ML20127C829

Rev 1 to Interim Engineering Rept, Evaluation of Thermo-Lag Fire Barrier Sys

ML20127C829
Person / Time
Site:	Comanche Peak
Issue date:	09/08/1992
From:	Collins F, Hooton C, Terry C TEXAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC CO. (TU ELECTRIC)
To:
Shared Package
ML20127C828	List: ML20127C829 TXX-9242, Forwards Rev 1 to Interim Engineering Rept ER-ME-067, Evaluation of Thermo-Lag Fire Barrier Sys. Rev Eliminates Use of Test Repts Produced by Industrial Testing Labs,Inc & Provides Basis for Approach Used in Util Test Program
References
ER-ME-067, ER-ME-067-R01, ER-ME-67, ER-ME-67-R1, NUDOCS 9209100216
Download: ML20127C829 (70)

Text

.. ..

TU ELECTRIC ENGINEERING REPORT

- ';% TION OF THERMO-LAG FTRE BARRIER SYSTEMS -

ER-ME-067 REVISION 1 Interim Report s September 8, 1992 i

Prepared by ha./ O // c ",4t/f S & f5 Reviewed by CNIINM h 7-$-72 Approvedbyhd'LNY ' p% 9/f/9t O

4 9209100216 920908 S DR ADOCK 0500

. . . . -_____________________--_____--__________-____-_-_________-___-__-______-a

I l

ER-ME-067 Rev. 1 <

Page 1A of 69 Reason for Revision-This report is being revised to eliminate the use of Test Reports produced by Industrial Testing Laboratories Inc. (ITL) and to incorporate the result of the Texas Utilities. Test Program conducted at Omega Point. The report is also being crevised to prc'c *e a basis for the approach used in the Texas Utilities Test Program.

Due to the _ extensive ~ changes to this report, no. revis!.on bars are used.

Confirmation is Required since the Omega Test Reports were not finalized at the time of issue of-this report. In addition further tests are currently planned.

s o

9

}

l l

l l.

I.

+,-  :, n . - ..

TUjCP$ES CITC'LIC ID:8178976573 SEP-08'92 10:53 No.005 P.02 1

EP-HE-067 Rev. 1 Page 2 of 69 TABLE Or CONTENTS E111 ftSct ion M

. . . . . . ............ AA Beamon for Revision . .......

. . ..... 2 TABLE OF CCNTENTS ....................

3 PORWARD . . ....... . . . . . . . . ............

............ 8 1.0 PURPCSE , . ...............

9 2.0 - BACECROUND ............................

10 3.0 LICENSING DASIC FOR FIRE RARRIERB FOR CPSES ELECTRICAL RACEWAYS . .

. . . . . . ............ 15 4.0 THERHO-LAG FIRE ENDURANCE TEST 5.0 COMPAR7CION CF DESIGN /IMSTAI.LATION REQUIREMENTS AGh!NST. TEST TEST 21 REEULTS . . ..................... .....

s,

. . - . ........... 23 5.0 AMPACITY DERATING FACTORS . . . . . .

. . . . . . + . .......... 27 1.0- CCMBUSTIBILITY OF TilEPMO-LAG 28 8.0 OPEN ITEMS ............................

. . ............ 29

9.0 CONCLUSION

G . ............

30

10.0 REFERENCES

APPENDICES 34 Appendix A " Test summaries" 53 7ppendix 3 " Review of Design Occuments" 62 AppendLa C "Thermo-Lag Installation Review Hatrix*

l l-

.-. - -. . - . - - - - - - .-. u . _._ ..

e. '- ER-HE-067 Rev. 1 Page 3 of 69 FORWARD This report documents the basis for the acceptance and continued use of Thermo-Lag as a fire barrier material at Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station (CPSES).

The - report defines and summarizes the qualification of the Thermo-Lag fire barriors'used in the protection of safe shutdown related components and fire barriers within the plant. Included in this report are descriptions of the CPSES Fire Protection System and Thermo-Lag qualifications, including methodology, licensing basis, and performance acceptance criteria associated with fire barrier qualification testing.

CPSES FIRE PROTECTION SYSTEM The overall Fire Protection Program was developed utilizing the defense in depth concept. This concept is a combination of:

1. Preventing fires from starting

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

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

Measures have been taken to prevent fires from starting. The plant is constructed.

of either non-combustible or fire resistant materials and transient combustibles not identified in the Fire Protection Report are managed through administrative controls. The . active Fire Protection System at CPSES detects, alarms, ano extinguishes fires. It is comprised of two subsystems: Fire Detection and Fire Suppression. The Fire Detection System is a plant-wide system designed to detect fires in the plant, alert the Control Room operators, and alert the plant fire brigade of the fire and its location. The Fire Suppression System.is designed to extinguish any Fire Protection Report postulated fire. It is comprised of a water supply system,- fixed water sprinkler and spray systems, halon systems, fire hose stations, and portable extinguishers. Where redundant fire safe shutdown equipment cabling outside containment is located in the same fire area and is not separated by - a horizontal distance of 20 feet- with negligible intervening comoustibles or fire hazard, one. train of this cabling, if not one hour rated cable, is enclosed by=-a one hour fire barrier (or radiant energy shield inside containment) unless an alternate shutdown path is utilized or justifications for deviations are provided.

i

, . ER-ME-067 Rev. 1 .

Page 4 of 69 BACKGROUND During the process of selecting one hour raceway barrier systems, ampacity dorating,. material weight and thickness along with barriers used by other utilities were determining f actors. Thermo-Lag (Manuf actured by Thermal Science, Inc.-(TSI) of St. Louis, Mo.) was selected to provide a one-hour barrier for cable raceway systems. 'Ihermo-Lag 330 Fire Resistent Material is a sacrificial barrier that operates on the principle of aublimation with p' :ial intumescence.

TU Electric conducted a full scale fire endurance test # Southwest Research Institute in 1981 in order to obtain a one hour fire ra'. ..g for Thermo-Lag in accordance with American Nuclear Insurers (ANI) Bulletin dated July, 1979 and ASTM E119-80 Time / Temperature requirements. The results of the test indicated that the protective envelope system successfully withstood the fire expc.eure and hose stream tests without allowing the passage of flames as well as protecting the circuit integrity of the cables within the cable trays and conduit. In addition, this report concluded that ASTM E84 test of Thermo-Lag determined a flame spread of 5, fuel contribution of 0 and amoke developed of 15, which was consistent with licensing comreitmento which require less than 25 for all three variables. This report was submitted to thG NRC for evaluation of Thermo-Lag as an acceptable material for use at CPSES. In a letter dated December 1,1981, the NRC replied that they had evaluated the fire test report and conclude that it demonstrated TSI material / system exhibits characteristics equivalent or better than other approved materials, and therefore can provide an acceptable fire barrier for cable trayt and cables. The NRC concluded that the use of the TSI material / system met the requirements of Appendix R to 10 CFR Part 50 and is therefore acceptable.

Comanche Peak has consistently utilized the ANI acceptance criteria as our licensing basis, and has utilized these acceptance criteria for fire barriers for electrical raceways for our current testing program.

In June, 1991, the NRC established a Special Review Team to review the safety significance and generic applicability of certain technical incues regarding the use of Thermo-Lag. Prior to the issuance of the report by the Special Review Team, the NRC released to the industry a draft generic letter on Thermo-Lag in February, 1992.

In light-of the concerns raised in the draft generic letter and the status of CPSES. Unit 2 construction activities (Thermo-Lag installation was to begin in tho very near future), TU Electric performed an extensive review to assess its position.with respect to the continued use of Thermo-Lag for CPSES Unit 2. Based on the NRC concern about the acceptance of previous Thermo-Lag tests, TU Electric performed independent full scale fire endurance testing of Thermo-Lag raceway assemblies that are representative . of plant configuratione and e,velope the installed commodity sizes. Applicable TU Electric specifiutions and installation and inspection procedures, site craft and QC parsonnel as well as CPSES stock material, as specified by the TU Electric Quality Assurance Program for procurement and installation were utilized for the testing. This testing was observed by NRC staff personnel.

i

• ER-ME-067 Rev. 1 Page 5 of 69 TU ELECTRIC TESTING PROGPJJ4 The independent testing program for TU Electric Thermo-Lag was intended to accomplish the following objectives:

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

2. Demonstrate that Cables are able to perform their safe shutdown functions Independent testing was performed at Omega Point Laboratories in San Antonio, Texas, on June 17 thrcugh June 22, 1992. In summary, tests were conducted on the following test assemblies:

1._ -Conduit and Junction Box Assembly (3/4", 1", and 5" diameter conduit)

2. 12" Wide cable Tray

3. 30" Wide cable Tray with a tee connection

4. .36" Wide--Cable Tray with a' tee connection and upgrades on joints (stitching with wire or exterior stress skin reinforcement) 5._ 36" wide cable Tray, vertical position, with a Thermo-Lag tray stop The results of these tests were as follows:

Conduit Test Acceptable temperatures with no cable degradation were observed for the large 5" conduit. In-addition, no apparent cable damage was observed on

cabling within the junction box assembly. Cabling in the 3/4" and 1" conduits exceeded expected temperatures near the end of the test and subsequently exhibited varying degrees of degradation. As such, this test demonstrated acceptable results for the large conduit and. junction box configurations t - identified a- need to provide additional barrier material for small conduits,

-12" WIOE CABLE TRAY There was no visible cable damage and temperatures were within an >

acceptable range..

30" WIDE CABLE TRAY A butt joint opened on the bottom of the horizontal section of tray L resulting in excessive test envelope temperatures and eventual f ailure of circuit integrity. As a result-this test identified.a need-to provide l: structural support to Thermo-Lag joints, especially in the horizontal e

l position.

I i

l' i

- ~

_~.

.- . ER-ME-067 Rev. 1 Page 6 of 69 36" WIDE CABLE ' TRAY WITH ' UPCRAggS ON JOINTS - (Stitching with wire or exterior stress skin reinforcement)

Acceptable thermocouple temperatures within the envelope during the te6t,

'and no cable degradation during the post test inspection were observed.

These results demonstrated tte accoptability of TU Electric's upgrade techniques of applying external . stress skin with trowel grade material or tie-wires at joints. Since this configuration represented the largest trays at CPSES and as such the greatest exposure for structural problems, ,

these upgrade techniques are acceptable for trays at CPSES. Post test maggering-also demonstrated no degradation of cable.

36" Wids Cable Trav, vertical position, with a Thermo-Lac trav ston Thermocouplee indicated acceptable temperatures throughout tha test with no visible cable degradation inside the envelope.

Based on the results of our June testing, and NRC identified issues associated with hose stream tests, megger tests and exposed tray supports, a second group of tests were planned with the following objectivent

1. Qualify an effective upgrade technique for small conduits

2. Resolve the issue of potential heat transfer into the cable envelope from unprotected tray supports

3. Perform a fog hose stream test (per NUREG 0800, BTP CMEB 9.5-1 for penetrations) s 4.- Identify bounding conditions.for upgrade techniques Independent testing was performed again at Omega Point Laboratories on August 19 thru August 21, 1992.

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

1. Conduit Assembly (two 3/4", 1-1/2", 2" and 3" diameter conduit).

2. 24" Wide-Cable Tray with a toe connection

-3. 30" Wide Cable Tray In these .three tests, only the two 3/4" conduits had upgraded Thermo-Lag installations. The ' remaining test configurations were . in accordance with

' existing installation procedures to identify bounding conditions.

i l

l l

1

a - ER-ME-067 Rev. 1 Page 7 of 69 Observations and reaults of these tests were as follows:

CONDUIT TEST A

• hot megger" which caused the test to run for approximately 1 hour1.157407e-5 days <br />2.777778e-4 hours <br />1.653439e-6 weeks <br />3.805e-7 months <br /> and 15 minutes was followed by a nor.-destructive quench with a garden hose.

The test resulta were impacted by the additional 25% time exposure in the furnace while the " hot magger" was conducted and inability to completely cool the test configuration with the garden hoee. Even with these testing problems, of the four potential upgrades for small conduits, the 1/4" thick pre-iabricated half round overlay maintained acceptable temperatures and no damage to cabling. 3ttvetural weaknesses of box-out protection of lateral bends (LBD) in a vertical position were identified. Finally, this test had a single exposed unistrut support which was protected 9" f rom the envelope in accordance with CPSE3 procedures. The support did not introduce additional heat into the envelope, and thereby resolves the issues sesociated with protection anc testing of supports. -

14" WIDL_ FABLE TRE This test utilized a NUREG 0800 hose stream tect immediataly f ollowing the fire test ( 3 0' fog nozzle, S'0" dintance, 75 PSI, for 5 minutes). The s envelope opened at several vertical Dutt joints and one side of tha "T" ,.

during the furnace testing, wnich caused excessi.ve temperatures and varying degrees of cable degracation. This test indicates that un-supported bottom bute jointe and vertical butt joints for 24" and larger trays will require upgrading.

30" WIDERT,E TRAY, This test also utilized the NURFG 0000 hose otream test. Vertical and horizonal butt joints opened during the fire endurance test.

coNcw ngys 1 As a result of tests conducted it. June and Auguat, TU Electric has concludedt

1. Thermo-Lag will perform its design function if properly crnfigured y L

2. Thermo-Lag installations for conduit 2 inches diameter and smaller will perform its design function when upgraded by addition of 1/4 inch overlay

3. Thermo-Lag installations f or cable trays will perform its design function when unsupported bottom butt joirts and vertical joints are reinforced wish stitching and/or additional stress skin.

4. Thermo-Lag Box-out Protection for LUD boxes, JB boxer, etc. will perform their design function when reinforced with additional stress skin.

Those upgrades are now being used in the Unit 2 installation and will be evaluated for backfit into Unit 1 at the first opportunity. In addition, these tests denonstrated that plant install.ation of supports without structural fire proofing is acceptable and the fog nozzle nose stream test in accordance with NUREG 0800 is an effective hose stream tect.

'T '- ER-ME-067 Rev. 1 Page 8 of 69 1.0 PURPOSE The purpose of this report is to evaluate the acceptability of Thermo-Lag for use as a. fire barrier for CPSES.

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

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

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

Section 5.0 evaluates.the CPSES installation specifications and configurations for Thermo-Laq. and evaluates their adequacy based upon the test results and configurations.

Section 6.0 cv41uates the CPSES aupacity calculations for cables installed in electrical raceways that have a Thermo-lag fire barrier.

Section 7.0 la reserved for a combustibility evaluation of Thermo-lag.

Section 0.0 identifies the additional actions that TU Electric is planning to take to ensure the adequacy of Thermo-Lag for CPSES.

Section 9.0 provides TU Electric's conclusions regarding the acceptability of

.Thermo-Lag for use as a fire barrier for CPSES, J

9 # w , ,

• - ' ER-HE-067 Rev. 1 Page 9 of 69

2.0 BACKGROUND

l The purpose of the Fire Protection Program at CPSES is to protect the ability to safely shutdown the plant in the event of a fire.

The overall Fire Protection Program was developed utilizing the defense in depth concept. This concept is a combination of:

1. Preventing fires from starting

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

of damage- -

3. Designing plant safety systems so that a design basis fire, in spite of the fire protection systems provided, will not prevent plant safe snutdown ,

functions from being performed.

Measures have been taken to prevent fires from starting. The plant is constructed of either non-combustible or fire resistant materials, and transient combustibles not identified in the fire protection report are managed through administrative controls.

The active Fire Protection System at CPSES detects, alarms, and extinguishes fires. It 10 comprised of two subsystems: Fire Detection and Fire Suppression.

The Firo Detection System is a plant-wide system designed to detect fires in the plant, alert the Control Room operators, and alert the plant fire brigade of the fire and its location. The Fire Suppression System is designed to extinguish any Fire Protection Report postulated fires. It - is et_)rised of a water supply system, fixed- water sprinkler and spray systems, halon systems, fire hose stations,'and portable extinguishers.

. The passive Fire Protection System at CPSES protects safe shutdown systems from the effects of fires. In particular, the plant is divided into fire areas which are separated by three-hour fire barriers to limit the impact of a postulated fire to a local area. Additionally, where redundant fire safe shutdown equipment cabling outside of-containment -is located in the same fire area and la not

. separated by a three hour fire barrier or a horizontal distance of 20 feet with negligible intervening combustibles or fire hazard, one train of this cabling, if not one hour rated cable, is encloseC by a one hour fire barrier unless-an alternate shutdovn path is utilized or justifications for deviations are provided.

