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

Fire Endurance & Ampacity Derating Test Results for 3-Hour Fire-Rated Thermo-Lag 330-1 Fire Barriers

ML031060605
Person / Time
Site:	Beaver Valley, Millstone, Hatch, Monticello, Calvert Cliffs, Dresden, Davis Besse, Peach Bottom, Browns Ferry, Salem, Oconee, Mcguire, Nine Mile Point, Palisades, Palo Verde, Perry, Indian Point, Fermi, Kewaunee, Catawba, Harris, Wolf Creek, Saint Lucie, Point Beach, Oyster Creek, Watts Bar, Hope Creek, Grand Gulf, Cooper, Sequoyah, Byron, Pilgrim, Arkansas Nuclear, Three Mile Island, Braidwood, Susquehanna, Summer, Prairie Island, Columbia, Seabrook, Brunswick, Surry, Limerick, North Anna, Turkey Point, River Bend, Vermont Yankee, Crystal River, Haddam Neck, Ginna, Diablo Canyon, Callaway, Vogtle, Waterford, Duane Arnold, Farley, Robinson, Clinton, South Texas, San Onofre, Cook, Comanche Peak, Yankee Rowe, Maine Yankee, Quad Cities, Humboldt Bay, La Crosse, Big Rock Point, Rancho Seco, Zion, Midland, Bellefonte, Fort Calhoun, FitzPatrick, McGuire, LaSalle, Fort Saint Vrain, Shoreham, Satsop, Trojan, Atlantic Nuclear Power Plant
Issue date:	03/16/1994
From:	Grimes B K Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:
References
IN-94-022, NUDOCS 9403150511
Download: ML031060605 (14)

UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555 March 16, 1994 NRC INFORMATION

NOTICE 94-22: FIRE ENDURANCE

AND AMPACITY DERATING TEST RESULTS FOR 3-HOUR FIRE-RATED

THERMO-LAG

330-1 FIRE BARRIERS

Addressees

All holders of operating

licenses or construction

permits for nuclear power reactors.

Purpose

6 The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission (NRC) is issuing this information

notice to inform licensees

of the preliminary

results of fire endurance

and ampacity derating tests of Thermo-Lag

330-1 (Thermo-Lag)

fire barriers conducted

by the NRC at Underwriters

Laboratories, Incorporated (UL). It is expected that recipients

will review the Information

for applicability

to their facilities

and consider actions as appropriate

to avoid similar problems.

However, suggestions

contained

in this information

notice are not NRC requirements;

therefore, no specific action or written response is required.Description

of Circumstances

As part of its continuing

evaluation

of Thermo-Lag

fire barrier performance, the NRC Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR) conducted

three full-scale

fire endurance

tests and one full-scale

ampacity derating test of 3-hour fire-rated

Thermo-Lag

fire barriers.

The principal

objective

of the tests was to evaluate the performance

of the barriers against the results of tests previously

reported by Thermal Science, Incorporated (TSI, the vendor).Sandia National Laboratories (SNL), Albuquerque, New Mexico, provided technical

assistance

by designing

and executing

the test program and preparing the test report. The base test specimens

were constructed

and instrumented

at SNL. The test specimen fire barriers were constructed

at UL by trained Thermo-Lag

installers

under the direction

of SNL during October and November 1993. The tests were conducted

at UL under the direction

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

and Resources

Council (NUMARC) of the test results during a public meeting at NRC Headquarters

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

in SNL Report SAND94-0146, "An Evaluation

of the Fire Barrier System Thermo-Lag

330-1." The staff will place this report in the NRC Public Document Room after it is completed.

The staff expects the report to be completed

during April 1994._Efh-1X-9403150511 ,r.D9 af aqed qij4- o,2~.3/2! 5/Y 9q 0 3 1 (Il

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

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

laying sideways which duplicated

configurations, material specifications, dimensions, orientations, cable types and fills, and instrumentation, previously

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

in each of the fire test articles in accordance

with the types and placements

reported in the vendor's test reports. The cable fill for the ampacity derating test article is discussed

under the "Ampacity

Derating Test" section of this information

notice.Each of the base test articles was protected

by a 3-hour fire barrier formed from two layers of nominal 3/4-inch-thick

Thermo-Lag

330-1 preformed

panel. SNL purchased

the Thermo-Lag

preformed

panels and trowel-grade

material used to construct

the test article fire barriers from Texas Utilities

Electric Company (TU Electric).

