ML17146A595

Rev 1 to Susquehanna Steam Electric Station Units 1 & 2 Fire Protection Program,App R,Deviation Request 6, Nonfireproofed Structural Steel.

ML17146A595
Person / Time
Site:	Susquehanna
Issue date:	10/31/1986
From:	PENNSYLVANIA POWER & LIGHT CO.
To:
Shared Package
ML17146A596	List: ML17146A595 ML17146A597 ML17146A598 ML17146A599 ML17146A600 ML17146A601 ML17146A602 ML17146A603 ML17146A604 ML17146A605 ML17146A606 ML17146A607 ML17146A608 ML17146A609 ML17146A610 ML17146A611 ML17146A612 ML17146A613 ML17146A614 ML17146A615 ML17146A616 ML17146A617 ML17146A618 ML17146A619 ML17146A620 ML17146A621 ML17146A622 ML17146A624 ML17146A625 ML17146A626 ML17146A628 ML17146A629 ML17146A630 PLA-2749, Forwards Rev to Deviation Request 6,addressing App R Re Nonfireproofing of Structural Steel,Including Issues & Concerns Raised by NRC During 860730 meeting.Thirty-two Oversize Drawings Encl
References
PROC-861031, NUDOCS 8611060168
Download: ML17146A595 (74)

Text

SUSQUEHANNA STEAMELECTRICSTATIONUNITS152FIREPROTECTION PROGRAMAPPENDIXRDEVIATION REQUESTNO.6NONFIREPROOFED STRUCTURAL STEELSUMMARYREPORTFORSTRUCTURAL STEELEVALUATION REVISION110/86Sbigpb1bap5pppg87ebgP31ADOGVpgRF

SUMMARYREPORTFORSTRUCTURAL STEELEVALUATION

2.0 METHODOLOGY

3.0CRITERIAANDJUSTIFICATION 3.1GeneralCriteria3.2Technical Bas'is3.3TwoHorizontal CableTrayCriteria3.4NFPA13Sprinkler Criteria3.5Case-by-case FireProtection Evaluation 4.0RESULTS5.0MODIFICATIONS 6.0SCHEDULE7.0COMPENSATORY MEASURES

8.0CONCLUSION

APPENDIXA-FiguresAPPENDIXB-References

~%CJ'~tiTTGdill88-~3d~~if..f.

FIREPROTECTION PROGRAMDEVIATION REQUESTNO.6PAGE3of28SUMMARYREPORTFORSTRUCTURAL STEELEVALUATION UNIT152REACTORBUILDINGS APPENDIXRDEVIATION REVESTNO.61.0Introduction Deviation RequestNo.6wassubmitted totheNRCinSeptember 1985(PLA-2529) requesting approvalofexposed(non-fireproofed) structural steelwhichsupportsfireareabarriersintheUnit1and2ReactorBuildings, andsupportselevation 754'ftheControlStructure.

Afterreviewing theDeviation Request,theNRCrequested additional justification.

InresponsetotheNRCrequest,PP&Lsubmitted theStructural SteelActionPlantotheNRCfortheirconcurrence onFebruary10,1986(PLA-2592).

Theinitialsubmittal, outlinedinRevision0tothisreport,wassubmitted totheNRConMay19,1986.Subsequent totheinitialsubmittal, ameetingwasheldintheNRCOfficeinBethesda, MDonJuly30,1986todiscussthesubmittal.

DuringthismeetingtheNRCrequested thatPPSLrevisetheirsubmittal andprovidethefollowing:

oConsideration oftheeffectsofslabopeningsand'theuseofa100Ãliveloadcriteria.

oSpecificdetailsoftheareasrequiredtobefirerated.OursummaryreporthasbeenrevisedtorespondtotheNRCrequests.

Methodology changes,different thanthoseproposedinouractionplansubmitted withPLA-2592, haveoccurredasaresultofNRCcomments.

Thesechangesareexplained inthereport.Thisreportspecifically addresses thefire-rated barriersintheUnit1and2ReactorBuildings.

Allfire-rated barrierscoveredbyDeviation Request0'6,exceptone,arelocatedintheUnit1and2ReactorBuildings.

Theoneexception istheceilingabovethemaincontrolroomintheControlStructure.

Thewrite-upwithinthebodyofDeviation Requestb'6isconsidered tohaveadequately addressed thecombustible configuration sothesubjectisnotspecifically addressed inthereport.Finally,inresponsetoconcernsexpressed verballybytheNRCstaff,wehavetakentheinitiative toreviewallofthestructural steelintheUnit1and2ReactorBuildings regardless ofwhetherornotthestructural steelwaspartofafire-rated barrier.

~Qfe5I~~~f'i!',"...

Qr~liVl.l~i~"J'lf.C~vt.',sC()QI5ft!~i.'",~'9lft~'~-lQfJImA~!gf1~.&f'fI'4 FIREPROTECTION PROGRAMDEVIATION REQUESTNO.6PAGE4of282.0N~hd1Themethodology outlinedbelow,whichdiffersfromthemethodology outlinedinPLA-2592, wasusedinperforming ourupdatedanalysis.

Allstructural steelinboththeUnit1andUnit2ReactorBuildings wasreviewed.

Thestructural steelframingplanforeachfloorelevation ineachReactorBuildingwasreviewedandtheminimumsetofstructural steelframingmembersrequiredtoinsurestructural integrity wasselected.

Thisminimumsetofstructural steelframing'memberswasselectedonthepremisethatthethickreinforced concreteslabsusedintheconstruction oftheReactorBuildings areabletospansignificantly longerdistances thanthenormalbeamtobeamspanrequiredbyotherdesignbasisaccidentscenarios.

Sincetheseotherdesignbasisaccidentscenarios neednotbeconsidered inconjunction withafire,muchofthestructural steelinstalled intheReactorBuildingisnotnecessary tomaintainstructural integrity forthefirescenario.

Inselecting theminimumsetofrequiredstructural framingmembers,thefollowing restrictions wereapplied:oThereinforced concreteslabmustbeabletosupport100'5ofthe~allowable liveloadshownontheexistingstructural framingplandrawings.

Thelossofstructural continuity asaresultofhatchopeningsandpenetrations mustbeconsidered.

oTheselectedstructural steelframingbeamsmustbecapableofcarryinganyincreased loadingscausedbytheelimination ofadjacentmemberstothebuildinggirdersand/orcolumns.Similarily, thebuildinggirdersand/orcolumnsmustbecapableofsupporting anyincreased loading.Eachspecificconcreteslabsectionwasevaluated toassurethatthefirstcriteriaoutlinedabovewasmet.Eachrequiredstructural steelframingmemberwasreviewedfortheeffectsofanyadditional loadimposedonthememberandfortheeffectsofthecombustible configuration neareachmember.Anyrequiredstructural steelframingmemberwithamaximumoftwohorizontal cabletraysinitsvicinitywasevaluated tobeacceptable.

(SeeSection3.3-TwoHorizontal CableTrayCriteriaforanexplanation ofandjustification ofthiscriteria.)

Anyrequiredstructural steelframingmemberlocatedinareasprotected byanNFPA13sprinkler systemswasevaluated tobeacceptable.

(SeeSection3.4-NFPA13Sprinkler

Criteria, foranexplanation ofandjustification forthiscriteria.)

Allremaining requiredstructural steelframingmemberswereevaluated withrespecttofireprotection onacase-by-case basis.Byreviewing eachmemberandthecombustible configuration inthevicinityofthe ll,9"~~+pe'pyr1Gi

\FIREPROTECTION PROGRAMDEVIATION REQUESTNO.6PAGE5of28member,thefireprotection evaluation determined thatstructural steeltemperatures couldnotberaisedabove1000'F.Thecase-by-case fireprotection evaluation isexplained inSection3.5.3.0CriteriaandJustification 3.1GeneralCriteriaInthepastithasbeencommontocalculate theaveragecombustible loadingbydistributing allcalculated combustibles uniformly overtheentirefloorareaandcomparing theresultswiththefireratingofthestructure.

Whilethismethodprovidesaroom-to-room comparison, itfailstoconsidersuchparameters ascombustible concentration, fuelarrangement, andburningrates.Theseaveragecombustible loadingshavetraditionally beencomparedtofire-rated components testedtotheStandardTimeTemperature Curve(Ref.2).Morerecently, thisapproachhascomeunderattackasbeingunconservative incertainapplications becauseitfailstoaddressthecondition wherethemajorityofthecombustibles inanareaareconcentrated inasmallportionofthearea.PPSLbasedthestructural steeleva'luation onacomparison ofcombustible configuration ineachareausingactualcabletrayfiretestdata.Cabletraysarethepredominant firehazardintheReactorBuildings.

Thecabletrayfiretestsreferenced takeintoaccounttheactualfuelarrangement withinthecabletray,combustible configuration, andburningrates.Thecriticalsteelfailuretemperature usedintheevaluation criteriawasbasedonthe1000Faveragetemperature acceptance criteriafoundintheNationalFireProtection Association's standardusedfortestingfireproofing forstructural steel(NFPA-251).

Sincefireproofing materials aredesignedtomaintainstructural steeltemperatures belowthislevel,wecanconcludethatfireswhichdonotheatthestructural steeltothiscriticaltemperature willnotresultinlossofstructural integrity.

Thisconclusion isfurthersubstantiated byinformation providedbytheAmericanInstitute ofSteelConstruction.

TheAmerican'Institute ofSteelConstruction Manual(Ref.8)statesthatsteelmaintains approximately 63Kofitsyieldstrengthat1000'Fandapproximately 374ofitsyieldstrengthat1200'F.ThenormalA.I.S.C.allowable stressinbendingisintherangeof60to66Kofitsyieldstrength.

Sinceitisreasonable toclassifythefirecondition asanextremeenvironmental loadingcombination, itshouldfollowthat.forthisloadingcombination theallowable stressshouldbepermitted toapproachtheyieldstrengthofthemateria1.

Therefore, byrestricting structural steeltemperature to1000'F,weareassuringthatapproximately 63Koftheyieldstrengthofthematerialispreserved.

Asaresult,whenweevaluatethestructural membersfor It~fl'.'Sl')8C)Aj.I,y.dyfi"~,-~)iAl" FIREPROTECTION PROGRAMDEVIATION REQUESTNO.6PAGE6of28100ÃliveanddeadloadandusethenormalA.I.S.C.allowable

stresses, weare,infact,satisfying theconditions whichwouldbeimposedbyaloadingcombination consistent withthefirescenario'.

InSection3.2ofthisreport,'he EnergyBalanceMethodoutlinedinthepreviousrevisionhasbeenexpandedtoincludetheheatabsorption capability oftheconcrete.