At CPSES, Thermo-Lag is utilized to provide this one-hour fire barrior. Thermo-Lag Fire Resistant Materials operate on the principle of sublimation with partial intumescence. The performance of the product is based on the integrated effect of sublimation, heat blockage derived from endothermic reaction and decomposition and increased thermal resistance of the char layer developed through the process of intumescence- and the effect of reradiation. In short, Thermo-Lag is a sacrificial-barrier, during the course of a fire, Thermo-Lag is designed to be consumed through-the sublimation and decomposition process.

Thermo-Lag is used at CPSES to provide a one-hour f tre barrier between redundant

. trains of-fire safe shutdown equipment. In this use, the material is installed as a protective envelope around an essential' commodities, such as a raceway, junction bo x ,' or pull box which contain safe shutdown cables. In these applications, the Thermo-lag material is used to preclude fire-induced damage to the cables thereby protecting safe shutdown function.

Therr.o-lag is also used as. fire prooting. This use will be evaluated in a subsequent revision of this report.

ii l-a l

l

.. - ER-ME-067 Rev. 1 Page 10 of 69 3.0 LICENSING RASIS FOR TIRE BARRIERS FOR CPSES ELECTRICAL RACEWAYS 1

3.1 NRC Regulations The applicable NRC regulations are contained in 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix A, i

General Design Criterion (GDC) 3, which states in its relevant parts Structures, systems, and components important to safety shall be designed l' and located to minimizu, consistent with other safety requirements, the probability and effect of fire explosions.

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

Appendix R to Part 50 also contains provisions related to fire protection.

However, Appendix R only applies to plants that were licensed to operate prior to 1979. Since CPSES was not licensed to operate prior to 1979, Appendix R does not constitute a requirement for CPSES. However, as discussed below, Appendix l R does provide guidance for CPSES.

3.2 NRC Guidance As stated in NRC Supplemental Safety Evaluation Report (SSER) 21 for CPSES, Appendix R to Part 50, Appendix A to UTD APCSB 9.5-1; and Generic Letters (GL) 87-12 and 86-10 provide guidance for the CPSES Fire Protection Program. k,Section III.G of Appendix R to Part 50 states that, when redundant trains of systems necessary to achieve and maintain hot shutdown are located in the pas.e fire area outsido containment, means shall be provided to ensure that one of the redundant trains is " free of fire damage." This section also states that one acceptable means consists of the following:

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

The statement of Considerations for Appendix R also states tilat the standard test fire for rating barrieru is defined by ASTM E4 119 (which is similar to as NFPA 251).

I L.

. . ER-ME-067 Rev. 1 Page 11 of 69 Section D.1(a) of Appendix A to BTP APCSB 9.5-1 states that redundant safety systems should be separated from each other so that both are not suoject to fire damage. With _ respect - to cables and cable tray penetrations, Section D.3(d) stated as follows:

Cable and cable tray penetration of fire barriers (vertical and horizontal)-should be sealed to give protection at least equivalent to t it fire barrier. The design of fire barriers for horizontal and vertical cable trays should, as a minimum, meet'the requirements of ASTM E-119, " Fire Test of Building Construction and Materiala," including the hose stream test.

Section 3.1 of Enclosure to GL 86-10 contains provisions related to gr.alification tests for fire barriers. This Section states that, in accordance with NFPA 251, the temperatures of the unexposed side of conduit and cable tray fire barrier wrap should not exceed 325'F during qualification tests. However, it also allows temperature 6 to exceed 325'F if justification is provided, which "may be based on an analysis demonstrating that the maximum recorded temperature is suf ficiently below the cable insulation ignition temperature. " This section also identifien fire criteria that should be met if the field configuration cannot exactly replicate the test configuration.

3.3 TU ELECTRIC COMMITMENTS-Applicable NRC. guidance for fire proofing will be discussed in a later -revision to this report. GL 86-10 states that compliance with NRC guidance is not required, and a -licensee may deviate f.om this guidance if the deviation is identified and justified.

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

'Section 9.5.1 of the CPSES FSAR states that where both trains of a system required for. hot standby are located in the same fire area outside containment

, and are not separated by more than 20 feet, cable trayo for one train of cabling will be protected by at leeut a one-hour fire barrier, fire detection, and automatic sprinklers.

The FSAR and the Fire Protection Report do not contain any provisiens governing

.the proceduren or acceptance criteria for qualification testo for fire barriers for electrical raceways. In particular, neither contain a commitment to qualify fire barriers for electrical raceways in.accordance with ASTM E-119 (although such commitments are contained for fire barriers for other components, such as penetrations). The NRC reviewed and accepted the CPSES Fire Protection Program in SSERs 12,21, and 23,-which similarly addresses the-criteria to be used for L fire barriers for electrical raceway.

l:

I L

I l

- ,'  :.' .ER-ME-067 Rott . 1 Page 12 of 69 However, other licensing . correspondence between the NRC and TU Electric.did

- discuss qualification testing of Thermo-Lag for CPSES electrical raceways. In

- particular, in a letter dated November 18, 1981, TU Electric requested the NRC to evaluate - a qualification test report for Thermo-Lag to determine its acceptability to meet the requirements for fire barrier material. As stated in the test report, the qualification tests were run using the following procedures and acceptance criterias.

• Use'of the ASTM E-119 time / temperature curve.

• Use of the ANI Standard #5 (July 1979) for instrumentation, home stream test, and acceptance criteria for circulty, integrity and .

continuity.

ASTM E-119 was intended to demonstrate in terms of fire endurance (time) the ability of a wall or floor assembly to contain a fire or to retain the structural integrity (including beams anc columns) or both during the test conditions-imposed by this standard. The standard was not specifically developed for testing of cable raceway barriers and as such does not contain provisions which address the integrity - of the circuit. This was recognized in later ANI quidolines (Reference 10.3.1 and 10.3.2)

.By letter dated December 1, 1981, from Robert L. Tedesco to R.J. Gary, the NRC

- concluded that, based upon its review of the test report, the Therme-Lag provides

. an acceptable fire barrier for cable trays and cables, meets the requirements of AppendLx R, and therefore is acceptable.

The ANI standard identifiss a nua.ber of requirements for conducting a test, including the following

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

• Tha test exposure fire shall be the standard temperature-time curve -

in ASTM E-119 for a minimum of one hour,

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

• . Cables shall be energized during the test.

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

4

-, a ER-ME-067 Rev. 1 Page 13 of 69

- The ANI standard states that the tests are acceptable if circuit integrity is

. maintained during the fire test and the hose stream test.

The applicable CPSES licensing basis for fire proofing will be discucsed in a later revision of this report.

3.4 APPLICATION OF ANI CRITERIA BY TU ELECTRIC As discussed above, the TU Electric acceptance criteria is based upon . ANI Bulletin No. 5, "ANI/MAERP Standard Fire Endurance Test Method to Qualify-a Protective Envelope for Class IE Electrical Circuits" (Reference 10.3.2). TU

. Electric has interpreted this bulletin to require that the cables be free of fire

~

damage such that the electrical circuits remain functional during the test.

Functionality can be demonstrated by one or more of several csans.

Circait Inteority The cables are monitored throughout the endurance test to ensure that circuit integrity is maintained (circuit to circuit, circuit t o 0. -, stem, and circuit to ground). This monitoring assures that a closed circuit is available at all times.

Cable Temperature The test configuration is monitored at various locations to determine cable temperature throughout the test. Cable temperature can indicate an onset of

. cable damage. Cable temperatures below 325'F are considered a clear indication of no cable damage. Higher temperatures may also be acceptable but they must be evaluated to.sarately or supplemented with additional inspection or test results.

Cable Inspectiene When other criteria do not clearly indicate a functional cable, the cable may be visually inspected following the fire test. . A cable which shows no effects from the fire J= considered a functional cable. -Some visual damage may be acceptable but addit Tl evaluation or test resulta need to be considered.

t i

l:

i l

l l-l-

e *~

ER-ME-067 Rev. 1

< Page 14 of 69 Mecoer Test  ;

l A megger test at the cablen rated voltage indicates the capability of the cable I

- to function. For a cable which was not altered by the fire, this test j

-demonstrates the capability of .the cable to function. For cablea which sustained l alight alteration during the fire (i.e. hardening, blistering, cracking, etc. ), '

consideration is -given to the worst conditions that could occur in the plant (e.g. the affected portion of the cable.against the tray or conduit).

In such cases, the cable is megger tested in a conservative configuration. .This can- generally be accomplished by megger testing the cable af ter it has been thoroughly wetted in the affected areas.

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

3.S

SUMMARY

NRC regulations do not specify any acceptance criteria for qualification tests

.for fire barriers for electrical raceway. Similarly, neither the FSAR, Fire Protection Report, nor applicable SSERs for CPSES identify any particular acceptance criteria for' qualification tests for fire barriors for electrical racoways. However, NRC did approve a qualification test report for Thermo-Lag for CPSES electrical raceways, that utilized the ANI acceptance criteria and the ASTM E-119 time / temperature curve. Therefore, these are the licensing basis for Thermo-Lag.for CPSES electrical raceways.

The remainder of this report utilizes the ANI acceptance criteria and the ASTM E-119 time / temperature curve to evaluate the acceptability of Thermo-Lag for CPSES electrical raceways. Additionally, as added support for the acceptsbility, this report also considers as appropriate , the acceptance criteria in ASTM E 119 as modified by GL 86-10, even though TU Electric has not committed to these criteria and those criteria are not part of the licensing basis for CPSES electrical raceway.

l

• ER-ME-067

' Rev. 1 Page 15 of 69 4.0 THERMO-LAG FIRE ENDURANCE TESTS 4.1 Test Methodology When possible, all materials used (Thermo-Lag, cable tray, cables, conduits, and seals) were randomly taken from the CPSES warehouse. No effort was made to select the "best" materials. In fact, the lauuance of materials for the test l articles was the same as for the materials in the plant using work package and pick tickets.

Circuit integrity was used as the acceptance criteria based on the NRC approval (Reference 10.20) of the SWRI Test (Reference 10.12.10). The intent of protecting the cables is to ensure that they will perform their function during and after a fire until the plant is in a saf e shutdown condition and the cables can be inspected and replaced, if regaired.

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

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

Based on the test data, the temperatures of the thermocouples placed on the outside of the cable bundles in conduits are approximately the same as the inside conduit temperature. The conduit itself is an integral part of the Fire Barrier System providing not only mechanical protection of the cables but als; ' thermal barrier for the cables.

During the evaluation of the test data for cable trays, it was noted that the cable and tray rail tamperature, away irom where the Thermo-Lag joints opened met the acceptance criterie for nonload bearing walls of NFPA 251.

4.2 Test Results Based upon the review of plant raceway geometries documented in Appendix C of this report, the following commocities were identified f or inclusion _

in the CPSES test program

• Conauits (3/4*, 1", 1 1/2", 2", 3" & 5")

• Cable Trays (12", 24", 30" & 36")

• Thermo-Lag penetration fire stops b

e Junction boxes f

i l

i .. . ER-ME-067 h Rev. 1 Page 16 of 69 Specimen theting to date has been conducted at Omega Point Testing Laboratory, San Antor.io, Texas, including eight teste schemes in two teeting sessions.

• Session 1, June, 1992 Schemes 1-5

• - Session 2, August, 1992 Schames 6-8 These test schemas are described in detail in Appendix A.

The acceptance criteria for these tests has been the ANI Bulletin No. 5, "ANI/MAERP Standard Fire Endurance Test Method to Qualify a Protective Envelope for Class 1E Electrical Circuits" (Ref. 10.3.2). Its intent is to demonstrate in terms of fire endurance (time), the ability of a electrical cable to remain functional inside a protective envelope during a fire test condition. The ANT acceptance criteria is "All circuits Are To Be Monitored To Detect Failure, Circuit - To - Circuit, Circuit - To - System and Circuit - To - Ground" and maintain circuit integrity af ter a fire endurance test using the ASTM E-119 time vs temperature curve and a hose stream test.

4.2.1 CONDUITS Together the two testing sessiona tested the full range of conduits (3/4" through 5") installed at CPSES. The scheme 2 conduit tests showed high temperature responses in the small conduits. Specifically, the 3/4" conduit reached a cable temperature of 6097 and resulted in cable degradation. The 1" conduit maintained circuit integrity throughout the tnet, however blistering of the jacket was observed and was considered to have suffered " firs damage". The 5" conduit of Scheme 2 paused both the fire endurance and home steam tests. Circuit integrity was mai.ntained and the cables were free of fire damage.

Due to the results of the 3/4" and 1" conduits tested in Scheme 2, it was decided to conduct a subsequent test (Scheme 7) to test upgraded Thermo-Lag application techniques and to bound the range of conduit requiring an upgrade. Scheme 7 included 3/4", 1 1/2", 2" and 3" conduit sizes.

The - 3 ' conduit in Scheme 7 passed the fire endurance test in that circuit integrity was maintained. The hose stream test was not conducted on Scheme 7 per NRC requent to allow for a more ef fective barrier inspection. Instead the test _

article was cooled with a garden hose. The Lateral Bends (LBDs) shif ted, opening up the 3 joints of LBD and.some slight blistering of the outer jacket of one cable was observed. Because the LBD joint opened, it was decided to reinforce the LBDs. A test will be conducted to demonstrate the acceptability of the reinforced LBD.

The 2" and 1 1/2" conduits in Scheme 7 passed the fire endurance test since circuit integrity was maintained. However there was blistering of the cable jackets and the LBDs opened similar to the 3" conduit. It has been decided to

- reinforce the LBD and to upgrade the 1 1/2" and 2" conduits with a 3/4" thickness of Thermo-Lag mater!al.

I 1

i

..

• ER-ME-067 Rev. 1 Page 17_ of 69 The 3/4" conduits in Scheme 7 wete designed to test four Thermo-Lag application upgrade techniques.

• 3/4" Preshaped Sections (PSS)

• 1/2" (PSS) with an overlay of 1/4" (PSS)

• 1/2" (PSS) with 1/4" buildup of trowel grade / stress skin

• 1/2" (PSS) with 1/4" spiral wound flexi-blanket All four designs passed the fire endurance test. Dased on the visual inspections of cables, only the cable inside the 1/4" thick pre-shaped overlay article had

-no blistering of the cable. Since these LBDs opened similar to the other applications in Scheme 7, the 1/4" pre-shapes overlay with reinforced LBDs will have a confirmatory test conducted. This confirmatory test will envelope the 1 1/2" and 2" conduit.

4.2.2 CABLE TRAY cable trsy (12", 24", 30" and 36") were tested in Schemes 1,2,5,6 and 8. The

?.e s t articles in Schemes 3,5,6 and 8 were assembled in accordance with CPSES procedures. The Scheme 1 test was done on assembly 2 to an upgraded design, to test the upgraded technique of final stitching and stress skin overlay.

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

-Scheme 5 tested a 30" tray with a tee section. The bottom joint on the Thermo-Lag under the tee opened at approximately 15 minutes into the test and circuit integrity was' lost at 42 minutes, and the test was stopped. The article was cooled down with a garden hose. A review of the test article showed that fire damage was localized to the area around the joint and the rest of the article was in good. condition.

Based on the results of testing Scheme 5, assembly 2 of Scheme 1 was tested (assembly 1 was a non-upgraded design). Scheme 1 assembly 2 tested a 36" tray with a tee, upgraded by reinforcing the joints with stitching and - stress skin overlay. Scheme 1 passed the fire endurance and hose stream test in that circuit integrity was maintained and the cables were " free from fire damage". This test demonstrated the-acceptability of the upgrade design.

In order to bound the trays which need to incorporate or backfit the upgrade, a

24" tray with a tee (Scheme 6) and a 30" tray without a tee (Scheme 8) were tested. In both cases, it was obsersed that butt joints opened to come degree.

Based on this performance, it was decided that trays over 12" would be upgraded.

2

o . .

.