TU Electric performed

a source inspection

of the materials

at TSI and the NRR Vendor Inspection

Branch conducted

a receipt inspection

of the materials

at the Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station when TU Electric delivered

the materials

to SNL.The fire barriers for Test Articles 1, 2, and 4, were constructed

in accordance

with TSI Technical

Note 20684, Revision V, "Thermo-Lag

330 Fire Barrier System Installation

Procedures

Manual Power Generating

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

in accordance

with the methods used by the vendor for Test Article 4 of TSI Report 82-11-81, "Three Hour Fire Endurance

Tests Conducted on Test Articles Containing

Generic Cables Protected

with the Thermo-Lag

330-1 Subliming

Coating Envelope System," November 1982. Table I summarizes

the test article characteristics.

The stress skin (an embedded wire mesh) for the inner barrier layer faced toward the cable tray. The stress skin for the outer layer faced away from the cable tray. All joints and seams were offset. The edges of the individual

panel sections were buttered with trowel-grade

Thermo-Lag

330-1 material before they were joined and secured. This assembly technique, as opposed to the dry-fit method, ensured that each Joint and seam was filled to its full thickness

with Thermo-Lag

material.

The individual

barrier pieces for Test Articles 1, 2, and 4 were banded with stainless

steel tie wire. The individual

pieces for Test Article 3 were not banded. Instead, each seam and joint was reinforced

with stainless

steel wire stitches and laces. In addition, flanges were formed along the edges and butt Joints of the outer layer. The flanges were bolted together with nominal k-inch-20

by 2-inch machine bolts and hex-nuts.

After the barriers were installed, the test articles were cured for at least 30 days in a secure temperature-controlled

environment

before the tests were conducted.

The instrumentation

used to record test data, including

the SNL data logging equipment

and the UL furnace-monitoring

and control systems, was calibrated

using equipment

traceable

to National Institute

of Standards

and Technology

standards.

NRC, SNL, and UL participated

in and observed all four tests.

IN 94-22 March 16, 1994 Fire Endurance

Tests The following

performance

capabilities

were evaluated:

(1) the ability of the Thermo-Lag

barrier to keep the average temperature

of the unexposed

side of the barrier (as measured on the exterior surface of the cable trays) from rising more than 139 *C [250 OF] above the ambient temperature

at the start of the test, (2) the ability to keep the temperature

of any single thermocouple

from rising more than 30 percent above the allowable

average temperature

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

during the fire exposure and hose stream test, (4) the ability to maintain the cables free of visible fire damage, and (5) the ability to remain intact during the fire and hose stream tests.Temperatures

were measured by Teflon-insulated

Type K thermocouples

installed on certain cables (as documented

in the vendor test reports).

In addition, thermocouples

were installed

on the cable tray side rails, on the unexposed side of the Thermo-Lag

panels, and in the air space between the cables and the unexposed

side of the Thermo-Lag

panels. In keeping with the objective

of evaluating

thermal performance

against test results previously

reported by the vendor, the temperature

results reported below were those measured by the thermocouples

installed

on the cables and the cable tray side rails. Four cables in each of the fire tests were connected

to a separate low-voltage

power supply (28-VDC, 1 Amp) which was configured

to conduct circuit-to- circuit (conductor-to-conductor), circuit-to-ground (conductor-to-ground), and circuit-to-system (conductor

continuity)

integrity

tests as documented

in the vendor test reports.The three fire endurance

tests were performed

in the UL column furnace. To facilitate

duplication

of the original TSI test configurations, UL modified the nominal 10-foot by 10-foot by 10-foot furnace to allow the test to be inserted into the furnace through one of the furnace walls. The standard time-temperature

fire from American Society for Testing of Materials (ASTM)Standard E-119-75, "Standard

Methods of Fire Tests of Building Construction

and Materials," was followed.

