a closed circuit is available at all times.

Cable Temoerature The test configuration is monitored at various locations to determine cable temperature j throughout the test. Cable temperature can indicate an onset of cable damage. Cable temperatures below 325'F are considered a clear indication of no cable damage. Higher temperatures may also be acceptable but they must be evaluated separately or supplemented with additional inspection or test results, f l

I i

I

_m -

_, , l

ER-ME-067 Rev.3 Page 22 of 176 Cable insoections When other criteria do not clearly indicate a functional cable, the cable may be visually inspected following the fire test. A cable which shows no effects from the fire is considered a functional cable. Some visual damage may be acceptable but additional evaluation of test l results need to be considered.

Insulation Resistance (Meager) Test A megger test at the cable's rated voltage indicates the capability of the cable to function, 1 For a cable which was not altered by the fire, this test demonstrates the capability of the cable to function. For cables which sustained slight alteration during the fire (i.e. hardening, blistering, cracking, etc.), consideration is given to the worst conditions that could occur in the plant (e.g. the atiected portion of the cable against the tray or conduit).

Based on the NRC letter dated October 29.1992 (Ref 10.22.1), for the third series of tests ,

(The November / December 1992 tests) cable functionality was demonstrated using insulation Resistance tests. The test method tested individual conductor to individual conductor and i individual conductors to ground for each cable using the criteria outlined in Reference I

10.22.1.

1 The demonstration that a specific test configuration is acceptable is based upon demonstrating that the cable remains functional. Some or all of the testing results above are l considered to conclude that the fire barrier configuration is acceptable.

3.5 OCTOBER 1992 ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA Following TU Electric's tests in June and August 1992, the NRC expressed concerns about the use of the ANI acceptance criteria, in part because these acceptance criteria were not the same as the criteria the NRC was applying to the industry as a whole (i.e., ASTM E-119 and GL 86-10). In order to alleviate the NRC's concerns, TU Electric submitted a let'er to the NRC on September 24,1992 (Reference 10.22.17), detailing the company's position on the proposed acceptance criteria for qualification testing of Thermo-Lag. This letter was alto discussed with the NRC during a meeting on October 27,1992, and the proposed acceptance criteria was revised to resolve NRC concerns.

In a letter dated October 29,1992 entitled "Thermo-Lag Acceptance Methodology for Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station - Unit 2" (Reference 10.22.1), the NRC approved the use of TU Electric's revised acceptance criteria. The approved acceptance criteria are summarized below:

1. Average extemal conduit and average cable tray rails temperatures (supplemented by cable temperatures) do not increase by more than 250*F (i.e temperatures do not exceed 250*F plus ambient), provided a

n -

y ER-ME-067 i

Rev.3 i Page 23 of 176 similar series of thermocouples (e.g. cable tray side rails) are averaged together. In addition, no single thermocouple reading shall exceed 30 percent above the maximum allowable average temperature rise (i.e.

250*F + 75*F = 325*F, above ambient) during the fire test. If either, the r 250*F average rise or the single 325*F point rise is exceeded, then visual cable inspections are required. ,

2. There shall be no burn through of the fire barrier (i.e the raceway is not visible through the fire barrier). If burn through occurs, cablo functionality testing is required.

3. If the temperature enteria are not satisfied, cables shall be visually {

inspected. The cables are acceptable if none of the following attributes are identified during the inspections: Jacket swelling, splitting, or discoloration; shield exposed; jacket hardening; Jacket blistering, cracking or melting; conductor exposed, degraded or discolored; or bare conductor exposed. If these cable visual criteria are not satisfied, cable functionality tests are required.

4. If there are signs of thermal damage to the cables, or if barrier burn ,

through occurs, insulation Resistance (IR) tests are used to demonstrate functional performance of cables. -

l The minimum acceptable insulation resistance value (using the test voltage values for various voltages listed below) is determined using the following expression.

]

IR (mega-ohms) > H1 meaa-ohm oer kv)+ 11

1000 ft1 length of cable (ft)

Cable Tvpe Ooeratina Voltaae Meaaer Test Voltaae Power 21000 volts 2500 VDC 1

< 1000 volts 1500 VDC i instrument s 250 VDC 500 VDC Instrument s 250 VDC 500 VDC l and Control s 120 VAC 500 VDC 1

-. l

g ,

i ER-ME-067 :

Rev.3 Page 24 of 176

5. An IR (megger) test should performed for instrumentation cables (at least once during a one hour fire test),in order to assure that the cables will maintain sufficient insulation resistance levels necessary for proper operation of the instruments or if the IR test is not performed during the ,

fire endurance test LOCA temperature profiles may be used to evaluate cable functionality. ,

These acceptance criteria were used in TU Electric's subsequent series of tests, conducted in November and December of 1992 (Session 3), March of 1993 (Session 4) and August of 1993 (Session 5).

3.6

SUMMARY

NRC regulations do not specify any acceptance criteria for qualification tests for fire barriers for electrical raceway. Similarly, neither the FSAR (Reference 10.6.1), Fire Protection Report (Reference 10.6.2), nor SSERs for CPSES issued through SSER 23 identified any particular '

acceptance criteria for qualification tests for fire barriers for electrical raceways. However, i

NRC did approve a qualification test report for Thermo-Lag for CPSES electrical raceways, that utilized the ANI acceptance criteria and the ASTM E-119 time / temperature curve ]

(Reference 10.22.3).

The June and August 1992 tests were evaluated under the ANI criteria using ASTM E-119 as guidance.

In a letter dated October 29,1992 (Reference 10.22.1), NRC approved additional acceptance criteria for Thermo-Lag at CPSES. The guidance provided in GL-86-10 required that cables be maintained free of fire damage. The additional acceptance criteria provided in the above letter does not reduce that requirement, but does clarify what is required to meet that requirement. The results of subsequent TU Electric testing were evaluated using this acceptance criteria.

For testing conducted in March of 1993 (Session 4) and August of 1993 (Session 5), TU Electric opted to eliminate the ANI criteria for circuit integrity and continuity from the test acceptance basis. The NRC provided concurrence with this change in fire endurance test methodology via SSER 27 (Reference 10.24.5).

l if

r ER-ME-067 Rev.3 Page 25 of 176 4.0 THERMO4.AG FIRE ENDURANCE TEST 4.1 Test Methodology When possible, all materials used (Thermo-Lag, cable tray, cables, conduits, and penetation seal materials) were taken from the CPSES warehousc No effort was made to select the "best" materials, in fact, the issuance of materials for the test articles was the same as for the materials in the plant using work package and pick tickets.

4.1.1 June 1992 and August 1992 Tests .

In the June 1992 and August 1992 tests, circuit integrity was used as the acceptance criteria based on the NRC approval (Reference 10.22.3) of the SWRI Test (Reference 10.12.10). The intent of protecting the cables is to ensure that they will perform their function during and after a fire until the plant is in a safe shutdown condition and the cables can be inspected and 4 replaced, if required.

As part of the test program at Omega Point, the cables were also visually inspected to determine degradation and megger tested to ensure the cables would remain functional.

Cable temperatures along with other temperatures such as tray rail temperatures were rnonitored to provide an indication of the performance of the Fire Barrier System and to provide a basis for engineering evaluation of non tested configurations.

The conduit itself is an integral part of the Fire Barrier System and provides not only mechanical protection of the cables but also a thermal barrier for the cables.

4 During the evaluation of the test data for cable trays, it was noted that the cable and tray rail temperature, away from where the Thermo-Lag joints opened met the acceptance criteria for ,

nonload bearing walls of NFPA 251.

4.1.2 November and December 1992 Tests, March 1993 Test and August 1993 Tests -

i in the November 1992 and subsequent tests, rceeway temperatures were used as the baseline acceptance enteria in accordance with the NRC letter, dated October 29,1992 (Reference 10.22.1). These acceptance criteria limit the average temperature rise to 250*F and individual thermocouple temperature rise to 325*F. If this criterion was exceeded, then '

visual cable inspections are required.

4 f

in addition to temperature rise, visual inspection of the fire barrier was also required to ensure l

that there was co bum through of the barrier, if this criterion was not met, cable functionality testing was required.

)

.- . - . ~

v ER-ME-067 Rev.3 Page 26 of 176 i The hose stream was applied with a 30 degree fog nonle, five feet from the barrier, with 75

psi at the nonle for a 5 minute duration. The acceptance enteria was no raceway visible through the barrier after the hose stream.

As part of the program, the cables were visually inspected and insulation resistance (!R) tests were conducted on the cables, immediately following the hose stream tests.

1 42 Test Results

! Based upon the review of plant raceway geometries documented in Appendix C of this report, j the following commcdities were identified for inclusion in the CPSES fire test program:

J e Conduits (3/4",1",1 1/2", 2", 3" & 5")

i e Cable Trays (12",24" 30" & 36")

! e Thermo-Lag penetration fire stops l e Junction boxes j

e Air drops e Thermo-Lag " box design" enclosure for air drops e Protected cables contained in exposed cable tray i Testing has been conducted at Omega Point Testing Laboratory, San Antonio, Texas,

. including twenty three fire tests and six ampacity tests in five testing sessions.

j e Test Session 1, June,1992 Schemes 1 to 5

Test Session 2, August,1992 Schemes 6 to 8 e Test Session 3, November, December 1992 Schemes 9-1 to 11-1,12-1 to 13-1 and 14-1 e Test Session 4, March 1993, Scheme 15-1 and Ampacity Derating Tests e Test Session 5, August 1993, Schemes 11-2,11-4,11-5.13 2 and 15-2 r

The individual test schemes are described in detail in Appendix A.

The acceptance criterion for Test Sessions 1 and 2 tests was ANI Bulletin No. 5," ant /MAERP Standard Fire Endurance Test Method to Qualify a Protective Envelope for Class 1E Electrical

a i

I 55R-ME-067 Rev.3 Page 27 of 176 a

Circuits" (Reference 10.3.2). Its intent is to demonstrate in terms of fire endurance (time), the ability of an electrical cable to remain functionalinside a protective envelope during a fire test condition. The ANI acceptance criteria is "All Circuits Are To Be Monitored To Detect Failure, 1 Circuit To-Circuit, Circuit To-System and Circuit To-Ground" and maintain circuit integrity after a fire endurance test using the ASTM E-119 time vs temperature curve and a hose stream test.

The acceptance criterion for subsequent Test Sessions 3,4 and 5 tests was the NRC letter dated October 29,1992 (Reference 10.22.1). Its intent is to demonstrate in terms of fire endurance (time), the ability of an electrical cable to remain functional inside a fire barrier during a fire test condition. The acceptance criterion ensures cablo functior,auty atter a fire endurance test using the ASTM E-110 time vs temperature and a fog nozzle hose stream test.

4.2.1 CONDUlTS Together the five testing sessions have tested the full range of conduits (3/4" through 5")

installed at CPSES. The Scheme 2 (session 1) conduit tests showed high temperature responses in the small conduits. Specifically, although circuit integrity was maintained, the 3/4" conduit reached a cable temperature of 609*F and resulted in cable degradation. The 1" j conduit maintained circuit integrity throughout the test, however blistering of the Jacket was observed and the cable was considered to have suffered " fire damage". The 5' conduit o' Scheme 2 (session 1) passed both the fire endurance and hose steam tests, circuit integrity was maintained and the cables were free of fire damage.

Due to the results of the 3/4" and 1" conduits tested in Scheme 2 (session 1), a subsequent test (Scheme 7(session 2)) was conducted to test upgraded Thermo-Lag application techniques and to bound the range of conduits requiring an upgrade. Scheme 7 included 1 3/4",1-1/2",2", and 3" conduit sizes. The upgrades for the 3/4" conduits in scheme 7 (sess;on

2) are discussed below. j The 3" conduit in Scheme 7 (session 2) passed the fire endurance test in that circuit integrity 1 I

was maintained. The hose stream test was not conducted on Scheme 7 (session 2) per agreement with NRC request to allow for a more effective barrier inspection. Instead the test article was cooled with a garden hose. The conduit lateral bond (LBDs) enclosures shifted, opening up the top joints of the LBD enclosure and some slight blistering of the outer Jacket of one cable was observed. Because the LBD Joint opened, it was decided to reinforce the LBD enclosure.

The 2" and 1-1/2" conduits in Scheme 7 (session 2) passed the fire enduranca test since circuit integrity was maintained. However, there was blistering of the cable jackets and the LBD enclosures opened similar to the 3" conduit. Pending further testing and analysis of results, to support completion of the Unit 2 Thermo-Lag installation.11 was decided to l reinforce the LBD and to upgrade the fire barrier on the 1-1/2" and 2" conduits using a total thickness of 3/4" of Thermo-Lag material.

l 1

ER-ME-067 Rev.3 Page 28 of 176 The test of 3/4" conduits in Scheme 7 (session 2) was designed to evaluate four Thermo-Lag appucation upgrade techniques, e 3/4" Preshaped Sections (PSS) a 1/2" (PSS) with an overlay of 1/4" (PSS) e 1/2" (PSS) with 1/4" buildup of trowel grade material e 1/2' (FSS) with 1/4" spiral wound 330-660 Flexi-Blanket 4 All four designs passed th fire endurance test. Based on the visualinspections of cables, only the cable inside the 1/4" thick pre-shaped overlay article had no blistering of the cable.

These LBD enclosures opened similar to the other applications in Scheme 7 (session 2). It was decided to use the 1/4" pre-shaped overlay with reinforced LBD enclosures in Unit 2's design. Additionally, this same upgrade method for 3/4" and 1" conduits and lateral bend enclosures was later implemented for Unit 1.

I Due to the results of the 3/4" through 2" conduits tested in Scheme 7 (session 2), subsequent tests (Schemes 9-1,9-3,10-1, end 10-2 (session 3)) were conducted to test upgraded Thermo-Lag application techniques.

A 3/4" conduit with the 1/4" overlay along with 3" and 5" conduits, all with upgraded LBD enclosures and radial bonds, were tested in Scheme 9-1 (session 3) and passed the fire ;

endurance test. The cable temperatures were all below the maximum and average allowable.

There mi no burn through of the fire barrier atter the hose stream test, no visible cable I

degradation. ciccuit integrity was maintained and all cables passed the insulation res; stance (IR) tests. The exposed conduit thermocouple leads became saturated with Thermo-Lag l

decomposition residue and the readings were determined to be incorrect and thus were not used (see Section 4.4.1 for further discussion).

Additional 3" conduits which were upgraded with reinforced joints on the LBD's were included as part of test schemes 10-1 and 10 2 (session 3) and passed the fire endurance test. The l cable temperatures were all below maximum and average allowable for Scheme 101 (session

3) and Test Scheme 10-2 (session 3). There was no burn through of the fire barrier after the f hose stream test, no visible cable degradation, circuit integrity was maintained and all cables l j

passed the IR tests. The exposed conduit thermocouples again became saturated and the readingt were determined to be incorrect and thus were not used (see Section 4.4.1 for -

further discussion).

A 3/4" conduit with 3/4" thickness prefabricated half sections was tested in Scheme 9-3 (session 3). This test was conducted to determine if this method could be qualified for backfit l on Unit 1. As described above, this method of upgrade was not used.

j ER-ME-067 Rev.3 )

Page 29 of 176 Additionally,1 1/2" and 2" conduits with only 1/2" thick prefabricated half sections and LBD upgrades were tested in Scheme 9-3 (Session 3). This test was conducted to determine if the 1/4" overlay w% required for backfit on Unit 1, if the LBD enclosures were reinforced. The results of this test were that the maximum and average temperature c.iteria on the cables was exceeded. However, visual examination showed only outer Jacket damage and no damage on the inner jacket. No loss of circuit integrity occurred and the IR test results were within allowable limits. A subsequent cable functionality evaluation (Reference 10.23.2) indicated that the elevated temperatures reached in the test would not impair the function of the cables installed in 1 1/2" and 2" conduits in Unit 1. The exposed conduit thermocouples became j saturated and were not used (See Section 4.4.1 for further discussion). Therefore, the design for upgrade of Unit 1 barriers does not specify 1/4" thick overlays for installation of 1 1/2" and 2" conduits.

A 2" conduit with upgrade only at the radial bends was tested in Scheme 13-2. This test was ,

conducted to determine if stainless steel mesh with trowel grade material buildup was an acceptable method of upgrading radial bends on conduits in Unit 1. The tes' results demonstrated that this method was acceptable for upgrade of conduit radia' bends.

4.2.2 CABLE TRAY Cable trays (12",24",30" and 36") were tested in Schemes 1-2, 3, 5, 6, 8, 11-1, 11-2, 11-4,11-5,12-1,12-2,131,13-2,14-1 and 15-1. The test articles in Schemes 3,5,6, and 8 (sessions 1+2) were assembled in accordance with CPSES procedures at the time of testing. The Scheme 1 assembly 2 (session 1) test was done to an upgraded design, to test upgrade techniques of butt joint stitching and external stress skin reinforcement at joints. Schemes ;

111,121,12-2,13-1 and 14-1 (session 3) were assembled in accordance with the revised ;

CPSES procedures.

Scheme 3 (session 1) tested a 12" tray which passed the fire endurance test and hose stream test. Circuit integrity was maintained and the cables were " free of fire damage."

Scheme 5 (session 1) tested a 30" tray with a tee section. The bottom joint on the Thermo-Lag under the tee opened at approximately 15 minutes into the test and circuit integrity was lost at 42 minutes and the test was stopped. The article was cooled down with !

a garden hose. A review of the test article showed that fire damage was localized to the area l around the joint and the rest of the article was in good condition. l Based on the results of testing Scheme 5 (session 1), Scheme 1 assembly 2 (session 1)

(upgraded design) was tested (Scheme 1 assembly 1 was a non-upgraded design with was not tested). Scheme 1 assembly 2 (session 1) tested a 36" tray with a tee, upgraded by reinforcing the joints with stitching or stress skin overlay. Scheme 1 (session 1) passed the fire endurance and hose stream test in that circuit integrity was maintained and the cables were "freo from fire damage." This test demonstrated the acceptability of the upgrade design.

1

ER-ME-067 Rev.3 Page 30 of 176 in order to determine which trays needed to incorporate or backfit the upgrade, a 24" tray with a tee (Scheme 6 (session 2)) and a 30" tray without a tee (Scheme 8) were tested. In both cases,it was observed that butt joints opened to some degree. Based on this performance,it was decided that trays would be upgraded with stitching and stress skin overlay.

Based on the test results of Schemes 6 and 8 (session 2), confirmatory testing was performed in Schemes 11-1,12-1,12 2,13-1, and 14-1 (session 3) Scheme 15-1 (session 4) and Unit 1 test schemes 11-2,11-4,11-5 and 13-2 (session 5). These tests were conducted to validate ,

joint reinforcement details.

Scheme 11-1 (session 3) tested a 24" tray with middle and end air drops. This scheme passed the fire endurance test. The tray rail and cable temperatures were all below the '

maximum and average allowable. There was no bum through of the fire barrier after the hose stream test. In addition, there was no visible cable degradation in the tray area, circuit integrity was maintained and all cables passed the IR tests. ,

Scheme 12-1 (session 3) tested a 30" tray without a tee. This scheme passed the fire endurance test. The tray rail and cable temperatures were all below the maximum and !

average allowable. There was no bum through of the fire barrier after the hose stream test.

In addition, there was no visible cable degradation, circuit integrity was maintained and all cables passed the IR tests.

I Scheme 12 2 (session 3) tested a 24" tray with a tee section. This Scheme passed the fire endurance test. The tray rail and cable temperatures were all below the maximum and f average allowable. There was no burn through of the fire barrior; however, during the hose l I

stream test, the Thermo-Lag panel below the fire stop (seal) in the tee sagged which provided an opening between the panel and fire stop. There was no visible cable degradation, circuit integnty was maintained and all cables passed the IR tests. Due to the opening of the fire barrier, the cable temperatures were evaluated against CPSES LOCA temperature ,

1 qualifications profiles and found to be acceptable. The CPSES design requirements were revised to provide mechanical attachment of the bottom Thermo-Lag panel to the fire stop.

Scheme 131 (session 3) tested a 12 in tray which was upgraded with reinforced longitudinal f i

and butt joints. This scheme passed the fire endurance test. The tray rail and cable temperatures were all below the maximum and average allotable. There was no bum through of the fire barrier in addition, there was no visible cable degradation, circuit integrity -

was maintained an all the cables passed the IR tests.

l Scheme 14-1 (session 3) tested a 30" tray with a tee. All joints were reinft'rced with stress skin overlay only. The tee had the bottom panel fastened to the fire stop. This scheme passed the fire endurance test. The tray rail and cable temperatures were below the the maximum and average allowable except a single tray rail temperature was 401*F which ;

exceeded the 395'F limit. However, the 395*F limit was exceeded in the last minutes of the

ER-ME-067 Rev.3 Page 31 of 176 test. There was no bum through of the fire barrier after the hose stream test and no visible cable degradation. Circuit integrity was maintained and all cables passed the IR tests.

Scheme 15-1 (session 4) tested a 36" tray without a tee. All joints were reinforced with stress skin and trowel grade buildup only, with no stitching of joints. This scheme passed the fire endurance test. The maximum and average temperatures for both cable and tray were well below the allowable. There was no burn through, visible cable inspection revealed no thermal damage and the IR tests wem well within allowable limits. Based on concurrence with the NRC (Reference 10.24.5) a to simplify conduct of the test, circuit integrity was not monitored.

Scheme 11-2 (session 5) tested a 24" tray with middle and end air drops. This was a Unit 1 test which tested 1 1/2" and 2" air drops with 2 layers of Flexi-Blanket, a tray with all joints upgraded with stress skin and trowel grade only and a modified upgrade of the air drop and tray interface with stainless steel mesh and trowel grade. Additionally, at horizontal support locations, Thermo-Lag panel strips were secured to the underlying panels on the support member to reinforce the region where panels installed on the underside of the horizontal tray portion abuts the panels used to cover the horizontal support members. This was a satisfactory test. One thermocouple on the 2" air drop exceeded the single maximum temperature criterion at 59 minute but all other maximum and average temperatures were well below the allowable. There was no burn through, visual cable inspection revealed no significant thermal damage and the results of the IR tests were well within the allowable limits.

Scheme 11-4 (session 5) tested two (2) stacked 24" cable trays with air drops transitioning from the trays to 8 embedded wall sleeves. This was a Unit 1 test which tested " box" design enclosure coverage for air drops consisting of a single layer of Thermo-Lag panels and the interface with the concrete structure. All joints on the box and the longitudinal and butt joints on the tray were reinforced with stress skin and trowel grade only and the wall interface was upgraded with stress skin and trowel grade plus additional panel material flared out onto the concrete and secured with Hitti bolts. Additionally, at horizontal support locations Thermo-Lag panel strips were secured to the underlying panels on the support member to reinforce the region where panels installed on the underside of horizontal tray portions abut the panels used to cover the horizontal support members. This was a satisfactory test. All raceway and cable temperature readings were well below the maximum and average allowable, visual cable inspection revealed no apparent thermal damage to the cables, the barrier opened dunng the hose stream test but there was no burn through and the IR tests were well within allowable limits. There was some minor jacket swelling on power cables which is discussed further in Section 4.5.5.

Scheme 115 (session 5) tested three (3) 24" trays arranged side by side with various upgrades on the joints. This was a Unit 1 test in which one tray had longitudinal joint upgrade only with stress skin and trowe! grade, one uay had circumferentially wrapped stress skin and trowel grade only and one tray was upgraded with ceramic banding material wrapped circumferentially around the tray. Additionally, for the tray reinforced along

4 ER-ME-067 Rev.3 Page 32 of 176 longitudinal joints, at the horizontal support location, Thermo-Lag pnel strips were secured to the underlying panels on the support member to reinforce N region where panels installed on the underside of the horizontal tray portion abuts the p ,els used to cover the horizontal support member. The tray with the circumferentially wrapped stress skin had the barrier breached and was not considered satisfactory. This upgrade method was not used for upgrade of Unit 1 tray coverage. The other two upgrade methods were satisfactory. The average and maximum raceway and cable temperatures on the longitudinal stress skin upgrade were well below the allowable. The raceway temperatures for the tray with ceramic banding reinforcement exceeded allowable but the cable temperatures were below allowable and the visual examination revealed no apparent thermal damage to the cables, there was no burn through and the IR tests were well within allowable limits. There was some Jacket swelling on power cables, which is discussed further in Section 4.5.5. Based on the results of this test, the method selected for upgrade of 18"-24" cable trays in Unit 1 was reinforcement of longitudinal joints with stress skin and additional panel strips to reinforce bottom butt joints at horizontal support members. Use of the ceramic banding upgrade was controlled by design and utilized on a limits basis only, where stress skin could not be installed along longitudinal joints.

Scheme 13-2 (session 5) tested a 12" cable tray without a tee and a 2" conduit with radial bends. This was a Unit 1 test which tested a 12" cable tray envelope with no joint upgrade (as currently installed in Unit 1) and conduit radial bend upgrade with stain!ess steel mesh and trowel grado. The test was satisfactory even though raceway temperatures exceeded average and maximum temperature allowances and there was some minor burn through on the tray coverage. The cable condition in the radial bend area on the conduit and in the tray indicated no cable damage with only minor jacket discoloration in the tray. All cable temperature measurements were within allowable limits. The IR tests were well within allowable limits.

Scheme 15-2 (session 5) tested large power cables (1/C 750 kMCil) wrapped with Thermo-Lag "Flexi Blanket" in an exposed tray. This was a Unit 1 test which tested wrapping 2 power cables individually with 2 layers of "Flexi-Blaoxet" and laying them in a 36" cable tray which was not protected with Thermo-Lag. Although single point and average temperature increase parameters were exceeded on bare #8 AWG copper wires within the protective wraps, the assembly, as tested, met the acceptance criteria contained in the NRC letter dated October l

i 29,1992 (Reference 10.22.1), for the following parameters,1) barrier inspection revealed no barrier openings or bum through,2) visual cable inspection revealed no appreciable, penetrating thermal damage to the conductor insulation, and 3) the results of the insulation resistance tests were well within allowable limits. However, based on the temperatures recorded on the bare #8 AWG copper conductor, TU Electric has opted to add a third layer of ,

l 330-660 Flexi-Blanket to ensure complete thermal protection of the cables. Additionally, during this test, steam and fluid were observed being driven from the "Flexi-Blanket" material.

This phenomena is further discussed in Section 4.5.6.

l

i c

ER-ME-067 Rev.3 Page 33 of 176 4.2.3 Therrno-l.ag Fire Stops A Thermo-Lag penetration fire stop installed in accordance with CPSES procedures was tested in Scheme 4 (session 1) in accordance with IEEE-634 (Reference 10.19). This test was done on a vertically oriented 36" wide tray with a 5" deep Thermo-Lag 330 fire stop. The fire stop passed the IEEE-634 acceptance criteria in that the back side temperature (380*F average) was significantly below the ignition temperature of the cable (700*) and did not allow the passage of the hose stream past the fire stop.

4.2.4 Junction Boxes A junction box with Thermo-Lag installed in accordance with the CPSES procedures in place at the time was tested in Scheme 2. The installation passed the fire endurance and hose stream test in that circuit integrity was maintained and the cables were free from fire damage.

Due to results of the Scheme 7 test (session 2), where LBD " box" enclosures shifted during the test, confirmatory testing of upgraded junction box designs were successfully pedormed in Schemes 10-1 and 10-2 (session 3).

Scheme 10-1 (session 3) tested one vertical and one horizontal junction box. The Thermo-Lag design used two layers of 1/2" nominal prefabricated panels with the first being flat panels and the second oeing ribbed panels. The junction boxes passed the fire endurance test. The cable and junction box temperatures were all well below maximum and average allowable. There was no burn through of the fire barrier. In addition, there was no visible cable degradation, circuit integrity was maintained and all cables passed the IR tests.

Scheme 10-2 (session 3) tested one vertical and one horizontal junction box. The Thermo.

Lag design used one layer of 1/2" nominal flat panels. The junction boxes passed the fire I endurance test. The cable and junction box temperatures were all below maximum and average allowable. There was no burn through of the fire barrier. In addition, there was no visible cable degradation, circuit integrity was maintained and all cables passed the IR tests.

4.2.5 Air Drops Scheme 11-1 (session 3) tested several cable air drops protected with Thermo-Lag 330-660 Flexi-Blanket. These air drops ranged from the approximate size of a 1" conduit to that of a 5" conduit. Flexi-Blanket used for heat path protection on nonessential air drops (protruding cables) was also tested. The air drops with 1" to 2" diameter cable bundles were protected with three layers of 1/4" Flexl-Blanket, while the 3" and larger were protected with two layers of 1/4" Flexi-blanket. All cable temperatures, inside conduit temperatures, and cable tray rail temperatures were below maximum and average allowable. There was no burn through of the fire barrier. In addition, there was no visible degradation of the cable except on the 5" air drop bundle where three cables showed signs of Jacket blistering. The Insulation on the l Individual conductors showed no signs of degradation, circuit integrity was maintained and all l 1 1 4 i

- - - _ - ~ . .

l t

l ER-ME-067 l Rev.3 Page 34 of 176 the cables passed the IR tests.

Scheme 11-2 (session 5) tested air drops with the approximate size of a 1 1/2" and a 2" conduit. This was a Unit 1 test in which the air drops were protected with 2 layers of "Flexi-Blanket". Flexi-Blanket used for heat path protection on a nonossential air drop (protruding cable) was also tested. This was a satisfactory test. One thermocouple on the 2" air drop exceeded maximum temperature, but all other maximum and average temperatures were well ;

below the allowable, there wb no burn through, visual cable inspection revealed no thermal damage and the results of the IR tests were well within allowable limits.

Scheme 11-4 (session 5) tested air drops transitioning from cable trays to embedded wall sleeves. This was a Unit 1 test which tested a " box" design enclosure consisting of a single layer of Thermo-Lag panels extending from the tray coverage and butting to the concrete wall at the wall sleeves. All joints were upgraded with stress skin and trowel grade and the wall interiace was reinforced with stress skin and trowel grade and panels flared out and Hitti bolted to the concrete. This was a satisfactory test. All cable and raceway temperature readings were well below maximum and average limits and visual cable inspection revealed no thermal damage to the cables. The barrier opened during the hose stream test but there was no bum through and the In tests were well within allowable limits. There was some Jacket swelling on power cables which is discussed further in Section 4.5.5.

4.2.6 Summary of Test Results Thermo-Lag 330-1 materials generally soften early in the test (material temperature around 250*F). For cable trays wider than 12", this can allow probuttered joints under stress to open unless reinforced either by stitching the joints or providing an overlay of Thermo-Lag 330-69 ,

Stress Skin and Thermo-Lag 330-1 trowel grade rnaterial. This effect was more pronounced on trays than on conduits because the conduit circular shape provides structural stability.

The design originally called for the use of stainless steel banding to support the Thermo Lag panels. On large tray (24" and over), internal bands are provided. The external banding slackened almost immediately in the fire tests. The slackened bands along with the softened Thermo-Lag allowed the bottom panels on trays to sag, pulling open the joints. The internal banding, which was protected, did not sag and supported the top panel.

The overall performance of Thermo-Lag was acceptable on wide cable trays when the joints were properly reinforced with either application of st'ess skin and trowel grade material or stitching with stainless steel tie wire.

The banding on conduits did not exhibit the same slouching as banding on cable trays and the banding provides support for the preshc. ped Thermo-Lag soctions.

On small conduits (s 1"), the 1/2 in. (nominal) preshaped Thermo-Lag 330 sections did not ,

pass the test unless a 1/4" overlay was installed over the 1/2" thick Thermo-Lag. Also radial

EA-ME-067 Rev.3 Page 35 of 176 bends required additionai protection with either stress skin or stainless steel mesh in conjunction with trowel grade matarial buildup. For all conduit sizes the preshaped conduit sections provide enough rigidity '.o prevent the butt and longitudinal joints from opening.

However, butt joints at box encbsures (e.g., LBDs) required reinforcement with additional trowel grade material and stress skin to prevent opening of the joints.

4.3 ISSUES RAISED BY THE NRC 4.3.1 Hose Stream Test The first series of tests conducted at Omega Point Laboratory used a 21/2 in playpipe with a 1-1/8 in. smooth bore nozzle at 30 psi positioned at a distance of 20 ft from the test article (ANI criteria) to induce an impact, erosion, and cooling effect.

This approach did not damage the cable and cable tray, or penetrate the conduits / junction box. However, it dislodged large amounts of the Thermo-Lag material. This resulted in the hose stream test destroying evidence of any Thermo-Lag failures such as small burn through areas or cracked joints. Based on this, an alternate hose stream test using a 30 degree 1-1/2 in, fog nozzle held 5 ft from the article at 75 psi was used during the Omega Point testing conducted on August 20 and 21,1992. This fog nozzle hose stream provided the impact, erosion, and cooling effect, but did not dislodge large sections of Thermo-Lag, allowing for a better inspection of the fire barrier. The use of the fog nozzle is described in IEEE 634 and BTP CMEB 9.5.1 as an alternate to the playpipe for penetration seats (fire barrier seals). The only difference between IEEE 634 and BTP CMEB 9.5.1 is that the former states a distance of 10 ft from the centerline of the test article while BTP CMEB 9.5.1 says 5 ft from the article and IEEE 634 states a minimum duration of 21/2 minutes, while BTP CMEB 9.5.1 does not specify a duration. r in order to ensure sufficient cooling impact, CPSES testing used a 5 minutes duration with a

1-1/2 in. dia. fog nozzle set at a discharge angle of 30 degrees with a nozzle pressure of 75 psi maintained at a distance of 5 ft perpendicular from the outside face of the test article.

Both IEEE 634 and BTP CMEB 9.5.1 specify a minimum flow of 75 gpm. The Elkhart nozzle used in the CPSES tests has a rated flow of 88 gpm at 75 psi which ensures that the 75 gpm minimum was maintained. The 5 ft perpendicular distance from the outside face of the test article was used because this maintained a distance of less than 10 ft from the centerline of the article which satisfies IEEE 634.

The basis for using the alternate hose stream test method was to preserve the Thermo-Lag envelope geometry while providing an impact, erosion, and cooling test. Since, the Branch Technical Position accepts the alternate method for fire seals and since the impact, erosion, and cooling effect would be the same on either the penetration seal or fire barrier, an adequate level of assurance that the barrier would function was maintained.

ER-ME-067 Rev.3 Page 36 of 176 The NRC letter dated October 29,1992 (Reference 10.22.1) approved the use of the fog nonle and this method was used in the Noverrber and December 1992 tests (third test i session), the March 1993 tests (fourth session) and the August 1993 tests (fifth session).

Although it is not the intent of the hose stream test to replicate fire fighting methods, the fog nonle used during testing is consistent with the type nonles installed in the plant (30* fog).

Additionally the nonle pressures used during testing envelop the nonle pressures of the plant standpipe and hose system, 4.3.2 9 in. Rule CPSES specifications require that items protruding from a raceway be covered with Thermo-Lag to a distance of 9" from the raceway. In most of the test articles, the 9 in. rule was tested to reflect the various configurations in the plant. The results of these tests indicate that the exposed steel did not provide a heat path into the enclosure. In fact, in many cases, the cable temperatures were lower in the areas where the 9 in. rule was being tested. Therefore, et vering a protruding item for at least 9 in, away from the cables being protected with either Thermo-Lag 330 or 660 (Flexi-Blanket) provides adequate protection to prevent significant heat intrusion. In SSER 26 (Reference 10.24.4), the NRC accepted TU Electric's position of 9 inch coverage of items protruding from protective raceway envelopes for Unit 2 configurations.

Since no differences exist between Unit 1 and Unit 2 Thermo-Lag barriers for protection of protruding items, NRC accepetance should also be applicable to Unit 1 barrier configurations.

4.3.3 Tast Articio Supports CPSES does not fireproof the structural steel cable raceway supports in the plant. CPSES has provided the NRC with documentation in accordance with Genenc Letter 8610 to justify not installing structural fireproofing on cable raceway supports. However, cable raceway supports are considered protruding items and are covered with Thermo-Lag 330 in accordance with the 9 in rule to prevent their being a heat path through the protective envelope.

Predicated upon CPSES analysis, raceway supports are not protected in the plant, eliminating the need to perform structural fireproofing tests on the supports. Therefore, to eliminate a j variable from the test program, the raceway supports were covered with Thermo-Lag 330 in Schemes 1 to 5 (session 1). In these Schemes, the raceway supports were covered by a single layer of 1/2 in. prefabricated section of Thermo-Lag 330 until at least 9 in. away from raceway. The rest of the distance to the test deck was covered with two layers of 1/2 in.

prefabricated panels. (Note: the 9 in. rule was tested elsewhere in the test program.) When the NRC expressed a concern that the covering of the supports did not represent the plant condition and that the support could provide a significant heat path into the envelope or a heat sink, it was decided not to cover the supports in subsequent test sessions.

i ER-ME-067 Rev.3 Page 37 of 176 instead, in these subsequent tests (Sessions 2.-5), the supports were covered out to approximately 9 in. with Thermo-Lag (for protruding items in accordance with plant design]

(References 10.14.1 and 10.14.2). The test results from Schemes 6 through 14-1 '(sessions 2+3) showed that the exposed supports did not provide a'significant heat path into the envelope. In fact, the cable thermocouple reading clo' test the supports tended to be lower than the surrounding readings.

The 9xposed supports also did not cause any visible distortion of the test articles. Therefore, whether supports are entirely covered or covered for only a 9 in, distance had no impact on the test results.

4.3.4 Topcoat Thermo-Lag 350 Topcoat was applied on the Thermo-Lag 330 prefabricated panels at TSI in accordance with Reference 10.14.1 and reapplied where required (Reference 10.4.1 and 10.14.2) on all test articles. Therefore, Thermo Lag 3301 with topcoat is a tested configuration. Test Scheme 13-2 resulted in a satisfactory test of 350-5000-10 Topcoat Formulation which was installed on one half of the 12" tray over a layer of 350 Topcoat. The 2* conduit assembly in Test Scheme 13-2 utilized 350 Topcoat on one half of the corisiguration and 350-500010 formulation on the remaining portion. No differences or adverse affects of Thermo-Lag materials were observed with either type of topcoat applied. ,

4.3.5 Using Density as Receipt Acceptance Criteria CPSES uses density (weight per square foot of board) as the key attribute when inspecting shipments of Thermo-Lag prefabricated / preshaped panels and sections. The other attributes are:

e No holes or cracks wider than 0.05 in.

e No holes or cracks extending through the material to the stress side. l e No visible mechanical damage (i.e., gouges, breaks, tears, etc)

CPSES also has source (at the Vendor's facilities) inspection and surveillance of TSI, including verification of the TSI thickness checks and w9ight of the materials. CPSES )

requires TSI to implement a quality assurance program, and CPSES maintains inspection i reports verifying the thickness and weight checks. )

CPSES use of density as an attribute is supported by the test data which shows that even where the envelope did open, as long as there was enough material off gassing to provide a I thermal barrier (cooling), the temperature in the effected area did not rise drastically (see Appendix A).