• ER-ME-067 Rev. 1

? age 18 of 69 4.2.3 Thermo-Lag Fire stops A Thermo-Lag penetration fire stop installed in accordance with CPSES procedures was tented in Scheme 4 in accordance with IEEE-634. This test was done on a 36" wide tray with a'5" deep Thermo-Lag 330 fire stop. The fire stop passed the IEEE-634 acceptance criteria in that the back side tempurature was significantly below the ignition temperature of the cable and did not allow the passage of the hose atream past the fire stop.

4.2.4 Junction Bozos A junction box installed in accordance with CPSES procedures was tested in Scheme

2. The installation passed the fire endurance and hose stream test in that circuit integrity was maintained and the cables were free from fira damage.

4.2.5

SUMMARY

OF TEST RESULTS The Thermo-Lag 330-1 material shows signs of softening early in the test (material temperature around 250*F) . This allows prebuttered joint under stress to open unless tne joint has been reinforced either by stitching the joint or an overlay of Thermo-Lag Stress-skin Type 330-69 and Thermo-Lag 330-1 trowel grade material. This ef fect is more pronounced on tray than on conduits as the conduit circular shape provides structural stability.

The joints and overall performance of the Thermo-Lag 330-1 is acceptable on cable tray when the joints are reinforced by stitching and the application of stress-skin and trowel grade material at the joint. The stainless steel banding alackens almost immediately into the fire test for cable trays and cannot be relied upon to support the joints. However, as the Thermo-Lag softens, the bottom panels are restrained by the banding from excessive sagging. On large tray, 24 in. and over, internal banding does support the top panel, l'

On small conduits ($ 2"), the 1/2 in. (nominal) pre-shaped Thermo-Lag 330 sections do not provide enough thermal mass to ensure cable functionality. An additional overlay of a 1/4 in. -(nominal) Thermo-Lag 330-1 is required. /or all conduit sizes the pre-shaped conduit section provides enough rigidity to prevent the butt and longitudinal joints from opentng. However, butt joints to prefabricated panels (e.g., LED's) need to be reinforced with additional trowel grade material and stress-skin to prevent opening of the joints.

The banding on conduits does not exhibit the same slouching as in cable tray and does pecvide support. However, over banding on straight runn (bands spaced less than.2 in. O.C.) can reduce the effectiveness of the char 1 "er which forms as The intumescenco of the T..ermo-Lag forms an the'Thermo-Lag 330 intumesces.

expanded char layer (4 times the original thickness) which increases the thermal resistance capability of the barrier.

4.3 ISSUES RAISED BY THE NRC 4.3.1 Hose Stream Test The first serien of tests conducted at omega Point Laboratory used a 2 1/2 in.

play pipe with a 1-1/8 in, smooth bore nozzle at 30 p11 and at a distance of 20 ft away from the test article (ANI critoria) to induce the impact, erosion, and cooling effect outlined in \STH E-119 (for nonload bearing walls).

Even though this approach did not damage the cuble and cable tray, or penetrate the conduits / junction box, it dislodged large amounts of the Thermo-Lag material.

This resulted in the hose stream test destroying any evidence of Thermo-Lag failures such as small burn through or cracked joints. Based on this, an alternate hose stream test using a 30 deg 1-1/2 in. fog nozzle 5 ft from the article at 75 pai was used during the omega Point testing conducted cn August 20 and 21, 1992. This fog nozzle hose stream provided the impact, erosion, and

l.

. . ER-ME-067 Rev. 1 Page 19 of 69 cooling effect similar to ASTM E-119, but did not dislodge large sections of Thermo-Lag, allowing for a better inspection of the fire barrier. The use of the fog nozzle is described in IEEE 634 and BTP CMEB 9.5.1 as an alternate to the playptpa for penetration seals (fire barrier seels). The only dif ference between IEEE 634 and BTP CMEB 9.5.1 is that the former states a distance of 10 ft from the centerline of the test article, while 9.5.1 says 5 ft from the article and IEEE 634 states a minimwn duration of 2 1/2 minutes, and 9.5.1 does not specify a curation.

In order to ensure sufficient cooling impact, CPSES testing used a 5 minute duration with a 1-1/2 in, dia. fog nozzle set at a discharge angle of 30 percent with a nozzle pressure of 75 pai maintained at a distance of 5 ft perpendicular from the outside face of the test article.

Both IEEE 634 and BTP CMEB 9.5.1 also require a minimum flow of 75 g1xn. The Elkhart nozzle used in the CPSES test hss a rated flow of 88 gpm at 75 pai which adequately ensures that the 75 gpm minimum wau maintained. The 5 ft perpendicular distance from the outside f ace of the test article was used because thtd maintained a distance of less than 10 f t f rom the centerline of the article which satisfies IEEE 634.

The basis f or using the alternate hose stream test method was: 1) to preserve the Thermo-Lag ervelope geoLetry while providing an impact, erosion, and cooling test; and 2) since the Branch Technical Position acknowledgos the alternate method for fire seals and the impact, eroeion, and cooling effect would be the same on either the penetration seal or fire barrier, an adequate level of assurance that the barrier would function was maintained.

4.3.2 9 in. Rule The 9" rule is a specification requircment to cover prctruding items out to a distance of 9" from the raceway. In most of the test articles, the 9 in, r:le was tested to reflect the various configurations in the plant. In not one of 9 them did the exposed steel provide a heat path into the enclosure. In fact, in many cases, the cable temperatures were lower in the areas where the 9 in. rule was being tested. Therefore, covering a protruding item fo: at leas;t 9 in, away from the cables being protected with either Thermo-Lag 330 or 660 (flexi-blanket) provided adequate protection to prevent significant heat intrusion.

4.3.3 Test Article Supports CPSES does not fireproof the structural ateel cable raceway supports on the plant. CPSES has provided the NRC with documentation in accordance with Generic Letter 86-10 to justify not installing structural fireproofing on cable raceway supports. However, cable raceway supports are considered protruding items and are covered with Thermo-Lag 330 in accordance with the 9 in, rule to prevent their being a heat path through the protective envelop.

Predicated upon CPSES analyt.is, raceway supports are not protected in the plant, eliminating the need to perform structural fireproofing tests on the supports.

Therefore, to eliminste a variable from the test program, the raceway supports were covered with Thermo-Lag 330 in Schemes 1 to 5.

The raceway supports were covered by a single layer of 1/2 in. prefabricated section of Thermo-Lag 330 until at least 9 in, away from raceway. The ress cf the distance to the test deck was covered with two layers of 1; 7 in.

prefabricated panels. (Note: the 9 in. rule was tested elsewnere in the test program.) When the NEC expressed the concern that the covering of the supports did not represent the plant condition and that the support provided a significant heat path into the envelope, it was decided not to cover the supports in Schemes 6, 7, and 8.

I 1

ER-ME-067 Rev. 1

?

-' Paga 20 of 69 In Schemes 6, 7, and 8, the supports were covered out to approximately 9 in with Thermo-Lag as protruding items in accordance with plant design (Reference 10.14.1) te _ prevent heat intrusion into the envelop The test results from Schemes 6,. 7, and 8 show that the exposed supports did not provide a significant heat path into the envelop. In fact, the cable thermocouple reading closest to the supports tended to be lower than the surrounding readings.

The . exposed supports also did not cause any ' visible distortion of the test articles. Therefore, whether supports are entirely covered or lef t exposed had no impact on the test results.

4.3.4 Top Coat Top: coat was applied on the Thermo-Lag 330 prefabricated panels at TSI in accordance with Reference 10.14.1 and reapplied where required by Reference 10.4.1 on all test articles. The top coat had no suf ficient impact on the test.

4.2.5 Using Density.as Receipt Acceptance Criteria CPSES uses c'ensity (weight per square foot of board) as the key attribute when inspecting shipments of Thermo-Lag pref abricated/ preshaped panels and sections.

The other attributes are:

• No holes or cracks wider than 0.05 in.

• No holes or cracks extending - through the material to ..as stress side.

• No visible mechanical damage (i.e., gouges, breaks, tears, etc)

CPSES also has on-site inspection (source inspection) and surveillance of TSI, including verification of the TSI thickness checks and weight of the materials. ,

C?SES invokes an Appendix B program on TSI and CPSES maintains inspection reports verifying the thickness checks.

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

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

The . weight (density) check also will pick up large internal voids in the prefabricated panels which would not be picked up by measuring the thickness of the panel. Also, thin board would not pass the-density (weight) inspection.

Therefore, as-proven in the fire test, the density inspection along with the visual inspection acd cource inspections provides adequate quality control of the Thermo-Lag.330-1 prefabricated panels.

.

• ER-ME-067 Rev. 1 Page 21 of 69 5.0 COMPARISON OF D2 SIGN / INSTALLATION REQUIREMENTS AGAINST THE TEST RESULTS

] The design and installation requirements for Thermo-Lag for CPSES were reviewed to determine whether those requirements are consistent with the Thermo-Lag test results.

5.1 Sp3cification Review S.1.4 Specification CPSES-M-2032, Rev. O, including DCA 95794, Rev. 6, (Reference 10.14.2), " Procurement and Installation of Fire Barrier and Fireproofing Material" This specification is applicable to installation in Unit 2 and common areas with respect to Unit 2 work only. _

This specification was reviewed against CPSES t2st results from the fire endurance testa performed at Omega Point Laboratories (References 10.12.1 to 10.12.8). This review is documented in Appendix B.1.

This review was limited to Thermo-Lag installation on cable raceway.

Radiant Energy Shield (RES) installation whi-h is part of the specification, is outside of the scope of th' e p" . a. The review of this specification for structural steel fireproafit.g will be performed later.

This review determined that the Thermo-Lag installation attributes are consistent with the results and are adequately documented in the specification. The section on repair of the raceway enclosures, due to removal of the enclosure for access to the cables, has not been revised to reflex the teet results. This section will be appropriately revised.

Since the installation has not been completed, this does not constitute a concern.

5.1.2 Specification 2323-MS-38A, Rev. 2, including DCA 77269, Rev. 3 (Reference 10.14.1), " Cable Raceway Fire Barrier Materials" The specification is applicable to installation for " ' 1, and Unit 2 after completion. _

~

This specification is in the process of being revised to incorporate the required upgradaa to the installations based on CPSES testing of Thermo-Lag at Omega Point Laboratories and was not ready for review.

! .

• ER-ME-067 3ev. 1

[

Page 22 of 69 5.1.3 Specification 2323-AS-47, Kev. 3 (Referenea 10.14.3), "Fireproofing of Structural Steel" This specification is applicable to installation for Unit 1, and Unit 2 after completion.

The specification was reviewed against Underwriters

• Laboratories, Inc.

(UL) Fire Resistance Directory, specifically detail X-611.

This review was-limited to Thermo-Lag installation. Other fireproofing materials are outside the scope of this review.

This specification incorporates the requirements of the UL directory. In fact, this specification provides additional requirement.3 which will ensure an aC.quate Thermo-Lag installation.

Section 4.1 allows the use of pref abricated panels to be inserted in the I trowel-grade material. This usage appears to be acceptable; however, no documentation exists to support this dosign. An Engineering Evaluation.

will be provided (later) as part of this report.

5.2 Installation Schedule Review 4

The installation achedules M1-1700 (Unit 1) and M2-1700 (Unit 2) were and reviewed to determine if the commodities protacted (size configurations) are enveloped by the fire test data.

A summary of the review on M2-1700 is provided in Appendix C. M1-1700 was only compared 'against M2-1700 for differences. The review of M1-1700

-demonstrated no .significant differences from M2-1700. This review demonstrates that the installed commodities are enveloped by the test configurations, except for multiple raceways in common enclosures.

Multiple racetays in common enclosuron will be evaluated as large trays (36" with tee was tested) with the joints reinforced and the engineering evaluation will be finalized (after finalization of test reports) to document the installations on a case-by- case bases in accordance with Generic Letter 86-10. _

l

.

• ER-ME-067 Rev. 1

<i

- Page 23 of 69 6.0 Ampacity Derating Factors The HRC in Draft Generic Letter 92-XX (Reference 10.10) raised a concern that ampacity derating factors may not be conservative. This concern was based on fact that .certain as-hiailt configurations in some plants may not be representative of the tested configurations.

As stated in DBD-EE-052, " Cable Philosophy and Sizing Crateria," cable ampacity derating f actors for Thermo-Lag raceways at CPSES Units 1 and 2 are as follows:

1. 31 percent for single trays enclosed with Thermo-Lag applied against ICEA P-534-440 "Cabler in Random Filled Trays" (factors taken from UL Report R6802-(Reference 10.11.4)).

2. 20 percent' for single. conduits enclosed with box design Thermo-Lag, applied against.ICEA P-46-426 " Power Cable Ampacities for Conduits in Air" (factors determined by calculation 16345/6-EE(B)-004 (Reference 10.16.3)).

3. - 7.5 percent for single conduit enclosed with shell design Thermo-Lag (factor based on review of TSI Report No. 111781 for 1-in. conduit (Reference 10.11.1)).

4. Other specific cable ampacity derating f actors for free air wrapped cables (f actors determined by calculation 16345-EE(B)-140 (Reference 10.16.4)).

Variations in configuration in the field that differ from the approved guidolines are documented in the Design Change documents which allow the configurations.

The engineering basis for each design change documents the f act that the dorating factors are not impacted (example of this is DCA-87040, Rev. 1).

Concerna raised by the subject generic letter and from the sources regarding the appropriate cable ampacity factor for Thermo-Leg 330-1 fire barrier systems on power cable are as follows:

- ER-ME-067 Rev. 1 Page 24 of 69 6.1 ISSUE 1 CONCEPJ{s TSI provided test results to licensees that documented ampacity decating f actors for enclosed tray ranging from 12.5 percent for 1-hour barriers to 20.55 percent for three-hour barriers. On October 2, 1986, TSI informed its customers and the NRC that, while performing tests at Underwriter's Laboratory (UL) f acility, TSI found that the ampacity derating f actors for Thermo Lag were greater than previous tests indicated.

The UL tested ampacity derating f actor ranged from 28 percent for 1-hour barriers to 31 percent for 3-hour barriers. However, TSI stated that the test results may not be comparable to previous test results since the test procedure and configurations were different.

Testing conducted at Southwest Research Institute (SWRI) (by TSI competiters),

as reported by the NRC, found the ampacity derating at 37 percent for a 1-hour barrier.

The NAC is concerned that licensees may be using nonconservative ampacity derating factors for cable in tray with Thermo-Lag.

PlSCUSSIQLti The ampacity derating f actors dif fer significantly between the ITL Report and the UL Report. The test philosophy and method differ considerably between the two tests. Since the test philosophy used by UL is consistent with the latest draft of a proposed IEEE standard on "Ampacity Derating of Fire Protected Cables," CPSES utilizes the cable dorating factor for power tray consistent with the results of the UL report.

UL is a nationally recognized testing agency and has published the ampacity tables for the National Electric Code. The test results f rom SWRI have not been made available to CPSES.

The thickness of the 1-hour rated Thermo-Lag in the UL test was a minimum 0.5 in.

and 0.6 in, maximum. However, the Unit 1 Brown & Root installation procedure indicates that a maximum thickness of 0.75 is permitted. To account for this, a 31 percent derating factor is used for CPSES. This 31 percent corresponds to the derating factor for 1.0 in, thick product (3 hour3.472222e-5 days <br />8.333333e-4 hours <br />4.960317e-6 weeks <br />1.1415e-6 months <br /> fire barrier) in the UL test and would be applied against the ICEA cable ampacity standard for single _

trays enclosed with Thermo-Lag.

f T

l

1.. - ER-ME-067 Rev. 1 Page 25 of 69 6.2 ISSUE 2 CONCEEin The ampacity derating f actors for enclobad conduit from the TSI report (7.5 percent) differ significantly from the UL Report (0 percent).

The NRC is concerned that licensees may be using nonconservative ampacity derating factors for cable in conduit with Thermo-Lag.

DISCUSSION: .The significant differences for derating factors between the TSI report (7.5 percent) and UL report (0 percent) may be due to differences in conduit sszes used in the test. The tests utilized the pre-shaped f orm of Thermo-Lag on conduit. The Thermo-Lag is manufactured in two halves and fits over the conduit. On the 4-in. conduit, the Thermo-Lag fits tightly against the conduit, improving heat transfer. However for the 1-in. conduit used in the TSI ,-

test, a small air gap can be expected b .wcen the Thermo-Lag and the conduit, resulting in reduced heat transfer and .swer ampacities. Accordingly, the TSI results will be used for all conduit sizing using the pre-enaped shell shaped Thermo-Lag.