UL technicians

operated the test furnace and recorded the furnace temperature

data. SNL provided the instrumentation

and data acquisition

system for obtaining

and recording

the test temperature

and circuit integrity

data. During the fire exposure, visual observations

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

test results are summarized

in Table 2.Article I was tested on December 8, 1993. The ambient temperature

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

rise criterion

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

temperature

rise criterion

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

temperature

criterion was exceeded about 1 hour1.157407e-5 days <br />2.777778e-4 hours <br />1.653439e-6 weeks <br />3.805e-7 months <br /> and 5 minutes after the start of the test (1:05). A conductor-to-ground

fault was detected at about 1:16 and the average temperature

rise criterion

was exceeded at about 1:20. The test was terminated

at 2:30.Article 2 was tested on December 7, 1993. The ambient temperature

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

rise criterion

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

temperature

\J V IN 94-22 March 16, 1994 rise criterion

was 200 *C [392 'FJ. The single-point

temperature

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

fault was detected at about 0:59, and the average temperature

criterion

was exceeded at about 1:03.The test was terminated

at 2:00.Article 3 was tested on December 6, 1993. The ambient temperature

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

rise criterion

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

temperature

rise criterion

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

temperature

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

rise criterion

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

fault was detected at about 1:59. The test was terminated

at 3:00.For all three fire tests, when the tests were terminated, most of the individual

thermocouples

exceeded the single point temperature

criterion.

In addition, Thermo-Lag

panels had fallen off the test articles exposing the cable trays and cables to the fire. Most of the remaining

Thermo-Lag

had been reduced to char. Post-test

inspections

revealed that all of the cable Jacket and conductor

insulation

had been consumed during the fire exposures.

Only bare copper conductors

remained in the cable trays. Detailed test results, including

temperature

data, observations

and photographs

will be provided in SNL Report SAND94-0146.

The test plan specified

that a standard ASTM solid hose stream test would be performed

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

of two of the three tests and the poor condition

of all three articles when the tests were terminated, the hose stream tests were not conducted.

Less severe hose streams were used, however, to extinguish

the burning Thermo-Lag

material and to cool the test articles.

These hose streams washed away most of the Thermo-Lag

that had not fallen from the articles during the fire exposure.Ampacitv Derating Test Test Article 4 was an ampacity derating test article constructed

in accordance

with TSI Report 82-5-355F, "Ampacity

Derating Test for 1000V Power Cables in a tadder Cable Tray Protected

with a Three Hour Rated Design of the Thermo-Lag

330-1 Subliming

Coating Envelope System,' July 13, 1982. The cable tray was loaded to about 60 percent of the full tray depth with 20 lengths of 1/C, 2/0 AWG, 600-V cable; 58 lengths of 1/C, 4 AWG, 600-V cable; and 99 lengths of 1/C, 8 AWG, 600-V cable. One length represented

one pass through the cable tray. All of the cables of a given cable size were Joined together into a single electrical

loop. Each loop was instrumented

with six 24-gauge bare-bead

Type K thermocouples

with welded Junctions.

In each case, the insulation

on the cable was slit so that the thermocouple

Junction could be installed

below the insulation

in contact with the conductor.

Thermocouples

were also installed

on the cable tray side rails, on the inner surface of the fire barrier, and on the outer surface of the fire barrier. Three thermocouples

were installed

to measure the ambient temperature

in the test chamber discussed

below.

IN 94-22 March 16, 1994 Cable ampacity and temperature

data was obtained for Test Article 4 before the Thermo-Lag

fire barrier was installed (baseline

or unprotected

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

temperature

environmental

test chamber set at 40 DC [104 OF] and allowed to soak for about four hours. A separate power supply was connected

to each of the three cable loops and power was applied according

to an initial estimate of the ampacity of each cable. The amperage was adjusted over a period of about six hours until it appeared that a steady state conductor

temperature

near 90 *C [194 *F] at the hot spot for each cable size would be reached. The test article was left to settle overnight (about 16 hours1.851852e-4 days <br />0.00444 hours <br />2.645503e-5 weeks <br />6.088e-6 months <br />). The next day, final ampacity adjustments

were made, and the test article was again allowed to settle (typically

two to three hours after each adjustment).