The intumescent property of Thermo-Lag forms a char layer which is approximately four times the original thickness which would offset any minor thickness anomalies.

i ER ME-067 Rev.3 Page 38 of 176 The weight (density) check is sufficient to detect any large internal voids in the profaoricated panels which would not be picked up by measuring the thickness of the panel. Also, a uniforrrdy thin board would not pass the density (weight) inspection. Therefore, as demonstrated in numerous fire tests,'.he density inspection along wai' the visual inspection '

and source inspections provided adequato s quality control of the Thermo-Lag 330 prefabricated panels.

With regards tu Request for Additional Information, requested by the NRC, TU Electric provided additionalinformation on voids and delaminations of Thermo-Lag conduit prefabricated sections in a letter logged. TXX 92589, dated December 15,1992 (Reference 10.22.18).

In SSER 26 (Reference 10.24.4), the NRC accepted TU Electric's overall procurement and quality control processes for installing Thermo-Lag on test assemblics during Session 3 and for Unit 2 in-plant configurations. Additionally, the NRC accepted the resolution of issues associated with voids and delaminations as described by Reference 10.22.18.

4.3.6 Thermo-Lag Operability (Cure Time) (Sessions 1,2 and 3)

During the independent fire endurance qualification testing which TU Electric performed at Omega Point Laboratories in San Antonio, Texas, test assemblies were cured for 30 days prior to testing. The 30 day cure period was included into the test program after discussions with the NRC Staff. During these discussions NRC staff was concerned that the additional moisture in the Thermo-Lag before the 30 day curing period would give non-conservative results. To address this concern TU Electric took this measure to assure that test assemblics had cured (dried out) prior to it ? tests. This measure assured that no moisture present in the material prior to drying out would aid in the performance of the material dur.ng a fire endurance test. Having materialinstalled in the plant that has not received a 30 day cure or drying out period would only enhance the performance of the materialin the event of a fire during the first 30 days after installation of the Thermo-Lag.

Notwithstanding the above, TU Electric procures prefabricated panels and chapes of Thermo-Lag. The Thermo-Lag vendor applies topcoat to the prefabricated pancis and shapes.

Additionally, conversations with the vendor confirms that there is no requirement for 30 day cure time, and that upon receipt by the customer the prefabricated material is capable of performing its design function. There are also no vendor guidelines which require that the trowel grade Thermo-Lag 3301 material to be cured for 30 days. TU Electric applies topcoat only at joints, seams and other areas where trowel grade material is applied. TU Electric specifications require that top coat should be applied over Thermo-Lag material after allowing >

a minimum of 72 hours8.333333e-4 days 0.02 hours 1.190476e-4 weeks 2.7396e-5 months cure time, or obtaining a reading less than 100 using a Delmhorst Model DP moisture meter with a scale of 0100. The cure times stated in the specifications (References 10.14.1 and 10.14.2) are to allow the material (trowel grade 330-1) to dry before applying topcoat to ensure that the topcoat cdherrs properly.

- . . -- . - . .- . _ . _ ~

9 ER-ME-067 Rev.3 Page 39 of 176 -l Topcoat is a paint used to provide an environmental (e.g., water, dirt) protective finish for the Thermo-Lag. The topcoat is not required for fire barrier operability. This is based on past testing which was done U.L testing laboratories and Gulf States Utilities fire testing program where topcoat on Thermo-Lag was not applied.

In Test Scheme 151 tested on March 4,1993 (session 4), the Thermo-Lag configuration (36" cable tray) was tested satisfactorily after a 7 day cure.

Based on the above discussion TU Electric concludes that Thermo-Lag is functional, capable of performing its design function, immediately after completion of the insiallation and inspection. A Thermo-Lag installation consists of prefabricated board or conduit sections that are supplied by the manufacturer in a ready for service condition and trowel grade material that is used to pre-butter joints, stainless steel wire and banding material, staples, and stress skin. The tie wires, staples, and stress skin provide a mechanical reinforcement of the joints.

After these materials are assembled and inspected the installation is operable. The topcoat is not required for the Thermo-Lag to be operable and is applied to prevent degradation from environmental effects of moisture and dirt over the life of the plant, 4.4 Test Observation 4.4.1 Exposed Conduit Thermocouples While conducting the November 4,1992 fire test (Scheme 91 (session 3)), extremely high thermocouple readings were observed. These readings (as high as 1480*F) were all from the e exposed conduit thermocouples. The corresponding cable thermocouples all read less than 200*F. This occurred at about 30 minutes into the test. By the end of the test (60 minutes),

the thermocouple which had read 1480*F had dropped 516*F. It was also noted that the ,

thermocouple with the longest run of thermocouple wire in between the conduits and Thermc- ,

I Lag had the highest readings.

During the post-hose stream inspection, it was noted that the thermocouple leads were saturated in various locations with a sticky (molasses type) residue. Also, the conduits showed no signs of having reached temperatures over 500*F since the galvanizing still looked ;

like new and Magic Marker marks were still visible on the galvanizing. There was no visible i cable degradation in the areas of these high readings and all the cables passed the IR tests. ;

The next day, the worst reading thermocouple was checked and appeared to be working i correctly. However, when a portion of the thermocouple with this residue was placed in a beaker of warm water (with the end still exposed to the air), the thermocouple jumped approximately 10*F. The thermocouple reading should not have changed.

This phenomena was also observed on subsequent conduit tests. It was also observed that the highest readings occurred just as the cable temperatures were reaching 200*F.

m. , - - - -

.w

1

. l

. i ER-ME-067 Rev.3 Page 40 of 176 Subsequently, the thermocouple readings on the exposed conduit would drop. 3 During a re-examination of Scheme 7 (session 2), it appears that the same thing happened, only it was not observed because of the higher cable temperatures and the higher ,

temperatures where the joints opened.

These higher recorded temperatures were caused by the water driven out of the Thermo-Lag condensing on the cold conduit steel. This water and the Thermo-Lag off-gas residue saturates the thermocouple. The water and residuo set up an ionic potential which the thermocouple reads. The longer the thermocouple wire, the greater the potential and the higher the reading.

' As the conduit reaches 212*F, the wate:r is evaporated, drying out the thermocouple and reducing the potential, thereby lowerir,g the thermocouple reading.

Due to the unreliability of the thermocouple readings on the exposed conduit, these readings were not used to evaluate Schemes 91. 9-3,10-1, and 10-2 for conduits. The NRC staff accepted TU Electric's technical position relative to the unreliability of conduit surface

'hermocouple readings via SSER 26 (Reference 10.24.4).

4.4.2 Cable St!ffening After several of the fire tests, during the cable visual inspections, slight cablefjacket stiffening was noted. Upon closer inspection, it was found that the jacket and conductor insulation had -

not stiffened, but the cellophane-type material wrapped around the conductors had actually shrunk. The shrinking of this wrao bound the conductors such that the conductors could not slide by one another and thus caused the stiffening. If the cable was bent / worked back and forth several times, the stiffening disappeared. Visual examination of the cables after working out the stiNness showed no signs of degradation of the jacket or conductors.

The shrinking of this wrap appears to happen at lower temperatures. It is estimated to occur around 250*F based on cable temperature peaks during the fire test. This cablefjacket stiffening has no effect on the effect on the cable performance but was something noted during the inspections. The NRC staff accepted TU Electric's technical position regarding the slight stiffening of cables subjected to fire tests via SSER 26 (Reference 10.24.4).

4.5 Other issues 4.5.1 Toxicity The issue of toxicity has been raised based on the statement that Thermo-Lag releases Hydrogen Cyanido (HCN) when it volatizes.

ER-ME-067 Rev.3 Page 41 of 176 Thermo-Lag is not unique in this respect, HCN may be present when nitrogen containing materials such as ordinary commercial products like acrylics, polyurethane foams or wool are bumed. Many fire retardant materials also release HCN when bumed.

Hydrogen Cyanide is one of several toxic elements that are released from common building materials during a fire. However, the major toxicant is usually carbon monoxide, in the incipient (early) stages of a fire, the HCN concentrations are too low to have an effect on personnel. The fire alarm system will detect a fire and provide ample warning to ensure evacuation of personnel before lethallevels of HCN are reached.

The fire brigade is trained and wears Self Contained Breathing Apparatus (SCBA) when fighting a fire. Should operator actions be required in the respective area, suitable protective means would also be utilized. Therefore, fire brigade and operations personnel are protected from the effects of smoke (products of combustion). This is consistent with standard fire department practices when fighting a commercial fire.

Smoke removal equipment is also on site, and would be used to quickly purge the spaces af ter a fire.

Therefore, Thermo-Lag off gassing of HCN in a fire is no different than the many other products of combustion in the plant and has been addressed programmatically.

4.5.2 Thermo-Lag Seismic fl/l Considerations Thermo-Lag used for cable and raceway fire barrier and structural steel fireproofing is classified in DBD-ME-028 (Reference 10.17.2) as non-seismic (Seismic Category None).

However, since the fire barrier and fireproofing materials is installed in areas containing safety-related equipment it must meet the requirements of Regulatory Guide 1.29.

Specifically, the failure of the Thermo-Lag and other fireproofing rnaterials during or after the design basis earthquake cannot reduce the functional capability of structures, systems, or components required to safely shut the plant down, The CPSES Seismic 11/1 program has addressed the requirements of Regulatory Guide 1.29 )

for the design and operation of both Unit 1 and Unit 2. In this program Thermo-Lag is not considered to be a potentially damaging source. Gross failure / falling of the material under CPSES design basis seismic inertialloading would not occur. This position is supported by the following:

Thermo-Lag panels and sections are secured in place with extensive use of mechanical fasteners; staples, wire ties, additional stress skin, and steel bands.

The fasteners assure that the materialis positively attached to the electrical raceway which has been seismically qualified for the added weight; l

l

4 ER-ME-067 Rev.3 Page 42 of 176

Earthquake experience does not indicated gross failure and falling of fire barrier materials due to seismic inertia when the materials is adequately attached to the supporting structure; and e Local cracking / chipping of the Thermo-Lag and structural steel fireproofing materials may occur but the resulting " debris"is non-damaging, in SSER 26 (Reference 10.24.4), the NRC accepted TU Electric's program for addressing seismic concems for Thermo-Lag materials installed at CPSES such that Thermo-Lag will not have damaging effects on Seismic Category I plant features. .

4.5.3 Consideration of Thermo-Lag Weight in Electrical Raceway Design Validation I

All CPSES electrical raceway and supports which require the use of the Thermo-Lag fire barrier material have been qualified for the resulting additional dead weight loads and seismic )

inertia in accordance with the applicable DBD's and procedures. The deadweight and inertia loads have conservatively considered all significant weight components including the upgraded design configurations.

The additional weight used in the qualifications is based on the following:

The extent of Thermo Lag coverage on raceway has been based on the Thermo-Lag schedule and is confirmed by field walkdown;

The weight of the Thermo-Lag installations on conduits is based on the maximum weights allowed by the specification (Reference 10.14.1) for the prefabricated conduit sections and LBD's. These weights are verified by QC on receipt;

The weight of the Thermo Lag installations on cable trays is based on the maximum weights allowed by the specification (Reference 10.14.1) for the prefabricated panels.

These weights are verified by OC on recoipt.1/4" additional thickness of Thermo-Lag has been considered to evaluate the resultant weight from the Thermo-Lag upgrade (ie, additional stress skin and trowel grade on the seams between the prefabricated l

panels); and e The weight of the Thermo-Lag installation on the electrical junction boxes is based on the upper bound weights identified during the QC receipt inspection (Reference 10.14.1) of the prefabricated Thermo-Lag panels.

In SSER 26 (Reference 10.24.4), the NRC accepted TU Electric's methodology for addressing Thermo-Lag weight considerations in the design of Unit 2 electrical raceway and supports.

ER-ME-067 Rev.3 Page 43 of 176 4.5.4 Cables in Conta.:t with Thermo-Lag For cables installed in cable trays, administrative controls effectively preclude Thermo-Lag panels from being installed if the cable fill results in cables extending above the tray side rails (except where cables enter or exit the tray). The applicable electrical installation specifications (References 10.14.4 and 10.14.5) and OC inspection procedure (Reference 10.18.3) explicitly require that cables do not extend above tray side rails. Additionally, prior to Thermo-Lag installation on trays, the applicable cable tray run must be inspected and released by QC (electrical). Finally, the applicable Thermo Lag installation specifications (References 10.14.1 and 10.14.2) require resolution by Engineering where a cable overfill condition exists. Where a specific overfill condition has been evaluated and approved by Engineering, the resolution typically results in increasing the height of the Thermo-Lag panel pieces installed over the tray side rails thus effectively increasing the size of the protective envelope to preclude cables contacting the stress skin side of the Thermo-Lag. In SSER 26 ;

(Reference 10.24.4), the NRC accepted TU Electric's programmatic controls for ensuring '

cables routed within trays do not contact the stress skin side of Thermo-Lag panels installed on the trays.

4.5.5 Cable Jacket Swelling l During performance of fire tests during Session 5 (Test Schemes 11-4 and 115), some of the l cables in the tests experienced Jacket ballooning. The cables in question were Okonite with three double jacketed conductors. The cable consisted of three Jacketed conductors and filters which were bound together with a binder tape, and an overall Jacket was then applied.

Moisture trapped within the region between the binder tape and the outer jacket induced I sufficient pressure during the test to cause ballooning of the outer jacket. The thermocouples which were applied with a glass reinforced tape trapped the moisture in the untaped region.

The moisture converting to steam when temperatures reached 212*F resulted in substantial pressure being applied to the outer jacket.

The amount of water required to cause ballooning of the cable would in no way impact the cables performance under normal conditions. The water vapor that was trapped under the jacket due to the tape used to secure the thermocouples would not exist in the plant. The steam would be allowed to move away from the area exposed to the fire where it would then condense back to water. In this situation the water would have no adverse affect on the plant. See Reference 10.22.14 for an evaluation of this phenomena.

4.5.6 Steam and Moisture Discharging from Flexi-Blanket" Wrapped Cables During the Scheme 15-2 test, it was observed by the NRC and documented in NRC Inspection Report 50-445/93-34; 50-446/93 34 (Reference 10.22.19) that steam and fluid were emitted from the "Flexl-Blanket" material wrapped around the 1/C 750kMCil power cables.

There were 2 protective wrap bundles, each containing a single power cable wrapped with 2

ER-ME-067 Rev.3 Page 44 of 176 layers of 330-660 "Flexl-Blanket". Each bundle also had a #8 bare copper conductor secured to the power cable. Each power cable and bare copper conductor was instrumented with thermocouples. (See Appendix A for a more detailed discussion of this test.)

The observed phenomena occurred at about 30 minutes into the test for the front bundle and at 40 minutes on the rear bundle. The steam and fluid were being driven out from the open

)

ends of the two wrap bundles where they protruded from the side walls of the test furnace. A j review of the thermocouple readings on the bare #8 copper conductors in each bundle indicated that some readings were around 212*F at that time. It would be expected that the readings on the copper conductors would be representative of the temperatures on the backside of the Thermo-Lag.

i i As Thermo-Lag is heated, moisture is driven out of the material. Once the temperature l reaches 212*F, the moisture changes to steam. This is a normal occurrence and was

' specifically observed in test schemes 7,91,9-3,10-1 and 10-2 as discussed in section 4.4.1.

7 As the steam exited the furnace it would rapidly cool and condense back into water. This f would have occurred, to some extent, on all of the tests but was evident in schemes 15 2

because the Thermo-Lag entered and exited the furnaco at a more visible location (through the side walls) instead of the top of the furnace as was the case for most of the other tests and all other tests involving "Flexi-Blanket" (schemes 11-1 and 11-2). The other 2 tests which exited the wall (schemes 11-4 and 11-5) had fire stops poured around the cables where they

) exited the fumace instead of against the Thermo-Lag as was the case in scheme 15-2. This resulted in a tighter seal plus the other end of these 2 assemblies exiting through the top of the fumaces.

As discussed in section 4.5.5, in a plant configuration the steam would freely propagate away from the area exposed to the fire where it would then condense back to water. The small

amount of water involved would not adversely affect the cables performance since it is external to the cable. Also, this phenomena would have been present to some extent on all of the test assemblies and there were no adverse affects (observed or measured) which could be attributed to moisture release from the Thermo-Lag identified on any of these tests.

4

..wn 4

n

I w j

- l i

j ER-ME-067 Rev.3 i Page 45 of 176 l 5.0 COMPARISON OF DESIGN / INSTALLATION REQUIREMENTS AGAINST THE TEST RESULTS The applicable CPSES Thermo-Lag installation specifications (Refs.10.14.1 and 10.14.2) and typical design drawings (Refs.10.15.2 and 10.15.4) provide the technical requirements for installing Thermo-Lag material on required commodities. For cable and raceway barrier configurations, these technical r3quirements such as material thickness, sealing and reinforcements of joints, etc., are based on methods used to construct test assemblies during TU Electric's 1-hour Thermo-Lag fire endurance qualification test program conducted at Omega Point Laboratories (Reference 10.12).

For structural steel configurations, technical requirements are based on References contained in Section 10.21.

The installation requirements and construction details for applying Thermo-Lag to most plant commodities and configurations thereof such as cable trays, conduits, junction boxes, etc., are enveloped by the typical detail design drawings and installation specifications. Accordingly, most of these commodity configurations and techniques for Thermo-Lag irstallation are qualified directly by specific tests. However, it is recognized that due to specific field conditions and limitations such as interferences, clearances between commodities, etc., creation of unique design configurations and acceptance of minor deviations from specified technical requirements (where appropriately justified) are inevitable. It is also recognized that due to the number and variation of these specialinstances it is not feasible to qualify all aspects of each unique configuration or minor deviations through specific fire endurance testing, in fact, in some instances limitations of industry test apparatus may preclude such testing.

Instead, the goal of a qualification test program is to qualify the critical attributes of the fire barrier system, such as material thickness, joint reinforcement techniques, interfaces between different materials, etc., for the range of commodity sizes anticipated in plant configurations. Based on the qualification of these critical attributes, specific plant conditions requiring unique configuration designs and minor deviations can be reasonably resolved. The NRC staff has recognized this concept through the provisions of Generic Letter 8610 (Reference 10.7.2) which enables licensees to evaluate field installations which vary from configurations qualified via fire endurance tests using criteria provided therein.

In accordance with the CPSES design control program, where due to field conditions, the techniques or configurations for installing Thermo-Lag on required commodities are not bounded by the installation specification or typical details, installation personnel are required to identity the condition for resolution by Engineering via initiation of a design change document. For field work implemented prior to fuel load, j the applicable design document was a Design Change Authorization (DCA). For field work implemented subsequent to fuel load, the applicable design change document is

T ER-ME-067 Rev.3 Page 46 of 176

< a Design Change Notice (DCN), controlled via the CPSES Design Modification (DM) program. Additionally, DCAs/DCNs are initiated to identify specific. instances where obstructing commodities (piping, ductwork, raceway, etc.) serve to interfere with the protective envelope such that specified requirements cannot readily be achieved.

Resolution of these specific field conditions is provided by Engineering in accordance with the governing design change process procedure. Resolution of these issues is based on methods and techniques qualified through test, experience and familiarity with the proper uses and limitations of Thermo-Lag materials gained through the qualification test program and conservative erigineeling practicca.

Accordingly, Engineering Report r.:R-ME-082 (Reference 10.23.1) serves to correlate Unit 2 Thermo-Lag configurations to the applicable qualification test (" scheme"), or portions thereof and hence provide a basis for acceptance in accordance with the provisions of NRC Generic Letter 86-10. This process was utilized for all typical details approved for generic use via the design drawings (Reference 10.15.4), the requirements contained in the Unit 2 installation Specification CPES-M-2032 (Reference 10.14.2) and such unique configurations and minor deviations described above as bounded by applicable DCAs/DCNs.

This report will be revised to include Unit 1 Thermo-Lag configurations upon completion of the Unit 1 upgrade construction effort.

Specification 2323-MS-38H (Reference 10.14.1) and the M1-1701 typical detail drawings (Reference 10.15.2) are now the design documents governing Thermo-Lag installation for both Units. Revision 4 of Reference 10.14.1 and DCN 6943 (Reference 10.15.5) have incorporated the requirements of the Unit 2 Specification CPES-M 2032 and the M2-1701 drawings into the Specification (Reference 10.14.1) and the M11701 drawings. These design documents are consistent with the reconciliation of the specification and typical details provided in ER-ME-082 except for changes made to incorporate the results of fire tests conducted subsecuent to Unit 2 completion (References 10.12.16 through 18,10.12.22,10.12.24 and 10.12.25).

i

ER ME-067 Rev.3 Page 47 of 176 .

6.0 AMPACITY DERATING FACTORS 6.1 TU Electric conducted a series of ampacity derating tests for Thermo-Lag fire barrier contigurations at Omega Point Laboratories (OPL) in San Antonio. Texas from March 3, through March 13,1993 and preliminary results were provided to the NRC in TXX-93136 (Reference 10.22.11) and the test report was provided by TXX-93214 (Reference 10.22.12). The NRC staff observed test preparation and testing from March 2 to 7,1993. The first test group, conducted from March 2,1993 to March 3,1993, consisted of a 3/4"- diameter conduit with a single 3/C #10 AWG 600-volt copper cable and a 2" diameter conduit with a singlo 3/C #6 AWG 600 volt copper cable.

The second test group, conducted from March 5 to March 8,1993, consisted of a 24" x 4" cable tray filled to a 2.95-inch depth with 3/C #6 AWG 600-volt copper cables and a free air drop (small)made of a single 3/C #6 AWG 600-volt copper cable. The final test group, conducted from March 10 to 14,1993, consisted of a 5"- diameter conduit with four 1/C 750MCM 600-volt copper cable and a free air drop (large) made of three 1/C 750MCM 600-volt copper cable. The ampacity derating factor test results are summarized below.

The TU Electric ampacity derating test methodology followed the guidance detailed in the proposed standard IEEE P848 (Reference 10.11.5), except for the following changes described further in TU Electric's ampacity test plan, revision 4, (Reference 10.12.28).

1) Conduit / air drop test articles were selected to be consistent with CPSES installation including the enhanced Thermo-Lag configurations.

2) Test articles were supported by wood blocks during the performance of the tests.

3) Type T special accuracy thermocouples were used for the conduit / air drop test articles and for all ambient temperature measurements. Type K thermocouples were used for tray configurations, with directions to make adjustments, if necessary, for the oifference in accuracy.

4) Baseline tests may be run before or after the ampacity derating test.

5) Three thermocouples were installed at oscn location for the conduit / air drop test articles.

6) Both the baseline and ampacity derating test shall utilize measured current normalized as outlined in ICEA P-46-426 (Reference 10.11.6) for final conductor and ambient temperatures (that were not 90*C and 40*C, respectively).

4 ER-ME-067 Rev.3 Page 48 of 176 in addition, the subject test plan supplemented elements of the Draft IEEE-P848 document in the following manner:

e Use a clampen amrneter with an accuracy of z z percent to take the final current measurements.

Base the data interpretation of the ampacity dorating factor on the measured values irrespective of the published ICEA values in accordance with the TU Electric letter to the NRC of February 26,1993 (Reference 10.22,9).

The ampacity dorating test procedure used for the test articles was performed in two steps, as follows:

1) An ampacity product (or derating) test was conducted with the Thermo-Lag material configured around the test article.

2) Then the baseline test was conducted on the instrumented article without the Thermo-Lag product.

Each ampacity test was performed by raising the conductor temperature from ambient (i.e.,40*C) to its rated temperature limit (i.e.,90*C), allowing the test article to reach thermal equilibrium, and then measuring the final current or ampacity value for the test article. The ampacity derating factor was calculated as follows:

Ampacity derating factor = 1 - 1, / I, where:

1, = ampacity value for product test 1, = ampacity value for baseline test 6.2 TU Electric has completed the testing to establish ampacity derate factors for cables / raceways protected by the upgraded Thermo-Lag fire barrier configurations qualified during TU Electric's fire endurance test program (Reference 10.12.28). The derate factors determined by testing are as follows:

Cable Percent Raceway Type & Thermo-Lag Derate Minimum Design Type & Size and Type and Test Value Margin available Size Section Thickness Document (Note 1) 3/4' Conduit 3/c# 10 AWG 1/2" 330 w/ 9.1 35-9.1 = 25.9 1/4" overlay P 4

-_. --~ - _ _ _

ER-ME-067 Rev.3 Page 49 of 176 Cable Percent Raceway Type & Thermo-Lag Derate Minimum Design Type & Size and Type and Test Value Margin available Size Section Thickness Document (Note 1) 2" Conduit 3/c# 6 AWG 1/2" 330 w/ 6.5 35-6.5 = 28.5 1/4" overlay 5" Conduit 4-1/c# 750 MCM 1/2" 330 10.7 2310.7 = 12.3 24" Tray 126-3/C#6 AWG 1/2" 303 31.4 38-31.4 = 6.6 panels Air Drop 3/c#6 AWG 3 layers 1/4" 23 35 23 = 12 330-660 wrap Air Drop 3-1/c# 750 MCM 3 layers 1/4" 31.7 35-31.7 = 3.3 330-660 wrap NOTE 1: Minimum design margin is obtained by subtracting the percent derate value obtained by the most limiting cable derate equivalent percent obtained by the calculation performed, which are listed colow. This ,

minimum design margin is for the effects of Thermo-l.ag only, and is in [

addition to the 25% design margin provided in the sizing of all power cables.

l TU Electric had previously utilized derate factors which are described in Design Basis Document (DBD)-EE-052 (Reference 10.17.1).

7.5% for cables in conduit !

31% for cables in trays

TU Electric had evaluated the adequacy of air drops protected with Thermo-Lag ,

by assuring that the cable ampacity for air drops under Thermo-Lag is equal to ]

or greater than the cable ampacity for a tray or conduit protected with Thenno- ,

Lag. This evaluation was done by developing a mathematical model for air i drop cables covered by Thermo-Lag per calculation # 16345-EE(B)-140 (Reference 10.16.4).

Based on the results of testing described in the table above TU Electric is changing its DBD-EE-052 to reflect the following derate factors:

4 + 11% for cables in conduits

32% for cables in trays and air drops l

.. _ I

's ER-ME-067 Rev.3 Page 50 of 176 Based on the test results and the evaluations discussed below, TU Electric has concluded ihat the CPSES cable design envelopes the derate factors obtained by testing, and the CPSES cable design is acceptable. This conclusion is based on the following calculations:

- Calculation #2-EE-053 was reviewed for all cables covered by the upgraded Thermo-Lag (except for 6.9kV and 480V Switchgear cables as discussed below) and it was concluded that the cable design at CPSES has ampacity margin available for cable derate equivalent to 40% for cables in tray, and a cable dorate equivalent to 35% (Note 2) for cables in conduits. This information has since been incorporated into calculation 3 EE-0008, EE-0009 and EE-0010 (References 10.16.10 through 10.16.12) and calculation #2-EE-053 has been superseded. l

- Calculation #2-EE-CA-0008-3038 (Reference 10.16.9), was reviewed for cables fed from 480V switchgear and it was concluded that the cable design at ,

CPSES has ampacity margir, available for a cable derate equivalent to 38%

((Note 2) for cables in tray and a cable derate equivalent to 23% (Note 2) for cables in conduit. The calculation has since been reviseo to incorporate the test results.

Calculation #EE-CA-0008-3097 (Reference 10.16.11) was reviewed for cables which are fed from 6.9kV switchgear and it was concluded that the cable design of CPSES has ampacity margin available for a cable derate equivalent to 40% (Note 2) for cables in both tray and conduit. The calculation has since been revised to incorporate the test results.

The acceotability of caole design adequacy for cable air drops protected by Thermo-Lag was evaluated by establishing that the allowable ampacity for cable in air drops covered in Thermo-Lag is equal to or greater than the allowable ampacity for the same cable within either conduit or tray covered by Thermo-Lag, therefore the limiting condition is the allowable ampacity with cable tray cr conduit. Prelimirary evaluation has established that for cable air drops from conduit, CPSES cable design has ampacity margin available to accept a derate of 35% (Note 2). For cable drops from trays, the CPSES cable design can accept a derate of 39% (see Section 6.12) based on the aforementioned calculations.

As delineated above, a review of CPSES calculations has established the design margin for cable ampacity derating. These margins have been compared to the derate factors for Thermo-Lag established by our confirmatory testing program; and are in addition to the cable design requirements, which utilizes 1.25 times the devices current requirements when sizing power cables. TU Electric concludes that CPSES cable design has sufficient margin to accomrnodate the derating obtained by testing.

TU Electric is updating the Design Basis Document (DBD)-EE-052, and associated

l l

O l i

l ER-ME-067 .

Rev.3 1 l

Page 51 of 176 documents to incorporate the tested cable derate factors.

NOTE 2: These values represent most limiting conditions for the described cables with I respect to plant configuration.)

6.3 Evaluation for Thermo-Lagged Cable Air Drops Derate Factor All cables are routed in trays and conduits except for small transition points, which are generally limited to 3'-6" In length, where cables are in air. The cable sizing calculations evaluate the acceptability of cable sizing for cables with Thermo-Lagged raceways as required, if the cable at owable ampacity for Thermo-Lagged air drop is larger than the cable ampacity with Thermo-Lagged trays or conduit, then Thermo-Lagged air drop cables are acceptable.

Tables 1 and 2 below evaluate cable allowable derate factors for Thermo-Lagged air drops which will provide cable ampacities in Thermo-Lagged air drop at least equal to the cable ampacities in Thermo-Lagged trays or conduits. j

-l Table 1 shows a minimum allowable derate factor of 35% which is greater than tested .

derate factor of 31.7% Therefore Thermo-Lagged air drops from conduits will have adequate cable ampacities.

Table 2 shows a minimum allowable derate factor of 39% which is greater than tested derate factor of 31.7% Therefore Thermo-Lagged air drops frrm trays will have ;

adequate cable ampacities. ,

t l

L

_ . _ _ . _ . .. . . . . _ _ _- . _ - . . _ _ _. . . _ _ - - - - - - - - - - - _ _ _ - ~ _ _ . _ _ - -- -----_---____-------.- _.--

ER-ME467 Rev.3 Page 52 of 176 TABLE 1 AIR DROP THERMO-LAG DERATE FACTORS FOR CABLE DROPS FROM CONDUITS ALLOWABW AMPACITY IN MARGIN IN AMPAC!TY IN AMPACITY IN CONDUIT 3/C REDUCTION CONDUlT ALLOWABW AIR FOR 3/C OR 3-1/C FACTOR AIR CABW DESIGN CABW DROP CABW TYPE AtR OR 3-1/C ICEA P46-426 TO CONDUlT NOTE 2&3 TL DERATE

& SIZE ICEA P46-426 55 40 .727 35 %/.65 53 %/.473 3/C-# 10 55 59 52 .881 35 %/.65 43 %/.573 3/C-#8 59 79 69 .873 35%/.65 43 %/.567 3/C-#6 79 104 91 .875 35 %/.65 43 %/.569 3/C-#4 104 138 123 .891 35 %/.65 42%/.579 3/C-#2 13t.

215 190 .884 35 %/.65 43 %/.575 3/C-#2/0 215 287 255 .889 35 %/.65 42%/.578 3/C-#4/0 287 _

123 .755 14 %/.86 35 %/.649 1/C-#2 192 163 (NOTE 1) 190 .751 14 %/.86 35 %/.646 1/C-#2/0 298 253 (NOTE 1) 255 .750 14 %/.86 35 %/.645 1/C-#4/0 400 340 (NOTE 1) 282 .746 14%!.86 35 %/.624 1/C-250 MCM 445 378 (NOTE 1) 348 .742 14 %/.86 36 %/.638 1/C-350 MCM 552 469 (NOTE 1) 425 .720 14 %/.86 38 %/.619 1/C-500 MCM 695 590 (NOTE 1) 524 .687 14 %/.86 40%/.599 1/C-756 MCM 898 763 (NOTE 1)

i ER-ME-067 Rev.3 Page 53 of 176 NOTES:

1. ICEA P46-426 does not define a cable derate factor for 3-1/C in air. However for conservatism a derate factor of 15% is used to arrive at amapcity values for 3-1/C in air. This assumption is supported by test data for 750 MCM air drop, where base line current were greater than 763 Amps.

2. Switchgear cable sizing calculation, which utilizes only 1/C cables, has established a minimum allowable derate factor of 14% for Thermo-Lagged conduit.

3. Calculation for evaluation of Ampacity of Thermo-Lagged raceways for cables from MCC's and panels have established an acceptable Thermo-Lagged conduit dorate factor of 35%.

f

% ?

a

, , .e... ,- e. , . . a ._-_ -- ------ - - - - - - _ _ - - - -

r ER-ME-067 Rev.3 Page 54 of 176 TABW 2 AIR DROP THERMO-LAG DERATE FACTORS FOR AIR DROPS FROM TRAYS CABW TRAY AMPACITY IN AMPACITY lti REDUCTION DERATE ALLOWABW AIR RANDOM FACTOR AIR FACTOR CABW DROP CABW TYPE ICEA P46-426 FILLED TRAY TO TRAY (NOTE 2) TL DERATE

& SIZE 55 20 .36 31.4/.686 75 %/.27 3/C-#10 59 32 .54 31.4/.686 62 %/.37 3/C-#8 79 51 .65 31.4/.686 55 %/.44 3/C-#6 104 71 .68 31.4/.686 53 %/.46 3/C-#4 138 120 2/C .87 31.4/.686 40 %/.60 3/C-#2 215 161 TR .75 31.4/.686 48 %/.51 3/C-#2/0 287 253 TR .88 31.4/.686 39%/.6 3/C-#4/0 192 NOT USED N/A N/A N/A 1/C-#2 298 141 .47 31.4/.686 67%/.32 1/C-#2/0 400 209 .52 31.4/.686 64 %/.35 1/C-#4/0 445 NOT USED N/A N/A N/A 1/C-250 MCM 552 345 .625 31.4/.686 57 %/.42

, 1/C-350 MCM 695 468 .67 31.4/.686 54 %/.45 1/C-500 MGM 898 675 .75 31.4/.686 48 %/.51 1/C-756 MCM _

t l

1 ER-ME-067 Rev.3 l Page 55 of 176 ,

NOTES:

1. Ampacity in random filled trays are from calculation EE-78 (600V power cable ampacities for various tray fills) for different cables highest cable ampacities are used for this evaluation.

2. Thermo-Lagged t-ay cable derate factor of 31.4% is per CPSES test data. Adequacy of this derate factor is evaluated for ali cables in Thermo-Lag trays.

t!

s P

ER-ME-067 Rev.3 Page 56 of 176 7.0 COMBUSTIBILITY OF THERMO-LAG l Information Notice (IN) 92-82,"Results of Thermo-Lag 3301 Combustibility Testing" was issued on December 15,1992 (Reference 10.8.5) to inform licensees of the results of small scale testing performed for the staff by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). These tests subjected 1/2 inch and 1 inch thick Thermo-Lag 330 panel samples to two separate tests to investigate the combustibility properties of the material. The subject tests were 1) ASTM E136, " Standard Test Method for Behavior of Material in a Vertical Tube Furnace at 750*C" (Reference 10.1.2), and 2) ASTM E1354, " Standard Test Method for Heat and Visible Smoke Release Rates for Materials and Products using an Oxygen Consumption Calorimeter" (Reference 10.1.3). The results of the ASTM E136 tests were that Thermo-Lag 330 material failed criteria invoked by the standard to qualify it as noncombustible. Since this test is a pure pass / fait determination, the materialis defined by ASTM E136 criteria as combustible.

The results of the ASTM E1354 tests compared peak and total heat release rates (H'RR) to values established for gypsum wallboard. As such, the values obtained for peak HRR were determined to be equivalent to those for gypsum, while values obtained for total HRR were determined to be more than 8 times higher than those for gypsum. The Information Notice conveyed these results to licensees for consideration of impact where Thermo-Lag is used for enclosure of intervening combustibles to achieve a horizontal distance of 20 feet between redundant safe shutdown trains.

Additionally, the results conveyed by IN 92-82 were provided for consideration of impact where Thermo-Lag is utilized inside noninerted containment structures as a noncombustible radiant energy shield to achieve protection of safe shutdown circuits.

s As stated in the NUMARC Thermo-Lag Combustibility Guidelines (Reference 10.26),

ASTM E136 is a severe test protocol and not fully representative of fire conditions in most areas of a nuclear power plant. Thermo-Lag requires a relatively high :

temperature (>540*C (1000*F)) to ignite. This flash ignition temperature was determined for Texas Utilities using ASTM D1929 " Standard Method of Tests of Ignition Properties of Plastics". Thermo-Lag also requires a high radiant flux for ignition (> 25 kW/m' (2.2 Btus/ft')) to ignite and will absorb a largo amount of energy before ignition 2

(thermal inertia (kpC of > 3.0 kW'/m'*K2 s (.0072 Btu /ft'R's)). Thermo-Lag's minimum temperature for lateral flame spread is the same as its minimum temperature for ignition, therefore Thermo-Lag on its own will not spread a flame laterally. The {

guidelines NUMARC indicate that Thermo-Lag should be treated as a combustible only under selected applications.

The NUMARC Thermo-Lag Combustibility Guidelines provide a method for assessing plant specific applications of Thermo-Lag to determine the fire safety impact due to the combustibility of Thermo-Lag. TU Electric will be evaluating the combustibility of Thermo-Lag using the NUMARC guide and will incorporate the results into the appropriate documents, as applicable.

.H

4 ER-ME-067 Rev.3 Page 57 of 176 ;

in response to conversatiens between TU Electric and the NRC on January 21 and 22, 1993 relative to Unit 2 Thermo-Lag configurations, TXX-93060 (Reference 10.22.6) was issued on January 25,1993. The 'nformation provided by TU Electric is summarized below.

