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