Stable conditions

were achieved after the final adjustments

when the cable temperatures

did not fluctuate

more than +/-1 OC [1.8 *F] between repeated 10-minute

interval data scans. After stable conditions

were reached, the baseline temperatures

were logged at 10-minute

intervals

for a final 1-hour period. Cable amperage readings were also taken at the beginning

and end of the final hour to verify the presence of stable source currents.

Following the baseline test, the 3-hour Thermo-Lag

fire barrier described

above was installed

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

cable tray ampacity and temperature

data were obtained in accordance

with the process used to obtain the baseline data.Baseline and protected

cable ampacity adjustment

factors (AF) were calculated

for each cable size according

to the following

formula from Insulated

Cable Engineers

Association (ICEA) Standard P-46-426, "Power Cable Ampacities:"=r I, (AF,) W IC TcI 245~~0 T 234.5 + T 1 4 c c c ¢ 4(Tc -T, a 234.5 + Vc)where the values with primes indicate the desired conditions

and the values without primes indicate the experimental

data. Temperature

units are degrees Celsius. For both the baseline and the protected

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

and ampacities

and the calculated

baseline ampacity adjustment

factors are provided in Table 3. The measured temperatures

and ampacities

and the calculated

ampacity adjustment

factors for the protected

cables are provided in Table 4. For both the baseline and protected

cases, the average of the hot-spot cable temperatures

recorded at 10-minute

intervals

during the final hour were used to calculate the ampacity adjustment

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

in current carrying capacity (protected

ampacities)

to the original

. '_.<J IN 94-22 March 16, 1994 current carrying capacity (baseline

ampacities).

The ADF for each cable type was calculated

using the following

formula: ADF Ibaslne jIProtected

(100)Ibasollne In this format, the ADF is expressed

as a percentage

drop in current-carrying

capacity.

The calculated

ampacity derating factors were 46.4 percent, 36.0 percent, and 35.3 percent for the 8 AWG, 4 AWG, and 2/0 cables, respectively.

Table 5 provides a comparative

summary of the ampacity data and ampacity derating factors from the SNL/UL test and the results reported by the vendor in TSI Report 82-5-355F.

Table 5 also shows the results of recalculations

performed

by SNL of the test data reported in TSI Report 82-5-355F.

Detailed explanations

of the two-sted recalculations, which were needed to allow comparisons

of the SNL/UL test resulte with the reported vendor test results, will be documented

in SNL Report SAND94-0146.

This information

notice requires no specific action or written response.

If you have any questions

about the information

in this notice, please contact the technical

contact listed below or the appropriate

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR) project manager.Brian K. Grimes, Director Division of Operating

Reactor Support Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

Technical

contact: Steven West, NRR (301) 504-1220 Attachments:

1. Table 1, 'Summary of Test Article Characteristics," and Table 2, "Summary of Fire Endurance

Test Results." 2. Table 3, "Baseline (Unprotected

Cable Tray) Ampacity Test Data and Calculations,'

and Table 4, "Protected

Cable Tray Ampacity Test Data and Calculations." 3. Table 5, Comparative

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

Concerning

Fire Barriers 5. List of Recently Issued NRC Information

Notices

y t achmen t I IN94-22 March 16, 1994 Table 1. Summary of Test Article Characteristics

Article Tetjye I Description

Barrier Design 1 3-Hour 6-inch-wide

by 6-inch-high, Based on TSI Fire solid-bottom, steel cable tray Technical Endurance

based on Test Article 2 of TSI Note 20684, Report 82-5-355B, "Three-Hour

Revision V, Fire Endurance

Test on November 1985.Thermo-Lag

330-1 Subliming Coating Envelope System for Washington

Public Power Supply System-Nuclear

Projects,'

l _____ _ .July 1982. ,_l 2 3-Hour 12-inch-wide

by 4-inch-high, Same as Article 1.Fire ladder-back, steel cable tray Endurance

based on Test Article 4 of TSI Report 82-11-81, November 1982.3 3-Hour Same as Test Article 2. Methods documented