6.3 ISSUE 3 CONCERN: The thermal resistance of Thermo-Lag, as determined in an ambient test environment of 40"C versus a normal plant ambient environment of 50'C, was used in calculating the ampacity of cables. The concern was that this may result in a less conservative ampacity rating.

DISCUSSION: An analysis for using the thermal resistance of Thermo-Lag, applicable for ar. ambient environment of 40*C was performed for calculating the s 'npacity of cables in an ambient environment of 50*C. The analysis showed that use of the 40*C thermal resistance f actor results in a more conservativs, ampacity derating factor, and therefore is acceptable.

6.4 ISSUE 4 CONCERNt ihermo-Lag 1-hour installation procedures at CPSES require a thickness of 0.500 in. with a tolerance et 0.250 in. 't e concern was that this installation may require additional dorating factors. _

DISCUSSION: The results of the UL test for the 1" thick product were used.

6.5 ISSUE 5 CONCERas No cable-ampacity testing was submitted for box design Thermo-Lag on conduit. -The concern wLa that caoles installed in these configurations may not have proper ampacity ratings applied.

DISCUSSION: Unit 1 installation procedure CP-CPM-10.3 permitted the conduit to be boxed out with Thermo-Lag, which may produce an air gap between the Thermo-Lag snd the conduit resulting in an expected higher derating f actor. This condition was analyzed in calculation 16345/6-EE(a)-004 (Reference 10.16.3), and concluded that a 20 percent derating f actor be applied against the ICEA P-46-426 cable ampacity standard for single conduit enclosed with Thermo-Lag.

I l

l

, . Ea-ME-067 i Rev. 1 j Page 26 of 69 j i

6.6 ISSUE 6 l f

CONCERNt No cable ampacity testing was submitted for Thermo 4.,ag on f ree air drop cable. The concern Was that cables installed in this configuration may not have proper ampacity ratings applied.

Plf CUSSIort s calculation 16345-EE(B)-140 calcu\ates the ampacity of free air l cables which are Wrapped With the flexible version of Thermo-Lag (330-660).

Inr.tead of calculating a derating factor, a specific ampacity is developed.

i Based on the discussion sbove and review of the 'xisting documentation (Reference '

10.11.1 through 10.11.4) adequate documentation and engineering basis is available to support the numbers used.

6.7 ISSUE 7 SQNCERN 8.n August 1992 NRC Office of Inspector General (010) report (Reference 10.10), ,

alluded - to -- the presence of a previously undisclosed cable tray Thermo-Lag ampacity test report conducted by Underwriters Laboratory (UL). This second report purportedly has a greater ampacity durating.f actor than the published UL Test Report R6802 (Reference 10.11.4). Additionally, Thermo-Lag enclosed conduits -in sizes 2 inch and smaller are being modified to increase theix ,

performance in fire tests. The modifiestion will increase the oxisting ampacity  !

defating factors.

DJfCUSSIONt TU Electric will evaluate the UL test report in question. when it obtains a copy

• and is able to perform a technical review.

h 1

h f

t 1

- ~ r .....L ~. - .,.,.,n, , , . ~ , . - - - , , , i .e ., n , , . - .

,,,--~~.,.,..,lr.,-..- s,'- , . . . , , .w ,, , p

. . ER-ME-067 Fev. 1 Page 27 of 69 7.0 COMBUSTIBILITY OF Ti!EPJiO-LAG This issue is presently under evaluation and this section has been reserved to address this issue.

J

l rn.ww ^A9 Rev. 1 P*ge 2B of 69 8.0 OPEN ITEMS

1. CONFIRMATORY TESTING

2. EVALUTION OF UNIT 1

3. COMBUSTIBILITY OF Tl!ERMO-LAG

4. REVIEW OF FIhALIZLD OMEGA POINT LADORATORIES REPORTS

5. STitUCTURAL STEEL FIREPROOFING

6. THERHO-LAGGGED HATCHES

7. FINALIZE AMPACITY DERATING ANALYSIS a

'A O

i i

l i

i

ER-ME-067 Rev. 1 Page 29 of 69

9.0 CONCLUSION

S As a result of tests conducted in June and August, TU Electric has concluded:

1. Thermo-Lag will perform its design function if properly configured

2. Thermo-Lag installations for conduit 2 inches diameter and smaller will perf orm its design function when upgraded by addition of 1/4 inch overlay

3. Thermo-Lag installations f or cable trays will perform its design function when unsupported bottom butt joints and vertical joints reinforced with stitching and/or additional stress skin.

4. Thermo-Lag Dox-out Protection for LBD boxes, JB boxes, etc. will perform their design function when reinforced with additional ntress skin.

Those upgrades are now being used in the Unit 2 installation and will be eveluated for backfit into Unit 1 at the first opportunity. In addition, these testa demonstrated that plant installation of supports without structural fire proofing is acceptable and the fog nozzle home stream test in .ccordance with HUREG 0800 is an offective home stream test.

l

. . tR-ME-067 Rev. 1 Page 30 of 69 10.0 RFFERENCES 10.1 ASTH E-119 (83) " Standard Methods of Fire Tests of Building Construction and Materials, American Society for Testing and Materiale" 10.2 NFPA 251 (1985) " Standard Methods of Fire Test s of Building Construction and Materials" 10.3 MoticaD_yuelear Insureig (ANI) 10.3.1 ANI Bulletin B.7.2, 11/87, Attachment B, en itled "ANI/MAERP RA Standard Fire Endurance Test Method to Qualify a Protective Envelope for Class IE Electrical Circuits," Revision 1 10.3.2 ANI Bulletin No. 5, "ANI/MAERP Standard Fire Endurance Test Method to Qualify a Protective Envelope for Class 1E Electrical Circuits,"

dated July 1979.

10.3.3 ANI Dulletin No. 7, "ANI/MAERP Standard Method of Fire Tests of Cable and Pipe Penetratirn Fire Stops 10.4 Appendix A to BTP 9.5-1, NRC Supplemental Guidance Nuclear Plant Fire Protection Functional Responsibilities Administrative Controls and Quality Assurance" 10.S Federal RegistoC/%1ume 45 No. 225/ Wednesday, November 19, 1980 Fire Protection Progist for Operating Nuclear Power Plants 10 CFR, Part 50, Appendix R 10.6 CPSES Final Safety Analysis Report, Section 9.5.1 10.7 HRC Generic Lettero 10.7.1 NRC Generic Letter 86-10 " Implementation of Fire Protection Requirements," 4/24/06 10.7.2 NRC (Draft) Generic Letter 92-XX "Therme-Lag Fire Barriers," dated February 11, 1992.

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

10.8.2 NRC Information Notico No. 92-46 "Thermo-Lag Fire Barrier Hatorial Special Review Team Final Report Findings, Current Fire Endurance Tests, and Ampacity calculation Errots," dated June 23, 1992.

10.8.3 NRC Information Notice No. 92-79 Daficiencies in the Proceduren for Installing Thcrmo-Lag fire Barrior Materials," dated Deca'.nber 6, 1991.

10.8.4 NRC Inf ormation Notice No. 91-79 " Deficiencies in the Procedures for Inntalling Thermo-Lag Fire Barrier Materials," dated December 6, 1991.

10.8.5 NRC Information Notice No. 91-47

• Failure of Thermo-Lag Fire Barrier Materials to Pass Fire Endurance Teot," dated August 6, 1991.

10.9 NRC Bullej;1gg 10.9.1 NRC Bulletin No. 92-01 " Failure of Thermo-Lag 330 Fire Barrier System to Maintain cabling in Wide Cable Trays and Small Conduits Free From Fire Damage," dated June 24. 1992.

10.9.2 NRC Bulletin No. 92-01, Supplement 1 " Failure of Thermo-Lag 330 Fire

. . ER-ME-067 Rev. 1 Page 31 of 69 Barrier to Perform its Specified Fire Endurance Function," dated August 28, 1992, 10.10 NRC Office of Inspector General Case No. 91-4N,

• Adequacy of NRC Staff's Acceptance and Review of Thermo-Lag 330-1 File Barrier Material," dated August 12, 1992.

10.11 Demal Science. Inc. fTSI) cable Amoneity leu 10.11.1 TSI Technical Note 111781, dated November 1981, " Engineering Report on Ampacity Tent for 600 Volt Power Cables Installed in a Five Foot Length of Two Inch conduit Protected with Thermo-Lag 330-1 Subli:ning Coating Envelope System" 10.11.2 Industrial Testing Laboratories, Inc. (ITL) Report No. 82-355-r-1, Revision 1, dated January 1985, "/cpacity Test for 600 Volt Power Cablem in an Open Top Cable Tray Protected by the Thertno-Lag 330-1 Subliming coating Envelope System" 10.11.3 17!, Report No. 83-B-181, dated August 1983, "Ampacity Derating Test at 70*C, 80*C, and 90*C, for 1000 Volt Power Cablen in a Ladder Cable Tray Aosembly Protected with a One-Hour Fire Rated Design of thi Thermo-Lag 330 Fire Barrier System 10.11.4 Underwritern Laboratories, Inc. (UL) Letter to TSI, dated January 21, 1987, for Project 86HK23826, File R6802, "Special Service Investigation of Ampacity Ratings for Power Cables in Steel Corduits and in Open-Ladder Cable trays with Field-Applied Enclosures" 10.12 CPSES Protective Envelope Fire Endurance Testa 10.12.1 Omega Point Laboratories Final Report 93543 dated (later), Scheme No. 1 Ass..mbly No. 2, "not issued".

10.12.2 Omega Point L&boratories Final Report 93543 dated (later), Scheme No. 2 "not issued" 10.12.3 Omega Point Laboratories Final Report 93543 dated (later), Scheme No. 3 "not issued" 10.12.4 Omega Point Laborat.ories Final Report fi3543 dated (later), Scheme No. 4 "not issued" 10.12.5 Omega Point Laboratories Final Report 93543 dated (later), Scheme No. 5 "not inLued" 10.12.6 Omega Point Laboratories Final Report 93543 dated (later), Scheme No. 6 "not issued" 10.12.7 Omega Point Laboratories Final Report 93543 dated (later), Scheme No. 7 "not isened" 10.12.8 omega Point Laboratories Final Report t 543 dated (later), Schems No. S "not issued" 10.12.9 Southwest Research Institute (SWRI) Project No. 01-6763-302 Final Repoti, dated Decereber 2, 1981, " Fire Resistance of Irradiated Thermo-Lag 330-1" 10.12.10 SWRI Project No. 03-6491 Final Report, dated October 27, 1981, " Fire Qualification Test of a Protective Envelope System".

__ ._ .~._~_.___________.-.__._______.m

. *- ER-ME-067 Rev. 1 Page 32 of 69 10.13 Therfral Science. Inc. fTSI) Installation Procedures 10.13.1 TSI Technical Note 20684, Revision V, dated November 1985, "Thermo-Lag Pire Barrier System Installation Procedures Manual Power Generating Plant Applications" 10.13.2 TSI 'lechnical Structural Steel 10.33.3 TSI Technical Note 80181, Revision II,"Thermo-Lag 330-1 Subliming Coating Envelope System Application Procedures," dated December 1981.

10.13.4 TSI Ter/hnical Note 80101, navision IV, "Thermo-Lag 330-1 Subliming Coating Fire Barrier System Application Procedures," dated June 1983.

10.14 CPsrS specificatione 10.14.1 CPSES Unit No.1 Specification No. 2323-HS-3BH, " Cable Raceway Fire Barriers" 10.14.2 CPSES Unit No. 2 Specification No. CPSES-M-2032, " Procurement and I Installation of Fire Darrier and Fireproofing Materials" 10.14.3 .CPSES Unit 1 and 2 Specification No. 2323-AS-47, "Fireproofing of Structural Steel" 10.15 tPSEs Drawines 10.15.1 CPSES Unit 1 Drawing No. M1-1700, "Thermo-Lag and RES Schedule" 10.15,2 CPSES Unit 1 Drawing No. M1-1701, sheets 1-7, "Thermo-Lag Typical ,

Details" i 10.15.3 CPSES Unit 2 Drawing No, M2-1700, " Unit 2 Thermo-Lag Report" 10.15.4 CPSES Unit 2 Drawing No. M2-1701, Sheets 1-15, "Thermo-Lag typical Details"

-10.16 CPSEF CalculatLp,ng 10.16.1 CPSES Unit i and 2 Calculation No. ME-CA-0000-0965, "Thermo-Lag Primary Protruding Member Installation Requirements" 10.16.2 CPSES Unit 1 and 2 Calculation No. ME-CA-0000-2062, " Heat Transfer Analysis of cable Tray Supports to Deternine Thermo-Lag

equirements" 10.16.3 CPE T.S - Unit I and 2 Calculation 16345/6-EE(B)-004 Rev. O," Cable

- Ampa tity Derating Factors for Conduits Boxed in with Thermo-Lag (TSI

. Prod. .ct ) "

10.16.4 CPSES Unit 1.and 2 Calculation No.16345-EE(B)-140 Rev.1, "Ampacity of Pot er cable Wrapped with Thermo-Lag 330-660 Installed au Free Air l- Drop"-

l l

L 10.16.5 CPSES iinit 1 and 2 Calculation No. 16343/C-EE (B)-142, Rev. 2,"'

Thermo Lag Tray Interface Analysis"  ;

10.17'CPSES Desirti Baeis Dopumen l

10.17.1 -P'.sD-EE-052 " Cable Philosophy and String Criteria," Rev. 3 10.18 Q2$fe Procedur9.2 10.18 ; .' . NEO Quality Assurance Department Procedure No. NQA 3.09-1.07,

Rev. 1 Page 33 of 69

" Inspection of Fire Protection to Cable Raceway and Structural Steel" (CPSES Unit 1) 10.18.2 CPSES Construction / Quality Procedure No. CQP-CV-107, " Application of Fire Barrier and Fireproofing Materials" (C'SES Unit 2 and ._ommon) 10.19 IrtE Standard 634-1978, "IEEE Standard cable Penetration Fire Stop Qualift ation Test

• 10.20 NRC Letter to Mr. R.J. Gray dated December 1, 1981, " Comanche Peak Tray Fire Barrier Evaluation," Docket Nos. 50-445 and 50-446.

E

- --_--_.m ____ ._m_.___ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

1 l ER-ME+057

. . APPENDIX A Rev. 1 Page 34 of 69 A.1 Omeca Point Test No. 9 354 3 - ScheetLLMgsbly 2 The fire endurance test documented in Reference 10.12.1 was conducted at Omega Point Laboratories on June 22, 1992, and was approved en (later). The fire endurance test, hose stream tent, and electrical circuit monitoring test were perf ormed to the requirems..to of American Nuclear Insurers ( ANI) Bulletin No. 5 iReferenew 10.3.2). This ic the original acceptance critoria used by CPSES as documented in Scathwest Research Institute (SRRI) Project No. 03-6491 (Reference 10.12.9) datsd October 27, 1981, that was reviewed and accepted by the NRC by letter dated December 1,1981 (Reference 10.20) .

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

A1.1 Test Articla Scheme No.1 Assembly 2 (upgraded version) consisted of a T.J. Cope brand 36 in, wido x 4 in. deep 12 gage ladder back tray toe section, catalog No. GG-36f t 06-CP, connecting two Barndy-Husky 12 gage ladder bnck verticals, catalog No.

S6YA-36-144, that transitioned into a U-shaped configuration having a 8 f t-6 in, horizontal run dimension and a vertical dimension of 6 f t-0 in, at each leg. One leg trk.:sitioned into the tee enetion via a 36 in. x 4 in. ladder back 90 dag vertical with a 24 in, inside radius bend fitting. The opposite leg trannitiered into the tem section via an 1/4 in. thick x 7-3/4 in. x 7-3/4 in. ASTH A36 carbon steel L-shaped splice plate (CPSES cit 9 fabricated) forming a " squared" 90 deg angle. The 90 deg angle is not used at CPSES but was required in the test to fit thu test article- into the test oven. A 1/3 percent mix of power, instrumentation, and control cabica, totaling 52 cablao, were pulled into the tray maintaining

• aingle layer, except in the tea pection whurein cabloo were looped towardu the mouth of the tee thereby ensuring :ircuit continu t?.y. The mouth of the tea was filled with a 5 in, wide mixture of Thorno-Lag 330-1 tray stop.