Inthedevelopment ofthemethodithasbeenassumedthatanequilibrium temperature isreachedbetweenthestructural steelandthefirstinchofdepthofconcrete.

Theassumption ofequilibrium concreteheatuptoadepthofoneinchisconsidered areasonable assumption sinceinactuality therapidtransferofheatthroughtheairwouldcauseamuchlargerareathanassumedtobeheatedup.Fromastructural standpoint heatingofthelower1"ofconcretewillhaveanegligible effectontheconcretestructural properties sincethecoveronthereinforcing steelisapproximately 4"andinthestructural evaluation forslabspancapability, theconcreteontheunderside oftheslabisin,tension.Tensileconcreteisnotconsidered forstructural properties.

Thefollowing combustibles weregenerically evaluated, anditwasdetermined thataspecificanalysisonacase-by-case basiswasnotrequired.

Theremaining combustibles whicharerepresented solelybycabletraysarethedominantfactorleadingtopotential hightemperatures.

whichwouldaffectstructural steel.3.1.1Combustible LiuidsCombustible liquidscouldpresentfireexposuretostructural steel.Themostprobablelocationforheatreleased, however,wouldbeatthefloorlevelandtheheatwouldbereleasedveryquickly.Theanalysisofallfirezonescontaining combustible liquids,exceptFireZonesI-1Gand2-1G,areboundedbytheanalysisofFireZoneI-1C.FireZoneI-1Ccontainsthelargestin-situquantityofoil(155gallons)inthesmallestroom(1374squarefeet).Thisoilisassociated withtheHPCIandRCICTurbines.

TheSusquehanna SESFireProtection Report(Rev.2),page4.1-2,indicated a4mmperminuteburningrateforoil.Assumingthein-situ155gallonsandatransient allowance of155gallonsofoil.arespilledonthefloorandnoneoftheoilisremovedbythefloordrains,thecalculated firewilllastlessthanthreeminutes.Thisisnotsufficient timeforthecriticalstructural steeltobeheatedto1000'F.TheHPCIturbinesandRCICturbinelubeoilsystemshaveamaximumoilflowof60gpmat110psi.Thepotential forahighpressureleakaffecting thesteelislow.Thepiping FIREPROTECTION PROGRAMOEVIATION RE(VESTNO.6PAGE7of283.1.2isseismically designedandautomatic openheaddelugewaterspraysystemsprotecttheHPCIandRCIC.oilsystems.OilsumpslocatedinFireZoneI-1Gand2-1Ghavea1120galloncapacity; Theconstruction ofthesesumps,however,wouldpreventtheignitionandburningoftheoil.Thesumpsareconstructed ofasteellinercastintoconcretebelowtheReactorBuildingBasement.

Thecoverofthesumpsisa14'hickconcreteslabwitha2'2k'anhole constructed ofaminimumof3/4"thicksteelplate.Charcoal3.1.3TheHVACunitswhich'containcharcoalareprovidedwithfixeddelugesystemsandarecontained withinsteelenclosures.

Becauseofthephysicalconfiguration ofthecharcoalbedsafirewillbeslowandsmoldering withalowheatreleaserate.Therefore, theseunitswillnoteffectbuildingstructural steelintegrity.

Transient Combustibles 3.2Technical Investigations bySandiaLaboratories (Ref.8,Table3)indicatethattransient combustibles producelowheatreleaseratesresulting inroomtemperatures below500'F.Thepresenceoftransient combustibles isadministratively controlled throughout thefacility.

Whenpresenttransient combustibles arelocatedatfloorlevel.Iftransient combustibles areconsidered alongwithacabletray,itwouldbeexpected, basedontheabovereferenced Sandiadata,thatthetransient wouldbeanignitionsourceonlyifthecabletraywasclosetothetransient combustible.

Suchacombination ofheatreleasecausedbycabletraysandtransient combustibles atfloorlevelwouldnoteffectstructural steellocated'at theceiling.Additionally, sincethestructural steeljustification wasbasedon1000'Fcriticaltemperature, therestillremainsa300'Fallowance beforetransient combustibles wouldproducealocalhotspotof1300'F(1300'Fistheal.lowable localhotspottemperature duringaNFPA251test).BasisThissectionofthereportprovidesthetechnical basisusedtoaddresstheeffectsofeachuniquecombustible configuration ontherequiredstructural steelmembers.

FIREPROTECTION PROGRAMDEVIATION REQUESTNO.6PAGE8of28Thebasicmethodology developed inthissectionisreferredtoastheEnergyBalanceMethod.TheEnergyBalanceMethodprovidesameanstocalculate theenergyreleasedfromagivencombustible configuration, tocalculate theenergyabsorption capability ofagivenstructural massandtodetermine bycomparing thesetwocalculations whetherornotthecriticaltemperature canbeexceeded.

'sdiscussed below,theSandiaLaboratories'Fire Retardant CoatingTest"(Ref.1)providesthedatanecessary topredicttheenergyreleaseofacabletrayfire.TheSandiaLaboratories'Fire Protection ResearchProgramCornerEffectsTests"Report(Ref.4)providesadditional datatoconfirmthesepredictions andpredicttheheatreleaseeffectsoftheburningcablesasafunctionofthedistanceofthesecabletraysfromthecorner.Theheatreleasedatawithincreasing distancefromthecornersuggeststhattheabilityofthecablestoburnandtheresultant energyreleaseisgreatlydiminished asthereradiation effectstypicaloftheclosecornerrelationship areremoved.Theenergyrelease,.figures providedinthecornereffectstestsareusedtobaselinethevaluesmeasuredinthe"FireRetardant CoatingTests"andasaconservative prediction oftheheatreleasevaluetobeusedinthemethodology outlinedbelow.EnerBalanceMethodEnerAbsortionTheenergyabsorption capability ofagivenstructural masscanbecalculated asfollows:ECT=ErxQwhere:Ec=thecriticalenergyneededtoheatallthecomponents inagivenareatothecriticaltemperature (BTU)Er=Energyrequiredtoraiseaunitamountofagivencomponent fromambienttothecriticaltemperature.

Q=Thetotalquantityofeachcomponent inthearea.Thetypicalcomponents inagivenareawhichwouldbepresenttoabsorbheatarestructural steel,concrete,

ductwork, piping,air,equipment andeventhesteelcabletrayitself.Forpurposesofourevaluation onlystructural steelandconcretewillbeconsidered asheatabsorbing components.

FIREPROTECTION PROGRAMDEVIATION RE(UESTNO.6PAGE9of28Theheatrequiredtoraisethetemperature ofonepoundofstructural steelto1000'Fcanbecalculated bythefollowing equation:

ErS=CpSx(Tc-To)where:(Eq.la)Er=Energyrequiredtoraisethetemperature ofofpoundofstructural steelfromambienttothecriticaltemperature (BTU/lb)Cp=Specificheatofsteel(Cp=.112BTU/lb'Fforsteel)STo=Pre-fireroomtemperature

100'FTc=Criticaltemperature'

1000'FInserting thegivenvaluesintoequationlayields:Er=.112BTU(1000'F-100'F)=100.8BTU/lblb'FTherefore, approximately 100BTUsperpoundofsteelarerequiredtoheatthesteeltothecriticaltemperature.

Thecriticalenergyrequiredtoheatagivenstructural membertothecriticaltemperature of1000Fisexpressed as:EcSErSxWxLwhere:(Eq.2a)Ec=Criticalenergyneededtoheatagivenstructural=steel membertothecriticaltemperature (BTU)W=weightofstructural steelmemberperfoot(lb/ft)EL=lengthofstructural steelmembersubjectto'direct energyeffects(ft)Theheatrequiredtoraisethetemperature ofonesquarefootofconcrete1"deepto1000'Fcanbecalculated bythefollowing equation:

Er=Cpx(Tc-To)Ccwhere:(Eq.1b)ErC=Energyrequiredtoraisethetemperature ofonesquarefootofconcrete1"deepfromambientto=thecriticaltemperature (BTU/lb)

FIREPROTECTION PROGRAMDEVIATION RE(VESTNO.6PAGE10of28Cp=Specificheatofconcrete(Cp=.156BTU/lb'Fforconcrete)

CTo=Pre-fireroomtemperature

=100'FTc=Criticaltemperature

=1000'FInserting thegivenvaluesintoequationlbyields:Er==.156BTU(1458/ft3)

(lft/12inch)(1000'F-100'F)=1696.5BTU/ft2IbFTherefore, approximately 1700BTUspersquarefootofconcretearerequiredtoheattheconcretetothecriticaltemperature.

Thecriticalenergyrequiredtoheatagivenconcreteareatothecriticaltemperature of1000'Fisexpressed as:EcCrCxcWhere:(Eq.Zb)Ec=Criticalenergyneededtoheatagivenconcreteareatothecriticaltemperature (BTU)A=theeffectedconcreteareaCE~Theenergyreleasedfromacabletraycanbedeveloped asfollows:Theheatreleasedfromatwo-cable trayfirecanbepredicted fromdatadeveloped duringSandiaLaboratories FireRetardant CoatingTests(Ref.1).Duringsmallscaletesting,Sandia(Ref.1,[ableA-XI)determined themayimumHeatReleaseRatetobe134KW/Mwhichisequalto11.8BTU/ftsec.Sandiaperformed afullscalefreeburntestoftwostacked18-inchwidecabletraysfilledwithIEEE383cable(Ref.1Test20).Thetotalheatreleasedfromthistestcanbepredicted byconservatively assumingtheSandiasmallscalemaximumheatreleaseratewasconstantduringtheentirefiretestburnperiod.Thisisexpressed as:Ht=HrxAtxTHt=Totalheatreleased(BTU)Hr.=Maximumheatreleaserate(BTU/ft'ec)

At=Areaofcabletrayburned(ft~)T=BurnTime(sec)(Eq.3)

FIREPROTECTION PROGRAMDEVIATION REQUESTNO.6PAGEllof28Inthistest,thebottomtraywasdamagedfor24linearinchesandburned9minutes.Thetoptraywasdamagedfor54linearinchesandburnedfor12minutes.Usingthisdatainequation3yields:HeatReleaseTopTray=11.8BTUx18inx54inxsecft~144sqin/ft~=57,348BTU12min1min/60secHeatReleaseBottomTray=11.8BTUx18inx24inx9Minsecft'44sqin/ft~1min/60sec=19,116BTUTotalHeatRelease(Ht)=57,348+19,116=76,464BTUThemaximumtotalheatreleaseperareacanbeexpressed asfollows:Hmax=Ht/At(Eq.4)where:Hmax=Maximumtotalheatreleaseperarea(BTU/ft)2Substituting ourpreviously developed dataintoequation4yields:Hmax=76,464BTUinin+24in=7842BTU/ft'4,in t~Thismaximumtotalheatreleaseperareacanthenbeappliedtootherconfigurations bythefollowing equation:

H'HmaxxA'here:{Eq.5)H'Predicted heatreleaseforagivenconfiguration (BTU)A'Areaofcabletrayburnedforthatgivenconfiguration (ft)SandiaLaboratories alsoconducted separatecornereffectstestsofcabletrays(Ref.4)wherecalorimeters recordedheatfluxabovethecabletrayfires.Thisadditional testseriescanbeusedtoconfirmthepredicted maximumheatreleasevalueof7842BTU/ftandalsotodetermine themaximumheatreleasevaluesforconfigurations withdifferent cornerconfigurations.