Thermo-Lag is not utilized to eliminate intervening combustibles in order to obtain a horizontal distance of 20 feet with negligible intervening combustibles between redundant [ Unit 2) safe shutdown trains. This is documented by the

" Unit 2 Fire Safe Shutdown Analysis" (Reference 10.16.7) and the " Unit 2 Physical Separation Analysis and Unit 2 Cables and Components in Common '

Areas" (Reference 10.16.8).

e Thermo-Lag is not utilized as a radiant energy shield inside Unit 1 or Unit 2 containment structures. ,

There is no Thermo-Lag installed in non-raceway applications for Unit 2 (i.e., as used for protection of structural steel supporting 2 hour2.314815e-5 days 5.555556e-4 hours 3.306878e-6 weeks 7.61e-7 months rated gypsum wall assemblies around stairways) which could act as an intervening combustible between redundant safe shutdown trains.

o CPSES plant areas where Thermo-Lag installed on Unit 2 safe shutdown raceways could potentially constitute an intentening combustible between redundant (Unit 2] equipment or components were assessed. Based on fire protection features provided in these areas, the properties of Thermo-Lag and overall low quantities of in-situ combustibles to fuel a postulated fire, significant fire propagation between redundant Unit 2 safe shutdown equipment or components along raceways protected with Thermo-Lag is considered not credible. ,

8.0 OPEN ITEMS

1. Incorporation of Combustibliity of Thermo-Lag into Fire Hazards Analysis.

2. Completion of upgrade of Unit 1 Thermo-Lag Raceway Barriers ,

3. Reconciliation of Unit 1 Thermo-Lag Raceway Barriers to tested configurations !

and incorporation into ER-ME-082

9.0 CONCLUSION

S As a result of tests conducted during the 5 test sessions summarized herein, TU Electric has concluded:

1. Thermo-Lag performs its design function if properly configured

2. Thermo-Lag installations for 3/4 and 1 inch diameter conduits perform their M-N

&o 4 .

I ER-ME-067 Rev.3 Page 58 of 176 design function when upgraded by addition of 1/4 inch thick overlays

3. Thermo-Lag installations for 1 1/2 and 2 inch diameter conduits perform their design function without addition of overlays as demonstrated by cable functionality evaluation

4. Thermo-Lag installations for 3 inch diameter and larger conduits perform their design function without addition of overfays

5. Thermo-Lag installations for lateral bond condulets (LBDs), junction boxes, pullboxes, etc. perform their design function wnen joints and conduit interfaces are n.'nforced with external stress skin and trowel grade material buildup.

6. Thermo-Lag installations for conduit radial bonds perform their design function .

I when configured as follows-

a. 3/4 and 1-inch-addition of 1/4 inch thick overlay with external stress skin and trowel grade material buildup.

b. 1 1/2 inch and larger - addition of either external stress skin or stainless steel mesh in conjunction with trowel grade material buildup Thermo-Lag installations for 12 inch wide cable trays perform their desio't functions when configured as follows:

a. Straight horizontal and vertical runs including radial bonds - no upgrade or reinforcement of joints is required

b. Tee sections - unsupported bottom butt joints require reinforcement with either external stress skin and trowel grade material buildup or stitching, and longitudinal joints require reinforcement with externs; stress skin and trowel grade material buildup

8. Thermo-Lag installations for 18 through 24 inch wide cable trays perform their d'.ssign function when configured as follows:

a. Straight horizontal and vertical runs including radial bends -longitudinal joints require reinforcement with external stress skin and trowel grade material buildup. Unsupported bottom butt joints at support locations only, require reinforcement with external stress skin and trowel grade material buildup or additional Thermo-Lag panel strips attached to the horizontal support member coverage

b. Tee sections - unsupported bottom butt joints require reinforcement with

4 ER-ME-067 Rev.3 Page 59 of 176 I either external stress skin and trowel grade buildup or stitching, and longitudinal joints require reinforcement with extemal stress skin and trowel grade material buildup

9. Thermo-Lag installations for cable trays wider than 24 inch perform their design function when configured as follows:

a. Straight horizontal vid vertical runs including radial bends -

unsupported bottom butt joints on horizontal portions and top and bottom butt joints on vertical portions require reinforcement with eilher extemal stress skin and trowel grade material buildup or stitching, and longitudinal joints require reinforcement with external stress skin and trowel grade material buildup

b. Tee sections - unsupported bottom butt joints require reinforcement with either external stress skin and trowel grade buildup or stitching,2nd longitudinal joints require reinforcement with external stress skin and trowel grade material buildup

10. Thermo-Lag installations for air drop cables perform their design function when configured as iollows:

a. Cable bundle diameter less than 1 1/2 inch - threo (3) layers of 330-660 Flexi-Blanket are required ,

b. Cable bundle diameters greater than or equal to 1 1/2 inch - two (2) layers of 330-660 Flexi-Blanket are required

11. Thermo-Lag " box design" installations for air drop cables when adequately supported perform their design function with a single layer of Thermo-Lag ,

panels

12. Thermo-Lag installations for large power cables (i.e.,1/C 750kMCil) wrapped with 2 layers of 330-660 Flexl-Blanket and routed in exposed cable tray perform their design function; however addition of a third layer is necessary to ensure complete thermal protection of the cables

13. Cable ampacity derating factors applied at CPSES are sufficient to assure cables will perform their design function in addition, these tests demonstrated that plant installation of supports with structural members protected for a nominal 9 inch distance from the raceway envelope is acceptable and that a fog nozzle hose stream test is an effective hose stream test.

l l

)

ER-ME-06/ )

Rev.3 j Page 60 of 176

10.0 REFERENCES

10.1 American Society for Testina and Standards (ASTM) Publications 10.1.1 ASTM E-119 (88)," Standard Methods of Fire Tests of Building Construction and Materials" 10.1.2 ASTM E 136, " Test Method for Behavior of Materials in a Vertical Tube Furnace at 750*C", ASTM 10.1.3 ASTM E 1354 (92),' Test Method for Heat and Visible Smoke Release Rates for Materials and Products Using an Oxygen Consumption Calorimeter" 10.1.4 ASTM E-84 (76),' Test Method for Surface Burning Characteristics of Building Materials" 10.1.5 ASTM E-162 (90)," Test Method for Surface Flammability of Materials Using a Radiant Heat Energy Source" 10.2 National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) Publications 10.2.1 NFPA 251 (1985)," Standard Methods of Fire Tests of Building Construction and Materials" 10.3 American Nuclear Insurers (ANI) 10.3.1 ANI Bulletin B.7.2,11/87, Attachment B, entitled "ANI/MAERP RA Standard Fire Endurance Test Method to Quality A Protective Envelope for Class 1E Electrical Circuits," Revision 1 10.3.2 ANI Bulletin No. 5,"ANI/MAERP Standard Fire Endurance Test Method to Qualify a Protective Envelope for Class 1E Electrical Circuits," dated July 1979.

10.3.3 ANI Bulletin No. 7, "ANI/MAERP Standard Method of Fire Tests of Cable and Pipe Penetration Fire Stops 10.4 NRC Fire Protection Guidelines and Reaulationa 10.4.1 Appendix A to BPT APCSB 9.5-1, NRC Supplemental Guidance Nuclear Plant Fire Protection Functional Responsibilities Administrative Controls and Quality Assurance" 10.4.2 Federal RegisterNolume 45 No. 225/ Wednesday, November 19,1980 Fire Protection Program for Operating Nuclear Power Plants 10 CFR, Part 50, Appendix R

~ ,

l 4

ER-ME-067 Rev.3 Page 61 of 176 10.5 Intentionally Left Blank l

10.6 CPSES Licensina Basis Documents 10.6.1 Final Safety Analysis Report, Section 9.5.1 10.6.2 Fire Protection Report 10.7 NRC Generic Letters l 10.7.1 NRC Generic Letter 8112," Fire Protection Rule" (45 FR 76602) dated November 19, 1980.

10.7.2 NRC Generic Letter 86-10 " Implementation of Fire Protection Requirements," 4/24/86 10.7.3 NRC (Draft) Generic Letter 92-XX "Thermo-Lag Fire Barriers," dated February 11,1992.

10.7.4 NRC Generic Letter 92-08, "Thermo-Lag 330-1 Fire Barriers," dated December 17, 1992.

10.7.5 NRC (Final Draft) Supplement 1 to GL 86-10," Fire Endurance Test Acceptance Criteria for Fire Barrier Systems Used to Separate Redundant Safe Shutdown Trains Within the Same Fire Area" 10.8 NRC Information Notices .

- 10.8.1 NRC Information Notice No. 92-55 " Current Fire Endurance Test Results for Thermo-Lag Fire Barrier Material," dated July 27,1992. .

10.8.2 NRC Information Notice No. 92-46 'Thermo-Lag Fire Barrier Material Special Review "

Team Final Report Findings, Current Fire Endurance Tests, and Ampacity Calculation Errors," dated June 23,1992.

10.8.3 NRC Information Notice No. 92-79 " Deficiencies in the Procedures for Installing Thermo-Lag Fire Barrier Materials," dated December 6,1991.

10.8.4 NRC Information Notice No. 91-47 " Failure of Thermo-Lag Fire Barrier Materials to Pass Fire Endurance Test," dated August 6,1991.

10.8.5 NRC Information Notice No. 92-82,"Results of Thermo-Lag 330-1 Combustibility Testing," dated December 15,1992.

10.9 NRC Bulletins

1 I

i i

ER-ME-067 Rev.3 Page 62 of 176 10.9.1 NRC Bulletin No. 92-01 " Failure of Thermo-Lag 330 Fire Barrier System to Maintain Cabling in Wide Cable Trays and Small Conduits Free From Fire Damage," dated June 24,1992.

10.9.2 NRC Dulletin No. 92-01, Supplement 1 " Failure of Thermo-Lag 330 Fire Barrier to Perform its Specified Fire Endurance Function," dated August 28,1992.

10.10 NRC Office of Inspector General Case No. 91-4N, " Adequacy of NRC Staff's I

Acceptance and Review of Thermo-Lag 330-1 Fire Barrier Material," dated August 12, 1992.

10.11 Cable Ampacity Tests References 10.11.1 TSI Technical Note 111781, dated November 1981," Engineering Report on Ampacity Test for 600 Volt Power Cables Installed in a Five Foot Length of Two Inch Conduit Protected with Thermo Lag 330-1 Subliming coating Envelope System" 10.11.2 Industrial Testing Laboratories, Inc. (ITL) Report No. 82-355-F-1, Revision 1, dated January 1985, "Ampacity Test for 600 Volt Power Cables in an Open Top Cable Tray Protected by the Thermo-Lag 330-1 Subliming Coating Envelope System" 10.11.3 ITL Report No. 83-8-183, dated August 1983, "Ampacity Derating Test at 70*C, 80*C, and 90*C, for 1000 Volt Power Cables in a Ladder Cable Tray Assembly Protected with a One-Hour Fire Rated Design of the Thermo-Lag 330 Fire Barrier System 10.11.4 Underwriters Laboratories, Inc. (UL) Letter to TSI, dated January 21,1987, for Project 86NK23826, File R6802, "Special Service Investigation of Ampacity ,

Ratings for Power Cables in Steel Conduits and in Open-Ladder Cable trays l with Field-Applied Enclosures" 10.11.5 IEEE-P848, Procedure for the Determination of the Ampacity Derating of Fire Protected Cables", Draft 11, dated April 16,1992 l

10.11.6 ICEA P46-426 (62), " Power Cable Ampacities for Copper Cables, Maintained Spacing in Trays" l s

l d

- , , _ , _ _ . - _ , , , _ . , _ _ __ y __ .-..__ ,-m.__ v., w,-

^

ER-ME-067 Rev.3 Page 63 of 176 10.12 Thermo-Laa 330 Test Reoorts 10.12.1 Omega Point Laboratories Final Report 12340-93543b dated 9-9-92, Scheme i No.1 2 10.12.2 Omega Point Laboratories Final Report 12340-93543c dated 2-19-93, Scheme '

No. 2-1 10.12.3 Omega Point Laboratories Final Report 12340-93543e dated 3-3-93, Scheme No. 3 i

10.12.4 Omega Point Laboratories Final Report 12340-93543f dated 3-30-93, Scheme No. 4 ,

10.12.5 Omega Point Laboratories Final Report 12340-93543g dated 7-11-93, Scheme No. 5 10.12.6 Omega Point Laboratories Final Report 12340-93543h dated 6-11-93, Scheme No.6 10.12.7 Omega Point Laboratories Final Report 12340-93543i dated 6-11-93, Scheme No. 7 l 10.12.8 Omega Point Laboratories Final Report 12340-93543j dated 6-11-93, Scheme No. 8 10.12.9 Southwest Research Institute (SWRI) Project No. 01-6763-302 Final Report, dated 12-2-81, " Fire Resistance of Irradiated Thermo-Lag 330-1" 10.12.10 SWRI Project No. 03-6491 Final Report, dated 10-27-81, " Fire Qualification Test of a Protective Envelope System".

10.12.11 Omega Point Laboratories Final Report 12340-94367a dated 11-23-92, Scheme No. 9-1 10.12.12 Omega Point Laboratories Final Report 12340-94367), dated 12-28-92, Scheme 9-3 10.12.13 Omega Point Laboratories Final Report 12340-94367c dated 12-2-92. Scheme No.10-1 10.12.14 Omega Point Laboratories Final Report 12340-94367d dated 12-16-92, Scheme No.10-2

ER-ME-067 Rev.3 Page 64 of 176 10.12.15 Omega Point Laboratories Final Report 12340-94367f dated 1-14-93, Scheme No.11-1 10.12.16 Omega Point Laboratories Final Report 12340-95766, d&ted 8-27-93, Scheme 11-2 .

\

10.12.17 Omega Point Laboratories Final Report 12340-95767, dated 10-4-93, Scheme I

11-4 10.12.18 Omega Point Laboratories Final Report 12340-95768, dated 8-27-93, Scheme 11 5 i

10.12.19 Omega Point Laboratories Final Report 12340-94367i dated 12-16-92, Scheme No.12-1 l l 10.12.20 Omega Point Laboratories Final Report 12340-94367h dated 1216-92, Scheme l

l No.12-2 i 10.12.21 Omega Point Laboratories Final Report 12340-943671 dated 12-9-92, Scheme No.13-1 10.12.22 Omega Point Laboratories Final Report 12340-95769, dated 8-23-93, Scheme l 13-2 i 10.12.23 Omega Point Laboratories Final Report 12340-94367m dated 12-16-92, Scheme No.14-1 10.12.24 Omega Point Laboratories Final Report 12340-951009, dated 3-19 93, Scheme 15-1 10.12.25 Omega Point Laboratories Final Report 12340-95770, dated 10-4-93, Scheme 15-2 10.12.26 Omega Point Laboratories Final Report 12340-93953, dated 710-92 10.12.27 Omega Point Laboratories Final Report on OPL Project No. 94105," Evaluation of Heat Release Parameters of Thermo-Lag 330 (Draft)", dated July 21,1992 10.12.28 Omega Point Laboratories Final Report 12340-94583,96165-95168, 95246, dated 3-19-93, Schemes AC-1, AC-4, AC-5, AA 1-1, AA 4-2, and AT-1 10.13 Thermal Science. Inc. (TSI) installation Procedures 10.13.1 TSI Technical Note 20684, Revision V, dated November 1985, 'Thermo-Lag Fire l

l

_ .. ._ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ____________________U

em 4 4- Im J

l i

ER-ME-067 R ev. 3 Page 65 of 176 l Barrier System installation Procedures Manual Power Generating Plant ,

Applications" 10.13.2 Intentionally Left Blank :

10.13.3 TSI Technical Note 80181, Revision ll, "Thermo-Lag 330-1 Subliming Coating Envelope System Application Procedures," dated December 1981. .

10.13.4 TSI Technical Note 80181, Revision IV, 'Thermo-Lag 33-01 Subliming Coating Fire Barrier System Application Procedures," dated June 1983.

10.13.5 TSI Technical Note 99777 " Material Application Guides Thermo-Lag 330-1 f Subliming Coating System".

{

10.13.6 TSI Technical Note 11601 "Thermo-Lag 330-1 Coating Thickness For One and ,

Three Hour Fire Rating For Structural Steel Members" by Wesson and .;

Associates Inc. ,

10.14 CPSES Soecifications {

10.14.1 2323-MS-38H, " Cable Raceway Fire Barriers", Rev. 4 10.14.2 CPES-M-2032 " Procurement and Installation of Fire Barrier and Fireproofing Materials", Rev. 0 1

10.14.3 2323-AS-47, "Fireproofing of Structural Steel", Rev. 2 10.14.4 2323-ES-100 " Electrical Installation" Rev. 9 10.14.5 CPES-E 2004 " Electrical Installation" Rev.1 ;

10.15 _CPSES Drawinas 10.15.1 CPSES Unit 1 Drawing no. M1-1700, "Thermo-Lag and RES Schedule" 10.15.2 CPSES Unit 1 Drawing No. M1-1701, Sheets 1-7, "Thermo-Lag Typical Details" 10.15.3 CPSES Unit 2 Drawing No. M2-1700, " Unit 2 Thermo-Lag Report" 10.15.4 CPSES Unit 2 Drawing No. M2-1701, Sheets 1-15, 'Thermo-Lag typical Details" 10.15.5 CPSES Design Change Notice 6943, Rev.1 l l

l

. . . I

ER-ME-067 Rev.3 Page 66 of 176 10.16 CPSES Calculations 10.16.1 Intentionally Left Blank 10.16.2 Intentionally Left Blank 10.16.3 CPSES Unit 1 and 2 Calculation 16345/6-EE(B)-004 Rev. O, " Cable Ampacity Derating Factors for Conduits Boxed in with Thermo-Lag (TSI Product)"

10.16.4 CPSES Unit 1 and 2 Calculation No.16345-EE(B)-140 Rev.1,"Ampacity of Power Cable Wrapped with Thermo-Lag 330-660 Installed as Free Air Drop" 10.16.5 CPSES Unit 1 and 2 Calculation No.16343/G-EE(B)-142, Rev. 2, "Thermo-Lag Tray Interface Analysis" 10.16.6 CPSES Unit 1 Calculation No. 0210-063-0043, Rev. 7, " Maximum Permissible Fire Loading /Non-Rated Features Analysis" 10.16.7 CPSES Unit 2 Calculation No. 2-ME-0282, Rev. O, " Unit 2 Fire Safe Shutdown Analysis" 10.16.8 CPSES Unit 2 Calculation No. 2-ME-0279, Rev. O, " Unit 2 Physical Separation Analysis and Unit 2 Cables and Components in Common Areas" 10.16.9 CPSES #2-EE-CA-0008-3038, Rev. 6, " Unit 2 Class 1E 480 Volt Switchgear Feeder Cable Sizing Calculation" 10.16.10 CPSES #2-EE-CA-0008-3097, Rev.1, "6.9KV Unit 2 Class 1E Switchgear Cable Sizing Calculation" l

10.16.11 CPSES EE-0008, f 2v. 4, " Cable Breaker and Thermal Overload Sizing of Class 1E 480V MCC Branch Feeder Circuits" 10.16.12 CPSES EE-0009, Rev. 3, " Cable and Breaker Sizing for Class 1E,118,120 Volt and 120/208 Volt Branch Feeder Circuits and Size Verification of Non-Automatic i Circuit Breakers" 10.16.13 CPSES EE4010, Rev. 4, "125 Volt DC Class 1E Cable Sizing Switchboard and l Panel Board Breaker / Fuse Size Verification" 10.17 CPSES Desion Basis Documents l

a l

i ER-ME-067 Rev.3 i Page 67 of 176 l 10.17.1 DBD-EE-052 " Cable Philosophy and Sizing Criteria," Rev. 3 10.17.2 DBD-ME-028," Classification of Structures, Systems and Components" 10.18 CPSES Procedures 10.18.1 NEO Quality Assurance Department Procedure No. NOA 3.09-1.07," Inspection of Fire Protection to Cable Raceway and Structural Steel" (CPSES Unit 1) 10.18.2 CPSES Construction /Ouality Procedure No. CCP-CV-107, " Application of Fire Barrier and Fireproofing Materials" (CPSES Unit 2 and Common) 10.18.3 COP-EL-205 " Cable Inspection" Rev. 2 10.19 Penetration Seal Test Standards 10.19.1 IEEE Standard 634-1978,"lEEE Standard Cable Penetration Fire Stop ;

Oualification Test" 10.20 Intentionally Left Blank i

10.21 Structural Steel Fire Tests 10.21.1 UL Test Results File No. R10515-3,-4 on Steel Columns Protected with Building .

Units 10.21.2 ITL Report No. 89-07-5334 Three Hour Fire Endurance Test Conducted on an ,

Unrestrained Structural Steel Beam" ;

10.21.3 ITL Repor1 No. 89-07-5335 "Three Hour Fire Endurance Test Conducted on An l Interface Design of Thermo-Lag Pre-Fabricated Panel /Mandovat P-50 and a i Unistrut Test" 10.21.4 Underwriter Laboratories " Fire Resistance Directory", Designs X-003 and X-611 10.22 NRC/TU Electric Corresoondence i

10.22.1 NRC Letter to W. D. Cahill, Jr., dated October 29,1992, "Thermo-Lag Acceptance Methodology for Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station - Unit 2", j Docket No. 50446.

10.22.2 TXX-3437, dated November 15,1981, Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station Fire Barrier Material Test Report 10.22.3 NRC Letter to R.J. Gray, dated December 1,1981, " Comanche Peak Tray Fire i

ER ME-067 Rev.3 Page 68 of 176 Barrier Evaluation", Docket Nos. 50-445 and 50-446.

TXX-93034, dated January 15,1993," Comanche Peak Steam Electric Str an 10.22.4 (CPSES) Docket Nos. 50-445 and 50446 Fire Protection Inspection" 10.22.5 TXX-93038, dated January 19,1993, " Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station (CPSES) - Unit 2 Oc ket No. 50-446 Response to Generic Letter 92-08 Thermo-Lag 3301 Fire Barriers" 10.22.6 TXX-93060, dated January 25,1993," Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station (CPSES) Docket No. 50446 Responses to Request for Additional Information for CPSES Unit 2" 10.22.7 TXX-93061, dated January 28,1993," Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station >

(CPSES) Docket No. 50-446 Responses to Request for Additional Information for CPSES Unit 2" 10.22.8 TXX-93076, dated February 1,1993," Comanche Ped Steam Electric Station (CPSES) - Unit 2 Docket No. 50-446 36 Inch Wide Cable Tray" 10.22.9 TXX-93101, dated February 26,1993," Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station (CPSES) - Clarifications on Ampacity Derating Test and Thermo-Lag Fire Endurance Test "

10.22.10 TXX-93125, dated March 10,1993, "Comancho Peak Steam Electric Station (CPSES) - Docket Nos. 50-445 and 50-446, Preliminary Fire Endurance and Ampacity Test Results" 10.22.11 TXX-93136, dated March 23,1993, " Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station l

(CPSES) - Docket Nos. 50-445 and 50446, Ampacity Test Results and Thermo-Lag Box Design Configurations" 10.22.12 TXX-93214, dated May 26,1993," Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station (CPSES) - Docket Nos. 50-445 and 50-446, NRC TAC Nos. M85988, M85999, Thermo-Lag Laboratory Test Result Reports for 6" Cable Tray and Ampacity Derating of Cable Protected by Thermo-Lag, and TAC No. M86000 for Motor Operated Valves" 10.22.13 TXX-93023, dated January 19,1993, " Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station (CPSES) - Docket No. 50-446. Thermo-Lag Laboratory Test Results Reports and Responses to Request for Additional Information for CPSES Unit 2" 10.22.14 TXX-93331, dated September 16,1993, " Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station (CPSES) - Docket No. 50-445, Draft Cable Functionality Evaluation Report and Evaluation of Jacket Swelling"

ER-ME-067 Rev.3 Page 69 of 176 10.22.15 TXX-93353, dated October 28,1993, " Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station (CPSES) - Docket No. 50-445, Thermo-Lag Laboratory Test Results and Responses to Request for Additional Information for CPSES Unit 1" 10.22.16 NRC Letter to W.J. Cahill, Jr., dated February 14,1994," Request for Additional Information Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station (CPSES), Unit 2 Thermo-Lag Related Ampacity Derating issues" 10.22.17 TXX-92466, dated September 24,1992," Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station (CPSES) - Docket Nos. 50-445 and 50-446, Confirmatory Testing of Thermo-Lag Fire Barrier System at CPSES" 10.22.18 TXX-92589, dated December 15.1993, " Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station (CPSES) - Docket Nos. 50-445 and 50-446, Response to Request for Additional Information" 10.22.19 NRC Letter to W.J. Cahill, Jr., dated August 30,1993, "NRC Inspection Report 50-445/93-34; 50-446/93-34" 10.23 CPSES Enaineerino Reports 10.23.1 Engineering Report ER-ME-082, Rev.1, " Evaluation of Unit 2 Thermo-Lag Configurations" 10.23.2 Engineering report ER-EE-006, Rev. O, " Evaluation of Fire Endurance Test Results Related to Cable Functionality in 1 1/2" and 2" Conduits" 10.24 Sucolemental Safety Evaluation Reoorts (SSER) NUREG 0797 10.24.1 SSER 12, Date issued October,1985 10.24.2 SSER 21, Date issued April,1989 10.24.3 SSER 23, Date issued February,1990 10.24.4 SSER 26, Date issued February,1993 10.24.5 SSER 27, Date issued April,1993 10.25 Underwriter's Laboratories ASTM EQ4 Tests 10.25.1 Thermo-Lag 330-1 Subliming Compound without Topcoat, UL File No. R6076, dated June 16,1981.

.i e l l

1 ER-ME-067 Rev.3-i Pago 70 of 176 10.25.2 Thermo-Lag 350 Topcoat UL File No. R60768, dated June 16,1981, 6

10.26 NUMARC Thermo-Lag Combustibility Guidelines issued on October 12,1993 ,

f i

k 4

4 4

4 b

4

,, , , , _ _ - . _ . , - , , ,.r- ,..- , . _ , . - . . , --

ER-ME-067 Rev.3 Page 71 of 176 APPENDIX A A1 Omeaa Point Test No. 12340-93543a - Scheme 1. Assembly 2 The fire endurance test documented in Reference 10.12.1 was conducted at Omega Point Laboratories on June 22,1992, and the test report was issued on November 4,1992. The fire endurance test, hose strearn test, and electrical circuit monitoring test were performed to the criteria of American Nuclear Insurers (ANI) Bulletin No. 5 (Reference 10.3.2). This is the original acceptance criteria used by CPSES as documented in Southwest Research Institute (SWRI) Project No. 03-6491 (Reference 10.12.9) dated October 27,1981, that was reviewed and accepted by the NRC by letter dated December 1,1981 (Reference 10.22.3).

Note: Assembly 1 of this test scheme was not tested.

A1.1 Test Article Scheme No.1 Assembly 2 (upgraded version) consisted of a T.J. Cope brand 36 in, wide x 4 in. deep 12 gage ladder back tray tee section, catalog No. GG-36ft-12-06-CP, connecting two Burndy-Husky 12 gage ladder back verticals, catalog No. S6YA-36-144, that transitioned into a U-shaped configuration have a 8 ft-6in horizontal run dimension and a vertical dimension of 6 ft Oin at each leg. One leg transitioned into the tee section via a 36 in. x 4 in. ladder back 90 deg vertical with a 24 in. Inside radius bend fitting. The opposite leg transitioned into the tee section via an 1/4 in, thick x 7-3/4 in. x 7-3/4 in. ASTM A36 carbon steel L shaped splice plate (CPSES site fabricated) forming a " squared

90 deg angle. The 90 deg angle is not used at CPSES but was required in the test to fit the test article into the test oven. A 1/3 mix of power, instrumentation, and control cables, totaling 52 cables, were pulled into the tray maintaining a single layer, except in the tee section wherein cables were looped towards the mouth of the tee thereby ensuring circuit continuity. The mouth of the tee was filled with a 5 in, wide mixture of Thermo-Lag 330-1 tray stop.

This assembly was supported by three (3) trapeze type hangers using 3 in, channels bolted together with 5/8 in diameter x 1 1/2 in. ASTM A307 carbon steel bolts. The channels were attached to 4 x 4 x 1/2 in clip angles fillet welded to the 3 in. channel on each vertical side.

The 4 x 4 clip angles were then attached to a 1/4 in thick reinforced steel deck using 1/2 in.

diameter threaded rods. From the bottom of the tray to the top support the clip angles measured 3 ft-0 in. in length. Above the vertical tray leg connected to the " sweeping" 90 dog bend, an 8 in, wide x 12 in. high (all-around) rectangular concrete collar surrounded a 44 in. x 12 in, block out that was filled with Dow Cr> ming 3-6548 silicone RW foam. An intemal seal (silicone elastorner-Promatec 458) was poured into each cable tray vertical at the 1/4 in, reinforced deck level. A single protruding item (Unistrut P1001) was installed onto the outside face of the " square' 90 deg vertical approximately 12 in. down from the underside of the 1/4 in. docking and extending approximately 20 in. beyond the face of the tray.

ER-ME-067 Rev.3 Page 72 of 176 A1.2 TSI Thermo-Lag Protective Envelope Materials and Enclosures 1/2 in. thick (nominal) Thermo-Lag 330-1 flat board and 1/2 in thick Thermo-Lag 330-1 prefabricated v-rib panels with stress skin on only one side was installed in accordance with References 10.14.1,10.15.4, and 10.18.2, except where upgradeo for testing of design changes as described below.

Thermo-Lag 330-1 flat boards were applied to hanger supports then Thermo-Lag 330-1 prefabricated panels with V-ribs were installed to the inside face of the sweeping 90 deg bend and on top of the horizontal run; V-ribs were extended perpendicular to tray side rails.

Thermo-Lag 330-1 prefabricated panels were installed onto the bottom and top of the tray; V-ribs were extended parallel to the tray rail.

Thermo-Lag 330-1 prefabric ted panels were installed onto the side rails. V rib were extended vertically.

Thermo Lag 330-1 prefabricated panels were installed onto the vertical riser and outside face of the sweeping 90 deg angle; V-ribs were extended vertically.

Upgrado At the side panels, opposite the mouth of the tee section, a thin layer of 330-1 trowel grade approximatel ' N16 in. thick was applied from the joint, extending approximately 5 in. towards the middle c' i tray, on the top, bottom, and side exterior panel surfaces.

Then Thermo-Lag stress ski. 'ype 330-69 was cut and formed into a squared U-shaped configuration (5 in. overlay on top and bottom), which was placed over top, bottom, side panels, and 3/16 in, thick trowel grado, then the stress skin was stapled using 1/2 in long Arrow or Bostitch T-50 staples at a distance 1 in. minimum,2 in. rnaximum from the edge of the stress skin and 3 in. c/c spacings. The two stress skin legs were tie wired in place at 5 in. to 6 in. max on centers and a skim coat of 330-1 trowel grade material approximately 1/16 in. thick was applied over the stress skin and tie wires. Finally, Thermo-Lag 350 topcoat was applied over areas where Thermo-Lag 330-1 trowel grade had been applied after the required ,

72 hours8.333333e-4 days 0.02 hours 1.190476e-4 weeks 2.7396e-5 months cure period.

Upgrade stitching was applied (denoted as a tie wire connecting two adjoining Thermo-Lag 330-1 boards through one or more field drilled holes) at the inside and outside joint of the 90 deg angle,7 stitches were placed 6 in. apart.

Upgrado - Stitching was applied 3-3/4 in. away from squared 90 deg angle on the top board, 8 stitches were placed 5 in. apart.

Upgrado - Stitching was applied on the top and bottom 330-1 boards along the mouth edge of 100 into the 3301 tray stop,8 stitches were placed 5 in, apart.

Upgrado - Approximately 5 in from mouth of the 100 towards the center of the tray extending

ER-ME-067 Rev.3 Page 73 of 176 parallel to previous stitches,8 stitches at 5 in. apart were added.

Upgrade - Stitching was applied approximately 8 in. away from the center of support hanger (closest to the top sweeping 90 deg bend) toward the center of the tray, extending across the width of tray,8 stitches were placed 5 in. apart.

Upgrade - Stitching was applied to the top and bottom Thermo-Lag boards with the side panels at the beginning of the sweeping 90 deg bend transition from horizontal to the bottom of the 1/4 in. decking, stitching was 5 in, apart.

Upgrade - Horizontal boards were scored and folded at 9 places at 5 in apart (top) and 10 places at 6 in. apart (bottom) and applied to the sweeping 90 deg bend.

In accordance with the 9 in. rule for protruding items, the P1001 unistrut was wrapped with Thermo-Lag flat panels over the total width of the 36 in tray plus 9 in. from the tray along unistrut. Where the Thermo-Lag application terminated the remaining unistrut was left unprotected.

Note: All joints were "prebuttered" and banding (including internal banding) was installed in accordance with Reference 10.14.1. A;l Thermo-Lag prefabricated panels were inspected prior to shipment from TSI (source inspection) and their weight was checked (density checked) upon receipt in accordance with 10.14.1 and Purchase Order.

A1.3 ASTM E-119 Standard Time Temperature The Thermo-Lagged test article was exposed to the standard time-temperature curve of ASTM E-119 for 1 hour1.157407e-5 days 2.777778e-4 hours 1.653439e-6 weeks 3.805e-7 months .

A1.4 Temperature Review ASTM E 119 and NFPA 251 specify that the transmission of heat through the wall or partition during the fire endurance test shall not have been such as to raise the temperature on its unexposed surface more than 250*F (139'C) above its initial temperature. ASTM E-119 and NFPA 251 further state that where the conditions of acceptance place a limitation on the rise of temperature of the unexposed side, the temperature end point of the fire endurance test shall be determined by the average of the measurements taken at individual points; except that if a temperature rise 30 percent in excess of the specified limit occurs at any one of these points, the remainder shall be ignored and the fire endurance period judged as ended.

The ambient air temperature at the start of the test was 84*F.

The maximum average temperature would be equal to 250*F plus ambient. For this test, the maximum average temperature rise would equal 334*F.

ER-ME-067 Rev.3 Page 74 of 176 The maximum individual temperature would be equal to 325*F plus ambient. For this test, the maximum individual temperature nse would equal 409'F.

During the test the maximum recorded individual outside cable tray rail temperature was 377*F and the maximum recorded average cable rail temperature was 294*F.

During the test the maximum recorded individual cable surface temperature was 314*F and the maximum recorded average cable surface temperature was 248'F.

The temperature criteria in ASTM E-119 were not applicable to this test, never the less, the test temperature satisfied the temperature criteria in ASTM E-119.

Visualinspection of the cables after the test showed that all the cables were " free from fire damage." A small nick was found on one cable. This nick was determined to have been caused during the pulling of the cables.

The cable temperatures in the area of the Unistrut support that was incorporated into the test article to validate the 9 in. rule (heat path into envelope) were all below 325*F.

A1.5 Hose Stream Test Following the exposure fire, the test article was subjected to a 21/2 minute hose stream test utilizing a 2-1/2 in, diameter national standard playpipe equipped with a 1-1/8 in. nozzle. The nozzle pressure was maintained at 30 psi. The nozzle distance was maintained at 20 ft from the test article.

Circuit continually was maintained dunng the hose stream test. Some of the Thermo-Lag was dislodged during the hose stream test but the cables remained " free from fire damage."

A1.6 Electrical Circuit Monitoring Test At no time during the fire endurance test or the hose stream test did the electrical circuit monitoring system identify any shorts, shorts to ground, or open circuits (loss of continuity) on '

any of the monitored circuits.

All cables were meggered after the hose stream test (next morning) and only one cable showed any degradation. This cable was identified as having a small nick in the cable jacket.

This nick was caused during the installation of the cable and did not occur during the test.

A1.7 Comments The test article meets the acceptance criteria established by CPSES (based on ANI Bulletin No. 5) in that circuit integrity was maintained throughout the fire endurance and hose stream tests.

ER-ME-067 Rev.3 Page 75 of 176 The Thermo-Lag fire stop installed in the open end (mouth) of the tee section perfcc.ied satisfactorily, as did the penetration seals at the test deck. These seals confirm the u,Oign used at CPSES for penetration seal /Thermo-Lag 330 interfaces in the plants.

A2 Omeoa Point Test No. 12340-93543c - Scheme 2. Assembly 1 The fire endurance test documented in Reference 10.12.2 was conducted at Omega Point Laboratories on June 17,1992, and the test report was issued on February 19,1993. The fire endurance test, hose stream test, and electrical circuit monitering test were performed to the criteria of American Nuclear Insurers (ANI) Bulletin No. 5 (Reference 10.3.2). This is the original acceptance criteria used by CPSES as documented in Southwest Research Institute (SWRI) Project No. 034491 (Reference 10.12.9) dated October 27,1981, that was reviewed and accepted by the NRC by letter dated December 1,1981 (Reference 10.22.3).

A2.1 Test Article Scheme 2, Assembly 1, consisted of one junction box (24 in. x 18 in. x 8 in.) and three conduits (5 in.1 in.,3/4 in, diameter). The junction box was in the center of test article approximately 3 ft below the test desk. The junction box (JB) was supported by a 3 x 3 x 1/4 tube steel support, and had a 1 in. conduit with a 90 deg elbow attached to the front oi the JB to simulate a nonprotected entry into a JB. The three conduits extended out both sides of the JB (3/4 in.,1 in.,5 in. conduit on each side) to lateral bends (90 deg bends) and rose vertically through the test deck.

The 1 in, conduit representing a nonprotected entry was sealed with a silicone elastomer seal (Promatec 458). All conduits penetrating the test deck were sealed with Promatec 45B in accordance with CPSES procedures.

The 3/4 in,1 in., and 5 in, conduits were supported by 3 in. x 3 in. x 1/4 in, tube steel on either side of the JB. The tube steel was attached to the conduits by a 1 in. x 6 in, flat plate.

The vertical conduit risers (3/4 in.,1 in., and 5 in.) were attached to a 1/2 in. plate which was attached to a 3 in. x 3 in. x 1/4 in. tube steel commodity. These commodities were for testing the 9 in. heat path rule.

A2.2 TSI Thermo-Lag Protective Envelope Materials and Enclosure One-half inch thick Thermo-Lag 330-1 flat board were used on supports and lateral bends.

One-half inch thick Thermo Lag 330-1 preshaped conduit sections were used on 3/4 in.,1 in.,

and 5 in, diameter conduits.

The two protruding tube steel items were protected as protruding items in accordance with Reference 10.14.1. One was protected with flat 1/2 in. 3301 Thermo-Lag panels; the other

~

ER-ME-067 Rev.3 Page 76 of 176 was protected with two layers of 1/4 in. thick Thermo-Lag 330-660 Flexl-blanket.

The 1 in. diameter conduit protruding item from the junction box was protected in accordance with Reference 10.14.1 using 1/2 in. thick Thermo-Lag 3301 preshaped conduit sections. .

All joints were " Pre-buttered" and Banding (wires) was installed in accordance with Reference ,

10.14.1. All Thermo-Lag prefabricated panels were inspected prior to shipment, and weight was inspected upon receipt in accordance with Reference 10.14.1.

A2.3 ASTM E119 Standard Time Temperature The Thermo-Lagged test article was exposed to the standard time-temperature curve of ASTM E 119 for 1 hour1.157407e-5 days 2.777778e-4 hours 1.653439e-6 weeks 3.805e-7 months .