This assembly uas supported by three (3) trapeze type hangers using 3 in.

channels bolted together with 5/8 in. diameter x 1-1/2 in. ASTM A307 carbon eteel bolta. The channele were attached to 4 x 4 x 1/2 in, clip anyles fillet welded to the 3 in, channel on each vertical side. The 4 x 4 clip angles were then attached to a 1/4 in. thick reinforced steel duck using 1/2 in. diameter threaded rods. From the bottom of the tray to the top nupport, angle measures 3 ft-0 in.

in length. Above the vertical tray leg connected to the "aweeping" 90 dog bond, an 8 in, wide x 12 in, high (all-around) rectangular concrcte collar surrounds a 44 in. x 12 in. block out that was filled with Dow Corning 3-6548 eiliconc RTV foam. An internal anal (silicone elastomer-Promatec 458) was poured into each cable tray vertical at the 1/4 in. reinforced dock level. A single protruding item (Unistrut P1001) was installed cnto the outside f ace of the " squared" 90 dog vertical approximately 12 in. down from the underside of the 1/4 in. decking and extending approximately 20 in. beyond the face of the tray.

A1.2 iSI Thermo-Lag Protective Envelope Hattriala and Enclosures 1/2 in, thick (nominal) Thermo-Lag 330-1 flat board and 1/2 in, thick Thermo-Lag 330-1 pref abricated v-rib paTels with struen skin on only one side was installed in accordance with References 10.14.1, 10.15.4, and 10.18.2. except where upgraded for testing of design changes as desuribed below.

Thenno-Lag 330-1 flat boards were applied to hanger supports then Thermo-Lag 330-

1. pref abricated panels with v-ribs were installed to the inside face of the sweeping 90 dog band and on top of the heritonsal run, v-riba extend perpendicular to tray sido rails.

Thermo-Lag 330-1 pref abricated panels were installed onto the bottom top of the tray, v-ribe extend parallel to the tray rail.

Thermo-Lag 330-1 pref abricated panels wera installed onto the sido rails, v-tiba extend vertical.

Thermo-Lag 330-1 pref abricated panela were installed onto vertical riser and l

- APPENDII A ER ME-067 Rev. 1 Page 36 of 69 outside face of sweeping 90 deg angle, v-ribe extend vertical.

Upgrade - At the side panela, opposite the mouth of the tee section, a thin layer of 330-1 trowel grade appreximately 3/16 in. thick, applied from the joint, extending approximately 5 in towards the middle of the tray, nn the top, bottom, and side exterior panel surfaces. Then Thermo-Lag stress sk!? Type 330-69 was cut and formed it.to a squared U-ahsped configuration (5 in. overlay on top and bottom), which was placed over top, bottom, side panelo, and 3/16 in. thick trowel grade, then the stress skin was stapled using 1/2 in. long Arrow or Bostitch t-50 staples at a distance 1 in. mini?tum, 2 in. maximum from the edge of the stress skin and 3 in, c/c spacingn. The two stress skin legs were tie wired in place at 5 in, to 6 in. max centers, A skim coat of 330-1 trowel grade material approximately 1/16 in. thick was applied over the Ltress skin and tie wires. Finally, Thermo-Lag 350 topcoat was applied over areas where Thermo-Lag j 330-1 trowel grade had been applied after the required 72 hours8.333333e-4 days <br />0.02 hours <br />1.190476e-4 weeks <br />2.7396e-5 months <br /> cure puriod.

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

Upgrade - Stitching was applied 3-3/4 in. away f rom squarod 90 dog angle on the top board, 8 stitches at 5 in. apart.

Upgrade - Stitching was applied on thw top and bottom 330-1 boards along the mouth edge of toe into the 330-1 tray stop, 8 stitches at 5 in. Apart.

Upgrado - Approximately 5 in. f rom mouth of tee towards the center of tray extending parallel to previous atitchas, 8 stitches at 5 in. apart were added.

l Upgrade - Stitching wha applied approximately 8 in e away from the center of support hanger ( close s t. to top sweeping 90 deg bend) toward the center of the tray, extending across width of tray, 8 atitches at 5 in, apart.

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

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

Using the 9 in. rule for protruding 2.tcms, the P1001 unistrut was wrapped with Thermo-Lag flat panels the total widtn of the 36 in. tray plue 9 in, where Thermo-Lag applicption terminates and the remaining unistrut was left unprotected.

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

l

f ER-ME-067

- APPENDIX A Rev. 1 Page 36 of 69 A1.2 ASTM E-119 Standard Time Temperature The Thermo-l.agged test article was exposed to the standard time-temperature curve of ASTM E-119 for 1 hour1.157407e-5 days <br />2.777778e-4 hours <br />1.653439e-6 weeks <br />3.805e-7 months <br />.

A1.4 Tamparature Review ASTM E-119 and NFPA 251 specify that the transmisajon of heat through the wall or partition during the fire endurance test shall act have been such as to raise the temperature on its unexposed surface more than 250*F (139'C) above its initial temperature. ASTM E-119 and NFPA 251 further state that where the conditions of acceptance place a limitation on the rise of temperature of the unexposed side, the temperature end point of the fire endurance tost shall be determined by the average of the measurements taken at individual points; except that if a temperature rise 30 percent in excess of the specified limit occurs at any one of these points, the remainder shall be ignored and the fire endurance period judged as ended.

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

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

The maximum individt.al temperatute rise would be equal to 325'F plus ambrent.

For this test, the maximum individual temperature rise would equal 409'F.

The maximum recorded individual outsido cable tray rail temperature was 377'F and the maximum recorded average cable trav rail temperature was 294*F.

The maximum recorded individual cable surface temperature was 314'F and the maximum recorded average cable surface t.cmperature was 248'F.

The temperature critoria in ASTM E-119 are not applicable to CPSES, never the less, the test temperature satiofied the tc.nperature critoria in ASTM E-119.

Visual inspection of the cables after the test showed that all the cables were '

" free f rom fire damage. ' A small nick was found on one cable. This nick was datermined to have been caused during the pulling of the cables.

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

- - - - -- m--_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ , _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _

.

• APPENDIX A ER-ME-067 Rev. 1 Page 37 of 69 A1.5 Home Stream Test Pollowing the exposure fire, the test arstele was subjected to a 2-1/2 minute hose stream test utilizing a 2-1/2 in, diameter national standard playpipe equipped with a 1-1/8 in. nozzle. The nozzle pressure was maintained at 30 psi. ,

The nozzle distance was maintained at 20 ft from the test article. '

Circuit continuity was maintained during the hose *+ ream teat. Some of the ,

Thermo-Lag was dislodged during the hose stream test b Jt the cables remained j

" free from~ fire damage."

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

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

in the cable jacket. Thin nick was caused during the installation of the cable and did not occur during the tect.

A1.7 Comments The test article meets the acceptance criteria establiohed by CPSES (based on ANI

-Bulletin No.'5) in that circuit integrity was maintained througnout the fire endurance and hose stream trots.  ;

The use of Thermo-Lag 330-663 Flexiblanket to satisfy the 9-in. rule of preventing heat intrusion into the protective envelope was demonstrated to be acceptable.

The Thermo-Lag fire stop installed in the open and (mouth) of the tee section performed satisf actorily, as did the penetration seals at the test deck. These seals confirm the design used at CPSES for penetration caal/ Therm-Lag 330 interfaces in the plantu. .

A2.2 -Omeca Point Test No. 93543 - Scheme 2. Assembiv 1 The fire endurance test documented in Reference 10.12.2 was conducted at Omega

' Point Laboratories on June 17,- 1992, and was approved on (later). The fire

-endurance test,-home stream test, and electrical circuit monitoring test were performed to the requirements of American Nuclear Insurers (P.NI) Bulletin No. 5 (Reference 10.3.2). This is *.he original acceptance criteria used by CPSES as documented in Southwest Research Instituta (SWRI) Project No. 03-6491 (Reference 10.12.9) dated October 27, 1981, that was reviewed and accepted by the NRC by ,

letter dated December 1, 1981 (Reference 10.20).

l' l

u l

t i

APPENDZZ A ER-ME-067 Rev. 1 Page 38 of 69 A2.1 Test Article Schemo 2, Assembly 1, consists of one junction box (24 in. x 18 in. x 8 in. ) and three conduits (5 in. 1 in., 3/4 in. diameter). The junction box was in the center of test article approximately 3 f t below the test deca. The Junction box (JB) was supported by a 3 x 3 x 1/4 tube steel support, and had a 1 in. conduit with a 90 deg elbow attached to the frent of the .16 to simulate a nonprotected entirety into a CB. The three conduits exts.nd out both sides of the JB (~l/4 in. ,

1 in., 5 in. conduit out each side) to lateral bends (90 dog bends) and the rise vertically through the test deck.

The 1 in, conduit representing a nonprotected entirety wass sealed with a silicone elastomar seal (Promatec 458). All conduits penetrating the test deck were r.ealed with Promatec 458 in accordance with CPSES procedures.

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

The vertical conduit risers (3/4 in., 1 in., and 5 in.) were attached to a 1/2 in. plate which ras attached to a 3 in. x 3 in. x 1/4 in. tube steel commodity.

These commodities were for tenting the 9 in, heat path rule.

A2.2 TSI Thermo-Lag Protective Envolope Materials and Enclosure one-half inch thick Thermo-Lag 330-1 flat board are used on supports and lateral bends.

One-ha.i f inch thick Thermo-Lag 330-1 preshaped conduit sections used on 3/4 in. ,

1 in., and 5 in, diameter conduits.

The two protruding tube steel items were protected as protruding items in accordance with Reference 10.14.1. One was protected with flat 1/2 in. 330-1 Thermo-Lag panuls, the other with two layers of 1/4 in. thick Thermo-Lag 330-660 Flexiblanket.

The 1 in, diameter conduit protruding item from the junction bcx was protected in accordance with Reference 10.14.1 using 1/2 in, thick Thermo-Lag 330-1 preshaped conduit .t ect ion s .

All joints were " Pre-bustered" and Banding (wires) was installed in accordance with Ref erence 10.14.1. AU Thormo-Lag pref abricated panels were inspected prior tc shipment and receipt weight in accordance with Referonce 10.14.1.

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

I i

l

^^ ~'~~ ^ ~ -_ - - - - - __A-----_ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ __

. . APPENDIZ A ER-KE-067 Rav. 1 Page 39 of 69 A2.4 Temperatures ASTM E-119 and NFPA 251 specifies that the transeission of heat through the wall or partition during the fire endurance test shall not have been such as to raise the temperature on ita unexposed surface more than 250'F (139'C) above its initial temperature. ASTM E-119 and !!FPA 251 further state that where the conditions of acceptance place a limitation on the rise of temperature of the unexposed side,-the temperature end peint of the fire endurance test shall be determined by the average of the measurements taken at individual pointe; except i that if a tamperature rise 30 percent in uxcess of the specified limit occurs at i any ons of these points, the remainder shall be ignored and the fire endurance period judged as ended.

The ambient air-temperature at the start of the test was 87'F.

The maximum average temperature rise would be equal to 250*F plus ambient. For this *.est, the maximum average temperature rise would equal 337'F. j The maximum individual temperature rise would be equal to 325'T plus ambient.

For this test, the maximum individual temperature rise would equal 412*F.

,

• 5-inch conduit The maximum average instrument ca910 surface temperature was 191*F, the maximum average control cable sus f ace temperature was 142*F, and the maximum average control cable surf ace t<:mparature was 158'F for an overall average cable surface temperature of 164*F.

The conduit had a maximum recorded average outside steel temperature of 299'r, even though the'inside of the conduit is considered the inside of the fare barrier assemb2y.

The maximum recorded individual cable surface temperature was 233*F and the

, maximum sceorded overall average cable surf ace temperature was 164*F.

The temperature criteria in ASTM E-119 are not applicable to CP3ES, never the loss, the test temperature satisfied the temperature criteria in ASTM E-119.

An inspection of the cables af ter the home stream test revealed that the cables were " free from fire damage."

• 1-inch Conduit The maximum cable (inside of conduit) temperature was 466*F. The temperature profile within the conduit varied from a low of 243*F to a high of 462'F. The horizontal mid-span sections had the highest temperatures where the thermocouploe closest to the supports were the lowest temperatures. This demonstrates that the thermal mass (ratio of weight to heated area) play an important role in the thermal response of the barrier.

The conduit outside steel average temperature was 412'F.

An inspection of the cable af ter the hose stream test showed blistering of the

-cable jacket where the cable temperature was 463'F, but only discolorizrtion

~

of the conductor insulation.

3/4-inch conduit The maximum recorded cable surf ace (inside of conduit) temperature was 609'F.

The temperature profile within the conduit varied from a low of 249'r to a high of 609'F.- The horizontal mid-span sections had the highest temperatures and the thermocouples closest to the supports had the lowest temperatures.

Thie demonstrates that the thermal mass (ratio of weight to heat perimeter) play an bmportant role in the thermal response of the barrier. An inspection of the cable after the hone stream test showed blistering of the jacket and in at least one location damage to the insulation on the conductors.

_ _ _ _ _ . . _ . . ,______---___m - ..___ _

.

• AFPCfDIZ A E8-ME-067 Rev. 1 Page 40 of 69

• Junction Box The maximum recorded cat >le surf ace (inside of box' temperature was 311'F. The temperatura profile shows that the temperature variation was caused by the conduits connected to the box since the highest temperature was on the cable run in the 3/4 in, conduit and-the lowest was on onS of the cables run in the 5 in, conduit.

fhe junction box steel average temperature was 483'F.

An inspection of the cables inside the junction box af ter the hose stream test l showed that the cables were "fres from fire damage." j i

The con $uit cable temperature near the exposed protruding items exhibited j I

lower temperature than in the horizontal sections of the conduits. Therefore,

.the 9 in. rule for heat path on protruding items is acceptable.

A2.5 Hos9 Stream Test j

' I Following the expcaura fire, the test article was subjected to a 2-1/2 minute  !

home stream test utilizing a 2-1/2 in. diameter National Standard playpipe equipped with a 1-1/8 in. nozzin. The nozzle pressuce was maintained at 30 pai.

The nozzle distance was maintained at 20 ft from tha test article.

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

~

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

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

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

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

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

The penetration seal inside the conduit at the junction box also performed satisfactorily.

A3 Omean Point-Tost No. 93543 - Scheme 3 i

The fire endurance test documented in Reference 10.12.3 was conducted at Omega Point Laboratories on June 18, 1992, and was approved on (later). The fire endurance test, hose stream test and electrical circuit monitoring test were performed to the requirements of American Nuclear Insurers ( ANI) Bulletin No. 5 (Reference 10.3.2). This is the ortginal accept c. ace criteria used by CPSES as documented in Southwest Research Institute (SWRI) Project No. 03-6491 (Reference 10.12.9) dated October 27, 1981 that was reviewed and accepted by the NRC by letter dated Decembc2 1, 1981 (Reference 10.20).

. . APPENDIX A ER-ME-067 Rev. 1 Page 41 of 69 A3.1 Test Article Scheme 3 consirts of g 12" wide x 4" deep ladder back cable tray constructed in a U-shaped configuration having a 5 f t horirontal run through to radial 90 degree l bends to two 6 f t vertical risere. The distance f rom the bottom of tray to the l underside of the test deck was 3 ft. A 1/3 by percent fill mix of 18 l instrumentation, power and control cables were installed in a single layer into j the tray.

The assembly was internally supported by two trapeze type hangers 3 in. channel for the bottom and 4 in. channel for the vertical support.

An internal tray seal (silicone elastomer) was installed in the vertical caction of the tray at the test deck.

A3.2 TSI Thermo-Lag Protective Envelope Materials and Enclosure ,

1/2" thick (nominal) Thermo-Lag 330-1 pref abricated flat boards were used on the i

' hangar supporte entirely.