FIREPROTECTION PROGRAMDEVIATION REQUESTNO.6PAGE12of28Thecornereffecttestdatawasobtainedduringfullscalefreeburnfiretestsinacornerconfiguration.

Thecabletraytype,arrangement, fillandcontentsweresimilartothefireretardant coatingtestsarrangement.

Duringthesecornerteststheactualmaximumheatflux(heatreleaserate)wasmeasuredbydetermining theheatreleasedirectlyabovethecabletraywiththecable-traylocatedatvariousdistances fromthecorner(Ref.5-TableIandII).Themaximumheatfluxmultiplied byburntimewouldconservatively indicatethetotalheatattheuppercalorimeter asfollows:Hmax=HfxT(Eq.6)Where:Hf=maximumheatflux(BTU/fthr)2Bysubstituting thedatafromtheactualcornerteststhefollowing datacanbegenerated:

CableTray*MaxHeatFluxDistance(Hf)-fromCornerBTU/ft'hr5inx10.5in18,43010.5inx18in12,33060inx.120in2,370*(SeeFigure2.0)BurnTime(T)~min202425MaxHeatRelease/Area (Hmax)~BTU/ft~6140BTlf/ft~4932BTU/ft2987BTU/ftThe6140BTU/ftiscomparable tothe7842BTU/ftderivedfromthe22fireretardant coatingtestdata.Thisisexpected, becauseattheshortcornerdistancethepredicted heatreleasewouldnearlyequalthemeasuredmaximumheatrelease.Usingthisdeveloped dataandtheresultsoftheSandiaCornerEffectsTest(Ref.4),adetermination canbemadeastotheamountofheattransferred tothestructural components inanareaduetoafire,inacabletraylocatedsomedistancebelowthesteelmember.Ithasbeendetermined that7842BTU/ft~isthemaximumheatreleasedatthecabletrayorgroupofcabletrays.Figure1.0ofthisreportisareproduction ofFigure7fromtheSandiacornereffectstest(Ref.4).Thedatainthisfigurecanbeusedtodetermine themaximumheatreleasevaluesasafunctionofcornerconfiguration.

AccetanceCriteriaTheenergyrequiredtoheatagivenstructural massto1000'Fiscomparedwiththeenergyreleasedbyafireinthevicinityofthat p,T FIREPROTECTION PROGRAMOEVIATION RE(UESTNO.6PAGE13of28masstodetermine whetherornotthefirethreatens structural integrity.

Ifthefollowing ratioissatisfied, structural inte'grity willbeassured:EcO1.0H'Eq.7)where(aspreviously defined)Ec=Thecriticalenergyneededtoheatallthecomponents inagivenareatothecriticaltemperature (BTU).O'Predicted heatreleaseforagivenconfiguration (BTU).Conservatisms Thefollowing demonstrates thattheUseofthistechnical basisatSusquehanna isconservative:

oThemaximumheatre'leaseratesusedinouranalysiswerebasedoncabletraytestconducted bySandia(Ref.4).InthesetestscrosslinkedPE(polyethylene) cablesina'loosepackedconfiguration weretested.EPRIconducted aseriesoffullscalefiretestsusingthefollowing cabletypesandpackingarrangements:

-Tightlypackedethylenepropylene rubber(EPR)/hypalon cables-Looselypackedethylenepropylene rubber(EPR)/hypalon cables-TightlypackedPEcables-LooselypackedPEcablesTheresultsoftheEPRItestdemonstrated thefollowing relationships.

-Thetighterthecablepacking,thelowertheheatreleasewillbe.-TheEPR/hypalon cableshavealowerheatreleasethanthePEcables.SinceSusquehanna SESusedEPR/hypalon cablesinatightpackedarrangement, thequantative testdataindicates thattheuseof FIREPROTECTION PROGRAMDEVIATION REQUESTNO.6PAGE14of28theheatreleasedatafromtheSandiatesthasaninherentfactorofsafetyofapproximately 8whenappliedtoourplant.oTheSandiaobservedmaximumheatreleaseratedata(Ref.1,4)wasassumedovertheentireburntime.Duringanactualfire,theheatreleaseratewouldgradually increasetothemaximumandthendecrease.

oAllcabletrayswereassumedtobefull.oHeattransfertotheroomairwasignored.oSteelwasassumedtofailifthe1000'Fcriticaltemperature wasreached.Thereducedloadcapabilities ofthestructural steelattemperatures above1000'Fwereignored.oItwasassumedthathighfiretemperatures existedforsufficient timetoallowheatingofthesteel.Inmanycasesthelongerheatingintervals requiredforthelargerstructural steelmemberswillnotexistforsufficient timetoallowthenecessary heattransfer.

3.3TwoHorizontal CableTraCriteria3.3.1Descrition3.3.23.3.3Allrequiredstructural steelframingmemberswerereviewed.

Anymemberaffectedbyacombustible configuration comprised of,nomorethantwo(2)horizontal perpendicular cabletrayswithnoother*cabletrayswithinafour(4)footdistanceandnotlessthanonefootbelowthestructural steelweredetermined tobeacceptable.

(SeeFigure3.0.)~AroachTheEnergyBalanceMethodwillbeusedtoprovideajustification forthecriteriabydemonstrating thatthiscombustible configuration willnotcausetemperatures above1000'Fforthelightestmembertowhichthecriteriawasapplied.Justification Thefollowing justification isprovidedtoquantitatively demonstrate thatthecombustible effectsfromtwo(2)horizontal perpendicular cabletraysonefootbelowthestructural steelareinsufficient tocauseastructural steelmembertobeheatedto1000'F.(SeeFigure3.0.)

FIREPROTECTION PROGRAMDEVIATION RE(UESTNO.6PAGE15of28Therefore, anystructural steelmemberlargerthanthatmemberjustified isacceptable forthedescribed combustible configuration, becauselargerquantities ofheatarerequiredtoheatlargersteelmembers.Thelighteststructural steelmembertowhichthiscriteriawasappliedisaW21x49.Therefore, aM21x49beam(flangewidth-6.52in,weight-49lb/ft)andtwo24-inwidecabletraysmustbejustified.

Enerreleasedatthecabletra:.FromFigure3.0itcanbeseenthatthecabletrayis33"belowtheceiling.Usingavalueof9500BTU/ft~-HR foradistancefromtheceilingof30"fromFigure1.0andusing25minutes,thelongestburntime,fromthetableonpage10,calculate Hmaxforthisconfiguration.

Since:H=HxAxtrandHmax=Ht/AtTherefore:

(Eq.3)(Eq.4)Hmax=Hxt=9500BTUx25min.x1Hrft'-Hr60min.Hmax=3,958BTU~ftH'3,950BTUx24inx6.52inx2trays(Eq.5)Ttt12in/7t12in/ftH'8,602BTUEnerreuiredtoheatbeamto1000'F:Ec=49lbsx24inx100BTU=9,800BTU(Eq.2)ft12in/ftlb FIREPROTECTION PROGRAMDEVIATION REQUESTNO.6PAGE16of28Ratioenerreuiredtoenerreleased:9,800BTU=1.14+1.08,6t62U(Eq.7)Therefore, thecriteriaisjustified.

Thisjustification assumesthatthemaximumheatreleaserateoftheburningcabletrayconfiguration isafunctionofthedistanceofthecabletrayfromtheceilingratherthanfromtheunderside ofthestructural steelmember.Thisisacceptable becauseallpartsofthecabletrayareatleast33"fromtheceilingexceptforashort,6.5",sectionbeneaththestructural steelmember.Itisunrealistic toassumethatthecornereffectswilldramatically increaseinthisshortdistance.

Thisjustification alsoassumesthatonlytheportionofthecabletraydirectlybeneaththestructural steelmembercontributes toraisingthetemperature ofthe'steel.

Thisisjustified becausethoseportionsofcabletraynotdirectlyunderthesteelwillcauseheat-upofthereinforced concreteslababovethem.Foreachadditional footofcabletrayconsidered 7,916BTU'sisrel,eased.

Assuminga45'istribution ofthisheatintotheconcreteslab,theadditional heatabsorbtion affordedbytheconcrete, usingthemethodology outlinedinSection3.2,is12,750BTU's.Therefore, moreenergyabsorption capability isaddedthanadditional heatreleased.

3.4NPFA13SrinklerCriteria3.4.1Descrition3.4.2TheUnit1andUnit2ReactorBuildings bothhaveareaswithautomatic sprinkler protection

designed, installed andtestedtotherequirements ofNFPA13.Allrequiredstructural steelframingmembersinareasprotected byNFPA13sprinkler systemsandhavingcombustible configurations lessthanthosejustified hereinweredetermined tobeacceptable.

'A~roachForagivenquantityofcabletrays,anautomatic sprinkler systemiscapableofpreventing structural steeldamagebycontrolling afireandcoolingthesteel.Sixcabletrayshavebeenselectedasbeingacombustible configuration whichcanbeprotected byasprinkler system.Branch FIREPROTECTION PROGRAMDEVIATION REQUESTNO.6PAGE17of28Technical PositionCMEB9.5-1(Rev.2)lendscredencetothiscriteriainthatitrequiresautomatic suppression systemsonlywhenanareacontainsmorethansixcabletrays.Additionally, extensive largescalefiretestingofrackstoragearrangements, afarmorehazardous combustible configuration thancabletray,havedemonstrate thatceilinglevelautomatic sprinklers installed inaccordance withNFPA13areeffective inpreventing heatdamagetounprotected steelbeamsandcolumns.Therequirements ofNFPAStandard231C,"Standard forRackStorageofMaterials",

(Ref.4)weredeveloped basedontheresultsoftheselargescaletests.Acomparison betweenthecombustible configurations andfirehazardsassociated withrackstorageandcabletrayswillbeusedtojustifyourcriteria.

Justification Ourcriteriacanbejustified bycomparing therelativefirehazardofasix-cable-tray firewiththatofthe.rackstoragefirewhichmeetstheNFPAStandard231Crequirements anddoesnotrequirestructural steelprotection.