A2.4 Temperatures ASTM E-119 and NFPA 251 specifies that the transmission of heat through the wall or partition during the fire endurance test shall not have been such as to raise the temperature on its unexposed surface more than 250*F (139'C) above its initial temperature, ASTM E-119 r

and NFPA 251 further state that where the conditions of acceptance place a limitation on the rise of temperature of the unexposed side, the temperature end point of the fire endurance t test shall be determined by the average of the measurements taken at individual points; except that if a temperature rise 30 percent in excess of the specified limit occurs at any one of these points, the remainder shall be ignored and the fire endurance period judged as ended.

The ambient air temperature at the start of the test was 87'F. l The maximum average temperature would be equal to 250* plus ambient. For this test, the maximum average temperature would equal 337'F.

The maximum individual temperature would be equal to 325'F plus ambient. For this test, the maximum individual temperature would equal 412*F.

5-lnch Conduit ;

The ..aximum average instnement cable surface temperature was 191*F, the maximum

, rage control cable surface temperature was 142*F, and the maximum average introl cable surface temperature was 158*F for an overall average cable surface emperature of 164*F.

The conduit had a maximum recorded average outside steel temperature of 299'F, even though the inside of the conduit is considered the inside of the fire barrier

6 1

ER-ME-067 Rev.3 ,

Page 77 of 176 ;

assembly.

The maximum recorded individual cable surface temperature was 233*F and the maximum recorded overall average cable surface temperature was 164*F. :

The temperature criteria in ASTM E-119 was not applicable to this test, never the less, ;

the test temperature satisfied the temperature criteria in ASTM E-119.

An inspection of the cables after the hose stream test revealed that the cables were 1ree from fire damage."

e 1-inch Conduit The maximum cable (inside of conduit) temperature was 466*F. The temperature profile within the conduit varied from a low of 243*F to a high of 463*F. The horizontal mid-span sections had the highest temperatures, and the thermocouples closest to the supports had the lowest temperatures. This demonstrates that the thermal mass (ratio .

of weight to heated area) play an important role in the thermal response of the barrier.

The conduit outside steel average temperature was 412*F. ;

An inspection of the cable after the hose stream test showed blistering of the cable jacket where the cable temperature was 463*F, but only discolorization of the conductor insulation.

o 3/4-inch Conduit The maximum recorded cable surface (inside of conduit) temperature was 609*G. The ;

t temperature profile within the conduit varied from a low of 249'F to a high of 609'F.

The horizontal mid-span sections had the highest temperatures and the thermocouples closest to the supports had tne lowest temperatures. This demonstrates that the .l thermal mass (ratio of weight to heat perimeter) plays an important role in the thermal response of the barrier. An inspection of the cable after the hose stream test showed blistering of the jack, and, in at least one location, damage to the insulation on the conductors. ,

e Junction Box The maximum recorded cable surface (inside of box) temperature was 311*F The temperature profile showed that a temperature variation was caused by the conduits connected to the box since the highest temperature was on the cable run in the 3/4 in.

conduit and the lowest was on one of the cables run in the 5 in conduit.

The junction box steel average temperature was 483*F.

ER-ME-067 Rev.3 Page 78 of 176 An inspection of the cables inside the junction box after the hose stream test showed that the cables were " free from fire damage."

The conduit cable temperature near the exposed protruding items exhibited lower temperature than in the horizontal sections of the conduits. This demonstrates that the 9 in, rule for heat path on protruding items if acceptable.

A2.5 Hose Stream Test Following the exposure fire, the test article was subjected to a 2-1/2 minute hose stream test utilizing a 2-1/2 in. diameter National Standard playpipe equipped with a 1-1/8 in. nozzlo. The nozzle pressure was maintained at 30 psi. The nozzle distance was maintained at 20 ft from the test article.

Circuit continuity was maintained during the hose stream test. Most of the Thermo-Lag was dislodged during the hose stream test but the hose stream did not penetrate the conduits or junction box which are part of the test assembly.

A2.6 Electrical Circuit Monitoring Test At no time during the fire endurance test or hose stream test did the electrical circuit monitoring system identify any shorts, shorts to ground, or open circuits (loss of continuity) on any of the monitored circuits.

The cables were meggered after the hose stream test (next morning) and only the cable in the 3/4 in. conduit showed degradation. The cable in the 1 in. conduit was " wet" meggered and found to be acceptable.

A2.7 Comments The cables in the 5 in. conduit and junction box were free of fire damage. The cable in the 1 in. conduit although blistered would perform its intended function after the fire test, it was questionable whether the 3/4 in. instrument cable would function properly.

The hose stream removed most of the Thermo-Lag from the test article, with the banding supporting most of the remaining material.

The use of the 9 in, rule using either Thermo-Lag 330-660 Flext-blanket, Thermo-Lag 330-1 flat panels or Thermo-Lag 330-1 preshaped conduit sections to prevent heat intrusion into the envelope was demonstrated to be acceptable.

The penetration sealinside the conduit at the junction box also performed satisfactorily.

/

? ? ' d iQ 4.m a M

6 ER-ME-067 Rev.3 Page 79 of 176 A3 Omeoa Point Test No. 12340-93543e - Scheme 3 l The fire endurance test documented in Reference 10.12.3 was conducted at Omega Point Laboratories on June 18,1992, and the test report was issued on March 3,1993. The fire endurance test, hose stream test and electrical circuit monitoring test was performed to the enteria of American Nuclear Insurers (ANI) Bulletin No. 5 (Reference 10.3.2). This is the original acceptance criteria used by CPSES as documented in Southwest Research Institute (SWRI) Project No. 03-6491 (Reference 10.12.9) dated October 27,1981 that was reviewed and accepted by the NRC by letter dated December 1,1981 (Reference 10.22.3).

A3.1 Test Article ,

Schemo 3 consisted of a 12" wide x 4" deep ladder back cable tray constructed in a U-shaped configuration having a 5 ft horizontal run through to radial 90 degree bends to two 6 ft vertical risers. The distance from the bottom of tray to the underside of the test deck was 3 ft.

A 1/3 fill mix of 18 instrumentation, power and control cables were installed in a single layer into the tray.

The assembly was internally supported by two trapeze type hangers 3 in. channel for the bottom and 4 in. channel for the vertical support An intemal tray seal (silicone elastomer) was installed in the vertical section of the tray at the test deck.

I A3.2 TSI Thermo-Lag Protective Envelope Materials and Enclosure J 1/2" thick (nominal) Thermo-Lag 330-1 prefabricated flat boards were used on the entire hanger supports.

1/2" thick (nominal) Thermo-Lag 3301 p>efabricated V-ribbed panels were installed on the tray with the ribs running perpendicular to tray side rails on the top of the tray and parallel to tray rails on the bottom and sides. i l

1/2" thick Thermo-Lag 3301 prefabricated V-ribbed panels were installed on the top (inside) l 90 degree radial bends with the ribs perpendicular to the tray side rails. These panels were i i

scored approximately 1/4" deep the entire width of the panel on the outside surface at 2" l intervals. Each scored groove was then filled with Thermo-Lag 3301 trowel grade material, 1/2" thick Thermo-Lag 330-1 prefabricated V-ribbed panel was installed on the bottom (outside) 90 degree radial bends with the ribs parallel to the side rails. These panels were scored and folded similar to the inside of the bond panois above, except the scores were ;

approximately 21/2 in. apart. !

l' All joints were " pre-buttered" and banding (wires) was installed in accordance with Reference

-+= g,

ER-ME-067 Rev.3 [

Page 80 of 176 10.14.1. All Thermo-Lag 330-1 prefabricated panels were inspected prior to shipment from ;

the vendor, and weight was inspected upon receipt per Reference 10.14.1.

A3.3 ASTM E-119 Standard Time-Temperature The Thermo-Lagged test article was exposed to the standard time-temperature curve of ASTM E-119 for 1 hour1.157407e-5 days 2.777778e-4 hours 1.653439e-6 weeks 3.805e-7 months .

A3.4 Ternperatures ASTM E-119 and NFPA 251 specifies that the transmission of heat through the wall or partition during the fire endurance test shall not have been such as to raise the temperature on its unexposed surface more than 250*F (139'C) above its initial temperature. ASTM E 119 and NFPA 251 further states that where the conditions of acceptance place a limitation of the rise of temperature of the unexposed side, the temperature end point of the fire endurance test shall be determined by the average of the measurements taken at individual points; ,

except that if a temperature rise 30 percent in excess of the specified limit occurs at any of l these points, the remainder shall be ignored and the fire e.1 durance period judged as ended. l The ambient air temperature at the start of the test was 95"F.

The maximum average temperature would be equal to 250*F plus ambient. For this test the '

maximum average temperature would equal to 345*F.

i The maximum individual temperature would be equal to 325*F plus ambient. For this test the

rnaximum individual temperature would equal 420*F.

The maximum recorded individual outside cable tray rail temperature was 381*F and the maximum recorded average outside cable tray rail temperature was 337"F.

The maximum recorded individual cable suiace temperature was 292*F and the maximum '

recorded average cable surface temperature was 257*F.

The temperature criteria in ASTM E-119 was nct applicable to this test, never the less, the test temperature satisfied the temperature criteria in ASTM E-119.

Visualinspection of the cables after the test revealed that the cables were " free of fire damage?

A3.5 Hose Stream Test i

Following the expo-sure fire, the test article was subjected to a 2-1/2 minute hose stream test -l utilizing a 2-1/2 in, diameter national standard play pipe equipped with a 1-1/8 in. nozzle. The nozzle pressure was maintained at 30 psi. The nozzle distance was maintained at 20 feet 1

ER-ME-067 Rev.3 Page 81 of 176 from the test article.

Circuit integrity was maintained during the hose stream test. Some of the Thermo-Lag was dislodged during the hose stream test but the cable remained " free from fire damage."

A3.6 Electrical Circuit Monitoring Test At no time during the fir? endurance test or hose stream test did the electrical circuit monitoring system identis/ any shorts, shorts-to-ground or open circuits (loss of continuity) on any of the monitored circuits. ,

The cables were meggered in place after the hose stream test (next morning) and the test did not indicate any degradation of the cable.

A3.7 Comments The test article met the accepta criteria established by CPSES (based on ANI Bulletin No.

5), in that circuit integrity was maintained.

Furthermore, the temperature criteria of ASTM E-119 and NFPA 251 was also met. t A4 Omeaa Point No. 12340-93543F - Scheme 4 The Penetration Seal Test documented in Reference 10.12.4 was conducted at Omega Point Laboratories on June 23,1992 and the test report was issued on March 30,1993. The Penetration Seal Test was conducted in accordance with IEEE 634 " Standard Cable Penetration Fire Stop Qualification Test" (Reference 10.19.1). This is the test standard reference in CPSES's FSAR (Section 9.5.1, see Section 6.7 of this document). (Reference 10.6.1) ,

A4.1 Test Article Scheme No. 4 consisted of a single vertical 35" wide x 4" deep x 7'-6" long (T.J. Cope brand) ladderback cable tray with a 1/3 mix of instrumentation, power and control cabling. A total of 156 cables were installed in the tray to achieve a 40% fill.12" up from the bottom of the tray, a 5" wide 330-1 thermolag tray stop was poured in place extending over the entire inside width of the tray. The 330-1 Thermo-Lag tray stop was placed in such a manner that cables toward the back of the tray were also within the protective 330-1 tray stop envelope.

Omega Point Laboratories fumished and installed two 1-1/2" x 1-1/2" x 2'-9" long strut type mechanical clamping devices to prevent cables from sagging during the test. With three 3/8" diameter through botts equally spaced from one another, the mechanical clamping device was positioned on the front and back face of the cables within the tray, in addition to the mechanical clamping device, the cables were also secured in place using plastic tie wraps

ER-ME-067 Rev.3 Page 82 of 176 tied to tray rungs, or in some instances stainless steel tie wire was used due to the proximity of the cables.

An 8" wide silicone elastomer [(Promatec 458) fire stop] was poured 2' 5" up from the

. centerline of the 330-1 tray stop material. The stop was allowed to cure, then a 0.10" thick stainless steel sheet metal plate was wrapped around the Promatec 45B tray stop, and metal banded in place. The stop was aligned with the test deck during installation.

Omega Point Laboratories furnished a 1'-0" thick concrete slab having a 1'-0" wide x 4'-0"long blockout. The 36" vertical tray was inserted into the blockout wherein 3'-6" of the tray hangs below the underside of the concrete slab and a 2" gap remains all around the tray. Around the blockout opening was sealed using a silicone elastomer (Promatec 458).

Thermo-Lag 3301 prefabricated panels were installed onto the 36" vertical tray beginning 12*

above the bottom of tray extending 4'-6" upward leaving 12" of cables exposed unprotected to the fire source. The side panels were installed in compression wherein the front and rear panels sandwiched the side panels and metal banding applied.

There were no supports required internally, therefore, a unistrut dead weight type support was installed on top of the test decking.

A4.2 TSI Thermo-Lag Protective Envelope Material The 5" deep Penetration Stop consisted of Therrno-Lag 330-1 trowel-grade material pored into and worked around the cables in the tray in accordance with Reference 10.14.1.

The tray was enclosed using 1/2 in. (nominal) Thermo-Lag 3301 prefabricated V-ribbed panels. The top and bottom panel (front and back panels) were installed with the "V" ribs perpendicular to the tray rails and the side panels parallel to the tray rails.

All joints were " pre-buttered" and banding (wires) was installed in accordance with Reference 10.14.1. Thermo-Lag 330-1 prefabricated panels were inspected prior to shipment from the vendor and weight was inspected upon receipt per Reference 10.14.1.

A4.3 ASTM E-119 Standard Time-Temperature The Thermo-Lagged test article was exposed in accordance with Reference 10.19 to the standard time-temperature curve of ASTM E 119 for 1 hour1.157407e-5 days 2.777778e-4 hours 1.653439e-6 weeks 3.805e-7 months .

A4.4 Temperature Review The maximum temperature was 466*F with an average temperature of 380*F. These temperatures are significantly below the ignition temperatures of IEEE 383 cable (at least 700*F) which is the only ignition source inside the enclosure. These temperatures meet the

ER-ME-067 Rev.3 Page 83 of 176 requirements IEEE 634.

A4.5 Hose Stream Test Following the exposure fire, the test article was subjected to a 21/2 minute hose stream test utilizing a 2-1/2 in. diameter natinnal standard play pipe equipped with a 1-1/8 in, nozzle. The nozzle pressure was maintained at 30 psi. The nozzle distance was maintained at 20 feet from the test article.

The Thermo-Lag envelope surrounding the penetration stop opened up (joints opened) during the hose stream test. However, the hose stream did not penetrate or dislodge the Thermo-Lag fire stop.

A4.6 Comments The penetration Thermo-Lag stop installed in accordance with Reference 10.14.1 meets the acceptance criteria of IEEE 634.

A5 Omeaa Point Test No. 12340-93543a - Scheme 5 l

The fire endurance test documented in Reference 10.12.5 was conducted at Omega Point ;

Laboratories on June 19,1992, and the test report wat issued on July 11,1993. The fire i endurance test, hose stream test and electrical circuit monitoring test were performed to the .j criteria of American Nuclear Insurers (ANI) Bulletin No. 5 (Reference 10.3.2). This is the I original acceptance criteria used by CPSES as documented in Southwest Research Institute l (SWRI) Project No. 03-6491 (Reference 10.12.9) dated October 27,1981 that was reviewed l and accepted by the NRC by letter dated December 1,1981 (Reference 10.22.3).

AS.1 Test Article Scheme No. 5 consisted of a 30" wide x 4 deep ladder back (T. J. Cope brand) cable tray with a 30" x 4" tee section catalog No. GI-30FT-12-06-CP and two 30" ladderback vesiicals j catalog No. GG-30SL 12-06 forming into a U shaped configuration having a 8'-9" horizontal !

run dimension and a vertical riser of 7'-0" at each leg. From each end of the horizontal run a 30" x 4" 60 degree and 30 degree fitting, but having 12" inside radius bends were installed to transition the tray from horizontal into the vertical riser. These fittings were connected using vendor supplied splice plates and 3/8" diameter bolting hardware. The bottom of the tray was set at three feet below the test deck.

A 1/3 mix of instrumentation, control and power cables (totaling 44 cables) were pulled into the 30" tray. These cables were looped into the 100 section of the tray.

A silicone elastomer (Promatec 45B) 6-in, deep stop was installed in the open end of the tee section. After the elastomer cured, a 0.10 thick stainless steel piece of sheet metal was

j

- 8 l

ER-ME-067 Rev.3 !

Page 84 of 176 ;

wrapped around the stop and banded in place,in accordance with CPSES procedures.

The tray was supoorted intemally by three trapeze type hangers using 3" channels bolted together with 5/8" x 1-1/2" A307 botting material. The vertical channels are attached to 4" x 4" x 1/2" clip angles fillet welded to a 3" channel on each vertical side. The 4 x 4 angles were then attached to a 1/4" thick reinforced decking using a 1/2" diameter threaded rods.

Mounted on the outside face of the vertical tray run was an 8'-0" long P1001 unistrut positioned horizontally such that unistrut extended beyond the side rail. This was done to simulate a protruding item to test the 9" rule for heat path.

The vertical tray risers were sealed at the test deck with silicone e!astomer (Promatec 458) in accordance with CPSES procedures.

AS.2 TSI Thermo-Lag Protective Envelope Mater %Is and Enclosure 1/2" (nominal) thick Thermo Lag 330-1 flat * * -.tds with an inner layer of stress skin was r applied to the supports.1/2" (nominal) thh. 'hermo-Lag 330-1 prefabricated V-ribbed panels were installed on the cable tray in accordant,. With Reference 10.14.1 (non-upgrade design).

The V ribs were installed perpendicular to the tray rails on the top (inside) of the tray and parallel to the side rails on the side and bottom (outside) of the tray.1/2" (nominal) thick '

Thermo-Lag 330-1 prefabricated V-ribbed panels were installed on the radial bonds (top and bottom pieces) using the score and fold technique with scores approximately at 5 in, intervals ,

with the ribs perpendicular to the tray rails on both the top and bottom.

The P1001 unistrut protruding item was protected using 1/2" Thermo-Lag 330-1 flat boards covering the entire width of the tray plus an additional 9 in. This left 47 in. of unistrut ,

unprotected.

All joints were " pre-buttered" and banding (wires) was installed in accordance with Re!erence 10.14.1 (non-upgraded design). Thermo-Lag 3301 prefabricated panels were inspected prior to shipment from the vendor, and weight was inspected upon receipt per Reference 10.14.1. ,

A5.3 ASTM E 119 Standard Time-Temperature The Thermo-Lagged test article was exposed to the standard time temperature curve of ASTM E 119 for approximately 44 min. at which time the test was terminated due to loss of circuit integrity.

AS 4 Teperature Review T. 3 Tr.ctmo-Lag protective envelope opened up at the butt joint on the left side bottom piece of tne tee section and at the comer between the horizontal butt joint and corner (longitudinal) joint with the side rail at approximately 20 min. into the test

ER-ME-067 Rev.3 Page 85 of 176 The peak temperature at 44 min. was 723*F on the sido rail where the joint opened and the closets cable thermocouple to the opening reached 578*F.

The temperatures on the vertical cable tray cables were less than 230*F and the tray rails were less than 245'F. In f act, temperature dropped drastically as the thermocouples location got away from the breech in the Thermo-Lag envelope.

The temperatures on the cables and tray rails in the vicinity of the unistrut protruding item was below 245*F.

AS.5 Hose Stream Test In order to preserve the condition of the test article, the hose stream test was not conducted.

The test article was cooled off using a garden hose, to prevent further deterioration of the enclosure.

AS.6 Electncal Circuit Monitoring Test Circuit integnty was lost at 42 minutes into the test.

AS.7 Comments During visual inspection of the test article, it was evident that the fire damage was limited to the area where the joint opened up. Also of note is the fact that the joint opened with 20 l I

minutes of the start of the test but circuit :ntegrity was not lost until 42 minutes into the test.

Thermocouple in the area of the opening also rose more slowly than was expected demonstrating that the Thermo-Lag provides a cooling effect evens in the area around the breech of the enclosure.

The vertical section of the envelope remained intact and there was no significant heat intrusion from the protruding item (unistrut).

A6 Omeoa Point Test No. 12340-93543h - Scheme 6 The fire endurance test documented in Reference 10.12.6 was conducted at Omega Point '

Laboratories on August 20,1992, and the test report was issued on June 11,1993. The fire endurance test and electrical circuit monitoring test were performed to the criteria of American Nuclear Insurers (ANI) Bulletin No. 5 (Reference 10.3.2). This is the original acceptance criteria used by CPSES as documented in Southwest Research Institute (SWRI) Project NO.

03-6491 (Reference 10.12.9) dated October 27,1981, that was reviewed and accepted by the NRC by letter dated December 1,1981 (Reference 10.22.3).

The hose stream test was conducted using the guidance provided in BTP CMEB 9.5.1 and in IEEE STD 634 (Referenos 10.19.1) for penetration sea'.3.

__ ____ m_- .-__-__ --- ------ ---

ER-ME-067 Rev.3 Page 86 of 176 A6.1 Test Article Scheme 6 consisted of 24" wide x 4" deep ladder back tray with a horizontal tee section at mid-span. There was two vertical 24" sections connected to the horizontal section by a 90*

radial bend on one end and a 90* site fabricated angle on the other end (the 90* angle is not used at CPSES but was required for the Test Article to fit in the Test Oven). A 1/3 fill mix of power, control and instrumentation cables were installed in the tray maintaining a single layer, except in the tee section where cables were looped toward the open end of the tee to represent cable entering and leaving the tee. !

The open end of the tee was scaled using a 5 in. deep Thermo-Lag 3304 tray stop consisting of both prefabricated panel section and trowel grade material.

The assembly was supported internally by two trapeze type hangers using 3" channels bolted together. The distance from the bottom of the tray to the underside of the test deck was approximately 3 ft.

The vertical tray sections were sealed at the test deck using a silicone elastomer.

A6.2 TSI Thermo-Lag Protective Envelope, Materials and Enclosure 1/2" (nominal) thick Thermo-Lag 330-1 prefabricated V ribbed panels with stress skin on the inside were installed on the cable tray in accordance with Reference 10.14.1 (non-upgraded j design).

1/2" (nominal) thick Thermo-Lag 3301 flat boards with strres skin on the inside were installed on the supports to a distance of approximately 9 in. from the tray in accordance with Reference 10.14.1 for protruding items.

The V ribs were installed perpendicular to the rails on the top (inside) panels on the tray and para 9el to the rails on the sider., and bottom (outside).

The 90* radial bend top and bottom panels were installed using the scored and groove method. The top and bottom panels had scores spaced about 2" apart.

The bottom joint on the 90* angle between the bottom piece and outside section was stitched at five places evenly across the joint.

All joints were " pre-buttered" and banding (wires) was installed in accordance with Reference 10.14.1 (non upgraded design). Thermo-Lag 330-1 prefabricated panels were inspected prior to shipment from the vendor and weight was inspected upon receipt per Reference 10.14.1.

4 1

ER-ME-067 Rev.3 Page 37 of 176 A6.3 ASTM E 119 Standard Time-Temperature The Thermo-Lagged test article was exposed to the standard time-temperaturo curve of ASTM E 119 for 1 hour1.157407e-5 days 2.777778e-4 hours 1.653439e-6 weeks 3.805e-7 months .

A6.4 Temperature Review During the test 3 joints opened in the enclosure. They woro; the vr., dical riser butt joint on the left hand side, outside section, the vertical riser butt joint on the right hand s;de, outside section and the bottom longitudinal joint along the too section lett bend into the tee.

The peak temperature was 484*F on the front tray rail and 484*F on the left vertical riser.

The high temperatures were localized to the locations where the joints opened. The physical inspection of the assernbly after the hose stream test also only indicates degradation of the outer cable jacket in areas where the joints opened up. The average cable temperature was '

only 317*F and the average rail temperature was 401*F. These numbers include the thermocouple reading around the openings in the enclosure.

A6.5 Hose Stream Test Following the exposure fire, the test article was subjected to a 5 minute hose stream test utilizing a 11/2 in. dia fog nozzle set at a discharge angle of 30% with a nozzle pressure of 75 psi (this Elkhart nozzle is rated 88 gpm at 75 psi). The nozzle distance was maintained at 5 ft i perpendicular from the outside edge of the test article, l This hose stream criteria was agreed to by T.U. Electric personnel and NRC staff personnel ;

(see hose stream discussion later in this section).

Circuit continuity was maintained during the hose stream test. A small amount of Thermo-Lag was dislodged during the hose stream test, but no joints which had not already opened in the exposure fire were opened during the hose stream test.

A6.6 Electrical Circuit Monitoring Test At no time during the fire endurance test or the hose stream test did the electrical circuit monitoring system identify any shorts, shorts to ground, or open circuits (loss of continuity) on any of the monitored circuits, l '

The cables were meggered after the hose stream test and only one instrument cable showed signs of degradation.

I

- l w

w i jI

' !)%

_ _ .__ _ uM

ER-ME-067 Rev.3 Page 88 of 176 A6.7 Comments During the visual inspection of the test article, it was determined that the fire damage was limited to those areas where the joints opened.

The non-protected vertical supports had no impact on the results of test and provided justification for the use of the 9" rule on tray supports and other protruding items.

A7 Omeaa Point Test No. 12340-935431 - Scheme 7 The Fire endurance test documented in Reference 10.12.7 was conducted at Omega Point Laboratories on August 19,1992, and the test report was issued on June 11,1993. The fire endurance test, and electrical circuit monitoring test were performed to the criteria of American Nuclear Insurers (ANI) Bulletin No. 5 (Reference 10.3.2). This is the original acceptance criteria used by CPSES as documented in Southwest Research Institute (SWRI)

Project NO. 03-6491 (Reference 10.12.9) dated October 27,1981 that was reviewed and accepted by the NRC by letter dated December 1,1981 (Reference 10.22.3).

NOTE: In accordance with the NRC staff's request, a hose stream test was not conducted.

i A7.1 Test Article .

Scheme 7 consisted of one 3" conduit, one 2" conduit, one 1-1/2" conduit and two 3/4" conduits. The conduits were installed in a "U" shaped configuration with Lateral Bends at the turns.

The conduits were supported mid-span by a Unistrut P1001 trapeze hanger.

The conduits were sealed with silicone elastomer (Promatec 458) external to the conduits at the test dock and intomaily at the tops of the conduits in accordance with site procedures.

A7.2 TSI Thermo-Lag Protective Envelope, Materials and Enclosure The 3",2" and 1-1/2" conduits were covered with 1/2" (nominal) thick Thermo-Lag 330-1 preshaped conduit sections.

The Lateral Bends (LBD's) were covered with 1/2" (nominal) thick Thermo-Lag 330-1 prefabricated panels. The two 3/4" conduit was subdivided into four separate installation configurations using the mid-span support as the break point.

3/4" (nominal) thick Thermo-Lag 3301 preshaped conduit sections were installed on one side of a 3/4" conduit and the other side was covered by 1/2" (nominal) thick Thermo-Lag 330-1 preshaped conduit section with an additionallayer of Thermo-Lag 330-1 trowel-grado,

4 ER-ME-067 Rev.3 Page 89 of 176 followed by a layer of Thermo-Lag Stress Skin Type 330-69 and finally a layer of Thermo-Lag 330-1 trowel-grade to provide a 1/4 build up on top of the 1/2" Thermo-Lag 330-1 preshaped conduit sections. The LBD's were covered with 1/2" Thermo-Lag pre-fabricated panels.

The other conduit was covered with 1/2" (nominal) thick Thermo-Lag 330-1 preshaped conduit sections with half of the conduit receiving a 1/4" layer of spiral wrapped Thermo-Lag 330-660 Flexi-blanket and the other half of the conduit receiving an additional 1/4" (nominal) thick Thermo-Lag 330-1 preshaped conduit section overlayed on to the 1/2" section. The LBD's were covered with 1/2" Thermo-Lag 3301 pre fabricated panels.

The Unistrut support was protected to a distance of approximately 9 in away from the conduits with 1/2" thick Thermo-Lag 330-1 flat board.

All joints were " pre-buttered" and banding (wires) was installed in accordance with Reference 10.14.1 Thermo-Lag 330-1 Prefabricated panels were inspected prior to shipment from the vendor and weight was inspected upon receipt per Reference 10.14.1.

A7.3 ASTM E 119 Standard Tirne Temperature The Thermo-Lagged test article was exposed to the standard time-temperature curve of ASTM E-119 for 1 hcur.

A7.4 Temperature Review Data was taken using two computer data acquisition systems. After 13 minutes of data acquisition, it was noticed that Computer No.1 was not accepting data from channels 85 through 100. The computer was stopped, reprogrammed to accept all 100 channels and restarted. Consequently, the first 15 minutes of data for the affected channels was lost.

A very rapid temperature rise on several thermocouples war, noticed around 31 minutes, and a ground loop from the circuit integrity systems was suspected. To verify that a ground loop was not occurring, the circuit integrity voltage was disconnected for two data scans (32 and 33 minutes). No change was observed, and the circuit integrity system was vindicated and reconnected.

At 8 minutes, Therrr' couple (TC) No.10 failed and was disconnected.

At 17 minutes, TC NO. 31 failed (indicated a negative temperature) and was disconnected after a determination was made that it could not be repaired.

ASTM E-119 and NFPA 251 specifies that the transmission of heat through tP ' wall or partition during the fire endurance test shall not have been such as to raise o nmperature on its unexposed surface more than 250*F (139'C) above its initial temperou o ASTM E-119 and NFPA 251 further states that where the conditions of acceptance place 2 nmitation on the

ER-ME-067 Rev.3 Page 90 of 176 rise of temperature of the unexposed side, the temperature end point of the fire endurance test shall be determined by the average of the measurements taken at individual points; except that if a temperature rise 30 percent in excess of the specified limit occurs at any one these points, the remainder shall be ignored and the fire endurance period judged as ended.

The ambient air temperature at the start of the test was 83*F.

The maximum average temperature would be equal to 250*F plus ambient. For this test the maximum average temperature would equal 333*F.

The maximum individual temperature would be equal to 325'F plus ambient. For this test the maximum individual temperature would equal 408*F.

The temperature criteria in ASTM E 119 was not applicable to the test, e 3" conduit The maximum individual cable (inside of ".onduit) temperature was 399'F and the maximum average cable temperature was 200*F. The inside edge of the right LBD fitting (metal temperature) reached 623*F. As the test article was removed from the oven it was noted that the joint between the top of the LBD and the conduit had opened. During the visual inspection (next morning), it was noted that the outer jacket of one of the cables in the 3" conduit right at the LBD had blistered.

e 3/4" conduit with additional 1/4" Thermo-Lag 3301 preshaped conduit section (overlay) build-up The maximum individual cable (inside of conduit) temperature was 346*F at the interface with Thermo-Lag 330-660 Flexi-blanket overlay and the maximum average cable temperature was 289'F. The inside edge of the LBD (metal temperature) -

reached 368*F. During the visual inspection, it was noted that the LBD had moved as the up ' int had opened. The visualinspection also revealed that cables installed in that . ! in the 3/4" conduit that was protected with the 1/4" Thermo-Lag 330-660 Flexi-blai. net overlay was " Free from Fire Damage",

e 3/4" conduit with 3/4" thick Thermo-Lag preshaped conduit sections The maximum individual cable (inside of conduit) temperature was 490*F and the maximum average cable temperature was 380*F. During the visual inspection, it was noted that the top joint of the LBD had opened up. During the physicalinspection (next moming), the cable showed blistering of the outer cable Jacket.

ER-ME-067 Rev.3 Page 91 of 176

3/4" conduit with 1/4" Thermo-Lag 330-1 trowel-grade eddition The maximum individual cable (inside of conduit) temperature was 380*F and the maximum average cable temperature was 352*F. The inside edge of the LBD (metal temperature) reached 477*F. During the visual inspection, it was observed that the top joint of the LBD had opened. During the physicalinspection, (next morning) the cable showed blistering of the outer cable jacket.

3/4' conduit with Thermo-Lag 330-660 Flexi-blanket build-up The maximum individual cable (inside of conduit) temperature was 409'F and the maximum average cable temperature was 378'F. The inside edge of the LBD (metal temperature) reachad 493*F. During the visual inspection, it was observed that the top joint of the LBD had opened. During the physicalinspection (next morning), the cable showed blistering of the outer cable jacket.

1-1/2" conduit The maximum individual cable (inside of conduit) temperature was 388'F and the maximum average cable temperature was 318*F. The inside edge of the left LBD was 429*F and the right LBD was 409*F.

During the visual inspection, it was observed that the top joints of the LBD's had opened. During the physical inspection (next morning), the cable showed deterioration of the cable Jacket.

l

2* conduit i

The maximum individual cable (inside of conduit) temperature was 445'F and the maximum average cable temperature was 303*F. The inside edge of the right LBD reached 400*F. )

During the visual inspection; it was observed that the top joints of the LBD's nad opened. During the physical inspection (next morning), the cable showed deterioration of the cable Jacket. I The unprotected Trapeze Unistros support had no impact on the test. The temperature on the top of the 3' and 2" conduits (c.osest to the vertical supports) at the center of the conduits were only 399*F and 375*F respectively. The temperatures just outboard of the centerline in the 3" conduit were 429'F and 301*F and on the 2" conduit was 405'F. Therefore, the support provided no significant thermal input to the cables. Centerline temperature of all cables were less than 346*F with the highest temperature on the 2" and 3" conduits being 270*F.

~ . -

ER-ME-067 Rev.3 Page 92 of 176 A7.5 Hose Stream Test At the request of the NRC staff, a hose stream test was not conducted. Instead, a garden hose was used to cooldown the test article so that a visual inspection could be conducted.

A7.6 Electrical Circuit Monitoring Test At no time during the fire endurance test did the electrical circuit monitoring system identify any shorts, shorts to ground or open circuits (loss of continuity) on any of the monitored circuits.

At 60 minutes, the circuit integnty systems were disconnected and the computers stopped. A hot megger test was attempted, with inconclusive results. The circuit integrity systems were reconnected at 68 minutes, the data acquisition was restarted, and the specimen was removed from the test fumace and cooled with the spray from a small hose.

A7.7 Comments For the 3" conduit, the opening of the LBD caused the blistering of the cable jacket.

For the 2" and 1-1/2" conduits, the LBD's opened at both ends of each conduit.

For the 3/4' conduit with a 1/2" thick Thermo-Lag 3301 proshaped conduit section and an added 1/4" thick Thermo-Lag 330-1 preshaped conduit section, the LOD appeared to be opening at the joint.

For the 3/4" conduit with the 3/4" thick Thermo-Lag 330-1 preshaped conduit sections, the LBD joint cpenod. There was also blistering of the outer cable jacket.

i For the 3/4" conduit with 1/4" thick Thermo-Lag 330-660 Flexi-blanket on tup of the 1/2" thick Thermo-Lag 330-1 preshaped conduit sections, the LOD joints opened. There was also blistering of the outr.4r cable jacket.

For the 3/4" conduit with 1/4" thick Thermo-Lag 330-1 trowel-grade buildup over the 1/2" Thermo-Lag 330-1 preshaped conduit section, the LBD joint opened. There was also blistering of the outer cable jacket.

The temperature criteria in ASTM E-119/NFPA 251 are not applicable to this test; Never the 1

less, the temperature of the following components satisfied the temperature criteria in ASTM E 119/NFPA 251 (i.e. maximum average Temperature of 330*F and maximum temperature of 408'F): the maximum and average cable temperature in the 3" conduit, the average cable temperature in the 2 and 1-1/2" conduit, and the maximum and average temperatures in the 3/4" conduit with the 1/4" preshaped overlay.

4 ER-ME-067 Rev.3 Page 93 of 176 The unprotected support had no adverse impact on the test, demonstrating the effectiveness of the 9" rule to prevent heat infusion into the envelope. There was no deforrnation of the conduit caused by movement of the supports or deformation of the supports.

A8 Omeaa Point Test No. 12340-935431 - Scheme 8 The fire endurance test documented in Reference 10.12.8 was conducted at Omega Point Laboratories on August 21,1992, and the test report was issued on June 11,1993. The fire endurance test and electrical circuit monitoring test was performed to the criteria of American Nuclear Insurers (ANI) Bulletin No. 5 (Reference 10.3.2). This is the original acceptance criteria used by CPSES as documented in Southwest Research Institute (SWRI) Project No.

03-6491 (Reference 10.12.9) dated October 28,1981, that was reviewed and accepted by the NRC by letter dated December 1,1981 (Reference 10.22.3).

The hose stream test was conducted using the guidance provided by BTP CMEB 9.5.1 (see Section 6.10) and IEEE Std. 634 (Reference 10.19) for penetration seals.

A8.1 Test Article Scheme 8 consisted of a 30" wide x 4" deep ladderback tray installed in a U shape. The article was installed so that the bottom of the tray was approximately 3 ft below the test deck.

A 1/3 till mix of power, control and instrumentation cables were installed in the tray, maintaining a single layer.

The assemoly was supported internally by two trapeze type hangers using 3" channels bolted together.

The vertical tray sections were sealed at the test deck using a silicone elastomer (Promatec 458).

A8.2 TSI Thermo Lag Protective Envelope Materials and Enclosure 1/2" (nominal) thick Thermo-Lag 3301 V-ribbed prefabricated panels with stress skin on the inside were installed on the cable tray in accordance with Reference 10.14.1 (non-upgraded design).

1/2" (nominal) thick Thermo-Lag 3301 prefabricated flat panels with stress skin on the inside were installed on the supports to a distance of approximately 9 in. from the tray in accordance with Reference 10.14.1 for protruding items.

The V-ribs were installed perpendicular to the rails on the top (inside) panels on the tray and parallel to the rails on the sides and bottom (outside).

The 90* radial bond top and bottom panels were installed using the scored and grooved 1

i I

ER-ME-067 Rev.3 l Page 94 of 176 i method. The top and bottom pancis had scores spaced about 2 in, apart.

All joints were " pre-buttered" and banding (wires) was installed in accordance with Reference 10.14.1 (non upgraded design). Thermo-Lag 330-1 prefabricated panels were inspected prior ;

to shipment from the vendor and weight was inspected upon receipt per Reference 10.14.1.

A8.3 ASTM E-119 Standard Time Temperature The Thermo-Lagged test article was exposed to the standard time-temperature curve of ASTM E 119 for 1 hour1.157407e-5 days 2.777778e-4 hours 1.653439e-6 weeks 3.805e-7 months .

A8.4 Temperature Review The bottom butt joint, mid-span on the horizontal section, opened at about 30 min, into the test. It was decided to continue the test until circuitry integrity was lost. Circuitry integrity was maintained for the full one hour. During the visual inspection, it was observed that the ,

butt joints on the outside of the vertical sections had also opened.

The peak temperature on an individual cable reached 703*F. The maximum temperature on the cable tray rails were 764'F. Both of these temperatures were in the vicinity of the bottom joint that opened.