1/2" thick (nominal) Therro-Lag 330-1 prefabricated V-ribbed panels were installed on the tray with the ribs running perpendicular to tray side rails on the top of the tray and parallel to tray rails on the bottom and sides.

1/2" thick Thermo-Lag 330-1 pref abricated V-ribbed. panels were installed on the top (inside) 90 degree radial bends with the ribe perpendicular to the tray side rails. . These panels were scored approximately 1/4" deep the entire width of the panel on the outside surf ace at 2" intervals. Lach scored groove was then filled with Thermo-Lag 330-1 trowel grade material.

1/2" thick Thermo-Lag 330-1 pref abricated V-ribbed panel was installed on the bottom (outside) 90 degree radial bends with the ribe parallel to the side rails.

These panels were scored and folded similar to the inside of the bend panels above, except the scores were approximately 2 1/2 in, apart.

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

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

A3.4 Temperatures ASTM E-119 and NFPA 251 specifies that the transmission of heat through the wall or partition during the fire endurance test shall not have been such as to raise I

the temperature on ~its unexposed surf ace more than 250*P (139'C) above its initial temperature. ASTM E-119 and NFPA 251 further states that where the l conditions of acceptance place a limitation of the rise of temperature of the L unexposed side, .the temperature end point of the fire endurance test shall be determined by the average of the measurements taken at individual points; except that if a temperature rise 30 percent in excess of the specified limit occurs at any of these points, the remainder shall be ignorea and the fire endurance period judgcd as ended.

The ambient air temperature at the r: art of the test was 95*F.

The maximum average temperature rise would be equal to 290'F plus ambient. For this test the maximum average t2mperature rise would equal to 345'F.

The maximum individual temperature rise would be equal to 325'T plus ambient.

For this test the maximum individual temperature rise would equal 420*F.

. . APPENDII A ER-ME-067 Aav. 1 Page 42 of 69 The maximum recorded individual outside cable tray rail temperature was 381*F and the maximum recorded Average outside cable tray rail temperature was 337'F.

The maximum rocsrded individual cabl6 surface temperature was 292'F and the maximum recorded average cable surface temperature was 257'F.

The temperature criteria in ASTM E-119 are not applicable to CPSES, never the less, the test temperature satisfied the temperature critoria in ASTM E-119.

Visual inspection of the cables after the test revealed that the cables were

" free of fire damage."

A3.5 Hose Stream Test Following the exposure fire, the test article was subjected to a 2-1/2 minute hose stream test utilizing a 2-1/2 in, diameter national standard play pipe squipped with a 1-1/8 in. nozzle. The nozzle pressure was maintained at 30 pai.

The nozzle distance was maintained at 20 feet from the test article.

Circuit integrity was maintained during the hose stremm test. Some of the Thermo-Lag was dislodged during the hose stream test but the cable remained "f ree frem fire cau. age."

7.3. 6 Electrical circuit Monitoring Test At no tien during the f tre endurance test or hose stream test did the electrical circuit monitoring system identify any shorts, shorts-to-ground 3r open circuits (loss of continuity) on any of the monitored circuito.

The aables were maggered in place af ter the hose stream tm (next morning) and no cablee indicated any degradation.

A3.7 Comments The test article met the accootance criteria established by CPSES (based on ANI Bulletin No. 5), in that circuit integrity was maintained.

Furthermore, the temperature criteria of NFPA 251 was also rnet.

M Omeg,a Point No. 9M43 - Scheme 4 The Penetratica Seal Test documented in Ref erence 10.12.4 was conducted at omega Point Laboratories on June 23 1992 and was approved (lator). The Penetration Geal Test was conducted in accordant'A with IEEE 634 " Standard Cable Penetration Fire Stop Qualification Test" (Reference 10. l'; ) . This is the test standard I

reference in CPSES's FSAR (Section 9.5 1, see Section 6.7 of this, document.).

A4.1 Test Article Scheme No. 4 consists of a wingle vertical 36" wide x 4" deep x 7'-6" long (T.J.

Cope brand) .adderback cable tray with a 1/3% mix of instrumentation, power and control cabling totaling 156 cables were installed in the tray to achieve a 40%

fill. 12" up f rom the bottom of the tray, a 5" wide 330-1 thermo-lag tray step was poured in place extending the entire incide width of the tray. The 330-1 Thermo-Lag tray stop was placed in such a manner that cables toward the back of the tray were also within the protective 330-1 tray stop envelope.

Omega Point Laboratories turnishou and installed (2)-1-1/2" x l-1/2" x 2 '-9" long strut type mechanical clamping desico to prevent . '.bles from sagging during the test. With (3)-3/8" dikteter through bolto equally spaced from one another, the mechanical clamping device was poritioned on the front and back face of the cables within the tray. In addition to the mechanical clamping device, the cables were also secured in place using plastic tie wraps tied to tray rungs, or in some instances stainless steel tia wire was used duw tight proximity of the cables.

)

4

, APPENDIZ A ER-ME-067 Rev. 1 Page 43 of 69 An 8" wide silicone elastomer (Promatec 450) fire stop was poured 2'-5" up from the centerline, the 310-1 tray stop material. This was allowed to cure an a 0.10 thick stainless steel sheet metal was wrapped around the Promatec 458 tray stop and metal banded in place. The stop was aligned with the test deck during installation.

Omega Point Laboratories furnished a l'-0" thich concrete slab having a l'-0" wide x 4*-C" long blockout. The 36* vertical tray was inserted into the blockout wherein 3'-6" of the tray hangs below the underside of the concrete slab and a  :

2" gap remains all around the tray. Around the bis \out opening was sealed using I a silicone elastomer (Promatec 45B).  !

Thermo-Lag 330-1 pref abricated panels were installed onto the 36" vertical tray beginning 12" abcVe the bottom of tray extending 4'-6" upward leaving 12" of cables exposed unprotected to the fire source. The side panels were installed in compression wherein the front and rear panels sandwich the side panels and  !

metal banding applied. l There were no supporto required internally, therefore, a unistrut usad weight l type support was installad on top of thu test docking. )

h4.2 TSI Thermo-Lag Protective Envelope Material The 5" deep Penetration stcp consisted of Thermo-Lag 3301 trowel-grade matexial ,

poured into and worked arouno the cablos in the tray in accordance with Reference 10.14.1.

The tray was enclosed using 1/2 in. (nominal) Thermo-Lag 330-1 pref abricated V-ribbed panels. The top and bottom panel (front and back panels) were installed with the "V" ribe perpendicular to the tray rails and the side panels parallel to the tray rails.

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

A4.3 ASTM E-119 Standard time Temperature

- The Thermo-Lagged test article was exposed in accordance with Reference 10.19 to the staadard time temperature curve of ASTM E-119 for 1 hour1.157407e-5 days <br />2.777778e-4 hours <br />1.653439e-6 weeks <br />3.805e-7 months <br />.

A4.4 Temperature Review The maximum temperature was 466'T with an average temperature of 380*F. These temperatures are significantly below the ignition temperatures of IEEE 383 cable (at least 700*F) which is the only ignition source inside the enclosure. These temperatures meet the requirements IEEE 634. ,

A4.5 Hose Stream Test

- Following the exposurn' fire, the test article w4e subjected to a 2-1/2 minute hoes stranm test utilizing a 2-1/2 in. dia_ .. sr national etandar1 play pipe equipped with a 1-1/8 in.. nozzle. The nozzle pressure was maintained at 30 pai.

The nozzle distance was maintained at 20 feet from the test article.

) L- The . Thermo-Lag envelope currounding tho - penetration stop opened up (jointa opened) during the hose stream tout. However, the hose stream did not penetrate

- or dislodge the Thermo-Lag fire stop.

A4.6 comments The penetration Thermo-Lag stop installed in acccrdance with Pete.ence 10.14.1 meets the acceptance criteria of IEEE 634.

b L

. . APPENDII A ER-ME-067 ,

Rev. 1 i Page 44 of 69 AS Omeca Point Test No. 93543 - scheme 5 .

1 The fire endurance test documented in Reference 10.12.5 was conducted at Omega Point Laboratories on June 19, 1992, and was approved on (later). The fire i endurance test, hose stream test and electrical circuit monitoring test were performed to the requirements of American Nuclear Insurers ( ANI) Bulletin No. 5 (Referenca 10.3.2). This is the original acceptance criteria used by CPSES as documsuted in Southwest Research Institute (SWAI) Project No. 03-6491 (Ref erence 10.12.9) dated October 27, 1981 that was reviewed and accepted by the NRC by letter dated December 1, 1981 (Reference 10.20).

A5.1 Test Article Scheme No. 5 consists cf a 30" wide x 4" deep ladder back (T.J. Cope brand) cable tray with a 30" a 4" tee section catalog No. GI-30FT-12-06-CP and (2)-30" ladderback verticala catalog No. GG-30SL-12-06 forming into a U-shaped configuration having a 8'-9" horizontal run dimension and a vertical riser dimension of 7'-0" at each leg. From each end of the horizontal run a 3C- x 4" 60 degree and 30 degree f it t.i ng , both baving 12" insida radiusbands were installed to transition the tray f rom horiLontal into the vertical riser. These fittings were connected using vendor supplied splice plates and 3/8" diameter bolting hardware. Where the mouth of the tea curves and extends perpendicular measures outward by I'-3". The bottom of the tray was set at three feet below the test deck.

A 1/3% mix totaling 44 cables, of instrumentation, control and power cables were pulled-into the 30" tray. Thesa cables were looped into the tee section of the tray.

A silicone clastomer (Promatec 45B) 6-in. deep stop was installed in the open end of the too section. After the elastomer cured, a 0.10 thick stainless ste61 piece of sheet metal was wrapped around the atop and me:as banded in place, in accordance with CPSES procedures.

The tray was supported f uternally by three trapeze type hangers uaing 3" channels bolted together with 5/8" x 1-1/2" A307 bolting material. The vertical channets are attached to 4" x 4" x 1/2" clip angles fillot welded to a 3" channel en each vertical side. The 4 x 4 angles were th6n atcached to a 1/4" thick reinforced decking using 1/2" diameter threaded rode. Mounted on the outside face of the vertical tray Tun bas an 6'-0" long P1001 unistrut positioned herize ntally such that unistrut extended beyond the side rail. This was done to similar a protruding item to test the 9" rule for heat path.

The vertical tray risers were sealed st the test dock with silicone elastomer (Promatec 45B) in accordance with CPSES procedures.

AS.2- TSI Therme-Lag Protective Envelope Materials and Enclosure 1/2" (nominal) thick Thermo-Lag 330-1 flat boards with an inner layer of stress skin was applied to the supports. 1/2" (nominal) thick Thermo-Lag ?30-1 pref abricated V-ribbed panels were installed on the cable tray in accordance with aeference 10.14.1 (non-upgrade design) . The V ribe were installed perpendicular to the tray rails on the top (inside) of the tray and parallel to the side rails on the side and bottom (outaide) of the tray, 1/2" (nominal) thick Thermo-Lag ,

330-1 pref abricated V-ribbed panels were inatalled on the radial bends (top and bottom pieces) using the score and fold technique with scores approximately at 5:in intervals with the ribs perpendicular to the tray rails on both the top and bottom.

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

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

. '. APPEND!I A ER-ME-067 Rev. 1 Page 45 of 69 All joints were " pre-buttered" and banding (wirea) was installed in accordance with Reference 10.14.1 (non-upgraded design) . Therre-Lag 330-1 prefabricated panels were inspected prict to shipment from the vondsr and weight upon receipt '

per Reference 10.14.1.

AS.3 ASTM 1.-119 Standard Time Temperature The Thermo-Lagged test article was exposed to the standard time temperature curve of ASTM E-119 for approximately 44 min. at which time the test was terminat.ed due to loss of circuit integrity.

AS.4 Temperature Review The Thermo-Lag protective envelope opened up at the butt joint on the lef t side bottom piece of the tee section and at the corner between the horizontal butt joint and corner (longitudinal) joint with the side rail at approximately 20 min.

into the test.

The Mak temperature at 44 min was 723*F on the side rail where the joint opens and ti.a closet cable thermocouple tu the opening reached 578'F.

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

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

AS.$ Hose Stream Test In order to preserve the condition of the test article, tha hose stream test was not coc.4ucted . The test krticle was .ooled of f using a garden hose, to prevent further deterioration of the enclosure.

AS.6 Electrical Circuit Monitoring Test Circuit integrity was lost at 42 minutes into the test.

AS.7 Comm9nts During visual inspection of the test article, it was evident that the fire damage was limited to the area where the joint opened up. Also of note is the f act that the joint opened with 20 minutes of the start of the test but circuit integrity was not lost until 42 minutes into the test. Thermocouple in the area of the opening also rose slower than was expected demonstrating that the Thermo-Lag provides a cooling ef f ect event in the area around the breech of the enclosure.

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

A6 omeca Point Test No. 93543 - Schemp_j, The fire endurance test documented in Reference 10.12.6 was conducted at Omega '

Point Laboratories on August 1992, and was -approved on (later). The fire endurance test and electrical- circuit monitoring test were performed to the requirements of American Nuclear Insurers (ANI) Bulletin No. 5 (Reference 10.3.2). This is the original' acceptance criteria used by CPSES as documented in Southwest Research Institute (SWRI) Project No. 03-6491 (Reference 10.12.9) i dated October 27, 1981, that was reviewed and accepted by the NRC by letter dated December 1, 1981 (Reference 10.20).

The home stream test was conducted using the guidance provided in BTP CMEB 9.5.1 (see Section 6.later) and in IEEE STD- 634 (Reference 10.19) for penetration seals.

. _ . _ _ - m .. _ _. ._. . .

I

. . APPENDIX A ER-ME-067 Rev. 1 Page 46 of 69 A6.1 Test Article Scheme 6 consisted of a 24" wide x 4" deep ladder back tray witn a horizontal tee section at mid-span. There were two vertical 24" sections connected to the '

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

The open end of the too was sealed using a 5 in, deep Thermo-Lag 3?O-1 tray stop consisting of both prefabricated panel section and +*avel grade material.

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

The vertical tray sections were scaled at the test deck using a silicans elastomer.

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

1/2 * (nominal) thick Thermo-Lag 330-1 flat boards with stress skia on the inside were installed on the supports to a distance of approximately 9 in, from che tray in accordance with Reference 10.14.1 for protruding items.

The V ribs were installed perpendicular to the railt on the top (inside) panels on the tray and parallel to the rails on the sides and bottom (outside).

The 90' radial bond top and bottom panels were installed asing the scored and groove method. Tho' top and bottom panels have scores spaced about 2" apart.

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

All-joints were " pre-buttered" and banding (wires) was installed in accordance with Reference 10.14 1 (non upgraded design). Thermo-Lag 33C-1 prefabricated panels were inspected prior to shipment from the vendor and weight upon receipt per Reference 10.14.1.

A6.3- Fire Endurance Test The Thermo-Lagged test article was exposed to tne standard time temperature curve of ASTM E-119 for 1 hour1.157407e-5 days <br />2.777778e-4 hours <br />1.653439e-6 weeks <br />3.805e-7 months <br />.-

A6.4 Temperature Review ,

During the test 3 joints opened in the enclosure. They were; the vertical riser butt joint on the left handside, outside section, the vertical riser butt joint on-the right hand side, outside section and the bottom longitudinal joint along the tee section left bend into the tee.

The peak temperature was 484*F on the front tray rail and 484'T on the left vertical riser.

The high temperatures were localized to the locations where the joints opened.

The physical inspection of the assenely af ter the hose stream test also only indicates degradation of the outer cable jacket in areas where the joints opened up. The average cable temperature was only 317'F - and the average rail temperature was 401*F. These numbers include the thermocouple reading around the openings in the enclosure.

.. . APPENDIX A ER-ME-067 Rov. 1 Page 47 of 69 A6.5 Hose Stream Test Tollowing the exposure fire, the test article was subjected to a S minute hose

=tream test utilizing a 1-1/2. in. dia fog nozzle set at a discharge angle of 30%

with a nozzle pressure of 75 psi (this Elkhart nozzle is raited .88 gpm at 75 psi). The nozzle distance was maintained at 5 ft perpendicular im: the outside edge of the test article.