Rackstorageofmaterials, especially mostplasticmaterials, presentsadifficult tocontrolfirehazard.Thematerials andthecardboard packaging holdingthesematerials areeasilyignited.Onceignited,therackstorageconfiguration providesidealconditions forrapidandintensecombustion.

Intherackstorageconfiguration theboxesofmaterials aresurrounded onallsidesbysufficient oxygenforcombustion, andthefluespacescreatedbetweenadjacentboxesareidealforreradiation effectswhichpromotefirespread.Also,thepalletized materials (4'4').presentlargeareasofblockagefromsprinkler protection andallowfiregrowthtoalevelwhich,canoverpower traditional sprinkler systems.Recognition oftheseconditions ledtoextensive largescalefiretests.ThesetestsservedasthebasisfortheNationalFireProtection Associations's "Standard forRackStorageofMaterials" (NFPA231C)(Ref.4).TherackstoragetestprogramandNFPAstandardclearlyshowthatwhenanadequately designedceilingsprinkler systemisinstalled, fireproofing isnotrequiredforsteelcolumnsorceilingsteel.(Ref.4Sec.3-2.1,3-2.3,B-3-2.1,andB-3-2.3.)

Incontrast, thecabletraysatSusquehanna containIEEE383qualified cableswhichrequireatleast70,000BTU/hr FIREPROTECTION PROGRAMDEVIATION REQUESTNO.6PAGE18of28heatinputtoignitethecables.Duetothetightpackingofcablesincabletrays,thereisonlylimitedexposuretoair.Cabletrayfiresareslowdeveloping relativetocardboard packaging materials, andunlikeotherfuelarrays,cabletrayspresentafuelarrangement whichallowsfirepropagation inonlytwodirections.

Finally,thecabletrayitselfisconstructed ofnon-combustible steel.IntheReactorBuildings thepredominant firespreadisvertically fromtraytotray.Horizontal firespreadfromcabletraytocabletrayispossible, butthemajorityofthecabletraysintheReactorBuildingarearrangedwithspacingwhicharenotidealforhorizontal firespread.Thefollowing exampleshowshowtodetermine therequiredceilingsprinkler systemparameters forahighhazardrackstorageconfiguration whenstructural steelfireproofing isnotprovidedoneitherceilingbeamsorcolumns.NFPA231CSrinklerDesinExamleThefollowing exampleusesNFPA231Crequirements todetermine sprinkler systemparameters foragivenrackstoragecombustible configuration whenstructural steelfireproofing isnottobeused.a.ProblemDefinition

-Determine thesprinkler densityforaceilingsprinkler systemcapableofmaintaining thebuilding's structural integrity forthefollowing rackstorageconfiguration.

1)Thestoredmaterialispalletized cardboard cartonscontaining foamedpolystyrene.

Thepalletsandcartonsarenotencapsulated withplastic.2)Theaislespacingis8feet.Therackstorageheightis15feet.3)Therearenoin-racksprinklers.

4)Structural steelceilingbeamsandcolumnsarenotfireproofed.

b.NFPA231CRequirements 1)Thecombustible materialdescribed abovewouldbeclassified asaClassIVcommodity perNFPA231CSection2-1.1.4.

FIREPROTECTION PROGRAMDEVIATION REQUESTNO.6PAGE19of282)Byreferring toTable6-11.IinNFPA231Candapplyingthefollowing conditions:

i)Therackstorageheightisover12feetbutlessthan20feet.iii)Thecombustible materialisclassified asaClassIVcommodity.

hThepalletsandcartonsarenotencapsulated withplastic.iv)An8-footwideaisleisusedbetweenrackconfigurations.

v)Noin-racksprinklers areprovided.

itcanbedetermined thatFigure6-8.2canbeusedtodetermine theallowable reduction factortobeappliedtothesprinkler designdensityandthatFigure6-11.ldcurveEorFistobeusedtodetermine theunfactored sprinkler designdensity.(RefertoNFPA231Cforfigures.)

3)UsingNFPA231CTable6-8.2,itisdetermined thata60%reduction factormaybeappliedtotherequiredsprink'ter designdensitydetermined below.4)NFPA231CTable6-ll.dcurveFwillbeused,becauseSusquehanna SESuses212'Fratedsprinkler heads.CurveFappliesto165'Fratedheads.CurveEappliesto265'Fratedheads.Usingthecurveforthelowerratedheadsresultsinamoreconservative sprinkler density.Using2500squarefeet,whichwasusedasthedesignareaforsprinkler coverageusedinthedesignoftheSSESReactorBuildings, itcanbedetermined thattherequiredsprinkler designdensityforthisrackstorageexampleis:2RequiredSprinkler DesignDensity=.54GPM/ft5)Byapplyingthe60%reduction factordetermined instep3above,thefinalsprinkler densityisdetermined tobe:Sprinkler Density=.54x.60=0.32GPM/ft'

FIREPROTECTION PROGRAMDEVIATION REQUESTNO.6PAGE20of28C.6)Therequirements ofNFPA231C'sections 3-2.1and3-2.3aresatisfied bythestorageheightlimitations of15feetandthesprinkler designwhichconformstoChapters6.7.8and9.Therefore, fireproofing ofstructural steelbeamandcolumnsisnotrequiredforthisexample.Conclusion Aceilingsprinkler systemwithadesigndensityof.32GPM/ft2over2500squarefeetisconsidered sufficient toprotectnon-fireproofed structural steel(ceiling.

beamsandcolumns)fromdamagewhensubjected toarackstoragehazardwiththeaboveparameters.

ComarisonofOurCableTraCriteriaWiththeFireHazardoteactoraexamea~CableTraysCabletrayspresentanimportant fireprotection challenge tocontroldamagepriortoaffecting safeshutdownorstationavailability, butcabletrayfireshavelowheatreleaserates,spreadslowly,anddonotposethedan'gertostructures thattherackstoragematerials do.b)Asdiscussed inSection3.2ofthisreport,theSandiaLaboratories FireRetardant CableTest(Ref.1)TableA-Kjindicates amaximumof11.8BTU/ftasec(136,690W/M)fornon-coated electrical cables.Therefore, itcanbeconcluded thatthetotalheatreleaserateforsixcabletrayswouldbe70.8BTU/ft2sec.RackStorageRackstoragestorescombustible materials inconfigurative idealforcombustion (i.e.,airspacearoundfuel,anddistances idealforradiantheattransfer).

Therefore, rackstoragepresentsanextremely difficult firetocontrol.Rackstoragefireshaveextremely highheatreleaserates,spreadveryquickly,andcanthreatenstructural integrity withinminutesunlesspropersprinkler protection isprovided.

Heatreleaseratedatafortherackstoragecommodity wasobtainedfromFactoryMutualData(Ref.10,Table2,Page26)whichindicates thatapalletofpolystyrene incartons14to15feethighhasanaverageheatreleaserateof300BTU/ft2sec.

u FIREPROTECTION PROGRAMDEVIATION REQUESTNO.6PAGE21of28c)Asaresultoftheinformation inaandbabove,thefollowing datacomparison ofcriticalfireprotection parameters canbepresented.

DATACOMPARISON HazarHeatReeaseateSprinkler Density0.8BUtsec300BUtsec.15GPN/ft~*.32GPN/ft~aeTrayr>terraRacStoragexampe*SSESwasesignedonteasisofa.15GPN/ft'prin erdensityovera2500sqftarea.d.Conclusion Thedominantmechanism governing asprinkler system'sabilitytoextinguish firesandalsotoprotectstructural steelfromdamageistheabilityofthesprayedwatertoabsorbtheheatreleasedfromthefire.Thisabsorption occursastheheatofthefireisusedtochangeliquidwatertosteam.Theheatreleaseratesofdifferent materials astheyareconsumedisanindication oftherelativefirehazardofthedifferent fires.Astheheatreleaserateincreases, largerandlargerquantities ofwaterarenecessary toabsorbthehigherheatlevelsgenerated.

Therefore, acomparison ofthedatapresented inItemcaboveonheatreleaseratesandsprinkler densities canbeusedindemonstrating theadequacyoftheSusquehanna sprinkler designforourcabletrayconfigurations.

Sincetherackstorageexampleaboveprovedthata.32GPM/ft~densitysprinkler systemcouldcontrolafirewithaheatreleaserateof300BTU/ft~min,usingastrictlylinearrelationship wecanpredicta.15GPN/ft~densitysprinkler systemwouldcontrolafirewithaheatreleaserateof140BTU/ft~secor12cabletrays(140BTU/ft'ec dividedby11.8BTU/ft'ec percabletray).Theassumption oflinearity appliedabovewouldbeviewedasbeinghighlyunconservative ifthelighthazardfiretestdatawasusedtopredictthesprinkler systemrequirements toprotecta A,

FIREPROTECTION PROGRAMDEVIATION REQUESTNO.6PAGE22of28configuration withhighfirehazardpotential.

Thisisvalidbecauseasthelevelofthecombustibles doubles,effectssuchasreradiation canhaveanexponential effect.Incontrast, however,toextrapolate resultsfromthehigherdensitysystemtothelowerdensitysystemonalinearbasisisclearlyaconservative andsupportable approach.

Whilethiscomparison predictsawidemarginofsafetyoverthesix-traycriteria, thecriteriawaslimitedtosixcabletraystobeconservative, toparalleltheBranchTechnical PositionCNEB9.5-1(Rev.2)requirements, andtoassurethatspecificorientations andarrangements exceeding thecriteriawouldbelookedatonacase-by-case basistoensuretheadequacyofthesprinkler system.Therefore, theexistingceilinglevelautomatic sprinkler systemintheSusquehanna SESReactorBuildingcanbeexpectedtoprotectstructural steelwithawidemarginofsafetyintheeventofafireinvolving sixcabletrays.3.5Case-8-CaseFireProtection Analsis3.5.1Descrition4.0RESULTSForallrequiredstructural.

steelframingmembersnotsatisfying eitherofthetwocriteriaoutlinedaboveoneofthefollowing approaches wasusedtojustifythatstructural steelfireproofin'g wasnotrequired:

a)Fornon-sprinklered areas,acase-by-case evaluation usingtheEnergyBalancemethodoutlinedinSection3.1ofthisreportwasperformed.

Themostseverecabletrayexposure'as analyzedforeachsteelmemberevaluated.

Incaseswherethem'ostsevereexposurewasnotobvious,severalexposures wereevaluated.

b)Forsprinklered areas,acase-by-case evaluation todetermine thattheexistingcombustible configuration wouldbecontrolled bythesprinkler systemwasperformed.