Fire in TSI Report Endurance

82-11-81, November 1982.4 Ampacity 12-inch-wide

by 4-inch-high, Same as Test Derating ladder-back, steel cable tray Article 1.based on TSI Report 82-5-355F, lI July 13, 1982.Table 2. Summary of Fire Endurance

Test Results (All times in Hours:Minutes

from the start of the test)Article Single Point .Average Time to Test Temperature

Temperature

Circuit Duration Criterion

and Time Criterion

and Time Fault to Exceed to Exceed 1 200 -C [392 F] 158 *C [316 -F]1:05 1:20 1:16 2:30 2 200 *C [392 *F] 158 *C [316 *F]0:55 1:03 0:59 2:00 3 201 oC [394 OF] 159 C [318 *F l l 1:50 1:58 1:59 3:00

\-- itachment

2 IN 94-22 March 16, 1994 Table 3. Baseline (Unprotected

Cable Tray)Ampacity Test Data and Calculations

Cable Tc (0 C) Ta (C) lI (Amps) AFc Ic (Amps)Size I 8 AWG 91.1 io.5 23.8 0.996 23.7 4 AWG 91.2 40.5 38.0 0.995 37.8 2/0 92.0 40.5 115.0 0.988 113.6 Table 4. Protected

Cable Tray Ampacity Test Data and Calculations

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

recorded at 10-minute intervals

during the final hour.To = Average of ambient (test chamber) temperatures

recorded at 10-minute

Intervals

during the final hour after reaching desired stable conditions.

IC a Measured cable ampacity at the end of the final hour.AFC = Cable ampacity adjustment

factor.I'C a Adjusted cable ampacity.

I tachment 3 IN 94-22 March 16, 1994 Table S. Comparative

Summary of Ampacity Data and Derating Factors Cable Size Data Source Baseline Protected

Derating Ampacity Ampacity Factor (Amps) (Amps) (Percent)8 AWG SNL 23.7 12.7 46.4 TSI 1 17.46 14.64 16.15 TSI 2 20.38 13.89 31.84 TS13 23.96 14.83 38.11 4 AWG SNL 37.8 24.2 36.0 TSI1 35.77 29.74 16.86 TS12 41.75 28.21 32.43 TSI3 41.75 28.21 32.43 2/0 SNL 113.6 73.5 35.3 TSP1 105.91 87.18 17.68 TSI 2 123.60 82.69 33.10 TSI 3 131.60 84.82 35.55 1 Data reported in TSI Report 82-5-355F, July 13, 1982.2 Inverted term in ampacity adjustment

factor (AF) equation corrected.

3 Measured individual

conductor

temperatures

used to calculate

ampacity adjustment

factors for each cable size.

_.>2tachment

4 IN 94-22 March 16, 1994 List of Generic Communications

Concerning

Fire Barriers Information

Notice 91-47, 'Failure of Thermo-Lag

Fire Barrier Material to Pass Fire Endurance

Test," August 6, 1991 Information

Notice 91-79, "Deficiencies

in the Procedures

for Installing

Thermo-Lag

Fire Barrier Materials," December 6, 1991 Information

Notice 92-46, 'Thermo-Lag

Fire Barrier Material Special Review Team Final Report Findings, Current Fire Endurance

Tests, and Ampacity Calculation

Errors," June 23, 1992 Bulletin 92-01, "Failure of Thermo-Lag

330 Fire Barrier System to Maintain Cabling in Wide Cable Trays and Small Conduits Free from Fire Damage," June 24, 1992 Information

Notice 92-55, "Current Fire Endurance

Test Results for Thermo-Lag

Fire Barrier Material," July 27, 1992 Bulletin 92-01 Supplement

1, "Failure of Thermo-Lag

330 Fire Barrier System to Perform Its Specified

Fire Endurance

Function," August 28, 1992 Information

Notice 92-82, "Results of Thermo-Lag

330-1 Combustibility

Testing," December 15, 1992 Generic Letter 92-08, "Thermo-Lag

330-1 Fire Barriers," December 17, 1992 Information

Notice 93-40, "Fire Endurance

Test Results for Thermal Ceramics FP-60 Fire Barrier Material," May 26, 1993 Information