This hose stream criteria was agreed to Dy T.U. electric personnel and NRC staf f personnel (see hose stream discussion later in this riection).

Circuit e.ontinuity was maintained during the ho.se stream test. A small sunount of Therno-Lag was dislodged during the hose stream test, but no joints which had not already opened in the exposure fire were opened during the hoes, stream test.

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

The cableu were meggered af ter the hose stream test and only one instrument cable show signs of degradation.

A6.7 Comments During the visual inspection of the test article, it was determined that the fire damage was limited to those areas where the ]oints opened.

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

A7 Omeca Point Test No. 935'3 - Scheme l The fire endurance test documented in Reference 30.12.7 was conducted at Omega Point Laboratories on August 19, 1992, and was approved on (later). The fire endurance test, and electrical circuit monitoring test were performed to the requirements of American Nuclear Insurers (API) Bulletin No. 5 (Reference 10.3.2). This is the original acceptance criteria used by CPSES as documented in Southwest Resaarch Institute (SWRI) Project No. 03-6491 (Reference 10.12.9) dated October 27, 1981 th,st we.s reviewed and accepted by the NRC by letter dated December 1, 1981 (Reference 10.?G).

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

A7.1 Test Article scheme 7 consists of one 3" conduit, one 2" conduit, one 1-1/2" conduit and two 3/4* conduits. The conduits were installed in a "U" shaped configuration with Lateral Dends at the turns.

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

The conduits were sealed with silicone elastomer (Promatec 45B) external to the conduits at the test deck and internally at the tops of the conduits in accordance with site procedures.

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

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

l l

APPEND!I A ER-ME-067 Rev. 1 Page 48 of 69 3/4" (naminal) thick Thermo-Lag 330-1 preshaped conduit sections were icrtalled on one cide of a 3/4" conduit and the other side was covered by 1/2" (nominal) thick Thermo-Lag 330-1 preshaped conduit section with an additional layer of Thermo-Lag 330-1 trowel-grade, followoJ by a layer of Thermo-Lag Stress Skin Type 330-69 and finally a layer of Thermo-Lag 330-1 trowel-grade to provide a 1/4" build up on top of the 1/2" Thermo-Lag 330-1 preshaped conduit sections.

The LBD's were covered with 1/2" Thermo-Lag pre-f abricated panels.

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

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

All joints were " pre-buttered" and banding (wires) was installed in accordance with Referenca 10.14.1 Thermo-1 og 330-1 pref abricated panels were inspected prior to shipment f rom the vendor and weight upon receipt per Ref erence 10.14.1.

A7.3 ASTM E-119 Standard Time Temperature The Thermo-Lagged test article was exposed to the standard time-turopersture curve of ASTH E-119 for 1 hour1.157407e-5 days <br />2.777778e-4 hours <br />1.653439e-6 weeks <br />3.805e-7 months <br />.

A7.4 Temperature Review Data was taken using two computer data acquisition systems. Af ter 13 minutes of data acquisition, it was noticed that Computer No. I was not accepting data f rom cl.annels 85 through 100. The computer was stopped, reprogrammed to accept all 100 channels and restarted. Consequently, the first 15 minutos of data for the affected channelo was lost.

A very rapid temperature rise on several thermocoupl-e was noticed around 31 minutes, and a ground loop f rom the circuit integrity systems was suspe ted. To verify that a ground loop was not occurring, the circuit integrity voltage was disconnected for two data scans (32 and 33 minutes) . No change was observed, the circuit integrity system was vindicated and reconnected.

At 8 minutes. TC No. 10 failed and was disconnected.

At 17 minutes, TC No. 31 failed (indicsted a negative temperature) and was disconnected after a determination who .!c that it could not be repaired.

ASTM E-119 and NFPA 251 specifies that the transmission of heat through the w; 11 or partition during the fire endurance test shall not have been such as to raise the temperature on its unexposed surface more than 250*F (139'C) above its initial temperature. ASTM E-119 and NFPA 251 further states that where the conditions of acceptar.ce place a limitation on the rise of temperature of the unexposed side, the temperature end point of the fire endurance test shall be determined by the average of the measurements taken at individual points; except that if a temperature rise 30 percent in excess cf the specified limit occurs at any one of these pointa, the rumainder shall be ignored and the fire endurance period judged as ended.

The ambient Air temperature at the start of the test was 83*F.

The maximum average temperature rise would be equal to 250*F plus ambient. For this test the maximum average temperature rise would equal 333*F.

. . APPENDII A ER-ME-Ori Rev. 1 Page 4S of 69 The maximum individual temperature rise would be equal to 325'F plus ambient.

For this test the maxianum individual temperature rise would equal 408'F.

• 3" conduit ,

The maximum individual cable (inside of conduit) temperature was 399'F and the maximum average cable temperature was 200'F. The inside edge of the rignt LBD fitting (metal temperature) reached 623'F. As the test article was remcVed from the oven it was noted that the joint between the top of the LBD and the cond'it had opened. During the visual inspection (next morning), it was noted that the outer jacket of one of the cables in the 3" conduit right at the LBD had blistered.

• 3/4" conduit with additional 1/4* Thermo-Lag 330-1 preshaped conduit section (overlay) build-up The maximum individual cable (inside of conduit) temperature was 346*F at the interface with Thermo-Lag 330-660 flexiblanket overlay and the maximum average cable temperature was 289'F. The inside edge of the LBD (metal temperature) reached 368'F. During the visual inspection, it was noted that the LED had moved as the upper joint had opened. The visual inspection also revealed that cables installed in that portion in the 3/4" conduit that was protected with the 1/4" Thermo-i.ag 330-660 flexiblanket overlay was " Free from Fire Damage".

• 3/4" conduit with 3/4" thick Thermo-Lag preshaped conduit sections The maximum individual cable (inside of conduit) temperature was 490'F snd the taximum average cablw temperature was 380*F. During the visual inspection, it was noted that the top joint of the LDD had cpened up.

During the physical inspection (next morning), the cable showed blistering of the outer cable jacket.

• 3/4" conduit with 1/4" Thermo-Lag 330-1 trowel-grade addition The maximum individual cable (inside of conduit) temperature was 380*F and the maximum average ccble temperature was 352'F. The incide edge of the LBD (metal temperature) reached 477'F. During the visual inspection, it was observed that the top joint of the LDD had opened.

During the physical inspection, (next morning) the cable showed blistering of the outer cable jacket.

D

• 3/4" conduit with Thermo-Lag 330-660 flexiblanket build-up The maximum individual cable (ins'de i of conduit) t w perature was 409'F and the maximum average cable temperature was 318'F. The inside edge of the LBD (metal temperature) reached 493'F. During the visual inspection, it was observed that the top joint of ahe LBD had opened.

During- the physical inspection (next morning), the cable showed blistering of the outer cable jacket.

1-4/2" conduit The maximum individual cable (incide of conduit) temperature was 388'F and the maximum average cable temperature was 318'F. The inside edge of the left LBD was 429'F and the right LBD was 409'F.

During the visual inspection, it was observed that the top joints of the LBD's had opened. During the physical inspection (next morning), the cable showed deterioration of the cable jacket.

i l

.. - APPENDII A ER-ME-0G7 Rev. 1 Page 50 of 69

• 2" conduit The maximum individual cable (inside of conduit) temperature was 445'T and the maxLmum average cable temperature was 303'F. The insido 6)ge of the right LBD reached 400'F.

During tha visual inspection; it was observed that the top joints of the LBD's had opened. During the physical inspection (next morning), the cable showed deterioration of the cable jacket.

The unprotected Trapeze Uni-etrut support had no impact on the test. The temperature on the top of the 3" and ?" conduit s (closest to the vertical supports) at the center of the conduits were only 399'F and 375'T respectively.

The temperatures just outboard of the centerline in the 3" conduit were 429'F and 301*F and on the 2" conduit was 405'F. Therefore, the support provided no significant thermal input to the cables. Centerline temperature of all cables were less than 346*F with the highest on the 2" and 3" conduits being 270'F.

A7.5 Hose Steam Test At the request of the NRC staf f, a hose stream test was not conducted. Instuad, a garden nose was used to cooldown the test article no that a visual inspection could be conducted.

A7.6 Electrical Circuit Monitaring Test At no time during the fire endurance test did the electrical circuit monitoring system identify any shorts, shorte to ground or open circuits (loes of continuity) on any of the monitored circuita.

At 60 minutes, the circuit integrity systems were disconnected and the computers stopped. A hot megger test .as attempted, with mixed tosults. The circuit integrity syntoms were reconnected at 68 minutes, the data acquisition rettarted and the specimen was removed f rom the test furnace and cooled with the spray f rom a small hose.

A7.7 Comments For the 3" conduit, the opening of the LBD caused the bliotering of the cable jacket.

For the 2" and 1-1/2" conduits, the LBD's opened at both ends of each conduit.

For the 3/4" conduit with a 1/2" thick Thermo-Lag 330-1 preshaped conduit section and an added 1/4" thick Thermo-Lag 330-1 preshaped conduit section, the LBD appeared to be opening at the joint.

For the 3/4" conduit with the 3/4" thick Thermo-Lag 330-1 preshaped conduit sections, the LBD joint opened. There was also blistering of the outer cable jacket.

For the 3/4" conduit with 1/4" thick Thermo-Lag 330-660 flexiblanket on top of the 1/2" thick Thermo-Lag 330-1 preshaped conduit sections,the LBD joints opened.

There was also blistering of the outer cable jacket.

For the 3/4" conduit with 1/4" thick Thermo-Lag 330-1 trowel-grade buildup over a 1/2" thermo-Lag 330-1 prochaped conduit section, the LBD joint opened. There was also blistering of the outer cable jacket.

The temperture criteria in ASTM E-119/NFPA 251 are not applicable to CPSES; Never the less, the temperaturca of hte following componets satified the temperature critoria in ASTM E-119/NFPA 251 (i.e. maximum average temperature of 330 F and maximum temperature of 408 F): the maximum and average cable temperature in th 3" conduit, the average cable temperature in the 2"and 1-1/2" conduit,and the maximum and average temperatures in the 3/4" conduit with the 1/4" presh" =d overlay.

I

.. , APPENDII A ER-ME-067

' Rev. 1 Page 51 of 69 i

The unprotected support had no adverse impact on the test, demonstrating the effectiveness of the 9" rule to prevent heat infusion into the envelope. There was no deformation of the conduit caused by movement of the supports or deformation of the supports.

AB Omeca Point Test No. 93543 - Scheme 8 The fire endurance test documented in Reference 10.12.8 was conducted at Omega

• Point Laboratories on August 21, 1992, and was approved on (later). The fire endurance test and electrical circuit monitoring test were performed o the requirements of American Nuclear Insurers (ANI) Bulletin No. 5 (Ret rence 10.3.2). This is the original acceptance criteria used by CPSES as documented in Southwest Research Institute (SWRI) Project No. 03-6491 (Refetance 10.12.9) dated October 27, 1981, that was reviewed and accepted by the NRC by letter dated December 1, 1981 (Reference 10.20).

The hoes stream test was conducted using the guidance provided by BTP CMEB 9.b.1 ,

(see Section 6.10) and IEEE Std. 634 (Reference 10.19) for penetration seals.

AB.1 Test Article Scheme 7 consists of a 30" wide x 4" deep ladderback tray installed in a U shape.

The article was installed so that the bottom of -the tray was approximately 3 f t below the test deck. A 1/3 by percant fill mix of power, control and instrumentation cables were installed in the tray, maintaining a single layer.

The assembly was supported internally by two trapeze type ha: gers using 3" channels bolted together.

The -vertical tray sections were sealed at the test deck using a silicone elastomer (Promatec 45B).

A8.2 TSI Thermo-Lag Protective Envelope Materials and Enclosure 1/2" (nominal) thick Thermo-Lag 330-1 V-ribbed pref abricated panels with stress skin on the inside were installed on the cable tray in accordance with Reference 10.14.1 (non-upgraded design).

1/2" (nominal) thick Thermo-Lag 330-1 pref abricated flat panels with stress skin on the inside were installed on the supports to a distance of approximately 9 in, from the tray in accordance with Reference 10.14.1 for protruding items.

-The V-ribs were installed perpendicular to the rails on the top (inside) panels on the tray and parallel to the rails on the sides and bottom (outside).

The 90' radial bend top and bottom panels ware installed using the scored and grooved method. The top and bottom panels have scores spaced about 2 in. apart.

All joints were " pre-buttered" and banding (wires).was installed in accordance with Reference 10.14.1 (non upoeaded design). Thermo-Lag 330-1 prefabricated panels were inspected prior ,o a dpment from the vendor and weight upon receipt per Reference 30.14.1.

A8.3 ASTM E-119 Stando-d il e Tempcrature The Thermo-Lagged test article was exposed to the standard time temperature curve of ASTM E-119 for 1 hour1.157407e-5 days <br />2.777778e-4 hours <br />1.653439e-6 weeks <br />3.805e-7 months <br />.

AB.4 Temperature-Review The bottom butt joint, mid-span on the horizontal section, openeo at about 30 min. into the test. It was decided to continue the test until circuitry integrity was lost. . circuitry integrity was maintained for the full one hour.

During the usual inspection, it was observed that the butt joints on thu outside of the vertical sections _had also openod.

l

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

APPENDII A ER-KE-067 Rev. 1 Page 52 of 69 The peak temperature on an individual cable reachnd 703*F. The maximum temperature on the cable tray rails was 764*F. Both of these temperatures were in the vicinity of the bottom joint that opened.

There is a wide variation in temperatures from a high of 7E* *F to a low of 231*F.

The lower temperatures were in the areas furthest frot the opening in the enclosure. In fact, the average maximum cable temperature in the vertical sections was only 280'F.

?'!s widc variation in temperatures demonstrates that the Thermo-Lag material

, cioned properly and the weakness at the joints, allowing the joints to open was the failure mode.

AB.5 Hose stream Test Following the exposure fire, the test article was subjected to a 5 minute hose stream test utilizing a 1-1/2 in. diameter fog nozzle set at a discharge angle of 30% with a nozzle pressure of 75 pai (this Elkhart nozzle is rated at 88 gpm at 75 pai). The nozzlo distance was maintained at 5 ft porpandicular for the outsid7 surface of the test article.

Thio hoaa stream criteria was agreed to by T.U. Electric personnel and f1AG staf f personnel (see hose stream discussion later in this section).

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

AB.6 Electrical Circuit Monitoring Test At no time during the fire endurance test or home stream test did the electrical

! circuit monitoring system identify any shorts, shorts-to-ground, or open circuits (loss of continuity) on any of the monitored circuits.

The cables were meggered af ter the hose stream test (next morning). Many of the cables showed degradation of the cable jacket.

A8.7 Comments The bottom joint on the horizontal section of the tray opened at approximately 30 min, into the test. Except in the area of the joint f ailure, the temperatures on the cables were belcw the 30% in excess of 250*F plus ambient in NFPA 251 and the average cable temperatures below 250*F plus ambient (which is not applicable to CPSES).

The Thermo-Lag material, except for tho joint failure, performed adequately.

The fog hose stream allowed a more informative inspection of the test article.

A10 SWRI Project No. 01-6763-302 A fire test of irradiated samples of Thermo-Lag 330-1 was conducted by SWRI. The total exponure dose to the samples was 2.12 x 108 rade. A fire test wac performed on one irradiated sample and one nonirradiated sample.

The purpose of the fire test of irradiated samples of Thermo-Lag 330-1 vae to demonstrate that the fire resistive properties of the Thermo-Lag panels wonid not be degraded af ter exposure to radiation. The test results indicate the fire resistive proper:ies actually increased following radiation exposure. Although this fire test did not represent a typical installation detail (flat panel section in a small oven), the results are considered applicable to all installation details that incorporate Thermo-Lag 330-1 into the design t;at may be faubjected to a radiation exposure.

I

. APPENDIX B ER-ME-067 Rev. 1 Page 63 of 69 Sfec. CPSES-N-2032 Rev. O Iucaudina Pev. 6 to DCA 95794

[teviewed to CPSES Thermo-Lao Tests Covered spec. by Section Subject Schene Comments 1.0 Scope N/A 1.1 Applicability N/A _

1.2 Definitions N/A 1.3 Changes and Notification N/A 1.4 Scope of Work _

N/A 1.5 Work Coordination N/A 2.0 Applicable Documents N/A 2.1 General N/A _

2.2 Codes and Standards N/A _ _ _

3.0 Material and Installation N/A Requirements 3.1 Thermo-Lag Fire Barrier N/A Title Material 3.1.1 Material Acquisition All Schemes same materials were used in all tests except fiberglass gauze which is not used in raceway application.