Allstructural steelintheUnitk'1and82ReactorBuildings wasreviewedinconjunction withthecombustible configuration exposingthestructural steeltodetermine ifthecombustible configuration wouldcausestructural steeltemperatures inexcessofthecriticaltemperature.

FIREPROTECTION PROGRAMDEVIATION REQUESTNO.6PAGE23of28Nosituations werefoundwheretheadditionoffireproofing materials wasdetermined tobenecessary tokeepstructure steeltemperatures belowthecriticaltemperature.

Forareasactingasfireareabarriers:

a)Thestructural steelsupporting theroofoftheReactorBuildingswitchgear rooms(FireZone1-4C,1-4D,1-5F,1-5G,2-4C,2-4D,2-5Fand2-5G)wereconfirmed toalreadybeprovidedwith3-hourfireratedfireproofing (Thesearenotthesubjectofdeviation request¹6).b)Thespecificcombustible configurations andjustifications foreachoftheremaining-fireratedareasiscontained inDeviation Request¹6,Non-Fireproofed Structural Steel.5.0MODIFICATIONS Nomodifications arerequired.

6.0 ScheduleScheduledataformodifications

isnotapplicable.

Nomodifications wereidentified bythisanalysis.

7.0 ComensatorMeasuresCompensatory

measuresarenotapplicable.

Nodeficiencies wereidentified bythisanalysis.

8.0 Conclusion

Theevaluation ofthestructural steelintheSusquehanna SteamElectricStationUnit¹1and¹2ReactorBuildings hasdetermined, basedontheconservative evaluation criteriaoutlinedinthisreport,nottorequirestructural steelfireproofing.

Withtheseresults,assummarized inDeviation Request¹6,Non-Fireproofed Structural Steel,allstructural steelisjustified.

tg/i327i:clb FIREPROTECTION PROGRAMDEVIATION REQUESTNO.6PAGE24of28APPENDIXAFIGURES

2400011<X<140Z16000O'2000h9Soo800000H=1.09X10+2.1X10X-8.47X10UNQUALIFIED CABLEH=152+3.06X10X-1.09X10IEEE-383QUALIFIED CABLE45607590105120135150INCHES,XFIGURE1.0(FromFigure7oftheSandiaCornerEffectsTest-Ref-4)OCTTl~ms-eg)(XlUVlcc%OO0m~A~m~Q)~~C'Om~C/)URODA~X7Ch&

FIREPROTECTION PROGRAMDEVIATION REQUESTNO.6PAGE26of280f~44P~iyll~~~p~ao'i'g~,L~00,ayiy4q0...CA.f6'7FA'(ARRh,dcqKhh647.

FIREPROTECTION PROGRAMDEVIATION REQUESTNO.6PAGE27of280~t~4p~'IoOrnerarr4Os@~lrCX9g~40%~0~e>oC,O~'IIoroCiV'C~rs4CA,eLKTa+gS~AuETa+y.4g"NlohTRAQView"A-A

'w APPENDIXBREFERENCES FIREPROTECTION PROGRAMDEVIATION REQUESTNO.6PAGE28of281.SandiaFireRetardant CoatingTest12-7-77to1-31-78Sand78-0518 2.NFPACode251-StandardMethodsofFireTestsofBuilding, Construction Materials 1985Edition3.NFPACode231C-RackStorageof-Materials 1980Edition4.SandiaFireProtection ResearchProgramCornerEffectsTests-Sand79-0966

'.Categorization ofCableFlammability Intermediate ScaleFireTests'ofCableTrayInstallations

-EPRINP-1881,August1982.6.NRC'sBranchTechnical PositionCMEP9.5-1(Rev..2).

7.SandiaInvestigation ofTwenty-Foot Separation DistanceasaFireProtection MethodasSpecified in10CFR50,AppendixRSAND83-0306.

8.ManualofSteelConstruction

-8theditionAISC,Inc.9.VendorDrawingM-343layoutdrawingandhydraulic calculations.

10.Evaluating Upsprinklered FireHazards,AlpertandWard,FactorMutualResearch(RC84-Bt-9).

11.FireProtection ReviewReport(Rev.2)Susquehanna, SteamElectricStation.12.ChemicalEngineers'andbook

-4thedition,J.H.Perry.13.BuildingCodeRequirements forReinforced

Concrete, ACI318-83.

,

UNIT1FIRERATEDFLOORSLABABOVEFIRE~ZONE1-1FReference DrawingC-206006, Sheet1Thefireratedfloorslabinquestionis2'-9"thickandthetopofslabisatelevation 683'-0".Thisreinforced concreteslabactscompositely withthestructural steelbeamstosupportthiselevation asshownonthereference drawing.Thesourceofcombustibles inthisareaistwohorizontal cabletrayslocatedapproximately 12'eneath thebottomofthestructural steelbeams.Evaluation:

Section3.3oftheSummaryReportforStructural SteelEvaluation providesjustification fortheadequacyofstructural steelforacombustible configuration oftwohorizontally stackedcabletrays.Thetwocabletraysinthisfirezonearelocatedapproximately 12'eneath thebottomofthestructural steelbeamswhereasthecabletraysdiscussed inSection3.3ofthereportareonlyonefootbelowthesteelbeams.Thisincreased distanceaddstothemarginofsafetyalreadycontained intheSection3.3analysis.

==

Conclusion:==

ThefireratedfloorslababoveFireZone1-1FasshownonDrawingC-206006, Sheet1,willnotbeadversely affectedbyafireinFireZone1-1Fsinceapostulated fireinFireZone1-1Fwouldnotgeneratesufficient heattoweakenthestructural steelbeamssupporting thefireratedfloorslab.fm/i395i:dek UNIT2FIRERATEDFLOORSLABABOVEFIREZONE2-6AReference DrawingC-206016, Sht.1DESCRIPTION:

Thefireratedfloorslabinquestionis1'-9"thickandthetopofslabisatelevation 779'-1".Thisreinforced concreteslabactscompositely withthestructural steelbeamstosupportthiselevation asshownonthereference drawing.Thesourceofcombustibles in,thisareais3horizontal cabletraysstackedontopofeachother.EVALUATION:

'Theareadirectlybeneaththeportionofthefloorslabwhichisfireratedhasnocabletrays,however,3horizontally stackedcabletraysarelocatedbeneaththeW30X190structural steelbeamswhichsupporttheareafloorslabatelevation 799'-1".Thesestructural steelbeamswereevaluated bytheEnergyBalanceMethoddescribed inSection3.2of'theSummaryReportforStructural SteelEvaluation.

Thisanalysisdemonstrated thattheratioofthecriticalenergyneededtoheateachW30X190structural steelbeamtothecriticaltemperature (Ec)tothepredicted heatreleaseforthecombustible configuration surroundin eachbeam(H')tobegreaterthantherequiredminimumvalueof1.0.Tisanalysisverifiestheintegrity oftherequiredstructural steelbeamssupporting thefireratedfloorslabinquestion.

CONCLUSION:

Basedontheaboveevaluation andthespecificcombustible configuration beneaththisfireratedfloorslabasshownonthereference drawing,apostulated fireinFireZone2-6Awouldnotgeneratesufficient heattoweakenthestructural steelbeamssupporting thefireratedfloorslab.fm/j092i:mab S

UNIT2FIRERATEDFLOORSLABABOVEFIREZONES2-4A-WAND2-4A-SReference DrawingC-206013, Sheet4ThefireratedfloorslabinquestionisI'-9"thickandthetopoftheslabisatelevation 749'-I".Thisreinforced concreteslabactscompositely withaseriesofstructural steelbeams=tosupportthisfloorelevation asshownonthereference drawing.Thesourceofcombustibles inthisareaistwohorizontal cabletrays.Evaluation:

TheportionsofFireZones2-4A-Wand2-4A-Slocatedbeneaththefireratedfloorslabinquestionisprotected byanautomatic firesuppression sprinkler systemwhichhasbeeninstalled inaccordance withNFPA13.IntheeventofafireintheseportionsofFireZones2-4A-Wand2-4A-S,actuation oftheautomatic sprinkler systemwouldmitigatetheheateffectthefirewouldhaveonthestructural steelbeamssupporting thisfireratedfloorslab.Thebasisforthisevaluation ispresented inSection3.4oftheSummaryReportforStructural SteelEvaluation.

Thissectionofthereportprovidesthejustification fortheNFPA13sprinkler system'sheatabsorption capability withrespecttocabletrayfires.Thecombustible configuration beneaththisfireratedfloorslabisboundedbytheanalysisinSection3.4.Conclusion:

Basedontheaboveevaluation andthespecificcombustible configuration beneaththefireratedfloorslabinquestion, theexistingautomatic firesuppression sprinkler systemcanbeexpectedtoprotectthestructural steelbeamswithawidemarginofsafetyintheeventofapostulated fireinthisarea.fm/i455i:mab UNIT2FIRERATEDFLOORSLABABOVEFIREZONE2-4A-WReference DrawingC-206013, Sheets283Thefireratedfloorslabinquestionis1'-9"thicke'astofcolumnlineTand3'-3"thickwestofcolumnlineT.Thetopofslabelevation fortheentireslabisatelevation 749'-1".Thisreinforced concreteslabactscompositely withthestructural steelbeamstosupportthiselevation asshownonthereference drawing.Thecombustibles inFireZone2-4A-Wlocatedbeneaththisfireratedfloorslabconsistofthreehorizontal cabletraysasdepictedonthereference drawing.Evaluation:

TheentiresectionofFireZone2-4A-Wlocatedbeneaththe,fireratedfloorslabinquestionisprotected byanautomatic firesuppression sprinkler systemwhichhasbeeninstalled inaccordance withNFPA13.IntheeventofafireinthisportionofFireZone2-4A-W,actuation oftheautomatic firesuppression sprinkler systemwouldmitigatetheheateffectsonthestructural steelbeamssupporting thefireratedfloorslab.Thebasisforthisevaluation ispresented inSection3.4oftheSummaryReportforStructural SteelEvaluation.