There was a wide variation in temperatures from a high of 764*F to a low of 231*F. The lower temperatures were in the areas furthest from the opening in the enclosure. In fact, the average maximum cable temperature in the vertical sections was only 280*F.

This wide variation in temperatures demonstrates that the Thermo-Lag material functioned properly and that the weakness at the joints, which allowed the joints to open was the failure l mode. .

A8.5 Hose Stream Test Following the exposure fire, the test article was subjected to a 5 minute hose stream test utilizing a 1-1/2 in diameter tog nonle set at a discharge angle of 30% with a nonio pressure ,

of 75 psi (this Elkhart nonle is rated at 88 gpm at 75 psi). The nonle distance was !

maintained at 5 ft perpendicular for the outside surface of the test article.

This hose stream critoria was agreed to by T.U. Electric personnel and NRC staff personnel (see hose stream discussion later in this section).

Circuit continuity was maintained during the hose stream test. A small amount of Thermo-Lag was dislodged during the hose stream test, but no joints which had not already opened during the exposure fire were opened during the hose stream test.

ER-ME-067 Rev.3 Page 95 of 176 A8.6 Electrical Circuit Monitoring Test ,

At no time during the fire endurance test or hose stream test did the electrical circuit monitoring system identify any shorts, shorts-to-ground, or open circuits (loss of continuity) on any of the monitored circuits.

The cables were meggered after the hose stream test (next morning). Many of the cables showed degradation of the cable jacket. 2 A8.7 Comments The bottom joint on the horizontal section of the tray opened at approximately 30 min. into the '

test. Except in the area of the joint failure, the temperatures on the cables were below the '

30% in excess of 250*F plus ambient in NFPA 251 and the average cable temperatures below 250*F plus ambient (which is not applicable to this test).

The Thermo-Lag material, except for the joint failure, performed adequately.

The fog hose stream allowed for a more informative inspection of the test article then the solid ,

stream specified by ANI.

A9 SWRI Project NO. 01-6763-302 A fire test of irradiated samples of Thermo-Lag 330-1 was conducted by SWRI (Reference 10.12.9). The total exposure dose to the samples was 2.12 x 10' rads. A fire test was performed on one irradiated sample and one nonirradiated sample. i The purpose of the fire test of irradiated samples of Thermo-Lag 330-1 was to demonstrate that the fire resistive properties of the Thermo-Lag panels would not be degraded after exposure to radiation. The test results indicate the fire resistive properties actually increased following radiation exposure. Although this fire test did not represent a typical installation detail (flat panel section In a small oven), the results are considered applicable to all installation details that incorporate Thermo4.ag 330-1 into the design that may be subjected to a radiation exposure.

A9A Omeoa Point Test No. 12340-94367a - Scheme 9-1 The fire endurance test documented in Reference 10.12.11 was conducted at Omega Point Laboratories on November 4,1992, and the test report was issued on November 23,1992.

The fire endurance test, hose stream test and cable functionality (Insulation Resistance) tests were performed to the requirements of the NRC letter dated October 29,1992 (Reference 10.22.1). Due to the time required (approx. 30 minutes) to conduct the insulation resistance (IR) tests on mufti-conductor instrument cable, IR tests were not condected during the fire endurance tests.

ER-ME-067 Rev.3 Page 96 of 176 A9A 1 Test Article Scheme 91 consisted of one 5" conduit, one 3 conduit and one 3/4" conduit. The conduits were installed in a "U" shaped configuration with Lateral Bends (LBD's) at the turns on the right and Radial Bands on the left side.

The conduits were supported by two unistrut P1001 trapeze hangers: one 10" to the left of the 5" conduit LBD and the other 3' to the left of the first.

A 1/3 fill mix of power, control and instrumentation cables were installed in the 3" and 5" conduits. The 3/4" conduit contained a single instrument cable.

The conduits were sealed externally at the test deck using silicone foam and internally at the tops of the conduits with silicone elastomer (Promatec 45B).

A9A.2 TSI Thermo-Lag Protective Envelope Materials and Enclosure The 3" and 5" conduits were covered with 1/2" (nominal) thic'K Thermo-Lag 3301 preshaped conduit sections. The 3/4" conduit received an additional 1/4" (nominal) thick Thermo-Lag 330-1 preshaped conduit section overlayed on top of the 1/2" Thermo-lag preshaped section.

The LBD's were covered with 1/2" (nominal) thick Thermo-Lag 3301 prefabricated panels.

The panels were reinforced at the joints with a layer of trowel grade and stress skin.

The radial bends covered with 1/2" (nominal) thick Thermo Lag 3301 preshaped sections.

The sections were reinforced with a layer of trowel grade and stress skin along the length of the bend. )

i The unistrut supports were protected to a distance of approximately 9 in away from the conduits with 1/2" thick Thermo-Lag 330-1 flat board. i i

All joints were " pre-buttered" and banding (wires) was installed in accordance with Reference l 10.14.1. The Thermo-Lag 330-1 prefabricated panels were inspected prior to shipment from j the vendor and weights were verified upon receipt per Reference 10.14.1. j i

A9A.3 ASTM E-119 Standard Time-Temperature The Thermo-Lagged test article was exposed to the standard time-temperature curve of ASTM E-119 for 1 hour1.157407e-5 days 2.777778e-4 hours 1.653439e-6 weeks 3.805e-7 months .

A9A.4 Temperature Review Reference 10.22.1 specifies that the transmission of heat through the fire barrier during the fire endurance test shall not have been such as (o raise the average temperature on the exposed

ER-ME-067 Rev.3 Page 97 of 176 conduit surface more than 250*F above its initial temperature. Reference 10.22.1 further states that no single temperature rise shall exceed 30% of the average specified limit or 325'F. If either of these temperatures are exceeded then visual cable inspection and IR cable tests is required to demonstrate the cables are free of fire damage.

The ambient air temperature at the start of the test was 71*F.

The maximum average temperature would be equal to 250*F plus ambient. For this test the maximum average temperature would equal to 321*F.

The maximum individual temperature would be equal to 325'F plus ambient. For this test the maximum individual temperature would equal 396*F.

As discussed in Section 4.4 of this report, the accuracy of the exposed conduit thermocouples was in question and the their readings were not used. Instead the cable thermocouples along with the cable criteria stated above were used.

The peak temperature on an individual cable in the 5" conduit reached 191*F and the average reached 134*F.

The peak temperature on an individual cable in the 3" conduit reached 309'F and the average reached 180*F.

The peak temperature on an individual cable in the 3/4" conduit reached 299'F and the average reacned 244*F.

A9A.5 Hose Stream Test Following the exposure fire, the test article was subjected to a 5 minute hose stream test utilizing a 11/2 in, diameter fog noule set at a discharge angle of 30% with a nonle pressure of 75 psi (this Elkhart nonle is rated at 80 gprn at 75 psi). The nonle distance was maintained at 5 ft perpendicular from the outside surface of the test article.

After the hose stream test a visualinspection of the fire barrier was conducted. There was no burn through of the fire barrier and the conduit's galvanizing looked like it was now.

A9A.6 Electrical Circuit Monitoring Test At no time during the fire endurance test or hose stream test did the electrical circuit monitoring system identify any shorts, shorts to-ground, or open circuits (loss of continulty) on any of the monitored circuits.

The cables were visually inspected after the hose stream test. There was no sign of cable degradation. There was some cable stiffening which is acceptable and is discussed in

e ~

ER-ME-067 Rev.3 Page 98 of 176 section 4.4 of this report.

The cables were meggered after the hose stream test and all the cables passed the IR testing. In fact, the majority of the cables showed no reduction of the insulation resistance from the readings taken before the test.

A9A.7 Comments Thermo-Lag material performed adequately.

The reinforced LBD and Radial bond design and the 1/4" overlay provide adequate upgrades to the Thermo-Lag design and the test confirms those designs.

Cable temperatures were enveloped by the CPSES LOCA temperature qualifications.

A9B Omeaa Point Test No. 12340-94367i - Scheme 9-3 The fire endurance test documented in Reference 10.12.12 was conducted at Omega Point Laboratories on December 3,1992, and the test report was issued on December 28,1992.

The fire endurance test, hose stream test and cable functionality (Insulation Resistance) tests were performed to the requirements of the NRC letter dated October 29,1992 (Reference 10.22.1). Due to the time required (approximately 30 minutes) to conduct the insulation resistance (IR) tests on multi-conductor instrument cable, IR tests were not conducted during the fire endurance tests.

Note: Test scheme 9:2 was not tested.

A98.1 Test Article Scheme 9-3 consisted of one 2 in, conduit, one 1 1/2 in, conduit and a 3/4 in conduit, each ;

installed in a "U-shaped" configuration extending up through the test deck. The conduits each had lateral bond (LBDs) on each side where the vertical section transitions to the horizontal section.

A single trapeze type unistrut hanger supports all three conduits at the midpoint of the horizontal section. Unistrut clamps attach the conduits to the hanger, Except for the 3/4 in. conduit, a 1/3 mix of Power, Instrumentation and Control cables (1 of each) were pulled into the conduits. The 3/4 in, conduit had a single instrument cable.

Conduits were sealed externally at the test deck using silicone foam and intemally with silicone elastomer.

i l

l l

ER-ME-067 Rev.3 l Page 99 of 176 l

AOC.2 TSI Thermo-Lag Protective Envelope Materials and Enclosure Each rigid cor.dult raceway was covered first prior to installing a material on the support members using 1/2 in nominal thickness Thermo-Lag 330-1 Pre-Shaped Conduit Material except the 3/4 in, conduit system which used 3/4 in, nominal thickness pre-shaped material as described below. All joint, seams and built-up areas were pre-caulked with 330-1 Trowel Grade Material and secured in place with stainless steel tie wire and metal banding material.

The UniStrut trapeze type support member was covered with Thermo-Lag Flat Panel material for a 9 in, distance extending from the closest Thermo-Lag Pre-Shaped section leaving the remaining UniStrut support steel surface unprotected from the fire source.

Each raceway LBD fitting was covered with a flat panel material in a manner similar to an L-shaped box configuration. All joints were pre-caulked with 3301 Trowel Grade Material and secured in place with stainless steel banding material. The LBD " box" configurations were then upgraded as described below.

i All joints were apre-buttered", and banding (wires) was installed in accordance with Reference 10.14.1. The Thermo-Lag 3301 prefabricated panels were inspected prior to shipment from the vendor and weights were verified upon receipt per Reference 10.14.1.

The 3/4 in. dia, raceway was clad with 3/4 in, nominal thickness Thermo-Lag 3301 Conduit Sections, secured using stainless steel tie wire. All joints were pre-caulked with Thermo-Lag 330-1 Trowel Grade Material.

All LBD flat panel box design joints were pre-caulked with 3/16 in. of Thermo-Lag 3301 ,

Trowel Grade and upgraded using Thermo-Lag 330-69 Stress Skin with a 2 in. min. overlap on adjoining panels. Where the raceway enters and exits the LBD, stress skin was cut such ,

that when folded,2 in, of stress skin materiallapped over the adjoining Thermo-Lag 330-1 l panel and raceway. The Thermo-Lag 3301 Trowel Grade was allowed to set and become I tacky prior to applying the stress skin. The stress skin was secured to the LBD box with 1/2 j in, long staples. Where the stress skin is attached to the entering and exiting raceway, a 2 in. j high stress skin collar was circumferentially wrapped around the raceway and stapled in l place. After the stress skin had been applied to all the LBD box joints, a skim coat of l Thermo-Lag 330-1 Trowel Grade was applied over the stress skin.

A98.3 ASTM E 119 Standard Time Temperature The Thermo-Lagged test article was exposed to the standard time temperature curve of ASTM E 119 for 1 hour1.157407e-5 days 2.777778e-4 hours 1.653439e-6 weeks 3.805e-7 months .

A98.4 Temperature Review Reference 10.22.1 specifies that the transmission of heat through the fire barrier during the fire

ER-ME-067 Rev.3 Page 100 of 176 endurance test shall not have been such as to raise the average temperature on the exposed conduit surface more than 250*F above its initial temperature. Reference 10.22.1 further states that no single temperature rise shall exceed 30% of the average specified limit or 325'F. If either of these temperatures is exceeded then visual cable inspections and IR cable tests are required to demonstrate the cables are free of fire damage.

The ambient air temperature at the start of the test was 65*.

The maximum average temperature would be equal to 250*F plus ambient. For this test the ,

maximum average temperature would equal 315'F. l The maximum individual temperature would be equal to 325'F plus ambient. For this test the maximum individual temperature would equal 390*F.

As discussed in Section 4.4 of this report, the accuracy of the exposed conduit thermocouples was in question and their readings were not used. Instead, the cable thermocouples along with the cable enteria stated above were used.

On the 3/4 in, conduit Peak temperature on the cable reached 522*F and the average temperature reached l

279'F.

On the 1 1/2 in. conduit Peak temperature on an individual cable reached 478'F and the average temperature reached 313*F.

On the 2 in. conduit Peak temperature on an individual ;able reached 423*F and the average temperature reached 309'F.

The maximum criteria were exceeded for cable on all three assemblies.

A98.5 Hose Stream Test Following the exposure fire, the test article was subjected to a 5 minute hose stream test utilizing 1 1/2 in. diameter fog nozzle set at a discharge angle of 30' with a nozzle pressure oi 75 psi at a distance of 5 foot. The minimum flow rate from the nozzle was 75 gpm.

After the hose stream test a visualinspection of the fire barrier was conducted. There was bum through on the 1 1/2 in, and 2 in. conduit assemblies but none on the 3/4 in. conduit.

____._________-_________________--._.m_-.____m_____ __. -_ . _-

ER-ME-067 Rev.3 Page 101 of 176 A98.6 Electrical Circuit Monitoring Test At no time during the fire endurance test or hose stream test did the electrical conduit monitoring system identify any shorts, shorts to ground, or open circuits (loss of continuity) on any of the monitored circuits.

On the 3/4 in. conduit, the cable suffered no apparent heat damage. The cable jacket was slightly stiffened in the condulet area. The remainder of the cable length was still flexible, in the 1 1/2 in. conduit, the cable jackets of the power cable was blistered and cracked above the right LBD area (at the barrier burn through site) and 2 ft. to the left of the right LBD. The outer jacket was cut away to observe the inner conductor insulation. The inner conductor insulation appeared intact and undamaged. The remaining cables were still flexible and visibly undamaged. Slight greenish-white residue on some cables in condulet area (possibly from filler material between conductors inside the outer insulation sheath.)

In the 2 in. conduit, the cable jackets of the power cable was blistered and cracked in the area between the left LBD and the midspan support member (at the barrier burn through site).

The outer jacke* was cut away to observe the inner conductor insulation. The inner conductor insulation appeared intact and undamaged. The remaining cables were still flexible and visibly undamaged. Slight greenish-white residue on some cables in condutet area (possibly from filler material between conductors inside the outer insulation sheath.)

The cables were meggered after the hose stream test and the results of the IR tests were well within the allowable limits for all assemblies tested.

A9B.7 Comments The 2 in.,1 1/2 in., and 3/4 in. Conduit assemblies, clad in a nominal 1/2 in, thickness Thermo-Lag 3301 material with additional upgrades presented herein, met acceptance criteria contained in the NRC letter dated October 29,1992 (Reference 10.22.1), for the following parameters: 1) visual cable inspection revealed no apparent thermal damage (on the inner conductor insulation,2) no loss of circuit integrity occurred during the course of the fire and hose stream tests, and 3) the results of the insulation resistance tests were well within the allowable limits.

In addition, Engineering Report ER-EE-006 (Reference 10.23.2) evaluated the functionality of the cables contained in the 1 1/2 in, and 2 In. conduits at CPSES Unit 1 based on the temperatures reached in this test. The evaluation demonstrated that the elevated temperatures reached in test scheme 9-3 will not impair the function of the cables installed in 1 1/2 in. and 2 in. conduit.

ER-ME-067 Rev.3 Page 102 of 176 j A10A Omeaa Point Test No. 12340-94367c - Scheme 10-1 The fire endurance test documented in Reference 10.12.13 was conducted at Omega Point Laboratories on November 5,1992, and the test report was issued on December 2,1992. ;

The fire endurance test, hose stream test and cable functionality (insulation Resistance) tests were performed to the requirements of the NRC letter dated October 29,1992 (Reference 10.22.1). Due to the time required (approx. 30 minutes) to conduct the insulation resistance l (IR) tests on multi-conductor instrument cable, IR tesa were not conducted during the fire l endurance tests. l I

A10A.1 Test Article Scheme 10-1 consisted of two 3" conduits, one horizontally mounted junction box located at mid-span and one vertically mounted junction box located on the right side riser. The conduits and junction boxes were installed in a "U" shaped configuration with Lateral Bonds (LBD's) at the turns.

The horizontal junction box was supported by a section of 4" tube steel mounted on the top j

of the box conduits.

A 1/3 by fill, mix or power, control and instrumentation cables were installed in the 3" conduit and were routed through the junction boxes.

The condeits were sealed externally at the test dock using silicone foam and internally at the tops of the conduits with silicone elastomer (Promatec 458).

1 A10A.2 TSI Thermo-Lag Protective Envelope Materials and Enclosure The 3" conduits were covered with 1/2" (aominal) thick Thermo-Lag 330-1 preshaped conduit sections. The junction boxes were covered with two layers of 1/2" thick prefabricated panels of Thermo-Lag. The first !ayer used flat panels while the second layer used " ribbed" panels.

The junction box joints were reinforced with trowel grade Thermo-Lag and stress skin.

The LBD's were covered with 1/2" (nominal) thick Thermo-Lag 330-1 prefabricated panels.

The panels were reinforced at the joints with a layer of trowel grade and stress skin.

The tube steel support was protected to a distance of approximately 9 in. away from the conduits with 1/2" thick Thermo-Lag 330-1 flat board.

All joints were " pre-buttered", and banding (wires) was installed in accordance with Reference 10.14.1. The Thermo-Lag 3301 prefabricated panels were inspected prior to shipment from ,

the vendor and weights were verified upon receipt por Reference 10.14.1.

A10A.3 ASTM E 119 Standard Time-Temperature ;

ER-ME-067 Rev.3 Page 103 of 176 The Thermo-Lagged test article was exposed to the standard tirne-temperature curve of ASTM E-119 for 1 hour1.157407e-5 days 2.777778e-4 hours 1.653439e-6 weeks 3.805e-7 months .

A10A.4 Temperature Review Reference 10.22.1 specifies that the transmission of heat through the fire barrier during the fire endurance test shall not have been such as to raise the average temperature on the exposed conduit surface more than 250*F above its initial temperature. Reference 10.22.1 further states that no single temperature rise shall exceed 30% of the average specified limit or 325'F. If, either of these temperatures is exceeded then visual cable inspection and IR cable tests are required to demonstrate the cables are free of fire damage.

The ambient air temperature at the start of the test was 63*F.

The maximum average temperature would be equal to 250*F plus ambient. For this test the rnaximum average temperature would equal to 313*F.

The maximum individual temperature rise would be equal to 325'F plus ambient. For this test the maximum individual temperature would equal 388'F.

As discussed in Section 4.4 of this report, the accuracy of the exposou conduit thermocouples was in question and their readings were not used. Instead the cable thermocouples along with the cable criteria stated above were used.

The peak temperature on an individual cable in the front 3" conduit reached 232*F and the average reached 155*F.

The peak temperature on an individual cable in the rear 3" conduit reached 232*F and the average reached 146*F.

The peak temperature on the inside surface of the horizontal junction box reached 186*F and the average reach 172*F.

The peak temperature on the inside surface of the vertical junction box reached 198'F and '

the average reached 146*F.

A10A.5 Hose Stream Test Following the exposure fire, the test article was subjected to a 5 minute hose stream test utilizing a 1-1/2 in. diameter fog nozzle set at a discharge angle of 30% with a nozzle pressure .

of 75 psi (this Elkhart nozzle is rated at 88 gpm at 75 psi). The nozzle distance was maintained at 5 ft perpendicular from the outside surface of the test article.

After the hose a visual inspection of the fire barrier was conducted. There was no burn l

I

ER-ME-067 Rev.3 Page 104 of 176 through of the fire barrier and the conduit's galvanizing looked like it was new.

A10A.6 Electrical Circuit Monitoring Test At no time during the fire endurance test or hose stream test did the electrical circuit monitoring system identify any shorts, shorts-to-ground, or open circuits (loss of continuity) on any of the monitored circuits.

The cables were visually inspected after the hose stream test. There was no sign of cable degradation. There was some cable stiffening which is acceptable and is discussed in section 4.4 of this report.

The cables were meggered after the hose stream test and all the cables passed the IR tests.

In fact, the majority of the cables showed no reduction of the insulation resistance from the readings taken before the test.

A10A.7 Comments Thermo-Lag material performed adequately.

The reinforced LBD design provides adequate upgrades to the Thermo-Lag design and the test confirms those designs.

The upgrades to the junction boxes provide an adequato design.

Cable temperatures were enveloped by the CPSES LOCA temperature qualifications. l 1

A10B Omeaa Point Test No. 12340 94367a - Scheme 10-2 The fire endurance test documented in Reference 10.12.14 was conducted at Omega Point Laboratories on November 19,1992, and the test report was issued on December 16,1992.

The fire endurance test, hose stream test and cable functionality (Insulation Resistance) tests were performed to the requirements of the NRC letter dated October 29,1992 (Reference ;

10.22.1). Due to the time required (approx. 30 minutes) to conduct the insulation resistance j (IR) tests on multi-conductor instrument cable, IR tests were not conducted during the fire l endurance tests.

A108.1 Test Article Scheme 10-2 consisted of two 3" conduit, one horizontally mounted junction box located at mid span and one vertically mounted junction box located on the right side riser. The

- conduits and junction boxes were installed in a "U" shaped configuration with Lateral Bends (LBD'S) at the tums.~

ER-ME-067 Rev.3 Page 105 of 176 The horizontal junction box was support by a section of 4" tube steel mounted on the top of the box conduits.

A 1/3" by fill mix of power, control and instrumentation cables were installed in the 3" conduit and were routed through the junction boxes.

The conduits were sealed externally at the test deck using silicone foam and internally at the tops of the conduits with silicone elastomer (Promatec 45B).

A108.2 TSI Thermo-Lag Protective Envelope Materials and Enclosure The 3" conduits were covered with 1/2" (nominal) thick Thermo-Lag 330-1 preshaped conduit ,

sections. The junction boxes were covered with a single layers 1/2" thick prefabricated flat panels of Thermo-Lag.

The junction box joints were reinforced with trowel grade Thermo-Lag and stress skin.

The LBD's were covered with 1/2" (nominal) thick Thermo-Lag 330-1 prefabricated panels.

The panels were reinforced at the joints with a layer of trowel grade and stress skin.

The tube steel support was protected to a distance of approximately 9 in. away from the conduds with 1/2" thick Thermo-Lag 330-1 flat board.

All joints were " pre-buttered", and banding (wires) was installed in accordance with Reference 10.14.1. The Thermo-Lag 3301 prefabricated panels were inspected prior to shipment from the vendor and weights were verified upon receipt per Reference 10.14.1.

A10B.3 ASTM E 119 Standard Time Temperature The Thermo-Lagged test article was exposed to the standard time-temperature curve of ASTM E 119 for 1 hour1.157407e-5 days 2.777778e-4 hours 1.653439e-6 weeks 3.805e-7 months . ,

A108.4 Temperature Review Reference 10.22.1 specifies that the transmission of heat through the fire barrier during the fire endurance test shall not have been such as to raise the average temperature on the exposed conduit surface more than 250*F above its initial temperature. Reference 10.22.1 further states that no single temperature rise shall exceed 30% of the average specified limit or 325'F. If either of these temperatures is exceeded then visual cable inspection and IR cable tests are required to demonstrate the cables are free of fire damage.

The ambient air temperature at the start of the test was 68'F.

The maximum average temperature would be equal to 250*F plus ambient. For this test the

ER-ME-067 Rev.3 Page 106 of 176 maximum average temperature would qual to 318*F.

The maximum individual temperature would be equal to 325*F plus ambient. For this test the maximum individual temperature would equst 393*F.

As discussed in Section 4.4 of this report, the accuracy of the exposed conduit thermocouples was in question and their readings were not used. Instead the cable thermocouples along with the cable criteria stated above were used.

The peak temperature on an individual cable in the front 3" conduit reached 324*F and the average reached 174*F.

The peak temperature on an individual cable in the rear 3" conduit reached 294*F and the average reached 177'F.

The peak temperature on the inside surface of the horizontal junction box reached 366 F and the average reached 280*F.

The peak temperature on the inside surface of the vertical junction box reached 334*F and the average reached 259"F.

A108.5 Hose Stream Test Following the exposure fire, the test article was subjected to a 5 minute hose stream test j

utilizing a 1-1/2 in. diameter fog nozzle set at a discharge angle of 30% with a nozzle pressure of 75 psi (this Elkhart nozzle is rated at 88 gpm at 75 psi). The nozzle distance was maintained at 5 ft perpendicular from the outside surface of the test article.

After the hose stream test, a visual inspection of the fire barrier was conducted. There was i

no burn through of the fire barrier and the conduit's galvanizing fooked like it was new.

A108.6 Electrical Circuit Monitoring Test f

At no time during the fire endurance test or hose stream test did the electrical circuit '

monitoring system identify any shorts, shorts-to-ground, or open circuits (loss of continuity) on any of the monitored circuits.

The cables were visually inspected after the hose stream test. There was no sign of cable degradation. There was some cable stiffening which is acceptable and is discussed in !

section 4.4 of this report.

The cables were meggered after the hose stream test and all the cables passed the IR tests. '

In fact, the majority of the cables showed no reduction of the insulation resistance from the readings taken before the test. '

1 l

ER-ME-067 Rev.3 Page 107 of 176 A108.7 Comments Thermo-Lag material performed adequately.

The reinforced LBD design provides an adequate upgrades to the Thermo-Lag design and the test confirms those designs.

The reinforced joint design to the junction boxes provides an adequate design.

This test demonstrates that only a single layer of 1/2" thick Thermo-Lag board is required on a ,

junction box.

Cable temperatures were enveloped by the CPSES LOCA temperature qualifications.

A11 A Omeaa Point Test No. 12340-94367f - Scheme 11-1 The fire endurance test documents in Reference 10.12.15 was conducted at Omega Point Laboratories on November 17,1992, and the test report was issued on January 14,1993.

The fire endurance test, hose stream test and cable functionality (Insulation Resistance) tests were performed to the requirements of the NRC letter dated October 29,1992 (Reference 10.22.1). Due to the time required (approx. 30 minutes) to conduct the insulation resistance (IR) tests on multi-conductor instrument cable, IR tests were not conducted during the fire endurance tests.

A11 A.1 Test Article Scheme 11-1 consisted of one 5" air drop, one 3" air drop, one 2" air drop, one 1" air drop and one 24" tray. The test article was installed in a "U" shaped configuration with the 3",2" I

and 1" air drop coming down from the respective size conduits on the left side of the assembly. The conduits extended through the test deck with approximately 6" into the fumace and 3' above the fumace. The 3",2" t.nd 1" air drops entered the horizontal end of the 24" tray. The 5" air drop extended down from a 5" conduit which extended through the test deck in a similar manner as the other conduits and entered the tray mid span through the top of the tray.

The 24" tray has a horizontal section and a vertical section. The vertical section rises through I the test deck on the right side. The two sections were connected together with a radial bend. ]

The assembly was supported internally by two trapeze type hangers using 3" channels bolted together.

Two single cable heat path cables were included in the test article. One penetrated the 5" air drop fire barrier and the other penetrated the tray vertical section fire barrier.

i

ER-ME-067 Rev.3 Page 108 of 176 A 1/3 by fill mix of power, control and instrumentation cables were installed in the 2",3" and 5" air drops and the 1" air drop had a single control cable.

The conduit stubs were sealed externally at the test deck using silicone foam and internally at the tops of the conduits with silicone elastomer (Promatec 45B).

The vertical tray section was sealed at the test deck using a silicono foam.

A11 A.2 TSI Thermo-Lag Protective Envelope Materials and Enclosure The 3" and 5* air drops were covered with 2 layers of 1/4" thick Thermo-Lag 330-660 "flexi blanket". De 1" and 2" air drops were covered with 3 layers of Flexi-blanket.

The 3" and 5' conduits were covered with 1/2" (nominal) thick Thermo-Lag 3301 preshaped conduit sections. The 1" and 2" conduits received an additional 1/4" (nominal) thick Thermo-Lag 330-1 preshaped conduit section overlayed on top of the 1/2" Thermo-Lag preshaped section.

1/2" (nominal) thick Thermo-Lag 330-1 V-ribbed prefabricated panels with stress skin on the inside were installed on the cable tray in accordance with Reference 10.14.1. The corner joints were reinforced with trowel grade Thermo-Lag and stress skin and the butt joints were reinforced with

stitching", trowel grade Thermo-Lag and stress skin.

1/2" (nominal) thick Thermo-Lag 330-1 prefabricated flat panels with stress skin on the inside were installed on the supports to a distance of approximately 9 in, from the tray in accordance with Reference 10.14.1 for protruding items.

The V-ribs were installed perpendicular to the rails on the top (inside) panels on the tray and parallel to the rails on the sides and bottom (outside).

The 90* radial bend top and bottom panels were installed using the scored and grooved method. The top and bottom panels had scores spaced about 2 in, apart.

All joints were " pre-buttered", and banding (wires) was installed in accordance with Reference 10.14.1. The Thermo-Lag 330-1 prefabricated panels were inspected prior to shipment from the vendor and weight was verified upon receipt per Reference 10.14.1.

A11 A.3 ASTM E-119 Standard Time-Temperature The Thermo-Lagged test article was exposed to the standard time-temperature curve of ASTM E 119 for 1 hour1.157407e-5 days 2.777778e-4 hours 1.653439e-6 weeks 3.805e-7 months .

=

/

4 ,, .

1 1

ER-ME-067 )

Rev.3 i Page 109 of 176 1

A11 A.4 Temperature Review Reference 10.22.1 specifies that the transmission of heat through the fire barrier during the fire endurance test shall not have been such as to raise the average temperature on the exposed ,

conduit sudace more than 250*F above its initial temperature. Reference 10.22.1 further i states that no single temperature rise shall exceed 30% of the average specified limit of 325'F. If either of these temperatures is exceeded then visual cable inspection and IR cable tests are required to demonstrate the cables are free of fire damage. l The ambient air temperature at the start of the test was 71*F.

The maximum average temperature would be equal to 250*F plus ambient. For this test the j maximum average temperature would equal to 321*F. 1 The maximum individual temperature would be equal to 325'F plus ambient. For this test the maximum individual temperature would equal 396*F.

As discussed in Section 4.4 of this report, the accuracy of the exposed conduit thermocouple was in question and their readings was not used. Instead the cable thermocouples along with the cable criteria stated above were used.

The peak temperature on an individual cable in the 5" air drop reached 291*F and the average reached 199'F.

The peak temperature on an individual cable in the 3" air drop reached 291*F and the average reached 195'F.

The peak temperature on an individual cable in the 2" air drop reached 253*F and the average reached 202*F. l The peak temperature on an individual cable in the 1" air drop reached 240*F and the average reached 201*F.

The peak temperature on the tray's front rail reached 274*F and the average reached 251*F.

The peak tempenture on the tray's rear rail reached 301*F and the average reached 242*F.

A11 A.5 Hose Stream Test Following the exposure fire, the test article was subjected to a 5 minute hose streant test utilizing a 1-1/2 in, diameter fob nozzle set at a discharge angle of 30% with a nozzle pressure )

of 75 psi (this Elkhart nozzle is rated at 88 gpm at 75 psi). The nozzle distance was 1 maintained at 5 ft perpendicular from the outside surface of the test article.

'a 1

~

d

. 1 ER-ME-067 Rev.3 Page 110 of 176 After the hose stream test a visual inspection of the fire barrier was conducted. There was no !

burn thrcugh of the fire barrier.

A11 A.6 Electrical Circuit Monitoring Test At no time during the fire endurance test or hose stream test did the electrical circuit monitoring system identify any shorts, short-to-ground, or open circuits (loss of continuity) on any of the monitored circuits.

The cables were visually inspected after the hose strearn test. There was no sign of cable degradation on the cables with exception of two cables (leaving the 5" conduit and entering the 5" air drop) where there was minor blistering of the cable jacket, inspection of the insulation on the conductor in the area of the blisters showed no sign of degradation. There was some cable stiffening which is acceptable and is discussed in section 4.4 of this report.

The cables were meggered after the hose stream test and all the cables passed the IR testing. In fact the majority of the cables showed no reduction of the insulation resistance j from the readings taken before the test. l A11 A.7 Comments Thermo-Lag material performed adequately.

The Thermo-Lag 330-660 "flexi-blanket designs provide an acceptable fire barrier system. The 9" rule for heat path using flexi-blanket is acceptable.

Cable temperatures were enveloped by the CPSES LOCA temperature qualifications.

A118 Omeca Point Test No. 12340-95766 - Scheme 11-2 The fire endurance test documented in Reference '0.12.16 was conducted at Omega Point Laboratones on August 12,1993, and the test report was issued on August 2'7,1993. The fire endurance test, hose stream test and cable functionality (Insulation Resistance) tests were performed to the requirements of the NRC letter dated October 29,1992 (Reference 10.22.1).

Due to the time required (approximately 30 minutes) to conduct the insulation resistance (IR) tests on mutticonductor instrument cable, IR tests were not conducted during the fire endurance tests.

A118.1 Test Article Schems 112 consisted of one 1 1/2" air drop, one 2" air drop and one 24" tray. The test article was installed in a "U" shaped configuration with the 1 1/2" air drop coming down from a

ER ME-067 Rev.3 Page 111 of 176 1 1/2" conduit on the left side of the assembly. The conduit extended through the test deck with approximately 8" into the furnace and 3' above the furnace. The 1 1/2" air drop entered the horizontal end of the 24" tray, The 2" air drop extended down from a 2" conduit which extended through the test dock in a similar manner as the other conduit and entered the tray mid span through the top of the tray.

The 24" tray has a horizontal section and a vertical section. The vertical section rises through the test deck on the right side. The two sections were connected together with a radial bond.

The assembly was supported internally by a trapeze type hanger using 3* steel channels bolted together.

A single protruding cable to introduce a heat path was included in the test article. This cable penetrates the tray vertical section fire barrier.

An approximately 1/3 mix of Power, instrumentation and Control cables were pulled into the tray, maintaining a single layer, and into the 1 1/2" and 2" air drops. In order to monitor temperatures in the interior of the air drops, a single bare #8 AWG stranded copper wire cable was instrumented with thermocouples and wrapped loosely around the cable in each air drop bundle.

The conduit stubs were scaled externally at the test deck using silicone foam and internally at the tops of the conduits with silicone elastomer (Promatec 45B).

The vertical tray section was sealed at the test deck using a silicone foam.

All joints were " pre-buttered", and banding (wires) was installed in accordance with Reference 10.14.1. The Thermo-Lag 3301 prefabricated panels were inspected prior to shipment from the vendor and weights were verified upon receipt por Reference 10.14.1.

A118.2 TSI Thermo-Lag Protective Envelope Materials and Enclosures The 1 1/2" and 2" air drops were covered with 2 layers of 1/4" thick Therrno-Lag 330 660 "Flexi-Blanket".

The 1 1/2" and 2" conduits were covered with 1 1/2" (nominal) thick Thermo-Lag 3301 preshaped conduit sections, i l

l 1/2" (nominal) thick Thermo-Lag 330-1 V-ribbed prefabricated panels with stress skin on the ir. side were installed on the cable tray in accordance with reference 10.14.1. The corner joints and the butt joints were reinforced with trowel grade Thermo lag and stress skin.

1/2" (nominal) thick Thermo-Lag 330-1 prefabricated flat panels with stress skin on the inside were installed on the support to a distance of approximately 9" from the tray in accordance l

j

ER-ME-067 Rev.3 Page 112 of 176 with Reference 10.14.1 for protruding items.

The V-ribs were installed perpendicular to the rails on the top and bottom of the horizontal ,

tray run and on both the inside and the outside of the radial bend. Panels installed against tray side rails in the horizontal run were positioned with the V-ribs oriented vertically. Panels installed against the tray side rails in the radial bends and vertical tray section had V-ribs .

oriented honzontally, e

The 90* radial bend top and bottom panels were installed using the scored and grooved method. The top and bottom panels had scores spaced 2" to 3" apart.

Additionally, at horizontal support locations Thermo-Lag panel strips were secured to the undprlying panels on the support member. These panels strips effectively reinforced the region where panels installed on the underside of horizontal tray portion abuts the panels used to cover the horizontal members.

All joints were " pre-buttered" and banding was installed was installed in accordance with Reference 10.14.1. The Thermo-Lag 330-1 prefabricated panels were inspected prior to shipment from the vendor and weight was verified upon receipt per Reference 10.14.1.

A118.3 ASTM E-119 Standard Time Temperature The Thermo-Lagged test article was exposed to the standard time-temperature curve of ASTM E 119 for 1 hour1.157407e-5 days 2.777778e-4 hours 1.653439e-6 weeks 3.805e-7 months .

A118.4 Temperature Review Reference 10.22.1 specifies that the transmission of heat through the fire barrier during the fire endurance test shall not have been such as to raise the average temperature on the exposed conduit su7 face more than 250*F above its initial temperature. Reference 10.22.1 further states that no single temperature rise shal exceed 30% of the average specified hmit or 325*F. If either of these temperatures is eeeeded then visual cable inspectiorve and IR cable tests are required to demonstrate the cables are free of fire damage.

The ambient air temperature at the start of the test was 92*F.

The mt.ximum average temperature would be equal to 250*F plus ambient. For this test the maximum average temperature would equal 342*F. ;

l i

l The maximum individual temperature would be equal to 325'F plus ambient. For this test the maximum test the maximum individual temperature would equal 417'F.

The peak temperature on the bare #8 AWG copper conductor (which extended between both

ER-ME-067 Rev.3 Page 113 of 176 a,, drops) reached 344*F and the average reached 249*F. j The peak temperature on the 2" conduit stuo reached 225'F and the average reached 224*F. !

The peak inmperature on an individual cable in the 2" air drop reached 439'F and the l average reached 228*F.

The peak temperature on the 1 1/2" conduit stub reached 249'F and the average reached 241*F.

l The peak temperature on an individual cable in the 1 1/2" air drop reached 327'F and the average reached 226*F.

l The peak temperature on the tray's front rail reached 295*F and the average reached 250*F.

The peak temperature on the tray's rear rail reached 309'F and the average reached 249'F. .

All of the thermccouples in the 24" cable tray, all of the thermocouples in the 1 1/2" air drop and all but a single thermocouple location in the 2" air drop, met the maximum and average temperature criteria.