Notice 93-41, "One Hour Fire Endurance

Test Results for Thermal Ceramics Kaowool, 3M Company FS-195 and 3M Company Interam E-50 Fire Barrier Systems," May 28, 1993 A 9chment 5 Io-4-22 March 16, 1994 LIST OF RECENTLY ISSUED NRC INFORMATION

NOTICES Information

Date of Notice No. Subject Issuance Issued to 94-21 94-20 94-19 Regulatory

Requirements

when No Operations

are being Performed Common-Cause

Failures due to Inadequate

Design Control and Dedication

Emergency

Diesel Generator

Vulnerability

to Failure from Cold Fuel Oil Accuracy of Motor-Operated Valve Diag-nostic Equipment (Responses

to Sup-plement 5 to Generic Letter 89-10)Strontium-90

Eye Appli-cators: Submission

of Quality Management

Plan (QMP), Calibration, and Use Recent Incidents

Resulting in Offsite Contamination

Radiation

Exposures

during an Event Involving

a Fixed Nuclear Gauge 03/18/94 03/17/94 03/16/94 03/16/94 03/11/94 03/03/94 03/02/94 All fuel cycle and materials licensees.

All holders of OLs or CPs for nuclear power reactors.All holders of OLs or CPs for nuclear power reactors.All holders of OLs or CPs for nuclear power reactors.All U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission

Medical Use Licensees.

All U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission

material and fuel cycle licensees.

All U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission

licensees

author-ized to possess, use, manu-facture, or distribute

industrial

nuclear gauges.94-17 94-16 94-15 OL -Operating

License CP = Construction

Permit

IN 94-22 March 16, 1994 current carrying capacity (baseline

ampacities).

The ADF for each cable type was calculated

using the following

formula: ADF = baseline -protected

(100)baseline In this format, the ADF is expressed

as a percentage

drop in current-carrying

capacity.

The calculated

ampacity derating factors were 46.4 percent, 36.0 percent, and 35.3 percent for the 8 AWG, 4 AWG, and 2/0 cables, respectively.

Table 5 provides a comparative

summary of the ampacity data and ampacity derating factors from the SNL/UL test and the results reported by the vendor in BI Report 82-5-355F.

Table 5 also shows the results of recalculations

performed

by SNL of the test data reported in TSI Report 82-5-355F.

Detailed explanations

of the two-step recalculations, which were needed to allow comparisons

of the SNL/UL test results with the reported vendor test results, will be documented

in SNL Report SAND94-0146.

This information

notice requires no specific action or written response.

If you have any questions

about the information

in this notice, please contact the technical

contact listed below or the appropriate

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR) project manager. diginslignedby

Brian K. Grimes, Director dan K. Grimes Division of Operating

Reactor Support Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

Technical

contact: Steven West, NRR, (301) 504-1220 Attachments:

1. Table 1, "Summary of Test Article Characteristics," and Table 2, "Summary of Fire Endurance

Test Results." 2. Table 3, "Baseline (Unprotected

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

Cable Tray Ampacity Test Data and Calculations." 3. Table 5, "Comparative

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

Concerning

Fire Barriers 5. List of Recently Issued NRCInformation

Notices DISTRIBUTION

SPLB R/F SWest LNorton, OIG GMulley, OIG EPawlik, RIII/Ol*SEE PREVIOUS CONCURRENCE

SPLB:DSSA*Tech

Ed.* EELB:DE* SPLB:DSSA*

SPLB:DSSA*

OIG* (No SWest RSanders CBerlinger

CMcCracken

MVirgilio

§Mulley objection)

02/23/94 02/15/94 03/10/94 03/03/94 03/0 v4 3/01/94 OGCB:DORS*

OGCB:DORS*

RKiessel JLBirmingham

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

IN 94-XX March xx, 1994 current carrying capacity (baseline

ampacities).

was calculated

using the following

formula: The ADF for each cable type ADF = Ibaseline

-protected

(100)Ibasaeline

In this format, the ADF is expressed

as a percentage

drop in current-carrying

capacity.