Thissectionofthereportprovidesthejustification fortheNFPA13sprinkler system'sheatabsorption capability withrespecttocabletrayfires.Thecombustible configuration beneaththisfireratedfloorslabisboundedbytheanalysisinSectioq3.4.Conclusion:

Basedontheaboveevaluation andthespecificcombustible configuration beneaththefireratedfloorslabinquestion, theexist'ing automatic firesuppression sprinkler systemcanbeexpectedtoprotectthestructural steelbeamswithawidemarginofsafetyintheeventofapostulated fireinthisarea.fm/i399i:dek UNIT2FIRERATEDFLOORSLABABOVEFIREZONES2-4A-SAND2-4A-WReference DrawingC-206013, Sheet1ThefireratedfloorslabinquestionisI'-9"thickandthetop.ofslabisatelevation 749'-I".Thisreinforced concreteslabactscompositely withthestructural'teel beamstosupportthiselevation asshownonthereference drawing.Thecombustibles inFireZone2-4A-Sand2-4A-Wlocatedbeneaththisfireratedfloorslabconsistoftwohorizontal cabletraysstackedontopofeachotherasshownonthereference drawing.Evaluation:

TheentiresectionofFireZones2-4A-Sand2-4A-Wlocatedbeneaththefireratedfloorslabinquestionisprotected byanautomatic, firesuppression sprinkler systemwhichhasbeeninstalled inaccordance withNFPA13.IntheeventofafireintheseportionsofFireZones2-4A-Wand2-4A-S,actuation oftheautomatic'fire suppression sprinkler systemwouldmitigatetheheateffectofthefireonthestructural steelbeamssupporting thisfireratedfloorslab.'hebasisforthisevaluation ispresented in-Section 3.4oftheSummaryReportforStructural SteelEvaluation.

Thissectionofthereportprovidesjustification fortheNFPA13sprinkler system'sheatabsorption capability withrespecttocabletrayfires.Thecombustible configuration beneaththisfireratedfloorslabisboundedbytheanalysisinSection3.4.IConclusion:

Basedontheaboveevaluation andthespecificcombustible configuration beneaththefireratedfloorslabinquestion, theexistingautomatic firesuppression sprinkler systemcanbeexpectedtoprotectthestructural steelbeamswithawidemarginofsafetyintheeventofapostulated fireinthisarea.fm/i397i:dek UNIT2FIRERATEDFLOORSLABABOVEFIREZONE2-3B-WReference DrawingC-206022, Sht.2DESCRIPTION:

Thefireratedfloorslabinquestionis2'-3"thickwiththetopofslabatelevation 719'-I".Thisreinforced concreteslabactscompositely withthestructural steelbeamswhichsupportthisfloorelevation.

Thesourceofcombustibles inthisareaiscabletrays.EVALUATION:

TheportionofFireZoneI-3B-Wlocatedbeneaththefireratedfloorslabinquestionisprotected byanautomatic firesuppression sprinkler systemwhichhasbeeninstalled inaccordance withNFPA13.'IntheeventofafireinthisportionofFireZone,2-3B-W,actuation oftheautomatic sprinkler'ystem wouldmitigatetheheateffectthefirewouldhaveonthestructural steelbeamssupporting thefireratedfloorslab.Thebasisforthisevaluation ispresented inSection3.4oftheSummaryReportfor'tructural steelevaluation.

Thissectionofthereportprovidesthejustification fortheNFPA-13sprinkler system'sheatabsorption capability withregardstocabletrayfires.Thecombustible configuration beneaththisfireratedfloorslabisboundedbytheanalysisinSection3.4.CONCLUSION:

Basedontheaboveevaluation andthespecificcombustible configuration beneaththefireratedfloorslabinquestion, theexistingautomatic firesuppression sprinkler systemcanb'eexpectedtoprotectthestructural steelbeamswithawidemarginofsafetyintheeventofapostulated fireinthisarea.fm/j075i:mab UNIT2FIRERATEDFLOORSLABABOVEFIREZONE2-3B-WReference DrawingC-206022,Sht.

IDESCRIPTION:

Thefireratedfloorslabinquestionis2'-3"thickwiththetopofslabatelevation 719'-I".Thisreinforced'concrete slabactscompositely withthestructural-steel beams'hich supportthisfloorelevation.

Thesourceofcombustibles inthisareaiscabletrays.EVALUATION:

TheportionofFireZoneI-38-Wlocatedbeneaththefireratedfloorslabinquestionisprotected byanautomatic firesuppression sprinkler systemwhichhasbeeninstalled inaccordance withNFPA13.IntheeventofafireinthisportionofFireZone2-3B-W,actuation oftheautomatic sprinkler systemwouldmitigatetheheateffectthefirewouldhaveonthestructural steelbeamssupporting thefireratedfloorslab.Thebasisforthisevaluation ispresented inSection3.4ofthe,SummaryReportforstructural steelevaluation.

Thissectionofthereportprovidesthejustification fortheNFPA13sprinkler system'sheatabsorption capability withrespecttocabletrayfires.Thecombustible configuration beneaththisfireratedfloorslabisboundedbytheanalysisinSection3.4.CONCLUSION:

Basedontheaboveevaluation andthespecificcombustible configuration beneaththefireratedfloorslabinquestion, theexistingautomatic firesuppression sprinkler systemcanbeexpectedtoprotectthestructural steelbeamswithawidemarginofsafety-intheeventofapostulated fireinthisarea.fm/j074i:mab UNIT2FIRERATEDFLOORSLABABOVEFIREZONE2-3B-NReference DrawingC-206012, SheetsIand2Thefireratedfloorslabinquestionis4'-9"thickandthe.topofslabisatelevation 719'-I".Thisreinforced concreteslabactscompositely withthestructural steelbeamstosupportthiselevation asshownonthereference drawing.Theprimarysourceofcombustibles inFireZone2-38-Nlocatedbeneaththefireratedfloorslabconsistofanumberofhorizontal andverticalcabletrays.Thelocationofthesecabletraysareshownonthereference drawing.Evaluation:

TheentiresectionofFireZone2-3B-Nlocatedbeneaththefireratedfloorslabinquestionisprotected byanautomatic firesuppression sprinkler systemwhichhasbeeninstalled inaccordance with,NFPA 13.IntheeventofafireinthisportionofFireZone2-3B-N,actuation oftheautomatic firesuppression sprinkler systemwouldmitigatetheheateffectsofthefireonthestructural steelbeamssupporting thefireratedfloorslab.Thebasisforthisevaluation ispresented inSection3.4oftheSummaryReportforStructural SteelEvaluation.

Thissectionofthereportprovidesthejustification fortheNFPA13sprinkler system'sheatabsorption capability withrespecttocabletrayfires.Thecombustible configuration beneaththisfireratedfloorslabisboundedbytheanalysisinSection3.4.Conclusion:

Basedontheaboveevaluation andthespecificcombustible configuration beneaththefireratedfloorslabinquestion, theexistingautomatic firesuppression sprinkler systemcanbeexpectedtoprotectthestructural steelbeamswithawidemarginof,safetyintheeventofapostulated fireinthisarea.fm/i398i:dek UNIT2FIRERATEDFLOORSLABABOVEFIREZONE2-1EReference DrawingC-206011, Sheet2Thefireratedfloorslabinquestionis2'-9"thickandthetopofslabisatelevation 683'-0".Thisreinforced concreteslabactscompositely withthestructural steelbeamstosupportthiselevation asshownonthereference drawing.TherearenocabletraysinFireZone2-1Elocatedbeneaththisfirerated-floor slab.Evaluation Withnocabletrayslocatedbeneaththisfireratedfloorslab,sufficient heattoadversely affectthefireratedfloorslabwouldnotbegenerated.

Section3.3oftheSummaryReportforStructural SteelEvaluation providesjustification fortheadequacyofstructural steelforacombustible configuration oftwohorizontally stackedcabletrays.Thisareahasnocabletrays.Conclusion:

ThefireratedfloorslababoveFireZone2-1EasshownonDrawingC-206011, Sheet2,willnotbeadversely affectedbyafireinFireZone2-lEsinceapostulated fireinFireZone2-1Ewouldnotgeneratesufficient heattoweakenthestructural steelbeamssupporting thefireratedfloorslab.fm/i415i:dek UNIT1FIRERATEDFLOORSL'ABABOVEFIREZONE1-4GReference DrawingC-206009, Sheets182Descrition:Thefireratedslabinquestionis1'-2-1/2" thickwiththetopofslabatelevation 761'-10".

Thisslabactscompositely withaseriesofstructural steelbeamsasshownonthereference drawing.Thesourceofcombustibles beneaththefireratedslabconsistoftwocabletrayswhichvaryinelevation butarenocloserthan18'romthebottomofthefloorslab.Evaluation:

Section3.3oftheSummaryReportforStructural SteelEvaluation providesjustification thattwohorizontally stackedcabletrayswillnotadversely affecttheintegrity ofthestructural steelbeams.Thetwocabletraysinthisfirezonearelocatedapproximately 16'elowtheoverheadstructural steelbeamswhereasthecabletraysdiscussed inSection3.3ofthereportareonlyonefootbelowthesteelbeams.Thisincreased distanceaddstothemarginofsafetyalreadycontained intheSection3.3analysis.

Furthermore, ananalysisusingtheEnergyBalanceMethodasdeveloped inSection3.2oftheSummaryReportshowedtheratioofthecriticalenergyneededtoheattheminimumrequiredstructural steelmemberstothecriticaltemperature (Ec)to'thepredicted heatreleaseforthiscombustible configuration (H')tobeII.4whichismuchgreaterthantherequiredminimumvalueof1.0.Thisanalysissubstantiates theintegrity ofthestructural steelbeamsabovethiscombustible configuration.

==

Conclusion:==

Basedontheaboveevaluation andthespecificcombustible configuration beneaththefireratedfloorslabinquestion, thestructural steelbeamssupporting elevation 761'-10"'bove FireZone1-4Gwillnotbeadversely affectedastheresultofapostulated fireinthisarea.fm/i394i:dek

UNIT1FIRERATEDFLOORSLABABOVEFIREZONES1-4A-WAND1-4A-SReference DrawingC-206008, Sht.4DESCRIPTION:

Thefireratedfloorslabinquestionis1'-9"thickwiththetopofslabatelevation 749'-1".Thisreinforced concretefloorslabactscompositely withthestructural steelbeamstosupportthiselevation asshownonthereference drawing.Thesourceofcombustibles beneaththisfireratedfloorslabistwoverticalcabletrayswhichareseparated fromeachotherbyapproximately 20'.EVALUATION:

TheportionsofFireZones1-4A-Wand1-4A-Slocatedbeneaththefireratedfloorslabinquestionareprotected byanautomatic firesuppression sprinkler systemwhichhasbeeninstalled inaccordance withNFPA13.IntheeventofafireintheseportionsofFireZones1-4A-Wand1-4A-S,actuation oftheautomatic firesuppression sprinkler systemwouldmitigatetheheateffectthefirewouldhaveonthestructural steelbeamssupporting thefireratedfloorslabsystem.Thebasisforthisevaluation ispresented inSection3.4oftheSummaryReportforstructural steelevaluation.