A118.5 Hose Stream Test Following the exposure fire, the test article was subjected to a 5 minute hose stream test utilizing a 1 1/2 in. diameter fog nozzle set at a discharge angle of 30' with a nozzle pressure of 75 psi at a distance of 5 feet. The minimum flow rate from the nozzle was 75 gpm.

After the hose stream test a visual inspection of the fire barrier was conducted. There was no bum through or openings in the fire barrier envelope.

A11C.6 insulation Resistance Testing As an additional r. heck on the condition of the conductor insulation, insulation resistance testing was performed on each cable type before the fire and a'ter the hose stream test. The insulation resistance tests were performed using TU Electric owned and calibrated adjustable megohmmeter, set to the 500 volt DC level for insulation resistance testing on all instrumentation cables and the 1500 voit DC level for all power and control cables. To perform the insulation resistance test, the connection to ground was broken for each cable type and the test instrument leads connected from conductor to conductor and from each conductor to ground. Any leakage between the cable type's conductors and ground, or from conductor to conductor, is readily detected in this manner. Upon discovery of an ohmic reading which is lower than the criteria set in the October 29,1992, NRC letter (Reference 10.22.1), the reading will be documented in the test report and the splices between cables will be broken and each cable tested separately to determine which cable conductor is bad or if

. - - - _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ , _ _ -_____m._____ ____-_-____._.

t i

ER-ME-067 Rev.3 Page 114 of 176 there is a bad splice or test lead. Provided the low reLding is on a cable, that cab!e will be removed from the raceway and visuauy examined to determine where end how the failure occurred.

No apparent thermal cable damage was noted in the cable tray section, in the 2" air drop, surface char was noted on the W-020 power cable approximately 12 in.

above the top of the cable tray horizontal section. Damage did not extend completely through the cable outer Jacket. The localized surface char covered an area approximately 0.24 in' on the outer cable Jacket. No other apparent thermal cable damage was noted, in the 1 1/2" air drop a small blister (approximately 1/8" in diameter) was noted on the W-023 power cable approximately 12" aoove top of the cable tray horizontal section. Damage did not extend completely through the cable outer jacket. No other apparent thermal cable damage was noted.

The cables were meggered after the hose stream test and the results o' the IR tests were well within the allowable limits for a!! assemblies tested.

A118.7 Comments The 24 inch cable tray assembly clad in 1/2" nominal V-rib with 2 in. and 1 1/2 in. air drop

! assemblies, clad in nominal 1/2 in. thickness Thermo-Lag 330-660 Flexi-Blanket material with upgrades provide an acceptable fire barrier system for a fire resistance rating of one hour.

l l Although a single point temperature increase parameter was exceeded in one cable in the 2 in. air drop bundle, the overall assembly met the acceptance criteria contained in Reference 10.22.1 for the following parameters: 1) no barrier opening occurred on the assembly l following the fire endurance and hose stream tests,2) visual cable inspection revealed no significant thermal damage in the assemblies, and 3) the results of the insulation resistance tests were well within the allowable limits for all assemblies tested.

A11C Omeca Point Test No. 12340-95767. Scheme 114 The fire endurance test documented in Reference 10.12.17 was conducted at Omega Point l

Laboratories on August 16,1993 and the test report was issued on October 4,1993. The fire endurance test, hcse stream test and cable functionality (insulation Resistance) tests ' tere performed to the requirements of the NRC letter dated October 29,1992 (Reference 10.22.1).

Due to the time required (approximately 30 miriutes) to conduct the insulation resistance (IR) tests on multi-conductor instrument cable, IR tests were not conducted during the fire j endurance tests.

Test scheme 11-3 was not tested.

s- --..

I l

l l

ER-ME-067 R ev. 3 Page 115 of 176 A11C.1 Test Article Scheme 11-4 consists of cables air dropping from a bank of cast-in-concrete conduit stubs into two stacked 24 in. ladder back cable trays. The two cable trays were fashioned into a r pair of nested "U" shaped assemblies, one on top of the other and each extending up through the test deck. The block out conteining the cast-in-concrete conduit stubs is located in the front deck wall and the distance from the inside surface of the cencrete to the front tray side rail is 10-1/2 in. The bottom of tray to bottom of tray separation lor the horizontal section.:. of the two trays is 12 in. and for the vert' cal sections is 15". The horizontal section tray bottom for the top tray is 36 in. down from the test deck and the bottom tray is 48 in down from the deck. The concrete blockout is 24 in. high by 40 in. wide and contains 8 - 4 in, cor>duits.

The assembly is supported internally by two trapeze type hangers using 3" steel channels bolted together.

An approximate 1/3 mix of Power, instrumentatior' and Control cables were pulled into each tray, maintaining a single layer except where c&bles exited the cable trays to enter the conduit stubs. Of the cables placed in each cable tray, a group consistir:g of one of each designated :

type (power, control and instrumentation) was installed such that the cables exited the cable ,

tray, passed through one conduit stub, looped rutside of the test enclosure into an adjacent conduit stub, and reentered the cable tray near the place of exit. The looped cables in the lower tray exited and entered the tray over the sice rail and the looped cables in the upper tray exited and entered the tray between the rungs in the bottom of the tray. In order to monitor temperatures in the interior of the box design air drop, bare #8 AWG copper wires were instrumented with thermocouples and wrapped loosely around the cables in the air drop area. The layout of the bare copper wires followed the looped electrical cables. i The tray blockout at the deck was sealed with silicone foam as were the emoedded conduits.

The intemal tray at the dock was sealed with elastomer.

All joints were " pre-buttered" e.nd banding (wires) was installed in accordance with Reference 10.14.1. The ThermerLag 330-1 prefabricated panels were inspected prior to shipment from the vendor and weights were verified upon receipt per Reference 10.14.1.

A11C.2 TSI Thermo-Lag Protective Envelope Materials and Enclosure The support rnembers were covered first using 1/2" (nominal) thick Thermo-Lag 330-1 ;

prefabricated lat panels with stress skin on the inside and covering the support to a distance of approximatety 9 in. to 11 in, from the tray in accordance with Reference 10.14.1 for ,

protruding itoms.

1/2" (nom;nal) thick Thermo-Lag 330-1 V-ribbed prefabricated panels with stress skin on the inside were installed on the cable tray in accordance with reference 10.14.1. The longitudinal .

and butt joli.ts were reinforced with trowel grade Thermo-Lag and stress skin.

'M

O

ER ME-067 Rev.3 Page 116 of 176 The V-ribbed panels were oriented identically on both cable trays. SpecificaHy, panels were installed on tray top and bottom surfaces, including radial bends, with the V-ribs oriented perpendicular to the tray side rails. In the horizontal tray sections, panels were installed on the side rails with the V-ribs oriented vertically. Through the radial bends, the rib onentation transitioned such that on the vertical tray riser sections the panels installed on the side rails had V-ribs oriented horizontally.

The box assembly was constructed by extending the V-rib panel installed on the horizontal portion of the top cable tray over to the concrete wall section above the ernbedded sleeves.

The panel was pre-caulked and butted to the concrete wall. A Thermo-Lag 330-1 Flat Panel was installed on the underside of the horizontal portion of the bottom cable tray. This panel was scored and grooved creating two " hinged" portions to facilitate extension of the panel to ,

the concrete wall section below the embedded sleeves. This panel was also pre-caulked and butted to the concrete wall. The side portions of the box assembly were constructed of V-rib panels installed between the top and bottom tray envelopes, extending to and similarly butted to the concrete wall section on either wide of the embedded sleeves. The V ribs of the side portions of the box assembly were oriented vertically. The front portion of the box assembly consisted of the individual V rib panels installed on the side rails of the top and bottom cable tray horizontal runs and a single V-rib panel piece bridging the coverage of the top and bottom panel side raps.

The joints associated with the box assembly were reinforced with trowel grade and stress skin. Additionally, to reinforce the box assembly at the concrete wall interface, an approximate 21/4 in, wide stress skin piece was wrapped around the entire perimeter of the enclosure immediately adjacent to the wall secured in place with staples and covered with a Trowel Grade skim coat. To secure the box enclosure to the concrete wall surface, a separate stress skin wrap was installed around the perimeter extending approximately 3 in.

onto all sides of the box assembly, stapled to the underlying Thermo-Lag panels and then flared out onto the concrete surface for an approximate 2 in, distance. Trowel Grade material was then applied over the stress skin and 2 in, wide 330-1 Flat panels strips installed in a

" picture frame" fashion over the stress skin portion which flared onto the concrete surface ,

using 1/4 in. dia. x 31/4 in. long "Hilti" bolts spaced at approximate 10 in. intervais.

To reinforce butt joints between panels installed on the undersides of the top and bottom cable trays and panels covering horizontal support members,2 in wide Flat Panel strips were secured to the panels on the supports using #12 x 11/4 in. long screws. Thus, butt joints between panels on the tray undersides and those installed on the hori ontal support members were effectively covered by the 2 in. Flat Panel strips.

Finally, a layer of 350 Topcoat was applied to me completed barrier assembly over all exposed surfaces where 330-1 Trowel Grade material was used to cover stress skin areas.

All joints were " pre-buttered" and banding (wires) was installed in accordance with Reference 10.14.1 (non upgraded design). Thermo-Lag 330-1 prefabricated panels were inspected prior f r ,

' % I

4 ER-ME 067 Rev.3 Page 117 of 176 to shipment from the vendor and weight was verified upon receipt per Reference 10.14.1.

A11C.3 ASTM E-119 Standard Time Temperature The Thermo-Lagged test article was exposed to the standard time-temperature curve of ASTM E-119 for 1 hour1.157407e-5 days 2.777778e-4 hours 1.653439e-6 weeks 3.805e-7 months .

A11C.4 Temperature Review Reference 10.22.1 specifies that the transmission of heat through the fire barrier during the fire endurance test shall not have been such as to raise the average temperature on the exposed ,

conduit surfcco more than 250*F above its initial temperature. Reference 10.22.1 further states that no single temperature rise shall exceed 30% of the average specified limit or 325'F. If either of these temperatures is exceeded then visual cable inspections and IR cable tests are required to demor.5trate the cables are free of fire damage.

t The ambient air temperature at the start of the test was 91*F.

The maximum average temperature would be equal to 250*F plus ambient. For this test the '

maximum average temperature would equal 341*F.

The maximum individual temperature would be equal to 325*F plus ambient. For this test the maximum test the maximum individual temperature would equal 416*F.

The peak temperature on the bare #8 AWG copper conductor within the air drop box reached 287*F and the average reached 251*F.

The peak temperature on an individual cable in the air drop box reached 241*F and the average reached 231*F.

The peak temperature on an individual cable in the cable trays reached 311*F and the average reached 242*F.

The peak temperature on the tray front rail reached 322*F and the average reached 255*F.

The peak temperature on the tray rear rail reached 335*F and the average reached 257*F.

All of the thermocouples in the 24" cable trays, and the air drop box met the maximum and average temperature criteria.

A11C.5 Hose Stream Test Following the exposure fire, the test article was subjected to a 5 minute hose stream test utilizing a 1 1/2 in. diameter fog nonle set at a discharge angle of 30' with a nozzle pressure

. 1 ER-ME-067 Rev.3 Page 118 of 176 of 75 psi at a distance of 5 feet. The minimum flow rate from the nozzle was 75 gpm.

After the hose stream test a visual inspection of the fire barrier was conducted. There was no bum through or openings in the fire barrier envelope as a result of the thermal effects of the fire exposure. The stress skin upgrade applied to the lower rear tray rail was hanging loosely from the assembly. Fo",owing the hose stream test the Thermo-Lag pieces remained affixed and the stainless steel banding was sagging from the assemblies. The panel joint located behind the stress skin that was sagging prior to the hose stream test had opened allowing the tray within to be visible.

A11C.6 Insulation Resistance Testing As an additional check on the condition of the conductor insulation, insulation resistance testing was performed on each cable type before the fire and after the hose stream test. The insulation resistance tests were performed using TU Electric owned and calibrated adjustable megohmmeter, set to the 500 volt DC level for insulation resistance testing on all instrumentation cables and the 1500 volt DC level for all power and control cables. To perform the insulation resistance test, the connection to ground was broken for each cable type and the test instrument leads connected from conductor to conductor and from each conductor to ground. Any leakage between the cable type's conductors and ground, or from conductor to conductor, is readily detected in this manner. Upon discovery of an ohmic reading which is lower than the criteria set in the October 29,1992, NRC letter (Reference 10.22.1), the reading will be documented in the test report and the splices between cables will be broken and each cable tested separately to determine which cable conductor is bad or if '

there is a bad splice or test lead. Provided the low reading is on a cable, that cable will be removed from the raceway and visually examined to determine where and how the failure occurred.

The cables were meggered after the hose stream test and the results of the IR tests were well within the allowable limits for all assemblies tested.

No apparent themial cable damage was noted in the air drop box or the inner (top) cable tray, in the outer (lower) tray, most W-020 power cable jackets were swollen and " ballooned

considerably in the left vertical cable tray section and the cables were slightly discolored (cable Jackets tinted gray) and slightly stiffened. The remainder of the cable length was still flexible and visibly undamaged. This jacket swelling is discussed further in Section 4.5.5.

A11C.7 Comments The box design air drop assembly, as well as both of the 24 in. cable tray assemblies, clad in a nominal 1/2 in. thickness Thermo-Lag 330-1 material with upgrades presented herein, met the requirements for a fire resistance rating of one hour, as described below.

The assembly, as tested, met the acceptance critoria contained in the NRC letter dated

1 o

ER-ME-067 Rev.3 Page 119 of 176 October 29,1992 (Reference 10.22.1), for the following parameters: 1) single point and average temperature increase parameters were not exceeded,2) the barrier opened during the hose stream test, but a visual cable inspection revealed no apparent thermal damage to ,

the conductor insulation (see Section 4.5.5 for a further discussion of the power cable jacket swelling), and 3) the results of the insu!ation resistance tests were well within the allowable limits.

A11D Omeaa Point Test No. 12340-95768. Scheme 11-5 The fire endurance test documented in Reference 10.12.18 was conducted at Omega Point Laboratories on August 11,1993 and the test report was issued on August 27,1993. The fire endurance test, hose stream test and cable functionality (Insulation Resistance) tests were performed to the requirements of the NRC letter dated October 29,1992 (Reference 10.22.1).

Due to the time required (approximately 30 minutes) to conduct the insulation resistance (IR) tests on multi-conductor instrument cable, IR tests were not conducted during the fire endurance tests.

A11D.1 Test Article Scheme 11-5 consisted of three parallel 24 in, wide ladderback cable trays each assembled into an "L shaped" configuration which extended down through the horizontal upper deck then out through the front dock wall utilizing a ladderback 90' vertical fitting to transition from vertical to horizontal. The bottom of each tray was 36 in. down from the deck and the vertical tray was 72 in. from the front deck wall where the tray exited the fumace. The trays were approximately 12 in. apart in the fumace.

Each tray was independently supported intemally by a trapeze type hanger utilizing 3" steel channels bolted together.

An approximate 1/3 mix of Power, instrumentation and Control cables were pulled into each '

tray maintaining a single layer.

Each tray penetration through the deck was individually sealed with silicone foam and all three trays went through a single blockout in the front deck wall and it was also sealed with silicone foam. Intemal silicone elastomer (Promatec 458) seats were placed in each tray at the deck and the front wall.

A11D.2 TSI Thermo-Lag Protective Envelope Materials and Enclosure The support members were covered first using flat Thermo-Lag 330-1 panel material for a distance of approximately 9 in. to 11 in. from the cable trays. All joints were pre-caulked with Thermo-Lag 330-1 Trowel Grade material and secured in place with stainless steel tie wires.

The remainder of all supports were left exposed.

=9-.b MN

e ER-ME-067 Rev.3 Page 120 of 176 Prior to installing panels on the trays, the horizontal run of each tray was pre-banded using stainless steel banding wrapped completely around the tray perimeters at 12 in. intervals.

All portions of the each cable tray were covered with Thermo-Lag 330-1 V-Ribbed panels except where trays penetrated through the silicone foam blockout, whereby flat panels were installed on tray top and bottom surfaces. The flat panel coverage extended onto the horizontal tray sections for a distance of approximately 3 in, from the blockout seal.

Panels were installed such that the sido radial panels were effectively sandwiched between the top and bottom panels, and thereby placed into compression when the external banding was tightened. The panels installed on inside surfaces on the radial bends were scored to a depth of 1/4 in., perpendicular to the raceway, at 2 in, intervals to allow for curvature. The panels installed on the outside of the radial bends were similarly scored, at 3 in. intervals. All joints between panels and the seams in scored areas were pre-caulked with Thermo-Lag 330-1 Trowel Grade material and were secured in place with stainless steel banding. Banding was installed within 2 in. on either side of butt joints occurring on top or bottom panels. The maximum band spacing was 12 in. o.c., but to prevent this distance from being exceeded, in some instances bands were spaced closer. On radial bends, one band was installed around '

each scored section. A minimum of one band (2 bands maximum) was also installed around the tray envelopes where panel pieces were used to cover splice plates on the tray side rails.

A different technique for reinforcing joints between panels and/or providing additional thermal protection was installed on each cable tray assembly. ,

o The cable tray installed on the right side of the test deck utilized a stress skin overlap of the longitudinal joints along the tray sides. Specifically, following completion of the

" baseline" protective envelope described above, an approximately 3/16 in. thick layer of Thermo-Lag 330-1 Trowel Grade material was applied along the side rail panels overlapping onto the top and bottom panels by approximately 5 in. Next,"U" shaped 330-60 stress skin pieces were installed over the areas where trowel grade material was applied. The stress skin pieces were secured in pl ace with 9/16 in. long staples and then an approximate 1/16 in, skim coat layer of trowel grade material was applied over the stress skin. To reinforce butt joints between bottom panels and Thermo-Lag panels covering the horizontal support member, a 2 in. wide flat panel was secured to the " baseline" panels on the member using either #12 x 1-1/4 in. screws or 1 in. long staples. Such panel strips were installed on either wide of the support coverage and '

they extended the full width of the tray protective envelope. Thus, the butt joint between the baseline panels on the tray bottom and those installed on the bottom support member was effectively covered by the 2 in. wide flat panel strip. Finally, a layer of 350 Topcoat was applied to the completed envelope over all areas where 330-1 Trowel Grade material was used. ,

1 e The cable tray installed in the center of the test deck utilized 1 in, wide Nextel ceramic fiber bands wrapped circumferential!y around the exterior of the " baseline" panels to 1

l

ER-ME-067 Rev.3 Page 121 of 176 structurally reinforce the protective envelope. The ceramic bands were installed in the ,

immediate vicinity of the bottom panel butt joint and the panels on the bottom support member on both sides of the support. Ceramic bands were also installed on approximate 24 in. centers as measured along the bottom surface of the protective envelope. The ceramic banding was held in place by passing the two ends of the wrap through a double "D" ring assembly and tightening the wrap securely by hand.

The ceramic banding was installed after 350 Topcoat had been applied in areas where ;

3301 Trowel Grade material was useo.

The cable tray installed on the left side of the test deck utilized a 6 in. wide circumferential stress skin wrap around the exterior of the baseline panels such that butt joints on the top and bottom panels were overlapped by 3 in, on each side.

Similar 6 in. wide stress skin wraps were also installed on both sides of the butt joints between bottom panels and the panels covering the bottom support member. An approximate 3/16 in, thick layer of Thermo-Lag 330-1 Trowel-Grade was applied over the " baseline" panels prior to installing the circumferential stress skin wrap. The stress skin was secured in place with 9/16 in. long staples and then an approximate 1/16 in, thick skim coat of trowel grade was applied over the stress skin. Finally, a layer of 350 Topcoat was applied to the completed envelope over all areas where 330-1 Trowel Grade was used.

The V-ribbed panels were oriented identically on all cable trays. Specifically, panels were installed on tray top and bottom surfaces, including radial bends, with the V-ribs oriented perpendicular to the tray side rails, in the horizontal tray sections, panels were installed on the sido rails with the V-ribs oriented vertically. Through the radial bonds, the rib orientation ,

transitioned such that on the vertical tray riser sections the panels installed on the side rails had V-ribs oriented horizontally.

All joints were " pre-buttered", and banding (wires) was installed in accordance with Reference 10.14.1. The Thermo-Lag 330-1 prefabricated panels were inspected poor to shipment from the vendor and weights were verified upon receipt per Reference 10.14.1.

A11D.3 ASTM E-119 Standard Time Temperature The Thermo Lagged test article was exposed to the standard time-temperature curve of ASTM E-119 for 1 hour1.157407e-5 days 2.777778e-4 hours 1.653439e-6 weeks 3.805e-7 months .

A11D.4 Temperature Review Reference 10.22.1 specifies that the transmission of heat through the fire barrier during the fire endurance test shall not have been such as to raise the average temperature on the exposed .

conduit surface more than 250*F above its initial temperature. Reference 10.22.1 further states that no single temperature rise shall exceed 30% of the average specified limit or 325'F. If either of these temperatures is exceeded then visual cable inspections and IR cable

l i 1

, i ER-ME-067 Rev.3 i Page 122 of 176 i tests are required to demonstrate the cables are free of fire damage. ;

The ambient air temperature at the start of the test was 92*F.

The maximum average temperature would be equal to 250*F plus ambient. For this test the maximum average temperature would equal 342*F.

The maximum individual temperature would be equal to 325'F plus ambient. For this test the maximum test the maximum individual temperature would equal 417*F.

On the right cable tray Peak temperature on the cables reached 336*F and the average reached 302*F.

Peak temperature on the right tray rail reached 311*F and the average reached 270*F.

Peak temperature on the left tray rail reached 362*F and the average reached 293*F.

On the center cable tray Peak temperature on the cables reached 414*F and the average reached 339*F.

Peak temperature on the right tray rail reached 468'F and the average reached 358'F. :

Peak temperature on the left tray rail reached 467'F and the average reached 371'F.

On the left cable tray Peak temperature on the cables reached 385'F and the average reached 284*F.

Peak temperature on the right tray rail reached 549*F and the average reached 340*F. ;

Peak temperature on the left tray rail reached 425'F and the average reached 323*F.

All thermocouples on the right 24" cable tray and all but the cable tray side rails of the center and left cable trays met the maximum and average temperature criteria.

A11D.5 Hose Stream Test Following the exposure fire, the test article was subjected to a 5 minute hose stream test utilizing a 1 1/2 in, diameter fog nozzle set at a discharge angle of 30* with a nozzle pressure of 75 psi at a distance of 5 feet. The minimum flow rate from the nozzle was 75 gpm. l

ER-ME-067 Rev.3 Page 123 of 176 After the hose stream test a visual inspection of the fire barrier was conducted. There was no burn through or openings in the fire barrier envelope for the right and center trays. The left tray had a barrier opening along with subsequent damage to the outer cable jacket.

A11D.6 Insulation Resistance Testing l As an additional check on the condition of the conductor insulation, insulation resistance testing was performed on each cable type before the fire and after the hose stream test. The insulation resistance tests were periormed using TU Electric owned and calibrated adjustable megohmmeter, set to the 500 volt DC level for insulation resistance testing on all instrumentation cables and the 1500 volt DC level for all power and control cables. To perform the insulation resistance test. the connection to ground was broken for each cable type and the test instrument leads connected from conductor to conductor and from each conductor to ground. Any leakage between the cable type's conductors and ground, or from conductor to conductor,is readily detected in this manner. Upon discovery of an ohmic reading which is lower than the criteria set in the October 29,1992, NRC letter (Reference 10.22.1), the reading will be documented in the test report and the splices between cables will be broken and each cable tested separately to determine which cable conductor is bad or if ,

there is a bad splice or test lead. Provided the low reading is on a cable, that cable will be removed from the raceway and visually examined to determine where and how the failure occurred.

Most W-020 power cable jackets were swollen and " ballooned" considerably in the horizontal ,

cable tray sections, due to softening of the outer jacket material and pressure build up within the cable. The thermocoupled power cables suffered more severe swelling due to the multiple constrictions placed on the jacket by the glass-fiber electrical tape spaced 6 in, o.c.

Most swollen cables lost pressure after cooling, with the Jackets remaining stretched and oversized. No apparent thermal cable damage was noted on the right and center trays. On the left cable tray, thermal cable damage was noted across the underside of the cable tray approximately 12 in, from the front deck wall. All nylon tie wraps were melted on the second rung from the wall. Many of the outer cable jackets were charred and split. A greenish-blue residue was noted on some of the control cables (melted fiber filler material). The cable's inner conductor insulation had no visible thermal damage. No thermal damage extended to the top of the tray cables.

The cables were meggered after the hose stream test and the results of the IR test were within the allowable limits for all assemblies tested.

A110.7 Comments All three of the 24 in. cable tray assemblies, clad in a nominal 1/2 in. thickness Thermo-Lag 1 330-1 material with upgrades presented herein, met the requirements for a fire resistance rating of one hour, as described below.

I I

I i

T a

ER-ME-067 Rev.3 Page 124 of 176 Although singia point and average temperature increase parameters were exceeded on the left cable tray assembly and a barrier opening was present (along with subsequent damage to the outer cable jackets), the assembly met the acceptance criteria contained in the NRC ;

letter dated October 29,1992 (Reference 10.22.1), for the following parameters: 1) visual cable inspection revealed no apparent thermal damage to the conductor insulation (see Section 4.5.5 for a further discussion of the power cable jacket swelling), and 2) the results of the insulation resistance tests were well within the allowable limits.

The right cable tray experienced no deviations from the acceptance criteria contained in '

Reference 10.22.1, specifically 1) single point and average temperature increase parameters were not exceeded,2) no barrier openings or burn through occurred,3) visual cable inspection revealed no apparent thermal damage (see Section 4.5.5 for a further discussion of the power cable jacket swelling), and 4) insulation resistance test results were well within allowable limits.

The center cable tray exceeded single point and average temperature increase parameters for the tray side rails, however the assembly met acceptance criteria for the following parameters:

1) visual inspection revealed no barrier opening or burn through,2) visual cable inspection revealed no apparent thermal damage, and 3) the insulation resistance tests were all within allowable limits (see Section 4.5.5 for a further discussion of the power cable jacket swelling).

A12A Omeaa Point Test No. 12340-94367i - Scheme 12-1 The fire endurance test documented in Reference 10.12.19 was conducted at Omega Point i Laboratories on November 12,1992, and the test report was issued on December 16,1992.

The fire endurance test, hose stream test and cable functionality (Insulation Resistance) tests were performed to the requirements of the NRC letter dated October 29,1992 (Reference 10.22.1). Due to the time required (approx. 30 minutes) to conduct the insulation resistance (IR) tests on multi-conductor instrument cable, IR tests were not conducted during the fire endurance tests.

A12A.1 Test Article Scheme 121 consisted of a 30" wide x 4" deep ladderback tray installed in a U shape. The article was installed so that the bottom of the tray was approximately 3 ft below the test deck. ,

A 1/3 by fill mix of power, control and instrumentation cables were instal'ed in the tray, maintaining a single layer.

The assembly was supported internally by two trapeze type ha,1gers using 3" channels bolted together.

The vertical tray sections were sealed at the test deck using a silicone foam.

A12A.2 TSI Thermo-Lag Protective envelope Materials and Enclosure

f ER-ME-067 Rev.3 Page 125 of 176 1/2" (nominal) thick Thermo-Lag 330-1 V-ribbed prefabricateo panels with stress skin on the inside were installed on the cable tray in accordance with Reference 10.14.2. The corner joints were reinforced with trowel grade and stress skin and the butt joints were reinforced with " stitching" trowel grade and stress skin.

1/2' (nominal) thick Thermo-Lag 3301 prefabricated flat panels with stress ekin on the inside were installed on the supports to a distance of approximately 9 in, from the tray in accordance with Reference 10.14.2 for protruding items.

The V-ribs were installed perpendicular to the rails on the top (inside) panels on the tray and parallel to the rails on the sides and bottom (outside).

The 90* radial bond top and bottom panels were installed using the scored and grooved method. The top and bottom panels have scores spaced about 2 in, apart.

A12A.3 ASTM E 119 Standard Time Temperature The Thermo-Lagged test article was exposed to the standard time-temperature curve of ASTM E-119 for 1 hour1.157407e-5 days 2.777778e-4 hours 1.653439e-6 weeks 3.805e-7 months . l A12A.4 Temperature Review Reference 10.22.1 specifies that the transmission of heat through the fire barrier during the fire !

endurance test shall not have been such as to raise the average temperature on the exposed conduit surface more than 250*F above its initial temperature. Reference 10.22.1 further ,

states that no single temperature rise shall exceed 30% of the average specified limit or 1 325*F. If either of these temperatures is exceeded then visual cable inspection and IR cable ;

tests are required to demonstrate the cables are free of fire damage.

The ambient air temperature at the start of the test was 71*F.

The maximum average temperature would be equal to 250*F plus ambient, for this test the maximum average temperature would equal to 3219.

The maximum individual temperature would be equal to 325*F plus ambient. For this test the maximum individual temperature would equal 396*F.

The peak temperature on an individual cable reached 311*F and the average reached 238*F.

The peak temperature on the front rail reached 363*F and the average reached 270*F.

The peak temperature on the rear rail reached 343*F and the average reached 273'F A12A.5 Hose Stream Test

l

)

ER-ME-067 Rev.3 Page 126 of 176 Following the exposure fire, the test article was subjected to a 5 minute hose stream test utilizing a 1-1/2 in, diamnter fog nozzle set at a discharge angle of 30% with a nozzio pressure of 75 psi (this Elkhart nozzle is rated at 88 gpm at 75 psi). The nozzle distance was maintained at 5 ft perpendicular from the outside surface of the test article.

After the hose stream test a visual inspection of the fire barrier was conducted. There was no burn through of the fire barrier.

A12A.6 Electrical Circuit Monitoring Test At no time during the fire endurance test or hose stream test did the electrical circuit monitoring system identify any shorts, shorts to ground, or open circuits (loss of continuity) on any of the monitored circuits.

Although not required, the cables were visually inspected after the hose stream test. There was no sign of cable degradation. There was sorno cable stiffening which is acceptable and is discussed in section 4.4 of this report.

The cables were meggered after the hose stream test and all the cables passed the IR tests.

In fact, the majority of the cables showed no reduction of the insulation resistance from the readings taken before the test.

A12A.7 Comments Thermo-Lag material performed adequately. ;

The reinforced joint designs provide an adequate upgrades to the Thermo-Lag design and this test confirms those designs.

Cable temperatures were enveloped by the CPSES LOCA temperature qualifications.

A128 Omeog Point Test No. 12340-94367h - Scheme 12-2 The fire endurance test documented in Reference 10.12.20 was conducted at Omega Point ,

Laboratories on November 11,1992, and the test report was issued on December 16,1992.

The fire endurance test, hose stream test and cable functionality (Insulation Resistance) tests were pedormed to the requirements of the NRC letter dated October 29,1992 (Reference 10.22.1). Due to the time required (approx 30 minutes) to conduct the insulation resistance (IR) tests on multi-conductor instrument cable, IR tests were not conducted during the fire endurance tests.

A128.1 Test Article Scheme 12-2 consisted of a 24" wide x 4" deep ladderback tray with a horizontal tes section

l ER-ME-067 Rev.3 Page 127 of 176 mid span installed in a U shape. The article was installed so that the bottom of the tray was approximately 3 ft below the test deck. A 1/3 fill mix of power, control and instrumentation cables were installed in the tray, maintaining a single layer.

The assembly was supported internally by two trapeze type hangers using 3" channels bolted together.

The vertical tray sections were sealed at the test deck using a silicone foam.

A128.2 TSI Thermo-Lag Protective Envelope Materials and Enclosure 1/2" (nominal) thick Thermo-Lag 330-1 V-ribbed prefabricated panels with stress skin on the inside were installed on the cable tray in accordance with Reference 10.14.2. The corner joints were reinforced with trowel grade Thermo-Lag and stress skin and the butt joints were reinforced with " stitching", trowel grade Thermo-Lag and stress skin.

1/2" (nominal) thick Thermo-Lag 330-1 prefabricated flat panels with stress skin on the inside were installed on the supports to a distance of approximately 9 in. from the tray in accordance with Reference 10.14.2 for protruding iterns.

The V ribs were installed perpendicular to the rails on the top (inside) panels on the tray and parallel to the rails on the sides and bottom (outside).

The 90* radial bend top and bottom panels were installed using the scored and grooved rnethod. The top and bottom panels had scores space about 2 in, apart.

All joints were " pre-buttered", and banding (wires) was installed in accordance with Reference 10.14.1 (non-upgraded design). Thermo-Lab 3301 prefabricated panels were inspected prior to shipment from the vendor and weight was verified upon receipt per Reference 10.14.1.

A128.3 ASTM E-119 Standard Time-Temperature The Thermo-Lagged test article was exposed to the standard time-temperature curve of ASTM E-119 for 1 hour1.157407e-5 days 2.777778e-4 hours 1.653439e-6 weeks 3.805e-7 months .

A128.4 Temperature Review Reference 10.22.1 specifies that the transmission of heat through the fire barrier during the fire endurance test shall not have been such as to raise the average temperature on the exposed conduit surface more than 250*F above its initial temperature. Reference 10.22.1 further states that no single temperature rise shall exceed 30% of the average specified limit or 1 325'F. If either of these temperatures is exceeded then visual cable inspection and IR cable l tests are required to demonstrate the cables are free of fire damage, l

I

4 ER-ME-067 Rev.3 Page 128 of 176 The ar bient air temperature at the start of the test was 67'F.

The maximum average temperature would be equal to 250*F plus ambient. For this test the maximum average temperature would equal to 317*F.

l The maximum individual temperature would be equal to 325'F plus ambient. For this test the maximum individual temperature would equal 392*F.

The peak temperature on an individual cable reached 280*F and the average reached 244*F.

The peak temperature on the front rail reached 353*F and the average reached 287'F.

The peak temperature on the rear rail reached 332*F and the average reached 277'F.

l A128.5 Hose Stream Test i

i Following the exposure fire, the test article was subjected to a 5 minute hose stream test '

utilizing a 1-1/2 in. diameter fog nozzle set at a discharge angle of 30% with a nozzle pressure of 75 psi (this Elkhart nozzle is rated at 88 gpm at 75 psi). The nozzle distance was maintained at 5 ft perpendicular from the outside surface of the test article.

After the hose stream test a visual inspection of the fire barrier was conducted. There was no burn through of the fire barrier, however during the hose stream test the Thermo-Lag panel, balow the fire stop (seal) in the tee, sagged down providing an opening between the panel and the fire stop.

A128.6 Electrical Circuit Monitoring Test At no time during the fire endurance test or hose stream test did the electrical circuit )

i monitoring system identify any shorts, shorts to-ground, or open circuits (loss of continuity) on any of the monitored circuits. l The cables were visually inspected after the hose stream test. There was no sign of cable degradation.

The cables were moggered after the hose stream test and all the cables passed the IR tests.

In fact the majority of the cables showed no reduction of the insulation resistance from the readings taken before the test.

A128.7 Comments Thermo-Lag material performed adequately.

The reinforced joint designs provide an adequate upgrades to the Thermo-Lag design and

l I

i I

ER-ME-067 Rev.3 Page 129 of 176 I this test confirms those designs. l The fire stop detail was changed and was tested satisf actorily in scheme 14-1. 1 Cable temperatures were enveloped by the CPSES LOCA temperature qualifications.

A13A Omeaa Point Test No. 12340-943671 - Scheme 13-1 i

The fire endurance test documented in Reference 10.12.21 was conducted at Omega Point Laboratories on November 12,1992, and the test report was issued on December 9,1992.

The fire endurance test, hose stream test and cable functionality (Insulation Resistance) tests were performed to the requirements of the NRC letter dated October 29,1992 (Reference 10.22.1). Due to the time required (approx. 30 minutes) to conduct the insulation resistance (IR) tests on multi-conductor instrument cable, IR tests were not conducted during the fire endurance tests.

A13A.1 Test Article Scheme 131 consisted of a 12" wide x 4" deep ladderback tray installed in a U shape. The article was installed so that the bottom of the tray was approximately 3 ft below the test deck.

A 1/3 fill mix of power, control and instrumentation cables were installed in the tray, maintaining a single layer.

The assembly was supported internally by two trapeze type hangers using 3" channels bolted together.

The vertical tray sections were scaled at the test deck using a silicone foam.

A13A.2 TSI Thermo-Lag Protective Envelope Materials and Enclosure 1/2" (nominal) thick Thermo-Lag 3301 V-ribbed prefabricated panels with stress skin on the inside were installed on the cable tray in accordance with Reference 10.14.2. The corner joints were reinforced with trowel grade Thermo-Lag anu >, tress skin.

1/2* (nominal) thick Thermo-Lag 330-1 prefabricated flat panels with stress skin on the inside were installed on the supports to a distance of approximately 9 in. from the tray in accordance with Reference 10.14.2 for protruding items, e

The V-ribs welc installed perpendicular to the rails on the top (inside) panels on the tray and parallel to the rails on the sides and bottom (outside).

The 90* radial bend top and bottom panels were installed using the scored and grooved method. The top and bottom panels had scores spaced about 2 in, apart.

h

ER-ME-067 Rev.3 Page 130 of 176 All joints were " pre-butters", and banding (wires) was installed in accordance with Reference 10.14.1 (non-upgraded design). Thermo-Lab 330-1 prefabricated panels were inspected prior to shipment from the vendor and weight was verified upon receipt per Reference 10.14.1.

A13A.3 ASTM E-119 Standard Time-Temperature The Thermo-Lagged test article was exposed to the standard time temperature curve of ASTM E 119 for 1 hour1.157407e-5 days 2.777778e-4 hours 1.653439e-6 weeks 3.805e-7 months .

A13A.4 Temperature Review Reference 10.22.1 specifies that the transmission of heat through the fire barrier during the fire endurance test shall not have been such as to raise the average temperature on the exposed conduit surface more than 250*F above its initial temperature. Reference 10.22.1 further states that no single temperature rise shall exceed 30% of the average specified limit or 325*F. If either of these temperatures is exceeded then visual cable inspection and IR cable tests are required to demonstrate the cables are free of fire damage.

The ambient air temperature at the start of the test was 68*F.

The maximum average temperature would be equal to 250*F plus ambient. For this test the maximum average temperature would equal to 318*F.

The maximum individual ternerature would be equal to 325*F plus ambient. For this test the maximum individual temperaure would equal 393*F.

The peak temperature on an individual cable reached 265*F and the average reached 220*F.

The peak temperature on the front rcil reached 330*F and the average reached 285'F. ,

The peak temperature on the rear rail reached 324*F and the average reached 271*F.

A13A.5 Hose Stream Test Following the exposure fire, the test article was subjected to a 5 minute hose stream test utilizing a 1-1/2 in. diameter fog nozzle set at a discharge angle of 30% with a nozzle pressure l

of 75 psi (this Elkhart nozzle is rated at 88 gpm at 75 psi). The nozzle distance was maintained at 5 ft perpendicular from the outside surface of the test article.