The calculated

ampacity derating factors were 46.4 percent, 36.0 percent, and 35.3 percent for the 8 AWG, 4 AWG, and 2/0 cables, respectively.

Table 5 provides a comparative

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

performed

by SNL of the test data reported in TSI Report 82-5-355F.

Detailed explanations

of the two-step recalculations, which were needed to allow comparisons

of the SNL/UL test results with the vendor's test results, will be documented

in SNL Report SAND94-0146.

This information

notice requires no specific action or written response.

If you have any questions

about the information

in this notice, please contact the technical

contact listed below or the appropriate

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR) project manager.Brian K. Grimes, Director Division of Operating

Reactor Support Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

Technical

contact: Steven West, NRR, (301) 504-1220 Attachments:

1. Table 1, "Summary of Test Article Characteristics," and Table 2, "Summary of Fire Endurance

Test Results." 2. Table 3, "Baseline (Unprotected

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

Cable Tray Ampacity Test Data and Calculations." 3. Table 5, "Comparative

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

Concerning

Fire Barriers 5. List of Recently Issued Information

Notices DISTRIBUTION

SPLB R/F LNorton, OIG*SEE PREVIOUS SWest GMulley, OIG CONCURRENCE

EPawlik, RIII/Ol SPLB:DSSA*Tech

Ed.*SWest RSanders 02/23/94 02/15/94 EELB:DE*CBerlinger

03/10/94 SPLB:DSSA*

CMcCracken

03/03/94 SPLB:DSSA*

MVirgilio 03/04/94 OIG*GMulley 03/01/94 (No objection)

OGCB:DORS*

RKiessel 03/08/94 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY OGCB:DORS

pl,4a JLBirminghaifi

03/ //94 IN_94_XX.SW4]

D: DORS BGrimes 03/ /94

&I I k Y 94-XX March XX, 1994 current carrying capacity (baseline

ampacities).

was calculated

using the following

formula: The ADF for each cable type ADF = baseline protected

(100)Ilal / td baseline In this format, the ADF is expressed

as a percentage

drop in current-carrying

capacity.

The calculated

ampacity derating factors were 46.4 percent, 36.0 percent, and 35.3 percent for the 8 AWG, 4 AWG, and 2/0 cables, respectively.

Table 5 provides a comparative

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

performed

by SNL of the test data reported in TSI Report 82-5-355F.

Detailed explanations

of the two-step recalculations, which were needed to allow comparisons

of the SNL/UL test results with the vendor's test results, will be documented

in SNL Report SAND94-0146.

This information

notice requires no specific action or written response.

If you have any questions

about the information

in this notice, please contact the technical

contact listed below or the appropriate

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR) project manager.Brian K. Grimes, Director Division of Operating

Reactor Support Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

Technical

Contact: Steven West, NRR, 301-504-1220

Attachments:

1. Table 1, "Summary of Test Article Characteristics," and Table 2, "Summary of Fire Endurance

Test Results." 2. Table 3, "Baseline (Unprotected

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

Cable Tray Ampacity Test Data and Calculations." 3. Table 5, 'Comparative

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

Concerning

Fire Barriers 5. List of Recently Issued Information

Notices DISTRIBUTION

SPLB R/F LNorton, OIG Gt iest 4ulley, OIG EELB O C~erlinger

/01/°/94 SPLB:DSSA

Tech Ed.ISWest RSanders 02/aS/94 02/%s/94 OGCB:DORR

MGCB:DORS RKiesse! tugler 03/9 /9i 02/ /94 , RIII/O1 S zDSSA SPLB:Dypy CMcCracken

MVI.rg ilio (5/3 /94 s/ g/94 OIG G~ulley objection}

A ll G/94 d, D:DORS BGrimes 02/ /94 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY [G:\THERMOLA\IN_94_XX.SW4]