Thissectionofthereportprovidesthejustification fortheNFPA13sprinkler system'sheatabsorption capability withrespecttocabletrayfires.Thecombustible configuration beneaththisfireratedfloorslab'isboundedbytheanalysisinSection3.4.CONCLUSION:

Basedontheaboveevaluation andthespecificcombustible configuration beneaththefireratedfloorslabinquestion, theexistingautomatic firesuppression sprinkler systemcanbeexpectedtoprotectthestructural steelbeamswithawidemarginofsafetyintheeventofapostulated fireinthisarea.fm/i447i:mab

UNIT1FIRERATEDFLOORSLABABOVEFIREZONES1-4A-MAND1-4A-NReference DrawingC-206008, Sheet2Descrition:Thefireratedfloorslabinquestionis1'-9"thickandthetopoftheslabisatelevation'749'-1".

Thisreinforced concreteslabactscompositely withaseriesofstructural steelbeamstosupportthisfloorelevation asshownonthereference drawing.Theprimarysourceofcombustibles inthisareaistwocabletraysspacedapproximately 12'romeachother.Evaluation:

TheportionofFireZones1-4A-Mand1-4A-Nlocatedbeneaththefireratedfloorslabinquestionisprotected byanautomatic firesuppression sprinkler systemwhichhasbeeninstalled inaccordance withNFPA13.IntheeventofafireinthisportionofFireZones1-4A-Mand1-4A-N,actuation oftheautomatic sprinkler systemwouldmitigatetheheateffectthefirewouldhave'onthestructural steelbeamssupporting thefireratedfloorslabsystem.Thebasisforthisevaluation ispresented inSection3.4oftheSummaryReportforStructural SteelEvaluation.

Thissectionofthereportprovidesthejustification fortheNFPA13sprinkler system'sheatabsorption capability withrespecttocabletrayfires.Thecombustion configuration beneaththisfireratedfloorslabisboundedbytheanalysisinSection3.4.Conclusion:

Basedontheaboveevaluation andthespecificcombustible configuration beneaththefireratedfloorslabinquestion, theexistingautomatic firesuppression sprinkler systemcanbeexpectedtoprotectthestructural steelbeamswithawidemarginofsafetyintheeventofapostulated fireinthisarea.fm/i393i:dek UNITIFIRERATEDFLOORSLABABOVEFIREZONE1-38-W.Reference DrawingC-206021, Sht.IDESCRIPTION:

Thefireratedfloorslabinquestionis2'-3"thickwiththetopofslabatelevation 719'-1".'his reinforced concreteslabactscompositely withthestructural steelbeamswhichsupportthisfloorelevation.

Thesourceofcombustibles inthisareaiscabletrays.EVALUATION:

Theportionof,FireZoneI-38-Wlocatedbeneaththefireratedfloorslabinquestionisprotected byanautomatic firesuppression sprinkler systemwhichhasbeeninstalled inaccordance withNFPA13.IntheeventofafireinthisportionofFireZone1-3B-W,actuation oftheautomatic sprinkler systemwouldmitigatetheheateffectthefirewouldhaveonthestructural steelbeamssupporting thefireratedfloorslab.Thebasisforthisevaluation ispresented inSection3.4oftheSummaryReportforStructural'Steel Evaluation.

,Thissectionofthereportprovidesthejustification fortheNFPA13sprinkler system'sheatabsorption capability withrespecttocabletrayfires.Thecombustible configuration beneaththisfireratedfloorslabisboundedbytheanalysisinSection3.4..CONCLUSION:

Basedontheaboveevaluation andthespecificcombustible configuration beneaththefireratedfloorslabinquestion, theexistingautomatic firesuppression sprinkler systemcanbeexpectedtoprotectthestructural steelbeamswithawidemarginofsafetyintheeventofapostulated fireinthisarea.fm/j062i:mab.

UNIT1FIRERATEDFLOORSLABABOVEFIREZONEI-1EReference DrawingC-206006, Sheet2Thefireratedfloorslabinquestionis2'-9"thickandthetopofslabisatelevation 683'-0".Thisreinforced concreteslabactscompositely withthestructural steelbeamstosupportthiselevation asshownonthereference drawing.TherearenocabletraysinFireZoneI-lElocatedbeneaththisfireratedfloorslab.Evaluation:

Mithnocabletrayslocatedbeneaththisfireratedfloorslab;sufficient heattoadversely affectthefireratedfloorslabwouldnotbegenerated.

Section3.3oftheSummaryReportforStructural SteelEvaluation providesjustification fortheadequacyofstructural steelforacombustible configuration oftwohorizontally stackedcabletrays.Thisareahasnocabletrays.Conclusion:

Thefireratedfloor'slababoveFireZoneI-1EasshownonDrawingC-206006, Sheet2,willnotbeadversely affectedbyafireinFireZone1-1Esinceapostulated fireinFireZone1-1Ewouldnotgeneratesufficient heattoweakenthestructural steelbeamssupporting thefireratedfloorslab.fm/i414i:dek UNIT1FIRERATEDFLOORSLABABOVEFIREZONE1-3AReference DrawingC-206007, Shts.1and2DESCRIPTION:

Thefireratedfloorslabinquestionvariesinthickness from2'-9"to4'-9"asshownonthereference drawing,Sheet2.Thetopoftheentireslabisatelevation 719'-1".Thesourceofcombustibles beneaththisfireratedfloorslabisaseriesofhorizontal andverticalcabletraysasdepictedonthereference drawing.Itshouldbenotedthatthetoptwotraysarecommitted tobefirewrapped.EVALUATION:

Astructural analysiswasperformed onthe4'-9"thickportionofthereinforced concreteslababovethefirezoneinquestion.

Theanalysisdemonstrated thatthisreinforced concreteslabiscapableofsupporting itselfwithouttheW21x127beamswhichunderlieit.Theonlyrequiredstructural steelbeamsbeneaththe4'-9"thickslabaretheW21X127steelbeams(witha2"thicksteelplateonthebottomflange)whichliedirectlyunderthe4'-6"thickwalls.Therequiredsteelbeamsouthofcolumnline25isprotected fromtheeffectsofafirebytheNFPA13sprinkler system.Section3.4oftheSummaryReportforStructural SteelEvaluation providesthejustification fortheNFPA13sprinkler system'sheatabsorption capability withrespecttocabletrayfires.Thecombustible configuration beneaththisrequiredsteelbeamisboundedbytheanalysisinSection3.4.TherequiredW21X127steelbeamnorthofcolumnline25wasanalyzedbytheEnergyBalanceMethodasdeveloped inSection3.2oftheSummaryReport.Thisanalysiscalculated theratioofthecriticalenergyneededtoheatthisstructural steelbeamtothecriticaltemperature (Ec)tothepredicted heatreleaseforthiscombustible configuration (H')tobe1.17whichisgreaterthantherequiredminimumvalueof1.0.Thisanalysisverifiesthestructural integrity oftherequiredW21X127steelbeam.Astructural analysiswasalsoperformed onthe2'-9"thickportionofthereinforced concreteslababovethefirezoneinquestion.

Thisanalysisdemonstrated thatthisreinforced concreteslabiscapableofsupporting itselfwithoutthetwoW24X55steelbeamswhichunderlieit.Thisslabissupported onthesouthendbytheW21X127(acceptability asdiscussed above)andonthenorthendbythe2'-0"thickconcretewallbeneaththeslab.Therefore, theheateffectontheW24X55steelbeamsisinconsequential sincethe2'-9"concreteslabisstructurally acceptable withoutthese2steelbeams.CONCLUSION:

Basedontheaboveevaluation, thefireratedfloorslababoveFireZone1-3Awillnotbeadversely affectedastheresultofapostulated fireinthisarea.fm/i448i:mab

.QUNIT1FIRERATEDFLOORSLABABOVEFIREZONE1-3B-WReference DrawingC-206021, Sht.2DESCRIPTION:

Thefireratedfloorslabinquestionis2'-3"thickwiththetopofslabatelevation 719'-1".Thisreinforced concreteslabactscomposi'tely withthestructural steelbeamswhichsupportthisfloorelevation.

Thesourceofcombustibles inthisareaiscabletrays.EVALUATION:

TheportionofFireZone1-38-Wlocatedbeneaththefireratedfloorslabinquestionisprotected byanautomatic firesuppressi'on sprinkler systemwhichhasbeeninstalled inaccordance withNFPA13.IntheeventofafireinthisportionofFireZone1-3B-W,actuation oftheautomatic sprinkler systemwould-mitigatetheheateffectthefirewouldhaveonthestructural steelbeamssupporting thefireratedfloorslab.Thebasisforthisevaluation ispresented inSection.3.4 oftheSummaryReportforStructural SteelEvaluation.

Thissectionofthereportprovidesthejustification fortheNFPA13sprinkler system'sheatabsorption capability withrespecttocabletrayfires.Thecombustible configuration beneaththisfireratedfloorslabisboundedbytheanalysisinSection3.4.'CONCLUSION:

Basedontheaboveevaluation andthespecificcombustible configuration beneaththefireratedfloorslabinquestion, theexistingautomatic firesuppression sprinkler systemcanbeexpectedtoprotectthestructural steelbeamswithawidemarginofsafetyintheeventofapostulated fireinthisarea.fm/j076i:mab

UNIT1FIRERATEDFLOORSLABABOVEFIREZONE1-4A-WReference DrawingC-206008, Sheets153Thefireratedfloorslabinquestionis1'-9"thicksouthofcolumnline26.5and3'-3"thicknorthofcolumnline26.5asdepictedonthereference drawing.Thetopoftheentireslabisatelevation 749'-1".Thisreinforced concreteslabactscompositely withaseriesofstructural steelbeamswhichsupportthisfloorelevation.

Thesourceofcombustibles inFireZone1-4A-Wconsistofanumberofcabletrayslocatedthroughout thefirezone.Evaluation:

TheportionofFireZone1-4A-Wlocatedbeneaththefireratedfloorslabinquestionisprotected byanautomatic firesuppression sprinkler systemwhichhasbeeninstalled inaccordance withNFPA13.Intheeventofa'ireinthisportionofFireZone1-4A-W,actuation oftheautomatic sprinkler systemwouldmitigatetheheateffectthefirewouldhaveonthestructural steelbeamssupporting thefireratedfloorslab.Thebasisforthisevaluation ispresented inSection3.4oftheSummaryReportforStructural SteelEvaluation.