After the hose stream test a visual inspection of the fire barrier was conducted. There was no bum through of the fire barrier.

A13A.6 Electrical Circuit Monitoring Test i

1 1

9 ER ME-067 Rev.3 Page 131 of 176 At no time during the fire endurance test or hose stream test did the electrical circuit monitoring system identify any shorts, shorts-to-ground, or open circuits (loss of continuity) on any of the monitored circuits.

Although not required, the cables were visually inspected after the hose stream test. There was no sign of cable degradation.

The cables were meggered after the hose stream test and all the cables passed the IR tests.

in fact the majority of the cables showed no reduction of the insulation resistance from the readings taken before the test.

A13A.7 Comments Thermo-Lag material performed adequately.

The reinforced joint designs provide an adequate upgrades to the Thermo-Lag design and this test confirms those designs.

Cable temperatures were enveloped by the CPSES LOCA temperature qualifications.

A13B Omeaa Point Test No. 12340-95769 - Scheme 13-2 The fire endurance test documented in Reference 10.12.22 was conducted at Omega Point Laboratories on August 12,1993, and the test report was issued on August 23,1993. The fire endurance test, hose stream test and cable functionality (Insulation Resistance) tests were performed to the requirements of the NRC letter dated October 29,1992 (Reference 10.22.1).

Due to the time required (approximately 30 minutes) to conduct the insulation resistance (IR) tests on multi-conductor irstrument cable, IR tests were not conducted during the fire endurance tests.

A138.1 Test Article Scheme 13-2 consisted of one 12" wide ladderback cable tray and a 2" conduit each installed in a "U" shaped configuration side by side 20 in, apart. The conduit extended down through the test deck with each vertical leg transitioning to the horizontal with a radial bend. The cable tray extended down through the test deck with each vertical leg transitioning to the horizontal with a ladderback 90* vertical fitting. The bottom of the horizontal sections of both tray and conduit was 36" down from the test deck.

The cable tray was supported intomally by two trapeze type hangers using 3" steel channels bolted together. The conduit was supported intemally by two unistrut hangers consisting of a vertical piece which was attached with a conduit clamp.

An approximate 1/3 mix of Power, instrumentation and Control cables were pulled into tray

ER-ME 067 Rev.3 Page 132 of 176 and conduit. The cables in the tray maintained a single layer and occupied about 15% of the total tray area. The cables in the conduit occupied about 44% of the total conduit area.

The blockout in the test deck for the tray and conduit was sealed with silicone foam and the intomal trays and conduits was sealed with a silicone elastomer.

A138.2 TSI Thermo-Lag Protective Envelope Materials and Enclosures The entire tray was covered with Thermo-Lag 330-1 V-Ribbed panels on the top, bottom and sides of the tray, in each case, the side panels were placed into compression whereby once the banding is applied and tightened, the side panels were sandwiched by the top and bottom panels. The V-ribbed panels applied to the inside surfaces of the radial bends were scored to a depth of 1/4 in., perpendicular to the raceway, at 3 to 4 in. Intervals to allow for curvature. The V-ribbed panels installed on the outside of the radial bends were scored to a depth of 1/4 in., perpendicular to the raceway, at 4 in. intervals to allow for curvature. All joints, seams and scored grooves were pre-caulked with Thermo-Lag 330-1 Trowel Grade material and all panels were secured in place using the stainless steel bands spaced at 12 in.

maximum intervals.

After the entire tray assembly was clad, the support members were covered with flat Thermo-Lag 330-1 panel material for a distance of approximately 9 in. as measured from the tray protective envelope. All joints and seams were pre-caulked with Thermo-Lag 330-1 Trowel-Grade material, then secured in place using 16 stainless steel tie wire (on the inside layer of panels), and 1/2 in, wide x 0.020 in. thick Type 304 stainless steel banding straps.

The rigid conduit was covered first prior to installing material on the support members using 1/2 in, nominal thickness Thermo-Lag 330-1 Pre-Shaped Conduit Material. All joint, seams ,

and built-up areas were pre-caulked with 330-1 Trowel Grade Material and secured in place with stainless steel tie wire and metal banding material. The Thermo-Lag 3301 Pre-Shaped Conduit Material applied to the radial conduit bends was miter cut and fit to the conduit as individual segments. The seams between these segments were pre-caulked prior to installation.

The UniStrut support members were covored with Thermo-Lag Flat Panel material for a 9 in.

distance extending from the closest Thermo-Lag Pre-Shaped section leaving the remaining Un! Strut support steel surf ace unprotected from the fire source.

Finally, after allowing the Thermo-Lag material to cure, all areas on the cable tray and 1/2 of ;

the area on the conduit where 330-1 Trowel Grade material was applied, were coated with a !

layer of 350 Topcoat.

No upgrade techniques were applied to the cable tray protective envelope. However, to qualify the 350-5000-10 Topcoat Formulation in fire endurance tests,1/2 of the cable tray protective enveloped was coated with this Topcoat over the existing layer of 350 Topcoat

1 s

ER-ME-067 Rev.3 Page 133 of 176 which had been previously applied over areas where 330-1 Trowel Grade material was installed.

In the conduit radial bend areas, an approximate 3/16 in. thick layer of 3301 Trov- Grade e

material was applied over the mitered pre-shaped conduit section pieces. A single layer of type 304 stainiees steel mesh was then wrapped around the radial bends and secured in place with stainless steel tie wire. Next, an approximate 1/16 in. thick layer of 3301 Trowel Grade material was applied over the stainless steel to fill in any void areas within the mesh network.

Finally, following cure of the Thermo-Lag materials, the remaining portion of the conduit protective envelope was coated with a layer of Thermo-Lag 350-5000-10 Topcoat in areas where Thermo-Lag 330-1 Trowel-Grade material had been applied.

The V-nbs were installed perpendicular to the rails on the top and bottom of the horizontal tray run and on both the inside and the outside of the radial bend. Panels installed against tray side rails in the horizontal run were positioned with the V-ribs oriented vertically. Panels installed against the tray side rials in the radial bends and vertical tray section had V-ribs ,

oriented horizontally.

All joints were " pro-buttered" and banding was installed was installed in accordance with Reference 10.14.1. The Thermo-Lag 330-1 prefabricated panels were inspected prior to shiprnent from the vendor and weight was venfied upon receipt per Reference 10.14.1.

A138.3 ASTM E-119 Standard Time Temperature i The Thermo-Lagged test article was exposed to the standard time-temperature curve of ASTM E-119 for 1 hour1.157407e-5 days 2.777778e-4 hours 1.653439e-6 weeks 3.805e-7 months .

A138.4 Temperature Review Reference 10.22.1 specifies that the transmission of heat through the fire barrier during the fire endurance test shall not have been such as to raise the average temperature on the exposed conduit surface more than 250*F above its initial temperature. Reference 10.22.1 further states that no single temperature rise shall exceed 30% of the average specified limit or 325*F. If either of these temperatures is exceeded then visual cable inspections and IR cable tests are required to demonstrate the cables are free of fire damage.

The ambient air temperature at the start of the test was 92*F.

The maximum average temperature would be equal to 250*F plus ambient. For this test the maximum average temperature would equal 342*F.

The mat.imum individual temperature would be equal to 325'F plus ambient. For this test the M

1

ER-ME-067 Rev.3 Page 134 of 176 maximum test the maximum individual temperature would equal 417*F.

On the cable tray: ,

Peak temperature on an individual cable reached 396*F and the average reached 328'F.

Peak temperature on the front tray rail reached 447*F and the average reached 380*F.

Peak temperature on the rear tray rail reached 442*F and the average reached 376*F.

On the conduit:

Peak temperature on an individual cable reached 351*F and the average reached 254*F.

Peak temperature on the conduit surface reached 546 F and the average reached 366*F.

Of the thermocouples in the 12 in. cable tray and the 2 in. conduit, all but the cable tray side rails and conduit surface thermocouples rnet the maximum and average temperature criteria.

A138.5 Hose Stream Test Following the exposure fire, the test article was subjected to a 5 minute hose stream test utilizing a 11/2 in, diameter fog nozzle set at a discharge angle of 30' with a nozzle pressure ,

of 75 psi at a distance of 5 feet. The minimum flow rate from the nozzle was 75 gpm.

After the hose stream test a visual inspection of the fire barrier was conducted. Internal barrier stress skin was visible in a small patch on the bottom panel of the cable tray adjacent 1 to the rear tray rail and just left of center and in two small patches along the pre-shaped conduit material seam on the rear of the conduit assembly, at the approximate outer quarter 1 points of the overall assembly length.

A138.6 Insulation Resistance Testing As an additional check on the condition of the conductor insulation, insulation resistance testing was performed on each cable type before the fire and after the hose stream test. The ,

insulation resistance tests were performed using TU Electric owned and calibrated adjustable mogohmmeter, set to the 500 voit DC level for insulation resistance testing on all instrumentation cables and the 1500 volt DC level for all power and control cables. To !

perform the insulation resistance test, the connection to ground was broken for each cable l l

type and the test instrument leads connected from conductor to conductor and from each conductor to ground. Any leakage between the cable type's conductors and ground, or from l 1

- - -- -, , , y - - ,- -w-

t r

ER-ME-067 Rev.3 Page 135 of 176 conductor to conductor, is readily detected in this manner. Upon discovery of an ohmic reading wnich is lower than the criteria set in the October 29,1992, NRC letter (Reference 10.22.1), the reading will be documented in the test report and the splices between cables will be broken and each cable tested separately to determine which cable conductor is bad or if l there is a bad splice or test lead. Provided the low reading is on a cable, that cable will be removed from the raceway and visually examined to determine where and how the failure occurred.

The cables were slightly discolored in the central, horizontal portion of the cable tray ;

assemoly (cable Jackets tinted gray). The cable jackets were slightly stiffened in this area.

The remainder of the cable length was still flexible and visibly undamaged. On the conduit, ,

the cables were slightly stiffened in the area around the radial bends. The remainder of the cable length was still flexible and visibly undamaged.

A138.7 Comments The 12 in. cable tray and the 2 in, diameter conduit assembly, clad in a nominal 1/2 in.

{ thickness Therrno-Lag 330-1 material with upgrades at the conduit radial bends as presented j herein, met the requirements, for a fire resistance rating of one hour. l l

Although a single point temperature increase parameters were exceeded and intemal barrier stress skin was visible after the fire and water hose stream exposures (in a small patch on the bottom panel of the cable tray assembly, adjacent to the rear tray rail and just left of center and in two small patches along the pre-shaped conduit material seam on the rear of the conduit assembly, at the approximate outer quarter-points of the overall assembly length), the assembly met the acceptance criteria contained in NRC letter dated October 29,1992 (Reference 10.22.1), for the following parameters: 1) visual cable inspection revealed no indication of thermal damage, and 2) the results of the insulation resistance tests were well within the allowable limits.

A14 Omeca Point Test No. 12340-94367m - Scheme 14-1 i

The fire endurance test documented in Refuence 10.12.23 was conducted at Omega Point Laboratories on December 1,1992, and the test report was issued on December 16,1992.

The fire endurance test, hose stream test and cable functionality (Insulation Resistance) tests were performed to the requirements of the NRC letter dated October 29,1992 (Reference 10.22.1). Due to the time required (approx. 30 minutes) to conduct the insulation resistance (IR) tests on multi-conductor instrument cable, IR tests were not conducted during the fire endurarice tests.

A14.1 Test Article Scheme 14-1 consisted of a 30" wide x 4" deep ladderback tray with a horizontal tee section mid span installed in a U shape. The article was installed so that the bottom of the tray was

ER-ME-067 Rev.3 Page 136 of 176 approximately 3 ft below the test deck. A 1/3 fill mix of power, control and instrumentation cables were installed in the tray, maintaining a single layer.

The assembly was supported internally by two trapeze type hangers using 3" channels bolted together.

The vertical tray sections were sealed at the test deck using a silicone foam.

A14.2 TSI Thermo-Lag Protective Envelope Materials and Enclosure 1/2" (nominal) thick Thermo-Lag 330-1 V-ribbed prefabricated panels with stress skin on the inside were installed on the cable tray in accordance with Reference 10.14.2. The comer joints were reinforced with trowel grade Thermo-Lag and stress skin and the butt joints were reinforced with trowel grade Thermo-Lag and stress sMn. The butt joints were not " stitched".

1/2" (nominal) thick Thermo-Lag 330-1 prefabricated flat panels with stress skin on the inside were installed on the supports to a distance of approximately 9 in, from the tray in accordance with Reference 10.14.2 for protruding items.

The V-ribs were installed perpendicular to the rails on the top (inside) panels on the tray and 1 parallel to the rails on the sides and bottom (outside).

The 90* radial bend top and bottom panels were installed using the scored and grooved method. The top and bottom panels had scores space about 2 in. apart.

The Thermo-Lag panel under the fire stop in the tee section was screwed into the seal (Promatec 458) using 14 gage self-tapping screws.

l All joints were " pre-buttered", and banding (wires) was installed in accordance with Reference ,

10.14.1 (non-upgraded design). Thermo-Lag 330-1 prefabricated panels were inspected prior to shipment from the vendor and weight was verified upon receipt per Reference 10.14.1.

A14.3 ASTM E-119 Standard Time-Temperature The Thermo-Lagged test article was exposed to the standard time-temperature curve of ASTM ,

E-119 for 1 hour1.157407e-5 days 2.777778e-4 hours 1.653439e-6 weeks 3.805e-7 months .

A14.4 Temperature Review Reference 10.22.1 specifies that the transmission of heat through the fire barrier during the fire endurance test shall not have been such as to raise the average temperature on the exposed conduit surface more than 250*F above its initial temperature. Reference 10.22.1 further states that no single temperature rise shall exceed 30% of the average specified limit or 325*F. If either of these temperatures is exceeded then visual cable inspection and IR cable

}

ER-ME-067 Rev.3 I

Page 137 of 176 tests are required to demonstrate the cables are free of fire damage.

The ambient air 19mperature at the start of the test was 70*F.

The maximum average temperature would be equal to 250*F plus ambient. For this test the maximum average temperature would equal to 320*F.

The maximum individual temperature would be equal to 325*F plus ambient. For this test the ,

maximum individual temperature would equal 395*F.

The peak temperature on an individual cable reached 336*F and the average reached 233*F.

The peak temperature on the front rail reached 401*F and the average reached 283*F. ,

l The peak temperature on the rear rail reached 315*F and the average reached 270*F. ,

A14.5 Hose Stream Test j i

Following the exposure fire, the test article was sabjected to a 5 minute hose stream test utilizing a 1-1/2 in. diameter fog nozzle set at a discharge angle of 30% with a nozzle pressure of 75 psi (this Elkhart nozzle is rated at 88 gpm at 75 psi). The nozzle distance was ,

maintained at 5 ft perpendicular from the outside surface of the test article. i After the hose stream test a visualinspection of the fire barrier was conducted. There was no burn through of the fire barrier.

A14.6 Electrical Circuit Monitoring Test At no time during the fire endurance test or hose stream test did the electrical circuit monitoring system identify any shorts, shorts-to-ground, or open circuits (loss of continuity) on any of the monitored circuits.

The cables were visually inspected after the hose strearn test. There was no sign of cable l degradation. There was some cable stiffening which is acceptable and is discussed in section 4.4 of this report.

The cables were meggered after the hose stream test and all the cables passed the IR tests.

In fact the majority of the cables showed no reduction of the insulation resistance from the readings taken before the test.

A148.7 Comments Thermo4.ag material performed adequately.

k 2=

1

& A-

i" 4

ER-ME-067 Rev.3

' Page 138 of 176 The reinforced joint designs provide an adequate upgrades to the Thermo-Lag design and this test confirms those designs.

d

! The revised design attaching the bottom panel to the fire stop performed adequately.

Cable temperatures were enveloped by the CPSES LOCA temperature qualifications.

A16A Omeaa Point Test No. 12340-951000 - Scheme 15-1 The fire endurance test documented in Reference 10.12.24 was conducted at Omega Point Laboratories on March 4,1993, and the test report was issued on March 19,1993. The fire endurance test, hose stream test and cable functionality (Insulation Resistance) tests were performed to the requirements of the NRC letter dated October 29,1992 (Reference 10.22.1).

Due to the time required (approx. 30 minutes) to conduct the insulation resistance (IR) tests on multi-conductor instrument cable, IR tests were not conducted during the fire endurance tests.

A15A.1 Test Article Scheme 15-1 consisted of a 36 in, wide ladderback tray assembled into a "U-shaped" configuration. The cable tray extended down through the test deck with each vertical leg transitioning to the horizontal with a ladderback 90* to vertical fitting. The distance from the bottom of the horizontal tray section to the deck was 36 in.

The assembly was supported internally by two trapeze type hangers using 3" channels bolted together.

An approximate 1/3 mix of Power, Instrumentation and Control cables were pulled into the tray, maintaining a single layer.

The vertical tray sections were sealed at the test deck using silicono foam and internally using a silicone elastomer.

A15A.2 TSI Thermo-Lag Protective Envelope Materials and Enclosure To preclude excessive sagging of the materialinstalled across the horizontal run to the tray, the cable tray was " pre-banded" using stainless steel banding material wrapped completely l around the body of the tray in the horizontal run. These bands were spaced at 24 In. I maximum intervals. The entire tray was co' tired with Thermo-Lag 330-1 V Ribbed panels on the top, bottom and sides of the tray, in each case, the side panels were placed into compression whereby once the banding is applied and tightened, the side panels were sandwiched by the top and bottom panels. The V-ribbed panels applied to the inside surfaces of the radial bonds were scored to a depth of 1/4 in., perpendicular to the raceway, at 3-7/16 in. intervals to allow for curvature. The V-ribbed panels installed on the outside of cJ

t ER ME-067 Rev.3 Page 139 of 176 the radial bonds were scored to a depth of 1/4 in., perpendicular to the raceway, at 4 in.

intervals to allow for curvature. All joints, seams and scored grooves were pre-caulked with Thermo-Lag 330-1 Trowel Grade material and all panels were secured in place using the stainless steel bands spaced at 12 in, maximum intervals.

After the entire tray assembly was clad, the support members were covered with flat Thermo-Lag 330-1 panel material for a distance of approximately 9 in. as measured from the tray protective envelope. All joints and seams were pre-caulked with Thermo-Lag 3301 Trowel-Grade material, then secured in place using 16 - 18 GA stainless steel tie wire (on the inside layer of panels) and 1/2 in, wide x 0.020 in. thick Type 304 stainless steel banding straps.

At side panels, a thin layer of Thermo-Lag 330-1 Trowel-Grade material (approximately 3/16 in, thick) was applied extending 5 in. towards the iniddle of the tray on the top, bottom and side exterior panel surfaces. Then Thermo-Lag 330-69 stress skin was cut and formed into a squared U shaped configuration, which was placed over the exterior Thermo-Lag 330-1 top, bottom, side panels and the 3/16 in. Thermo-Lag 330-1 Trowel-Grade such that when in!.aalled, each stress skin " leg" overlaid the top and bottom Thermo-Lag panels by 5 in..

Along sweeping 90* bends, the 330-69 stress skin " legs" were wedge cut to allow the material to conform to the bond radius and a 5 in. wide strip of stress skin was placed over the top and bottom legs of the stress skin. The stress skin was then stapled using 1/2 in. long Arrow or Bostitch T 50 staples at a distance of 2 in. maximum and 1 in. minimum from the edge of the two stress skin and 3 in, on centers. Stainless steel tie wire was then used to tie the two stress skin legs in place at 5 in. minimum to 6 in. maximum centers. The stress skin was installed such that the top and bottom Thermo-Lag 330-1 panels were overlapped by 5 in. A skim coat of Thermo-Lag 330-1 Trowel-Grade material, approximately 1/16 in thick was applied over the stress skin and tie wires.

A circumferential wrap of 330-69 stress skin was also applied to all butt joints in a similar manner, thus allowing for a 5 in, overlap on each side of the butt joint. A skim coat of trowel grade material (1/16 in. thick) was applied over all stress skin and tie wires.

A thin layer of Thermo-Lag 330-1 Trowel-Grade material approximately 3/16 in, thick was applied to the Thermo-Lag panel pieces covering the side rail splice plates. Pieces of 330-69 stress skin were cut into squares and folded so that, when placed over the splice plate, a

" tab" of stress skin would extend from both the top and the bottom, toward the center of the tray. The folded stress skin was stapled in place using 1/2 in. long Arrow or Bostitch T-50 staples at a distance of 2 in maximum and 1 in. minimum from the edge of the stress skin and 3 in. on centers. A skim coat of Thermo-Lag 330-1 Trowel-Grade material, approximately 1/16 in, thick was then applied over the stress skin and staples.

Where V-ribbed panels were installed on the top and bottom of the horizontal tray run and on both the inside and the outside of the radial bonds, the V-ribs were positioned perpendicular to the tray side rails. Panels installed against tray side rails were positioned with the V-ribs positioned vertically.

ER-ME-067 Rev.3 Page 140 of 176 Finally, Thermo-Lag 350 Topcoat was applied over areas where the Thermo-Lag 3301 Trowel.

Grade rnatorial had been applied, following the required 72 hours8.333333e-4 days 0.02 hours 1.190476e-4 weeks 2.7396e-5 months of cure time.

This test was conducted after a 7 day cure of the Thermo-Lag barrier in order to confirm that Thermo-Lag barriers can adequately perform their function without imposing a 30 day cure time.

A15A.3 ASTM E-119 Standard Time-Temperature The Thermo-Lagged test article was exposed to the standard time-temperature curve of ASTM E-119 for 1 hour1.157407e-5 days 2.777778e-4 hours 1.653439e-6 weeks 3.805e-7 months .

A15A.4 Temperature Review ,

Reference 10.22.1 specifies that the transmission of heat through the fire barrier during the fire endurance test shall not have been such as to raise the average temperature on the exposed conduit surface more than 250*F above its initial temperature. Reference 10.22.1 further states that no single temperature rise shall exceed 30% of the average specified limit or 325'F. If either of these temperatures is exceeded then visual cable inspection and IR cable tests are required to demonstrate the cables are free of fire damage.

The ambient air temperature at the start of the test was 68*F.

The maximum average temperature would be equal to 250*F plus ambient. For this test the maximum average temperature would equal to 318'F.

The maximum individual temperature would be equal to 325*F plus ambient. For this test the maximum individual temperature would equal 393*F.

The peak temperature on the tray rails reached 292*F and the average reached 246*F.

The peak temperature on an individual cable reached 277*F and the average reached 241*F.

All thermocouples in the 36 in, tray system met the maximum and average temperature criteria.

A15A.5 Hose Stream Test Following the exposure fire, the test article was subjet.ted to a 5 minute hose stream test utilizing a 1-1/2 in. diameter fog nozzle set at a discharge angle of 30% with a nozzle pressure of 75 psi (this Elkhart nozzle is rated at 88 gpm at 75 psi). The nozzle distance was maintained at 5 ft perpendicular from the outside surface of the test article.

After the hose stream test a visualinspection of the fire barrier was conducted. There was no

i l

l ER-ME-067 Rev.3 Page 141 of 176 bum through or openings in the fire barrier envelope.

A15A.6 Insulation Resistance Testing As an additional check on the condition of the conductor insulation, insulation resistance testing was performed on each cable type before the fire and after the hose stream test. The '

insulation resistance tests were performed using TU Elec*' ned and calibrated adjustable megohrameter, set to the 500 volt DC level for insulation , ce testing on all instrumentation cables and the 1500 volt DC level for all powo, and control cables. To perform the insulation resistance test, the connection to ground was broken for each cable type and the test instrument leads connected from conductor to conductor and from each conductor to ground. Any leakage between the cab?e type's conductors and ground, or from conductor to conductor, is readily detected in this manrer. Upon discove of an ohmic reading which is lower than the criteria set in the Octob er 29,1992, NRf (Reference 10.22.1), the reading will be documented in the test report and the sp!!c . ween cables will be broken and each cable tested separately to determine which cable conductor is bad or if there is a bad splice or test lead. Provided the low reading is on a cable, that cable will be removed from the raceway and visually examined to determine where and how the failure occurred.

The cables were visibly undamaged. The cable jackets were slightly stiffened in the radial bend areas. The remainder of the cable length was still flexible.

The cables were meggered after the hose stream test and the results o, u1e IR tests were well within the allowable limits for all assemblies tested.

A15A.7 Comments The 36 in. cable tray, clad in a nominal 1/2 in. thickness Thermo-Lag 330-1 material with upgrades presented herein, met the requirements for a fire resistance rating of one hour.

i The assembly met the acceptance criteria contained in the NRC letter dated October 29,1992 (Reference 10.22.1) for the following parameters: 1) single point temperature increase remained below 325'F,2) no burn through was evident on the assembly following the fire -

endurance and hose stream tests,3) visual cable inspection revealed no apparent thermal damage, and 4) the results of the insulation resistance tests were well within the allowable limits.

A15B Omeaa Point Test No. 12340-95770 - Scheme 15-2 The fire endurance test documented in Reference 10.12.25 was conducted at Omega Point Laboratories on August 17,1993, and the test report was issued on October 4,1993. The fire endurance test, hose stream test and cable functionality (insulation Resistance) tests were performed to the requirements of the NRC ietter dated October 29,1992 (Reference 10.22.1).

I

ER-ME-067 Rev.3 Page 142 of 176 A158.1 Test Article Scheme 15-2 consisted of wrapped cable bundles laid in a 36 in. wide ladderback cable tray which is assembled into a single, horizontal straight run and entering / exiting the furnace at the lett and right side wall deck. The distance from the bottom of the tray to the test deck is 36 in.

The assembly was supported interncily by two trapeze type hangers using 3" channels bolted together.

A total of 5 power cables were bundled into 3 bundles and placed in the cable tray. Two bundles, each containing a single 1/C 750kCMil 600V power cable, were wrapped in 330-660 "Flexi-Blanket" and a third buncle containing 3 3/C #6 AWG 600V power cables was wrapped in Siltomp material and placed in between Thermo-Lag bundles for cable loading purposes to simulate the CPSES conditions.

The bloc'.out for the tray entering and leaving the furnaces was scaled with silicone foam.

In order to monitor temperatures in the interior of the 330-660 Flexi-Blanket bundles, a #8 bare copper conductor was instrumented with thermocouples and secured to the power ,

cabics in the Thermo-Lag bundles.

A158.2 TSI Thermo-Lag Protective Envelope Materials and Enclosu'o Each individual power cable was separately wrapped with a layer of Thermo-Lag 330-660 "Flexi-Blanket". A 2 in. overlap of the material was maintained and no 330-660 Trowel Grade material was used to pre-caulk the overlap area. The first layer was secured using stainless .

steel banding at approximate 6 in. intervals. A second layer of "Flexi Blanket" was similarly -

applied, maintaining a 2 in overlap. The overlap area of the second layer was pre-caulked with a layer of 330-660 Trowel Grade material. The second layer was also secured with stainless steel banding at approximately 6 in. intervals. The protected cables were then laid ;

in the exposed cable tray. The bundle of three power cables were wrapped with Siltemp ;

material and Scotch 3M type 69 Glass C:oth tape. Thic bundle was then laid in the tray and secured as described above.

The two Thermo-Lag wrapped bundles were placed in the tray midway between center and l siderail and the 3 cable bundle was placed in between. One of the Thermo-Lag bundles was l secured to the tray rungs with plastic tie wraps and the other with steel banding. <

A158.3 ASTM E 119 Standard Time-Temperature 1

The Thermo4.agged test article was exposed to the standard time-temperature curve of ASTM i E-119 for 1 hour1.157407e-5 days 2.777778e-4 hours 1.653439e-6 weeks 3.805e-7 months . l l

1 i

l i

l

u l i

a

)

l ER-ME-067 j Rev.3 Page 143 of 176 A158.4 femperature Review Reference 10.22.1 specifies that the transmission of heat through the fire barrier during the fire ;

endurance test shall not have been such as to raise the average temperature on the surface i more than 250*F above its initial temperature. Reference 10.22.1 further states that no single temperature rise shall exceed 30% of the average specified limit of 325*F. If either of these temperatures is exceeded then visual cable inspection and IR cab's tests are required to demonstrate the cables are free of fire dcmage.

l The ambient air temperature at the start of the test was 92*F.

i The maximum average temperature would be equal to 250'F plus ambient. For this test the maximum average temperature would equal to 342*F.

I The maximum individual temperature would be equal to 325'F plus ambient. For this test the maximum individual temperature wouid equal 417'F.

Front Thermo-Lag Bundle The peak temperature on bare copper wire reached 717'F and the average reached 465*F.

The peak temperature on the cable reached 238*F and the average reached 215'F.

A Rear Thermo-Lag Bundle The peak temperature on bare copper wire reached 586*F and the average reached 310*F.

The peak temperature on the cable reached 377'F and the average reached 231*F.

There were no thermocouples on the three cable, non-Thermo-Lag wrapped bundle.

The maximum temperature criteria on both bare copper wires and the average :riteria on the front bundle bare copper conductor were exceeded, but the cables met the me.ximum and average temperature criteria.

A15B.5 Hose Stream Test Following the exposure fire, the test article was subjected to a 5 minute hose stream test utilizing a 1-1/2 in. diameter fog nozzle set at a discharge angle of 30% with a riozzle pressure of 75 psi (this Elkhart nozzle is rated at 88 gpm at 75 psi). The nozzle distance was ;

ER-ME-067 Rev.3 Page 144 of 176 maintained at 5 ft perpendicular from the outside surface of the test article.

After the hose stream test a visual inspection of the fire barrier was conducted. There was no bum through or openings in the fire barrier envelope.

A158.6 Insulation Resistance Testing As an additional check on the condition of the conductor insulation, insulation resistance testing was performed on each cable type before the fire and after the hose stream test. The insulation resistance tests were performed using TU Electric owned and calibrated adjustable megohmmeter, set to the 1500 volt DC level for both power cables. To perform the insulation resistance test, the connection to ground was broken for each cable and the test instrument leads connected from conductor to ground. Any leakage between the cable type's conductors and ground,is readily detected in this manner. Upon discovery of an ohmic reading which is lower than the criteria set in the October 29,1992, NRC letter (Reference 10.22.1), the reading will be documented in the test report and that cable will be removed from the raceway and visually examined tu determine where and how the failure occurred.

For the front cable bundle, the outer cable jacket charred in several places (corresponding to lack of uncharred Thermo-Lag material). Dissection of cable revealed that damage was contained only in the outer mechanical sheath. No thermal damage reached the inner dielectric insulation.

For the rear cable bundle, the outer cable jacket charred in several places (corresponding to lack of uncharred Thermo-Lag material). Dissection of cable revealed that damage was contained only in the outer mechanical sheath. No thermal damage reached the inner dielectric insulation.

The cables were meggered atter the hose stream test and the results of the IR tests were well within the allowable limits for both assemblies tested.

A158.7 Comments The wrapped cable assemblies, each containing a single 1/C 750kCMil 600V power cable, clad in a nominal 1/2 in. thickness Thermo-Lag 330-660 material and routed in exposed tray as presented herein, met the requirements for a fire resistance rating of one hour, as described below.

Although the single point and average temperature increases parameters were exceeded on the bare #8 AWG copper wires within the protective 330-660 Flext-Blanket bundles, the assembly, as tested, met the acceptance criteria contained in the NRC letter dated October 29,1992 (Reference 10.22.1), for the fo!!owing parameters,1) barrier inspection revealed no opening into the protective bundles,2) visual cable inspection revealed no appreciable, penetrating thermal damage to the conductor insulation, and 3) the results of the insulation

ER-ME-067 Rev.3 Page 145 of 176 resistance tests were well within the allowable limits.

The significant difference in temperatures recorded b:t thermocouples installed on the cables and those installed on the bare copper wires within tr o protective wrap is attributed to the large thermal mass of the power cable in comparison to the bare copper wires. It is this difference in thermal mass which enables the cables evaluated within the scope of this test to meet the acceptance criteria.

Additionally, as discussed in Section 4.5.6, stearn and fluid were visually observed being driven from the ends of the two protective "Flexi-Ulanket" bundles containing the 1/C 750kCMil power cable as they exited the test furnace. This release of moisture from the "Flexi Blanket" material was determined to have no adverse im; act on functionality of the protected cables.

i l

i i

l J

ER-ME-067 Rev.3 Page 146 of 176 APPENDIX B SESSION 1 - JUNE 1992 RESULTS OF ACCEPTANCE TESTS TEST CRITERIA - ANI STANDARD TEST SCHEME RESULTS REMARKS CONFIGURATION DESCRIPTION SEE REMARKS -5' CONDUlT - PASSED-NO CABLE DAMAGE, MAINTAINED SCHEME 2-1 3/4*,1* AND 5* CONDUITS W/JB - NO CIRCulT INTEGRITY.

-1* CONDUlT - INDETERMINATE OUTER CABLE JACKET UPGRADES DAMAGE, INSULATION RESISTANCE - SATISFACTORILY l MAINTAINED CIRCUlT INTEGRITY

-3/4" CONDUlT - FAILURE OCCURRED DUE TO SIGN!FICANT DEGRADATION OF CABLE JACKET -

BARRIER DISLODGED DUE TO HOSE STREAM.

SATISFACTORY SATISFACTORY TEST. CIRCUIT INTEGRITY MAINTAINED.

SCHEME 3 NO CABLE DAMAGE - BARRIER DISLODGED DUE TO 12* WlDE CABLE TRAY - NO UPGRADES HOSE STREAM.

SATISFACTORY SATISFACTORY TEST. NO CABLE DAMAGE, INSIDE THE SCHEME 4 ENVELOPE - BARRIER ON TRAY DISLODGED DUE TO 36' WIDE VERTICAL CABLE TRAY WITH HOSE STREAM. HOSE STREAM DID NOT PENETRATE FIRE THERMO-LAG FIRE STOP - NO UPGRADES STOP.

FAILED TEST FAILURE. CIRCulT INTEGRITY FAILED AT 42 SCHEME 5 MINUTES, SIGNIFICANT DEGRADATION OF CABUNG 30" WIDE CABLE TRAY WITH TEE SECTION -

WHERE THERMO-LAG FAILED.

NO UPGRADES.

SATISFACTORY SATISFACTORY TEST. CIRCulT INTEGRITY MAINTAINED.

SCHEME 1-2 NO CABLE DAMAGE - BARRIER DISLODGED DUE TO 36' WlDE CABLE TRAY W/ TEE - UPGRADED HOSE STREAM.

BARRIER DESIGN l

\

l

ER-ME-067 Rev. 3 Page 147 of 176 APPENDIX B SESSION 2 - AUGUST 1992 RESULTS OF ACCEFTANCE TESTS TEST CRITERIA - ANI STANDARD TEST SCEME RESULTS REMARKS CONFIGURATION DESCRIPTION SCHEME 7 SEE REMARKS THE TEMPERATURES FOR 1/4* OVERLAYS WERE ONE 3* CONDUIT, ONE 2* CONDUlT ONE 1-1/2* SATISFACTORY. A POST FIRE HOSE STREAM WAS NOT PERFORMED FOR THIS TEST, AND THE TEST SPECIMEN CONDUIT AND TWO - 3/4" CONDUITS WITH LBDs 3*,2* AND 1-1/2" CONDUlTS NOT UPGRADED. WAS DISASSEMBLED FOR ANALYSIS. SOME BUSTERING OF CABLE JACKET WAS NOTED. THE TEST WAS PERFORMED 3/4" CONDUITS UPGRADED WITH 3/4*

PRESHAPED THERMO-LAG,1/4* OVERLAY ON TO EVALUATE DIFFERENT UPGRADE TECHNIQUES. 3*

TOP OF 1/2" PRESHAPED THEP.MO-LAG. CONDUlT - CABUNG WAS SATISFACTORY 1-1/2* & 2*

FLEXIBLANKET WRAP, AND 1/4* TROWEL GRADE CONDUlT - INDETERMINATE. LBD BOX ENCLOSURES BUILDUP OVER 1/2* PRESHAPED THERMO-LAG. SHIFTED DURING THE TEST.

SCHEME 6 SEE REMARKS TEST FAILURE. THERMO-LAG JOINTS OPENED. CIRCUIT 24" W1DE TRAY WITH TEE SECTION -NO INTEGRITY WAS MAINTAINED CABLE JACKET DEGRADATION UPGRADES. WAS NOTED). A FOG HOSE STREAM ALLOVED FOR A MORE INFORMATIVE POST TEST, FIRE BARRIER INSPECTION.

SCHEME 8 SEE REMARKS THE BUTT JOINTS ON THE THERMO-LAG OPENED AT ABOUT 30 MINUTES. EXCEPT FOR THE JOINT FAILURE, THERMO-30" WIDE CABLE TRAY NO - UPGRADES.

LAG PERFORMED ADEOUATELY. A FOG HOSE STREAM ALLOWED FOR A MORE INFORMATIVE POST TEST, FIRE BARRIER INSPECTION.

I

ER-ME-067 Rev.3 Page 148 of 176 APPENDIX B SESSION 3 - NOVEMBER thru DECEMBER 1992 RESULTS OF ACCEPTANCE TESTS TEST CRITERIA - NRC LETTER DATED OCTOBER 29,1992 TEST SCHEME RESULTS REMARKS CONFIGURA110N DESCRIPTION SATISFACTORY SATISFACTORY TEST. INDETERMINATE CONDUlT SCHELIE 9-1 5*,3*, & 3/4* DIA. CONDUITS - UPGRADED SURFACE TEMPERATURE EVALUATION PROVIDED TO NRC STAFF.

BARRIER DESIGN SATISFACTORY SATISFACTORY TEST. INDETERMINATE CONDUIT SCHEME 10-1 SURFACE TEMPERATURE EVALUATION PROVIDED TO TWO 3* DIA. CONDUlTS W/JBs - UPGRADED NRC STAFF.

BARRIER DESIGN SATISFACTORY SATISFACTORY TEST. INDETERMINATE CONDUlT SCHEME 10-2 SURFACE TEMPERATURE EVALUATION PROVIDED TO TWO 3* DIA. CONDUlTS W/JBs - UPGRADED NRC STAFF.

BARRIER DESIGN SATISFACTORY SATISFACTORY TEST.

SCHEME 11-1 24" WIDE CABLE TRAY W/ AIR DROPS -

UPGRADED BARRIER DESIGN SATISFACTORY SATISFACTORY TEST.

SCHEME 12-1 30' WIDE CABLE TRAY - UPGRADED BARRIER DESIGN .

SATISFACTORY SATISFACTORY TEST. HOSE STREAM DISLODGED SCHEME 12-2 THERMO-LAG AT MOUTH OF TEE. EVALUATION 24' WIDE CABLE TRAY W/ TEE - UPGRADED ACCEPTED BY NRC STAFF.