Thissectionofthereportprovidesthejustification fortheNFPA13sprinkler system'sheatabsorption capability withrespecttocabletrayfires.Thecombustible configuration beneaththisfireratedfloorslabisboundedbytheanalysisinSection3.4.Conclusion:

Basedontheaboveevaluation andthespecificcombustion configuration beneaththefireratedfloorslabinquestion, theexistingautomatic firesuppression sprinkler systemcanbeexpectedtoprotectthestructural steelbeamswithawidemarginofsafetyintheeventofapostulated fireinthisarea.fm/i392i:dek

~p, UNITIFIRERATEDFLOORSLABABOVEFIREZONESI-4A-WANDI-4-NReference DrawingC-206008, Sht.5DESCRIPTION ThefireratedfloorslabinquestionisI'-9"thickwiththetopofslabatelevation 749'-1".Thisreinforced concreteslabactscompositely withthestructural steelbeamstosupportthiselevation asshownonthereference drawing.Thesourceofcombustibles beneaththisfireratedfloorslabiscabletrays.,Evaluation:

TheportionsofFireZonesI-4A-WandI-4A-Nlocatedbeneaththefireratedfloorslabinquestionareprotected byanautomatic firesuppression sprinkler systemwhichhasbeeninstalled inaccordance withNFPA13.IntheeventofafireintheseportionsofFireZones1-4A-Wand1-4A-N,actuation oftheautomatic sprinkler systemwouldmitigatetheheateffectthefirewouldhaveonthestructural steelbeamssupporting thefireratedfloorslabsystem.Thebasisforthisevaluation ispresented inSection3.4oftheSummaryReportforStructural SteelEvaluation.

Thissectionofthereportprovidesthejustification fortheNFPA13sprinkler system'sheatabsorption capability withrespecttocabletrayfires.Thecombustible configuration beneaththisfireratedfloorslabisboundedbytheanalysisinSection3.4.Conclusion:

Basedontheaboveevaluation andthespecificcombustible configuration beneaththefireratedfloorslabinquestion, theexistingautomatic fire.suppression sprinkler systemcanbeexpectedtoprotectthestructural steelbeamswithawidemarginofsafetyintheeventofapostulated fireinthisarea.fm/i453i:mab UNIT1FIRERATEDFLOORSLABABOVEFIREZONE1-5A-SIReference DrawingC-206010, Sheets.1&2Thefireratedslabinquestionis3'-0"thickapproximately 5-1/2'outh ofcolumnline27.5and1'-9"thicknorthofthispoint.Thetopoftheentireslabisatelevation 779'-1".Thisslabactscompositely withaseriesofstructural.

steelbeamsasshownonthereference drawing.Thecombustibles inFireZone1-5A-Sconsistofanumberofhorizontal andverticalcabletrayslocatedthroughout thefirezone.Evaluation:

TheportionofFireZone1-5A-Slocatedbeneaththefireratedslabinquestionisprotected byanautomatic firesuppression sprinkler systemwhichhasbeeninstalled inaccordance withNFPA13.IntheeventofafireinthisportionofFireZone1-5A-S,actuation oftheautomatic suppression systemwouldmitigatetheeffectsofthefireonthestructural steelbeamssupporting thisfireratedfloorslab.Thebasisforthisevaluation ispresented inSection3.4oftheSummaryReportforStructural SteelEvaluation.

Thissectionofthereportprovidesthejustification fortheNFPA13sprinkler system'sheatabsorption capability withrespecttocabletrayfires.Thecombustible configuration beneaththisfireratedfloorslabisboundedbytheanalysisinSection3.4.Conclusion:

Basedontheaboveevaluation andthespecificcombustible configuration beneaththefireratedfloorslabinquestion, theexistingautomatic firesuppression sprinkler systemcanbeexpectedtoprotectthestructural steelbeamswithawidemarginofsafetyintheeventofapostulated fireinthisarea.fm/i383i:dek

,UNIT2FIRERATEDFLOORSLABABOVEFIREZONE2-1FReference DrawingC-206011, Sheet1Thefireratedfloorslabinquestionis2'-9"thickandthetopofslabisatelevation 683'-0".Thisreinforced concreteslabactscompositely withthestructural steelbeamstosupportthiselevation asshownonthereference drawing.Thesourceofcombustibles inthisareaistwohorizontal cabletrayslocatedapproximately 11'eneath thebottomofthestructural steelbeams.Evaluation:

Section3.3oftheSummaryReportforStructural SteelEvaluation providesjustification fortheadequacyofstructural steelforacombustible configuration oftwohorizontally stackedcabletrays.Thetwohorizontally stackedcabletraysinthisfirezonearelocatedapproximately 11'eneath thebottomofthestructural steelbeamswhereasthecabletraysdiscussed inSection3.3ofthereportareonlyonefootbelowthesteelbeams.Thisincreased distanceaddstothemarginofsafetyalreadycontained intheSection3.3analysis.

==

Conclusion:==

Thefireratedfloorslab.aboveFireZone2-1FasshownonDrawingC-206011, Sheet1,willnotbeadversely affectedbyafireinFireZone2-1Fsinceapostulated fireinFi.reZone2-1Fwouldnotgeneratesufficient heattoweakenthestructural steelbeamssupporting thefireratedfloorslab.fm/i396i:dek UNIT2FIRERATEDFLOORSLABABOVEFIREZONES2-5C,2-5A-SAND2-5BReference DrawingC-206015, Shts.1,2and3.DESCRIPTION:

..Thefireratedfloorslabinquestionvariesinthickness fromI'-9"to2'-3"asshownonthereference drawing.Thetopoftheentireslabisatelevation 779'-I".Thisreinforced concreteslabactscompositely withthestructural steelbeamstosupportthiselevation asshownonthereference drawing.Thecombustibles inthesefirezoneslocatedbeneaththefireratedfloorslabarecabletraysofvaryingelevation andlocationasshownonthereference drawing.EVALUATION:

Theportionofthefireratedfloorslab,locatednorthofcolumnline34.5hasonlytwohorizontal cabletrays.Section3.3oftheSummaryReportforStructural SteelEvaluation providesthejustification fortheadequacyofstructural steelforacombustible configuration oftwohorizontally stackedcabletrays.Thecondition analyzedinthesummaryreportboundsthiscombustible configuration oftwoside-by-side horizontal cabletrays.Theportionofthefireratedfloorslabinquestionlocatedsouthofcolumnline34.5hasbeenstructurally evaluated todetermine whichsteelbeamsaretheminimumrequiredtosupportthisentirefloorslabarea,Theresultsofthisanalysisconcluded thatfivestructural steelbeamsarenecessary tosupportthefloorslab.ThesesteelbeamsarenotedonSht.Iofthereference drawing.Theotherbeamsarenotrequiredsincethe2'-9"thickreinforced concreteslabiscapableofspanningbetweenthesefiverequiredmembers.ThesefiverequiredsteelbeamswerethenanalyzedbytheEnergyBalanceMethodasdeveloped inSection3.2oftheSummaryReportforStructural SteelEvaluation.

Thisanalysisdetermined theratioofthecriticalenergyneededtoheateachrequiredstructural steelbeamtothecriticaltemperature (Ec)tothepredicted heatreleaseforthecombustible configuration surrounding eachbeam(H').Inallfiveinstances thisratio"(Ect/H')"

wasdetermined tobegreaterthantherequiredminimumvalueof1.0.Thisanalysisverifiestheintegrity oftherequiredstructural steelbeamsintheareaintheeventofapostulated fire.CONCLUSION:

Basedontheaboveevaluation andthespecificcombustible configuration beneaththefireratedfloorslabinquestion, apostulated fireinFireZones2-5C,2-5A-Sand2-5Bwouldnotgeneratesufficient heattoadversely impacttherequiredstructural steelbeamssupporting thefireratedfloorslab.'fm/j089i:mab UNIT2FIRERATEDFLOORSLABABOVEFIREZONE2-4GReference DrawingC-206014, Sheets152Thefireratedfloorslabinquestionis1'-2-1/2" thickwiththetopofslabatelevation 761'-10".

Thisreinforced.

concreteslabactscompositely withthestructural steelbeamstosupportthiselevation asshownonthereference drawing.Thesourceofcombustibles inthisfirezoneistwocabletrayslocatedgreaterthan16'elowthestructural steelsupporting thiselevation.

Evaluation:

Section3.3oftheSummaryReportforStructural SteelEva)fiation providesjustification thattwohorizontally stackedcabletrayswi'l~lnotadversely affecttheintegrity ofthestructural steelbeams.Thetwocabletraysinthisfirezonearelocatedapproximately 14'elowtheoverheadstructural steelbeamswhereasthecabletraysdiscussed inSection3.3ofthereportareonlyonefootbelowthesteelbeams.Thisincreased distanceaddstothemarg'inof,safetyalreadycontained intheSection3.3analysis.

Furthermore, ananalysisusingtheEnergyBalanceMethodasdeveloped inSection3.2oftheSummaryReportshowedtheratioofthecriticalenergyneededtoheatthestructural steeltothecriticaltemperature (Ec)tothepredicted heatreleaseforthiscombustible configuration (H)$obeapproximately 6.4whichismuchgreaterthantherequiredminimumvalueof1.0.Thisanalysissubstantiates theintegrity ofthestructural steelbeamsabovethiscombustible configuration.

==

Conclusion:==

Basedontheaboveevaluation andthespecificcombustible configuration beneaththefireratedfloorslabinquestion, thestructural steelbeamssupporting elevation 761'-10"aboveFireZone2-4Gwillnotbeadversely affectedastheresultof'postulated fireinthisarea.fm/i413i:dek 0

UNIT2FIRERATEDFLOORSLABABOVEFIREZONES2-4A-WAND2-4A-NReference DrawingC-206013, Sheet5Thefireratedfloorslabinquestionis1'-9"thickandthetopoftheslabisatelevation 749'-1"..

Thisreinforced concreteslabactscompositely withaseriesofstructural steelbeamstosupportthisfloorelevation asshownonthereference drawing.Thesourceofcombustibles inthisareaiscabletrayslocatedthroughout thefirezones.Evaluation:

TheportionsofFireZones2-4A-Wand2-4A-Nlocatedbeneaththefireratedfloorslabinquestionisprotected byanautomatic firesuppression sprinkler systemwhichhasbeeninstalled inaccordance withNFPA13.IntheeventofafireintheseportionsofFireZones2-4A-Wand2-4A-N,actuation oftheautomatic sprinkler.

systemwouldmitigatetheheateffectthefirewouldhaveonthestructural steelbeamssupporting thisfireratedfloorslab.Thebasisforthisevaluation ispresented inSection3.4oftheSummaryReportforStructural SteelEvaluation.

Thissectionofthereportprovidesthejustification fortheNFPA13sprinkler system'sheatabsorption capability withrespecttocabletrayfires.Thecombustible configuration beneaththisfireratedfloorslabisboundedbytheanalysisinSection3.4.Conclusion:

Basedontheaboveevaluation andthespecificcombustible configuration beneaththefireratedfloorslabinquestion, theexistingautomatic firesuppression sprinkler systemcanbeexpectedtoprotectthestructural steelbeamswithawidemarginofsafetyintheeventofapostulated fireinthisarea.fm/i456i:mab