BARRIER DESIGN m

ER-ME-067 Rev.3 i

Page 149 of 176 APPENDIX B SESSION 3 - NOVEMBER thru DECEMBER 1992 '

RESULTS OF ACCEPTANCE TESTS l

TEST CRITERIA - NRC LETTER DATED OCTOBER 29,1992 (cont'd)

TEST SCHEME COM'lGURATION DESCRIPTION RESULTS REMARKS SCHEME 13-1 SATISFACTORY SATISFACTORY TEST.

12* WIDE CABLE TRAY-UPGRADED BARRIER DESIGN

] SCHEME 14-1 SATISFACTORY SATISFACTORY TEST. EVALUATION OF MAXIMUM 30* WIDE CABLE TRAY W/ TEE-UPGRADED IND!VIDU AL RACEWAY TEMPERATURE AT ONE LOCATION BARRIER DESIGN ACCEPTED BY NRC STAFF.

SATISFACTORY WITH EVALUATION OF CABLE FUNCTIONAUTY FOR 1-1/2* AND SCHEME 94 3/4" UPGRADED.1-1/2* AND 2* CONDUITS CABLE 2* CONDUlT UNDER REVIEW BY NRC STAFF FOR UNIT 1.

UPGRADED AT LBD ENCLOSURES ONLY FUNCTIONAUTY EVALUATION SCHEME 15-1 SATISFACTORY SATISFACTORY TEST. CIRCULI INTEGRITY NOT MEASURED 36" WIDE CABLE TRAY UPGRADED BARRIER BASED ON NRC STAFF CONCURRENCE.

DESIGN

. _ _ _ _- - . _ _ . . . ~ . . , . . , . . . _ _ ,, - - , . . . .

ER ME-067 Rev.3 Page 150 of 176 APPENDlX B SESSION 4 - NOVEMBER thru DECEMBER 1992 RESULTS OF ACCEPTANCE TESTS TEST CRITERIA - NRC LETTER DATED OCTOBER 29,1992 (cont'd)

TEST SCHEME RESULTS REMARKS CONFIGURATION DESCRIPTION SATISFACTORY SATISFACTORY TEST. CIRCUIT INTEGRITY NOT MEASURED I SCHEME 15-1 BASED ON NRC STAFF CONCURRENCE.

36* WIDE CABLE TRAY UPGRADED-BARRIER DESIGN 4

o G

~~

ER-ME467 Rev.3 Page 151 of 176 APPENDIX B SESSION 5 - AUGUST 1993 RESULTS OF ACCEPTANCE TESTS TEST CRITERIA - NRC LETTER DATED OCTOBER 29,1992 TEST SCHEME RESULTS REMARKS CONFIGURATION DESCRIPTION SATISFACTORY FOR RACEWAY TEMPERATURE - SATISFACTORY SCHEME 11-5 LONGITUDINAL JOINT CABLE TEMPERATURE - SATISFACTORY (3) 2454' CABLE TRAYS WITH DIFFERENT UPGRADES BARRIER CONDITION - SATISFACTORY JOINT UPGRADE TECHNtOUES SEE APPENDIX A FOR CABLE VISUAIJMEGGER - SATISFACTORY RESULTS FOR OTHER 2 CABLE TRAYS SATISFACTORY RACEWAY TEMPERATURE - UNSATISFACTORY SCHEME 13-2 CABLE TEMPERATURE- SATISFACTORY 12*x4" CABLE TRAY (NO UPGRADES) 2* DIA.

BARRIER CONDITION - UNSATISFACTORY CONDUlT (UPGRADE AT RADIAL BENDS ONLY)

CABLE VISUAIJMEGGER - SATISFACTORY SATISFACTORY RACEWAY TEMPERATURE- SATISFACTORY SCHEME 11-2 CABLE TEMPERATURE - SATISFACTORY (1-1/2" DIA.)

24N4" CABLE TRAY WITH 1-1/2* AND 2* DlA.

CABLE AIR DROP BUNDLES CABLE TEMPERATURE - UNSATISFACTORY (2* DIA.)

' BARE #8 TEMPERATURE- SATISFACTORY BARRIER CONDITION - SATISFACTORY CABW VISUAIJMEGGER - SATISFACTORY SCHEME 11-4 SATISFACTORY RACEWAY TEMPERATURE - SATISFACTORY CABLE TEMPERATURE - SATISFACTORY (2) 24*x4" TRAYS (STACKED) WITH CABLE AIR DROPS THROUGH EMBEDDED SLEEVES BARE #8 TEMPERATURE - SATISFACTORY COVERED BY A

BOX

CONFIGURATION BARRIER CONDITION - UNSATISFACTORY (HOSE STREAM DAMAGE)

CABLE VISUAljMEGGER - SATISFACTORY

ER-ME-067 Rev.3 Paga 152 of 176 APPEND!X B SESSION 5 - AUGUST 1993 RESULTS OF ACCEPTANCE TESTS TEST CRITERIA - NRC LETTER DATED OCTOBER 29,1992

( W 'd)

TEST SCHEME RESULTS REMARKS CONFIGURATION DESCRIPTION SATISFACTORY BUT RACEWAY TEMPERATURE - N/A SCHEME 15-2 OPTED FOR THIRD CABLE TEMPERATURE - SATISFACTORY 3654* EXPOSED CABLE TRAY WITH (2)

LAYER OF 330-660 BARE #8 TEMPERATURE - UNSATISFACTORY INDMDUALLY WRAPPED 1/C 750KMCll FLEXI-BLANKET TO BARRIER CONDITION - SATISFACTORY CABLES ENSURE THERMAL CABLE VISUAUMEGGER - SATISFACTORY PROTECTION OF THE CABLES.

l l

e

ER-ME-067 Rev.3 Page 153 of 176 APPENDIX B TU EECTRIC THERMO-LAG FIRE BARRIER TEST PROGRAM

- RESULTS OF AMPACTTY DERAi 7 TESTS -

(SESSION 4 - MARCH If 9',

PERCENT THERMO-LAG CONFIGURATION DERATING RACEWAY /CAN F CONFIGURATION 9.1 3/4* DIA. CONDUIT W/ SINGLE 3/C 10 AWG 1/2" THICK (NOMINAL) THERMO-LAG PRESHAPED CONDUIT 600V CABE SECTIONS W/1/4* THICK (NOMINAL) OVERLAY SECTIONS r 6.5 2* DIA. CONDUIT W/ SINGLE 3/C 6 AWG 600V 1/2" THICK (NOMINAL) THERMO-LAG PRESHAPED CONDUi C/.BLE SECTIONS W/1/4* THICK (NOMINAL) OVERLAY SECTIONS 10.7 5* DIA. CONDUIT W/FOUR 1/C 750 KCMil 1/2" THICK (NOMINAL) THERMO-LAG PRESHAPED CONDUlT 600V CABLES SECTIONS 31.4 24* WIDE LADDER BACK CABLE TRAY W/126 1/2" THICK (NOMINAL) V RIB PANELS WITH ALL JOINTS AND PASSES OF A SINGLE 3/C 6 AWG E00V SEAMS REINFORCED USING ETRESS SKIN AND TROWEL CABLE GRADE BUILDUP 3 COMPLETE WRAPPED LAYERS OF 1/4" THICK (NOMINAL) 23 SINGLE 3/C 6 AWG 600V AIR DROP CABLE THERMO-LAG 330-660 FLEXI-BLANKET MAT dRIAL 3 COMPLETE WRAPPED LAYERS OF THICK (NOMINAL) 31.7 THREE 1/C 750 KCMil600V AIR DROP CABLES THERMO-LAG 330-660 FLEXI-BLANKET MATERIAL i

APPENDIX C ER-ME-067 Rev.3 Page 154 of 176 UNIT 1 THERMO-LAG INSTALLATION REVIEW MATRIX CONDUIT 1 IN CONDUIT 1 IN CONDUlT 1 IN CONDUIT 1 1/2 IN CONDUlT 3/4 CONDUlT 3/4 POWER CONTROL INSTRUMENT POWER COMMODITY CONTROL INSTRUMENT NO NO NO YES TESTED YES YES CONFIGURATION SCHEME 9-1 SCHEME 9-1 SCHEME 9-1 SCHEME 9-3 WITH QUALIFYING TEST SCHEME 9-1 SCHEME 9-1 BASED ON 3/4" BASED ON 3/4- BASED ON 3/4" CABLE FUNCTION CONDiUT CONDUIT CONDUIT EVAL & SCHEME 13-2 FOR RADIAL BENDS YES YES YES TEST ACCEPTABLE YES YES YES USING OVERLAY USING OVERLAY USING OVERLAY USING OVERLAY USING OVERLAY N/A N/A N/A N/A ACCEPTED N/A N/A ENGINEERING EVALUATION 11% BY TUE TEST N/A N/A 11% BY TUE TEST DERATING N/A N/A RESULTS RESULTS FACTOR AND METHOD N/A 1 N/A N/A 1 TESTING N/A CATEGORIES KEY 1 = BOUNDED BY 3/4"- CONDUIT 'NITH OVERLAY

~

APPENDIX C ER-ME-067 Rev.3 Page 155 of 176 UNIT 1 (CONT'D) _

CONDUIT 2 IN CONDUIT 2 IN CONDUIT 2 IN CONDUIT 3 CONDUlT 1 1/2 IN CONDUlT 1 1/2 IN POWER CONTROL INSTRUMENT IN COMMODITY CONTROL INSTRUMENT POWER YES YES NO YES TESTED YES YES i

CONFIGURATION i

SCHEME 9-3 W1TH SCHEME 9-3 SCHEME 9-1, OUALIFYING TEST SCHEME 9-3 SCHEME 9-3 SCHEME 9-3 CABLE FUNCTION WITH CABLE 10-1,10-2 & ,

WITH CABLE WITH CABLE WITH CABLE '

FUNCTION EVAL & EVAL & SCHEME FUNCTION SCHEME 13-FUNCTION EVAL FUNCTION EVAL &

SCHEME 13-2 FOR 13-2 FOR RADIAL EVAL & 2 FOR ,

& SCHEME 13-2 SCHEME 13-2 FOR '

RADIAL BENDS BENDS SCHEME 13-2 RADIAL FOR RADIAL RADIAL BENDS FOR RADIAL BENDS BENDS BENDS YES YES YES YES TEST YES YES ACCEPTABLE J PENDING PENDING PENDING N/A ACCEPTED PENDING PENDING ENGINEERING EVALUATION 11% BY TUE TEST N/A N/A 11% BY TUE DERATING N/A N/A -

RESULTS TEST FACTOR AND RESULTS METHOD N/A N/A N/A 2 TESTING N/A N!A CATEGORIES -

KEY 2 = BOUNDED BY 2* CONDUlT WITH OVERLAY AND 5" CONDUlT WITHOUT OVERLAY hkb! $

-~

APPENDtX C ER-ME-037 Rev.3 Page 156 of 176 UNIT t (CONT *D)

CONDUlT 4 IN CONDUIT 4 IN CONDUlT 5 IN CONDUIT 3 CONDUIT 3 CONDUlT 4 IN CONTROL INSTRUMENT POVER COMMODITY CONTROL INSTRUMENT POWER NO NO YES TESTED YES YES NO CONFIGURATION SCHEME 9-1, SCHEME SCHEME 9-1, SCHEME 9-1 &

OUALIFYING TEST SCHEME 9-1 SCHEME 9-1 10-1,10-2 9-1,10-1,10-2 10-1-10-2 BASED SCHEME 13-2 FOR 10-1,10-2 & 10-1,10-2 &

BASED ON 3*,5" BASED ON 3,5" ON 3*.5" RADIAL BENDS SCHEME 13-2 SCHEME 13-2 CONDUITS & CONDUlT & CONDUIT &

FOR RADIAL FOR RADIAL SCHEME 13-2 FOR SCHEME 13-2 SCHEME 13-2 BENDS BENDS RADIAL BENDS FOR RADIAL FOR RADlAL BENDS BENDS i

YES YES YES YES YES YES TEST ACCEPTABLE N/A N/A N/A N/A ACCEPTED N/A N/A ENGINEERING EVALUATION 11% BY TUE TEST N/A N/A 11% BY TUE TEST DERATING N/A N/A RESULTS RESULTS FACTOR AND METHOD 2 N/A N/A N/A TESTING N/A N/A CATEGORIES KEY 2 = BOUNDED BY 2" CONDUlT WITH OVERLAY AND 5" CONDUlT WITHOUT OVERLAY 9

-- -A

APPENDlX C ER-ME-067 Rev.3 Page 157 of 176 UNIT 1 (CONTO)

TRAY 12 X 4 POVER TRAY 12 X 4 TRAY 12 X 4 TRAY 18 X 4 CONDUlT 5 CONDUIT 5 INSTRUMENT CONTROL INSTRUMENT POWER COMMODITY CONTROL YES YES YES YES TESTED .

YES YES CONFIGURATION SCHEME 13-2 SCHEME 13-2 SCHEME 11-5,31-2 OUAUFYING TEST SCHEME 9-1 & SCHEME 9-1 & SCHEME 13-2 BASED ON 24* X 4*

SCHEME 13-2 SCHEME 13-2 AND 12' X 4' TRAYS FOR RADIAL FOR RADIAL BENDS BENDS YES YES YES YES TEST ACCEPTABLE YES YES N/A N/A N/A N/A ACCEPTED N/A N/A ENGINEERING EVALUATION 32% BY TUE TEST N/A N/A 32% BY TUE TEST DERATING N/A N/A RESULTS RESULTS FACTOR AND METHOD 3 N/A N/A 3 TESTING N/A N/A CATEGORIES KEY 3 = BOUNDED BY 24" X 4' TRAY WITH UPGRADED JOINTS

%. - . - es n . - -* -_s _

- ~ __ _

APPENDIX C ER-ME-067 Rev.3 Page 158 of 176 UNIT 1 (CONT'D)

TRAY 18 X 6 TRAY 18 X 6 TRAY 24 X 4 TRAY 24 X 4 TRAY 18 X 4 TRAY 18 X 4 POWER CONTROL POWER CONTROL COMMODITY CONTROL INSTRUMENT NO NO YES YES TESTED NO NO CONFIGURATION SCHEME 11-5, SCHEME 11-5, SCHEME 11- SCHEME 11-5 SCHEME 11-5 OUALIFYING TEST SCHEME 11-5, 13-2 BASED 13-2 BASED 13-2 BASED ON 5,13-2 ON 24* X 4*/ ON 24" X 4*/ 24* X 4*/ BASED ON 12* X 4* 12" X 4* 12* X 4* TRAYS 24* X 4*/

TRAYS TRAYS 12" X 4" TRAYS YES YES YES YES TEST YES YES ACCEPTABLE N/A N/A N/A N/A ACCEPTED N/A N/A ENGINEERING EVALUATION 32% BY TUE N!A 32% BY TUE N/A DERATING N/A N/A TEST RESULTS TEST RESULTS FACTOR AND METHOD 3 N/A N/A N/A TESTING N/A N/A CATEGORIES XEY 3 = BOUNDED BY 24" X 4* TRAY WITH UPGRADED JOINTS 6

- _ - - - _ _ _ . - - - - - - - _ _ - - - - -- =- -

APPENDIX C ER MEM7 .

Rev.3 Page 159 of 176 UNIT 1 (CONTD)

TRAY 24 X 6 TRAY 30 X 4 TRAY 30 X 6 TRAY 30 X 6 TRAY 36 X 6 TRAY 24 X 4 CONTROL POWER CONTROL INSTRUMENT CONTROL COMMODITY INSTRUMENT NO YES NO NO YES TESTED YES CONFIGURATION SCHEME 11-5 SCHEME 14-1 SCHEME 14-1 SCHEME 14-1 SCHEME 15-1 OUAllFYING TEST SCHEME 11-5 BASED ON BASED ON BASED ON 2474* TRAY 30"X4* TRAY 3074' TRAY YES YES YES YES YES TEST ACCEPTABLE YES N/A N/A N/A N/A ACCEPTED N/A N/A ENGINEERING EVALUATION N/A 32% BY TUE N/A N/A N/A DERATING N/A FACTOR AND TEST RESULTS METHOD N/A 3 N/A N/A N/A TESTING N/A CATEGORIES KEY 3 = BOUNDED BY 24* X 4* TRAY WITH UPGRADED JOINTS i

+

g 1 ! ,- t

APPENDIX C ER-ME-067 Rev.3 Page 160 of 176 UNIT 1 (CONTO)

TWO TRAYS IN lWO CONDUlTS ELEC BOXES AIR DROP PULUJUNCTION COMMON IN COMMON !N COMMON TRAY 36 X 4 VARIOUS BOXES ENCLOSURE ENCLOSURE ENCLOSi1RE INSTRUMENT VARIOUS COMMODITY NO YES YES NO NO TESTED NO CONRGURATION NO SCHEME 11-2 SCHEME 10-2 NO NO OUALIFYING TEST SCHEME 15-1 N/A N/A N!A YES YES YES TEST ACCEPTABLE ER-ME-082 ER-ME482 ER-ME-082 N/A N/A N/A ACCEPTED (LATER)

(LATER) (LATER)

ENGINEERING EVALUATION VARIOUS VARIOUS VARIOUS N/A VARIOUS BY VARIOUS DERATING JUSTIFICATION IN JUSTIFICATION IN CALCULATION JUSTIFICATION JUSTIFICATION IN FACTOR DCAOCN DCA/DCN 16345- IN DCA/DCN DCADCN METHOD ENGINEERING ENGINEERING ENGINEERING EE(B)-140 ENGINEERING BASIS BASIS BASIS BASIS N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A TESTING CATEGORIES l

l l

a

APPENDIX C ER-ME 067 Rev.3 Page 161 of 176 UNIT 1 (CONTD)

COMMODITY STRUCTURAL STEEL HATCH COVERS VARIOUS TESTED NO NO CONFIGURATION OUAUFYING TEST UL X-611 AND X-003 N/A WITH ENGINEERING EVALUATIONS TEST ACCEPTABLE YES N/A 1

ACCEPTED ENGINEERING SEE APPENDIX D FOR CALCULATION EVALUATION ENGINEERING 0210-063 @ 43 EVALUATION DERATING N/A N/A FACTOR METHOD i TESTING N/A N/A CATEGORIES i

APPENDIX C ER-ME-067 Rev.3 Page 162 of 176 UNIT 2 THERMO-LAG INSTALLATION REVIEW MATRIX CONDUIT 1 IN CONDUIT 1 IN CONDUIT 1 IN CONDUlT 1 1/2 CONDulT 3/4 CONDUIT 3/4 INSTRUMENT POWER CONTROL INSTRUMENT POWER COMMODITY CONTROL NO NO NO YES TESTED YES YES CONFIGURATION SCHEME 9-1 BASED SCHEME 9-1 SCHEME 9-1 SCHEME 9-1 BASED OUAUFYING TEST SCHEME 9-1 SCHEME 9-1 ON 3/4* CONDUlT BASED ON 3/4" BASED ON 3/4" ON 3/4* CONDUIT CONDUlT CONDUlT YES YES YES YES YES YES TEST ACCEPTABLE USING OVERLAY USING OVERLAY USING OVERLAY USING OVERLAY USING OVERLAY USING OVERLAY N/A N/A N/A. N/A ACCEPTED N/A N/A ENGINEERING EVALUATION 11% BY TUE TEST N/A N/A 11% BY TUE TEST DERATING N/A N/A RESULTS RESULTS FACTOR AND METHOD 1 N/A N/A N/A N/A 1 TESTING CATEGORIES KEY 1 = BOUNDED BY 3/4" CONDUIT WITH OVERLAY 4

APPENDIX C ER-ME-067 Rev.3 Page 163 of 176 UNIT 2 (CONT'D)

CONDUIT 2 IN CONDUlT 2 IN CONDUlT 2 IN CONDUIT 3 IN CONDUIT 1 1/2 CONDUlT 1 1/2 POWER CONTROL INSTRUMENT POVER COMMODITY CONTROL INSTRUMENT NO NO NO YES

,TES1ED NO NO (CONRGURATION SCHEME 9-1 SCHEME 9-1 SCHEME 9-1, SCHEME 9-1 BASED

~

SCHEME 9-1 fOUh0FYING TESTSCHEME 9-1 BASED ON 3/4" ON 3'4' CONDUlT BASED ON 3/4" BASED ON 3/4" 10-1,10-2 BASED ON 3/4*

CONDUIT CONDUIT CONDUIT CONDUIT YES YES YES YES TEST ACCEPTABLE YES YES N/A N/A N/A N/A ACCEPTED N/A N/A ENGINEERING EVALUATION 11% BY TUE TEST N/A N!A 11% BY TUE TEST DERATING N/A N/A RESULTS RESULTS FACTOR AND METHOD N/A N/A N/A 2 TESTING N/A N!A CATEGORIES KEY 2 = BOUNDED BY 2* CONDUlT WlHT OVERLAY AND 5" CONDUIT WITHOUT OVERLAY

APPENDIX C ER ME-067 Rev.3 Page 164 of 176 CONDUlT 4 IN CONDUlT 4 IN CONDUlT 4 IN CONDUlT 5 IN CONDUIT 3 CONDUlT 3 POWER CONTROL INSTRUMENT POWER COMMODITY CONTROL INSTRUMENT NO NO YES TESTED YES YES NO CONFIGURATION SCHEME 9-1, SCHEME 9-1 SCHEME SCHEME 9-1, SCHEME 9-1 OUAUFYING TEST SCHEME 9-1, 10-1,10-2 9-1,10-1,10-2 10-1,10-2 BASED 10-1,10-2 10 1.10-2 BASED CN 3*,5" BASED ON 3*.5" ON 3",5*

CONDUlT CONDUIT CONDUlT YES YES YES YES YES YES TEST ACCEPTABLE N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A ACCEPTED ENGINEERING EVALUATION N/A N/A 11% BY TUE TEST N/A N/A 11% BY TUE TEST DERATING RESULTS RESULTS FACTOR AND METHOD N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 2 TESTING l

CATEGORIES KEY 2 = BOUNDED BY 2" CONDUIT WITH OVERLAY AND 5" CONDUIT WITHOUT OVERLAY

4 3

4 APPENDIX C ER-ME-067 Rev.3 Page 165 of 176 i UNIT 2 (CONT'D)

TRAY 12 X 4 POWER TRAY 12 X 4 TRAY 12 X 4 TRAY 18 X 4 CONDUIT 5 CONDUIT 5 INSTRUMENT CONTROL INSTRUMENT POWER COMMODITY CONTROL YES YES YES YES l TESTED YES YES CONFIGURATION SCHEME 13-1 SCHEME 13-1 SCHEME 13-1,12-2 OUAUFYING TEST SCHEME 9-1 SCHEME 9-1 SCHEME 13-1 BASED ON 12" X 47 .

24* X 4* TRAYS _

YES YES YES YES >

TEST ACCEPTABLE YES YES L

N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A ACCEPTED N/A ENGINEERING !

EVALUATION l

N/A 32% BY TUE TEST N/A N/A 32% BY TUE TEST DERATING N/A

' RESULTS RESULTS FACTOR AND ,

METHOD N/A 3 N/A N/A 3 i TESTING N/A i

j CATEGORIES i

KEY 3 = BOUNDED BY 24* X 4" TRAY WITH UPGRADED JOINTS ,

i I

.._ . _ - . . . _ . . _ _ _ _ _ . . . _. _ . . _ - . . _ , . . . _ . _ ._ . - - . . _ ~ . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ . _ . _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ - - . _ - - _ . _ . - -.

APPENDlX C ER-ME-067 Rev. 3 Page 166 of 176 '

i i

UNIT 2 (CON"D) _

TRAY 18 X 6 TRAY 24 X 4 TRAY 24 X 4 TRAY 18 X 4 TRAY 18 X 4 TRAY 18 X 6 POWER CONTROL POWER CONTROL COMMODITY CONTROL INSTRUMENT NO YES YES NO NO NO TESTED CONFIGURATION SCHEME 12-2,11-1 SCHEME 12-2,11-1 SCHEME 13-1 SCHEME 13-1, SCHEME 13-1,12-2 SCHEME 13-1 OUALIFYING TEST 12-2 BASED ON BASED ON 12-2 BASED ON 12-2 BASED ON 3

12 X4*/24"X4' 12*X4*/24*X4* 12"X4*/24 X4' TRAY 12"X4*/24"X4*

TRAY TRAY TRAY YES YES YES i

YES YES YES TEST ACCtriABLE N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A l

ACCEPTED ENGINEERING EVALUATION N/A 32% BY TUE TEST N/A N/A N/A 32% BY TUE TEST DERATING RESULTS RESULTS FACTOR AND METHOD N!A N/A N/A TESTING N/A N/A 3-l CATEGORIES i KEY 3 = BOUNDED BY 24* X 4" TRAY WITH UPGRADED JOINTS l

(

l l

s

m__ . . .. , _. . _ _ _ .

APPENDIX C ER ME-067 Rev.3 Page 167 of 176 UNIT 2 (CONTD)

TRAY 24 X 6 TRAY 30 X 4 POWER TRAY 30 X 6 TRAY 30 X 6 TRAY 36 X 6 TRAY 24 X 4 CONTROL CONTROL INSTRUMENT CONTROL COMMODITY INSTRUMENT NO YES NO NO YES TESTED YES CONFIGURATION SCHEME 12-2, SCHEME 12-1,14-1 SCHEME 12-1, SCHEME 12-1,14-1 SCHEME 15-1 ;

OUALIFYING TEST SCHEME 12-2 11-1 11-1 BASED ON 14-1 BASED ON BASED ON 30-X4-24 X4* TRAY 30 X4* TRAY TRAY YES YES YES YES YES

, TEST ACCEPTABLE YES t 4

N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A ACCEPTED N/A .

ENGINEERING t EVALUATION I

N/A 32% BY TUE TEST N/A N/A N/A l DERATING N/A FACTOR AND RESULTS

METHOD N/A 3 N/A N/A N/A TESTING N/A CATEGOR:ES KEY 3 = BOUNDED BY 24" X 4" TRAY WITH UPGRADED JOINTS ,

s 4

- - - - r ---- ---.- _--._ - -_-_ _ __

APPENDIX C ER-ME-067 Rev.3 Page 168 of 176 UNIT 2 (CONT'D) ~

PULUJUNCTION TWO TRAYS IN BNO CONDUlTS ELEC BOXES BOXES COMMON IN COMMON IN COMMON TRAY 36 X 4 AIR DROP VARIOUS ENCLOSURE ENCLOSUAE ENCLOSURE COMMODITY INSTRUMENT VARIOUS YES NO NO NO TESTED YES YES CONFIGURATION SCHEME 10-1,10- NO NO NO OUAUFYING TEST SCHEME 15-1 SCHEME 11-1 2

YES N/A N/A N/A TEST ACCEPTABLE YES YES ER-ME-082 ER-ME-082 ER-ME-082 ACCEPTED N/A N/A N/A ENGINEERING EVALUATION VARIOUS VARIOL-3 VARIOUS VARIOUS DERATING N/A 32% BY TUE TEST JUSTIFICATION IN JUSTIFICATION IN JUSTIFICATION JUSTIFICATION IN FACTOR RESULTS DCA DCA ENGINEERING IN DCA DCA METHOD ENGINEERING ENGINEERING ENGINEERING BASIS BASIS BASIS BASIS N/A N/A N/A N/A TESTING N/A N/A CATEGOR!ES ,

}

6 h

APPENDIX C ER-ME-067 Rev.3 Page 169 of 176 UNIT 2 (CONTD)

COMMODITY STRUCTURAL STEEL HATCH COVERS VARIOUS TESTED NO NO CONFIGURATION OUAUFYING TEST UL X-611 AND X-003 N/A WITH ENGINEERING EVALUATIONS TEST ACCEPTABLE YES N/A ACCEPTED ENGINEERING SEE APPENDIX D FOR CALCULATION EVALUATION ENGINEERING 2 FP-0080 EVALUATION DERATING N/A N/A FACTOR METHOD TESTING N/A N/A ,

CATEGORIES ~-

t I

+

n . =,y-. , ,ww . ,, <,,. . -

. - . . .*,-w

- . . - . - _ - - ~. .

' APPENDIX 0 ER-ME-067 REV.3 PAGE 170 OF 176 STRUCTURAL STEEL FIRE PROOFING EVALUATION The evaluation of structural steel fireproofing is based in the guidance provide in G.L. 86-10 which allows the use of untested configurations as long as an evaluation against a tested configuration is l' used and the projections is of an equal thickness, is continuous, and is installed in a similar manner, This evaluation demonstrates that fireproofing designs used at CPSES meet those requirements.

FOR UNIT 1 AND COMMON The Thermo-Lag Fireproofing was installed in accordance with Specification 2323-AS-47 (Reference ,

10.14.3). The Thermo-Lag 330-1 material was trowel applied to the structural steel using the basic '

techniques outlined in U.L. design no. X-611 (Reference 10.21.4) and TSI Technical Note 99777 -

(Reference 10.13.5).

The minimum dry film thicknesses for Thermo-Lag 330-1 as specified in Appendix E to 2323-AS-47 were reviewed and are at least 10% greater inan the thickness specified in TSI Technical Report 11601 (Reference 10.13.6).

The specification allows the use of Prefabricated Tt ;rmo-Lag 330-1 rmnels to be inserted in the trowel grade matenal to help build up to the required material thicknesses specified in Appendix E. The prefabricated panels are the exact same material as the trowel grade matenal, only performed and cured. The panels are cleaned and abraded before insertion inte the trowel grade material to ensure bonding between the panels and the trowel grade material. When the trowel grade material cures, the fireproofing becomes monolithic. When the prefabricated panels are used, the fiberglass cloth required by U.L. X-611 is installed in a layer of trowel grade material applied over the panels to ensure that the last 1/4 in. of the assembly contains the fiberglass reinforcement.

The specif: cation requires that all protruding heat paths be protected for at least 12 in. (12" rule) to prevent the intrusion of a significant amount of heat into the envelope. The basis for the 12 in rule, is the U.L requirement to protect steel decking for a minimum of 12 in, away for a fireproofed steel beam to prevent heat int /usion into the beam. The steel deck presents more of a challenge than a small protruding item, because the steel deck is continuous along the top for the beam and is a heat path from both sides of the beam. Therefore, the '2' rule provides more than adequate heat path protection. .

Therefore, tne installation design requirements specified in 2323-AS-47 are more than adequate to ensure the structural steel will meet the required fire endurance requirements.

i I

N h

)

e

APPENDIX D ER-ME-067 REV.3 PAGE 171 OF 176 J l

FOR UNIT 2 AREAS ONLY 1 Thermo-Lag Fireproofing was installed in accordance with specification CPES-M 2032 (Reference l 10.14.2) using the design outlined in U.L. design X-003 (Reference 10.21.4). The Thermo-Lag was :

used for the fireproofing of the structural tube steel used to support the 2 hour2.314815e-5 days 5.555556e-4 hours 3.306878e-6 weeks 7.61e-7 months fire rated stairwell (gypsum) walls in the Safeguards Building to protect the frames of the fire dampers /tomado dampers installed in these walls. The frames are protected by the Thermo-Lag attached to the tube steel, j l

l Thermo-Lag 330-1 prefabricated panels are applied to the tube steel by screwing on two layers of 1/2" nominal thick panels to the steel. The screws (fasteners) are ANSI B16.6.4 self tapping No.14,1* long (first layer) and 13/4' long (second layer) screws, spaced 12 in. on center (O.C.) with the second layer ;

screws offset from the first layer with the screws along the centerline of the tube steel The tube steel ranges in size from 4 in to 8 in. The horizontal butt joints are staggered by at least one inch and all joints are pre-buttered.

U.L design X 003 was used as guidance for the installation. However, the geometry of the installation with the use of tube steel and the relationsnip of the steel to the gypsum walls required variation from the U.L. design.

The fastene s are the same gage and type, and are spaced 12' O.C. as specified in X-003. However, since two layers are used instead of the one layer required, the second layer screws provided an additional reinforcemant for the first layer. Also, the screws installed to attach the first layer are protected by the second layer which is not the case in the U.L. design. The U.L design requires that the screws be installed at the corners to affix the ends of the comers together. The installation does not allow this technique to be used. Therefore, the screws are installed at the centerline for the steel. -

The U.L design is for a wirje flange steel column which has an open span across the web, so that only the corners can be used. Using the centerline of the steel, reduces the unsupported distance to only four inches.

The U.L. design requires that stress skin be installed at the horizontal butt joints. The horizontal butt joints are staggered between the first and second layer of Thermo-Lag and therefore, the first layer joints are protected by the second lays Based on this configuration the stress skin is not needed and was not specified.

The U.L X-003 design requires e minimurt; thickness of 9/16' of material for a 10WF49. A 10WF49 has a W/D ratio (weight to heated penmeter) of 9.9. The smallest tube steel used (4") has a W/D ratio of 9.02. Based on the difference in ratios the tube steel would require a thickness of 5/8" of material.

This thickness is in agreement with the data provided in Reference 10.13.6. The specification requires two layers of 1/2" board be used which provides a minimum thickness of 1 full inch. By using 2 layers of board, an additionallayer of stress skin is piovided. Recent fire testing done by CPSES has shown j the stress skin greatly enhances the performance of the Thrarmo-Lag in a fire.

Specification CPES-M-2023 requires thr.1 protruding heat path items be protected a minimum for 4' l from the structural steel (4' rule) to prevent heat intrusion into the structural steel. The 4' rule is supported by 1.T.L Report No. 89-07 5335 (RWrence 10.21.3) for a unistrut assembly ano I.T.L Report No. 89-07-5334 (Reference 10.212) for a Structural Steel Beam. Both tests support the 4' rule for a 3 hour3.472222e-5 days 8.333333e-4 hours 4.960317e-6 weeks 1.1415e-6 months endurance while the stairwell walls only require a two hour rating.

The structural steel in the walls is embedded in such a way that only 2 sides (for a comer) would be e -

t APPENDIX D ER-ME-067 REV.3 PAGE 172 OF 176 exposed to a fire while the U.L. test exposes all four fires in the furnace. Exposing all four sides is a !

much more severe condition than only 2 sides in that the heat is introduced in all four directions, where as with only two sides exposed, the other two side can release some of the heat for the steel.

Based on the above, the design specified in CPES-M-2032 provides an adequate design to protect the {

structural steel and ensures the fire barrier will meet the required fire endurance requirements.

F t

i

?

e i

'f 5

t l

. - . - l I

i i

)

j ER ME-067 l Rev.3 Page 173 of 176 APPENDIX E PLAN FOR CERTIFYING CPSES UNIT 1 THERMO-LAG CONDUITS ACCEPTANCE SUPPORT COMMODITY TEST UPGRADE EVAL. AMPACITY 3/4" UNIT 2 YES/ UPGRADE YES UNIT 2 TEST (Scheme 9-1) COMPLETED 1' UNIT 2 YES/ UPGRADE YES UNIT 2 TEST (Scheme 91) COMPLETED 1-1/2" UNIT 2 W/ CABLE RAblAL BENDS 8 YES UNIT 2 TEST FUNCTION EVAL. ONLY (Scheme 9-3) 2' UNIT 2 W/ CABLE RADIAL BENDS' YES UNIT 2 TEST FUNCTION EVAL. ONLY (Scheme 9-3) 3' & LARGER UNIT 2 RADIAL BENDS' YES UNIT 2 TEST (Schemes 9-1, ONLY 10-1 & 10-2)

' All radial bend upgrade based on Un:t 1 Test Scheme 13-2 i

l

ER-ME-067 Rev.3 Page 174 of 176 APPENDIX E PLAN FOR CERTIFYING CPSES UNIT 1 THERMO-LAG (CONT'D)

CABLE TRAYS ACCEPTANCE SUPPORT COMMODITY TEST UPGRADE EVAL. AMPACITY 12' UNIT 1 NO NO UNIT 2 TEST (SCHEME 13-2) 18' UNIT 1 YES YES UNIT 2 TEST (SCHEME 11-5) 24' UNIT 1 YES YES UNIT 2 TEST (SCHEME 115)

UNIT 2 YES YES UNIT 2 TEST 30' (SCHEME 14-1)

UNIT 2 YES YES UNIT 2 TEST 36 '

(SCHEME 15-1)

UNIT 2 YES YES UNIT 2 TEST TEES (SCHEME 14-1)

FIRE STOPS UNIT 2 YES YES UNIT 2 TEST (SCHEME 4)

UNIT 1 YES' YES UNIT 2 TEST CABLES '

WRAPPED IN (SCHEME 15 2)

EXPOSED TRAY ,_

Will re-route FSSA cable in smaller tray or conduits

3 layers of Flexi-Blanket (330 660)

U ER-ME-067 Rev.3 Page 175 of 176 APPENDIX E PLAN FOR CERTIFYING CPSES UNIT 1 THERMO-LAG (CONT'D)

FLEX 1BLE CONDUlTS & AIRDROPS ACCEPTANCE SUPPORT COMMODITY TEST UPGRADE EVAL, AMPACITY LESS THAN 1- UNIT 2 YES NO UNIT 2 TEST 1/2" (SCHEME 11-1) 1-1/2" UNIT 1 NO NO UNIT 2 TEST (SCHEME 11-2) 2* UNIT 1 NO NO UNIT 2 TEST (SCHEME 11-2) 3' & LARGER UNIT 2 NO NO UNIT 2 TEST (SCHEME 11-1) i l

4 ER-ME-067 Rev.3 I Page 176 of 176 i

APPENDIX E i

PLAN FOR CERTIFYING CPSES UNIT 1 TlERMO-LAG (CONT'D) '

MISCELLANEOUS ACCEPTANCE SUPPORT TEST UPGRADE EVAL. AMPACITY COMMODITY AIRDROPS AT UNIT 1 YES YES UNIT 2 TEST CABLE TRAYS (SCHEME 112)

CONDUlT UNIT 2 YES YES UNIT 2 TEST LATERAL BENDS (SCHEME 10-2)

& PULLBOXES CONDUIT RADIAL UNIT 1 YES YES UNIT 2 TEST BENDS (SCHEME 13-2) .,

JUNCTION UNIT 2 YES YES UNIT 2 TEST BOXES (SCHEME 10-2)

UNIT 1 YES YES UNIT 2 TEST

" BOX" CONFIGURATION (SCHEME 11-4)

.i I

i

-. - - , - - - --

ML20064M608: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 12:56, 6 January 2021

Contents

Text

2.0 BACKGROUND

9.0 CONCLUSION

2.0 BACKGROUND

SUMMARY

9.0 CONCLUSION

10.0 REFERENCES

Navigation menu

ML20064M608: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 12:56, 6 January 2021

Text

2.0 BACKGROUND

9.0 CONCLUSION

2.0 BACKGROUND

SUMMARY

9.0 CONCLUSION

10.0 REFERENCES

Navigation menu

Search