3.1.2 Performance Goals N/A Vendor requi rements not applicable to test data.

3.1.3 Design Performance Goals N/A Title 3.1.3.1 Environmental N/A Requirements __

3.1.3.2 Water Sprays on No Burned N/A Material 3.1.3.3 Raceway Barcier Required Schemes 1, These tests at one Hour Rates 2, 5, and 7 demonstrate that Thormo-Lag barriers can withstand a one hour fire using the E-119 time temperature Curve.

3.1.3.4 Structural Steel N/A Tested to UL criteria Fireproofing to be documented by Engineerina Analysis.

3.1.3.5 _ Seismic Requirements N/A i

1

.- .- APPENDIX'B ER-ME-067 Rev. 1 Page 54 of 69 l

covered- '

Spec. by .L Section subject Scheme = , Comments 3.1.3.6 Forty Year Life SWRI Test Irradiction test.

Requirement No. 01-6763-302 _

3.1.3.7 Repair of Materials Scheme 1,j7_ Upgrade was a repair.

3.1.3.8 Irradiation SWRI Test, No. 01-6763-00(

3.1.3.5 Chemical reaction tc N/A plant materials ,

3.2 Installation of Thermo- N/A Title tag on Raceway- _

3.2.1 General N/A Titim 3.2.1.1 Identifies M2-1700 as N/A Installation Schedule 3.2.1.2 Identifice Nominal All This is the caterial Thickness of Thermo-Lag criteria used in all Prefabricated and tests.

Preshaped Panels and Sections 3.2.1.3 Interfacing Ite.n N/A 3.2.1.4 Multiple Commodity N/A To be documented by Enclosure Engineering Evaluation per G.L. 86-10.

3.2.1.5 Release Forms For Work N/A 3.2.1.6 Foreign Materials in N/A Raceways ,

3.2.1.7 Thermo-Lao Prime 351 All schemes Used on support oniv.

-3.2.1.8 Cabin-(Air)-Drop to be N/A Only requires air Protected drops to be protected.

3.2.1.9 Electrical Release N/A Requiremunt >

3.2.1 10 Do Not Bavel Edge F/a Edge not beveled in test.

. ~ _

3.2.1.11- Requires all s hia and All schemes This is prebuttering joints to be filled with the joints which was trowel grade and required done on all joints-in-25% excess to allow for every Omega Point shri_nkage Test. . _ , _

1. 2.1.12 - Protection of Small All schemes This protects bolts l..

l- Protruding Items and nuts etc. done on l-all tests.

l- To be tested in next i 3.2.1.13 ) Use of Flex 3-Blanket on None serief, of tests.

l Non-rigid Raceways ,_

l l

l

. . APPENDIX 3 ER-ME-067 Rev. 1 Page 55 of 69 Covered Spec. by Section. Subject Scheme Comments _

3.2.1.14 Spacing of fastaners not All schemes All Omega Point test in spec. covered by (M2- articles used M2 1701 1701) for details except. for upgrades which are covered by this spec.

3.2.1.15 Requirements to maintain All schemes A 1 tests articlec met minimum thickness minimam thickness requirement s .

3.2.1.16 Cleanliness Verification N/h 'leanliness on on I< .ectrical items, -

resumption of work <

3.2.1.17 Identification 1. * '. .uay N / 7.

(Tao No.) ,

3.2.1.18 Allows use of caulking N/A Trowel grade not guns to apply trowel affected by using grade caterials caulking guns used et Ousaa Point.

t I, 1.2.1.19 Cleanliness of pump to N/A Cleanliness ensures 3 fill caulking gun trowel-grade material not contaminated.

3.2.1.20 Allt.w pump to provido N/A towel grade, but required trous; gra'.e to be workod by hand 3.2.2 Mixing Requirements All schemes Same methods used on test articles.

3.2.3 Prefabricated Section N/A Title -

~

3.2.3.1 Une of V-ribbed and Flat All schemes Samu method used in Panel all tests,.,_, ,

3.2.3.2 Alteratte configuration N/A Installation. other requi r.e Engineering than tested approval cunfigurc 'n will be documentt .nd evaluated oy a Fire Protection Engineer in accordance with G.L.

86-10. _

3.2.3.3 Attaching prefabricated N/A Concrete flaircuts are panels to cmncrete with not attached directly Hiltis to the raceways and only provide additional protection where needed in accordance with M2-1701.

3.2.3.4 Requires tight fit at all All schemes All tests use this joints and prebuttering method.

3.2.3.5 Provide instruction on All schemes Same method used where installation on JB and required in test other non raceway items articles.

I

____________________________________A

. - -. ~ .

,-- + APPENDIX B. ER-ME-067 Rev. 1 Page 56 of 69 Covered Spec. by Section Subject Scheme Comments 3.2.3.6 Fastener spacing All schemes Same method used on requirement all test articles.

3.2.3.7 Provides instruction on All schemes Same method used on how to deal with bonds all test articles.

and prefabricated panels 3.2.3.8 Allows score and fold All schemes Same method used on method for bends all test articles.

3.2.3.9 Does not allow breaking N/A Does not allow usage.

or furcing of prefabricated panels 3.2.3.10 Requires installing All schemes Same method uned on Thermo-Lag on the all test articles.

commodity first

3. 2. 4 ' Special Requirement for N/A Title Cable Trays 3.2.4.1 Requirement to fill All schemes Same method used on corners on score and fold all test articles method with trowel grade where score and fold was use:

3.2.4.2 Requirement for internal Schemes 1, Provides support of banding on horizontal 5, 6, and 8 top panel.

tray 24 and larger 3.2.4.3 Provides design Schemes 1,

. requirement of V-rib 3, 5, 6, orientation on cable tray and 8 3.2.4.4 Allows flattening of V- Schemes 1, ribs at corner $cints 5, 6, and 8 3.2.4.5 Tee sections require a Schemes 1, Provides the strongest single panel where 5, and 6 configuration at the possible widest spans.

3.2.4.6a Backfit design Scheme 1 Upgrade of joint by requirements on reinforcing with longitudinal joints trowel-grade and stress-skin.

3.2.4.6b New work,. butt joints on Scheme '

Reinforcing of butt trays reinforced by joints.

stitching with tie-wire 3.2.4.6c New work, butt joints on Scheme 1 Stress skin was not trays to be reinforced tested on butt joints with stress-skin and but was used trowel-grade effectively to reinforce longitudinal joints. Based en the results, stress-skin provides an effective reinforcement for all joints.

APPENDIX B ER-ME-067 Rev. 1 Page 57 of 69 covered spec.- .

.by:

-Section. subject- Scheme, comments 3.2.4.6d Backfit design Scheme 1 strass-skin was not  :

requirements for butt tested on butt joints J joints on trays using but was tested on stress-skin and trowel- longitudinal joints, i grade buildup. Tee will Based on the results l require stitching of butt of the test, stress- l jotnts skin provides an I effective 'l reinforcement for all  !

joints. i 3.2.4.6e Install tio-wire on tee N/A Tie wi es are an enhancement of i section bottom panels to the upgrade tested in scheme 1. l rungs to support panel This enhancement has no negative I effects and therefore does ret need to be tested. l 3.2.4.7 .Where the upgrades can not be N/A Engineering to resolve and  ;

installed, Engineer shall be provide design and (

notified. documentation if untested contiguratio- in accordance with G.L. %10 1

3.2.4.8 Traceability o butts rdnforced N/A Documentation ortly l

with tie wires 3.2.5 Special Requirements for N/A Title Conduits Fittings, and Joints 3.2.5.1 Requirement to install Thermo- Schemes 2 Lag section on conduit first and 7 3.2.5.2 Requirem nt for 1/4" preshaped Scheme 7 overlay ~on top of 1/2' preshaped sections 3.2.5.3 Installation requirements on None The coupling is treated as a coupling larger conduit and is provided with an overlap at the joint so there is no butt joint. This is an ennancement which provides additional protection and therefore does not need to be -

tested.

3.2.5.4 installation of Thermo-Lag radial Mone To be tested in next series of conduit bends tests.

3.2.5.5 Where spec. design requirements N/A Engineering to resolve and cannot be met, Engineering to provide design basis. If resolve untested configuration,

( provide documentation as required by G.L. 86-10.

a . . .

i

. i APPEllDIX B ER-ME-067 Rev. 1 Page 58 of 69 Covered spec. by Section. Subject Scheme Comments 3.2.5.6 Thermo-Lag preshaped Schemes 2 1/2" nominal preshaped installation requirement and 7 section installed.

3.2.5.7 Thermo-Lag installation Scheme 7 Overview requirements for LBDs. JB, etc.

3.2.i.7a Installation on LBDs S:hemes 1 Reinforced joint on the and 7 LBDs to be confirmed in next test series.

3.2.5.7b Installation on JB pull boxes, etc. Schemes 2 Reinforced joints to be and 7 confirmed in next test series.

3.2.6 Applicadon of Trowel-Grade N/A Title Thermo-Lag 3.2.6.1 Surface Preparation All schemes Method used in all tests.

3.2.6.2 Application Technique All schemes Method used in all tests.

3.2.6.3 Application Technique All schemes Method used in all tests.

3.2.6.4 Allowance requirement for All schemes Method used in all tests, trowel-grade shrinkage 3.2.7 Installation of nermo Lag 330- Flexiblanket to be tested in 660 tiexiblanket materials next series of tests.

. Spcc. already includec upgrade on small air crop bundles based on the test _

results on small conduits.

3.2.8 Applying Topcoat . All schemes Method used in all tests.

_t 3.2.9 Safeguards Penetration None Specitic requirements for Assemblies dealing with containment penetration on the safeguards side does not provide installation attribute guidance.

3.2.10 Raceway Supports Steel chtmes 6. 7, Provide requirement of 9" and 8 rule and guidance on priming supports. Same methods used in tests.

3.2.11 Fire Stops All schemes Fire stops tested in all tests.

Thermo-Lag tray stop specifically in Scheme 4.

I

l-

.. . APPENDIX B EP-ME-067 F

Rov. 1 Page 59 of 69 Covereci Spec. ,.

by Section Subject. Schcras - Commaata 3.2.12 Repair Damaged nermo-Lag Schemes 1,7 Repairs are made using Section trowel-grade material. He test results show that trowel-grade material adheres to the prefabricated panels and it has no impact on the fire if the material has a buildup of trowel-grade er a prefabricated section.

Stress-skin is repaired in the same manner as used by TSI in their shop. A: long as the stress-skin is mechanicady bonded to itself (stapled or

. continuous) there is no impact.

3.2.13 Cable Replacement / Repair None This section has yat to be revised to the upgraded designs.

3.2.14 Post Applicatian N/A Work after installation is complete such as cleanup.

3.2.15 Deviations From Typical Details N/A Engineering to provide design basis and documentation as required by G.L. 86-10 if not a tested p cu.tiiguration.

3.3 Fire Proofing of Structural Steel U.L Design The engineering justification has not been completed at this time.

3.4 Radiant Energy Shield Outside the scope of this document.

4.1 Quality Assurance Program N/A Title Requirements 4.1.1 General Requirements N/A General requirements for QA invoking Appendix A to the branch technical position and an augmented Quality Program.

4.1.2 Design Control and Procurement N/A General requi<ements.

Document Control 4.1.3 Instructions Procedures and N/A General requirements.

Drawings l

.- - APPENDIX B ER-ME-057 Rev. 1 Page 60 of 69 covered

- Specc by_

Section subject Scheme Comments 4.1.4 Control of Purchased Material N/A General requirements.

4 .1.5 Inspection. Test and Operations N/A General requirements.

I Status 4.1.6 Test and Test Control All Sc.hemes Use on all tests at Omega Point.

4.1.7 Nonconforming items N/A General requirements.

4.1.8 Corrective Actions N/A General requirements.

4.1.9 Records N/A General requirements.

4.1.10 Audits N/A General requirements.

4.2 General Verification for Thermo- N/A Title.

Lag 4.2. Receipt and Storage N/A General requirements.

Requirements 4.2.2 Receipt inspe.fon Instruction All Schemes Tnis is the QA requirement used on all tests. Note: this section of the spec invokes 2323-MS-38H (the Unit I spec) which required that TSI perform Quality i Control / Assurance in accordance with 10CFR50 Appendix B which by site requirements includes both thickness measurements and weight of prefabricated panels. Source inspection by TU at TSI is also required.

On site receipt inspection only requires a visual inspection and a density check as discussed in Section 3.2.11.

4.2.3 Storage Inspection / Verification All Schemes These requirements used on all materials used in testing.

4.3 Thermo-Lag Installation N/A Title l

Verification . Requirements 4.3.1 Cable and Raceway Application A!! Schemes The Quality Control requirements as applicable 7

! were usei on the test article.

l

i

. APPENDIX B ER-ME-067 Rev. 1 Page 61 of 69 Covered Spec. by Section subject Scheme comments 4.3.2 Structural Steel Application N/A Since the design review has not been completed this section was not reviewed.

4.4 Radiant Enxgy Shields (Res) N/A Not in the scope of this review.

4.5 Res Installation N/A Not in the scope of this review.

4.6 Thermo-Lag Fire Barrier / Fire N/A Title Proo0ng Material Test Requirements 4.6.1 General requirement All Schemes Met where applicabM.

4.6.2 Fire Tcst All Schemes 4.6.3 Radiation Tut SWR 1 No.

01-6763-002 4.6.4 Chemical Test ' N/A None reviewed.

4.6.5 Cable Ampacity Derating Test N/A See discusion in Sectior 6.0 4.6.6 Field Tests N/A Not used.

4.6.7 Seismic Qualifications N/A No testing conductea.

4.7 Res N/A Out of scope of the review.

~

4.8 Document and Records N/A General requirements.

5.0 Preparation for Shipment All Schemes Same requirements used for all tests.

6.0 Supplemental Provision N/A General requirements.

App. A Fireproofing N/A Review not complete at thi; time.

f _ _ . _

i l

APPENDIX C ' ER-ME47 Rev, I Page 62 of 69.:

THERMO-LAG INSTALLATION REVIEW MATRIX CONDUfT I IN CONDUIT I IN CONDUIT I 1/2 -

CONDUIT 3/4 CONDUIT 3/4 CONDUIT f IN COMMODfTY FOWER CONTROL INS 7 RUMENT ILWER . ]

CONTROL INSTRUMENT FILL 9%

FILL 36% FILL 304% - FILL 35%

FILL 33% FILL 28%

4 1.2.3.4,5 4-1.2.3,4,5 4-1,2,3,4,5 4- 1,2,3,4,5 4-1,2,3,4,5 4-1,2,3,4,5 ~ 46,7,6-1,2 4 6,7. 6-1,2 M2-1701 4 4,7, 6-1,2 44,7,6-1,2 {

DETA!L NO. 44,7,6-1,2 44.7.6-I2-  !

l YES YES YES YES TESTED YES YES SC31EME 2 +7 SCHEME 2 +7 SCHEME 2 +7 SCHEME 2+7 CONFIGURA7 ION SCllEME 7 SCMEME 7 YES YES YES YES TEST YES BASED ON 3/4 COND. BASED ON 3!4 l USING OVERLAY BASED ON 3/4 COND. BA5ED ON 3'4 COND.

ACCEI" TABLE

• USING OVERLAY COND.

N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A ACCEPTED N/A ENGINEERING ~

EVALUATION 1

N/A 7.5 OR 20% BY N/A 7s3 OR 20% BY N/A DERATING N/A CALCULAT'ON/

CA LCULATION/ TEST TEST UL, R6502 FACTOR UL R6802 MErilOD 2 .! 2 2

TESTING i 1 It l

CATEGORIES l

KEY I = TESTING TO CONFIRM LBD' ADD RADI AL BENDS NEAT TEST SERIES 2 = BOUNDED BY 3/4 " CONDUrr 3 = UPCRADE ON LBD'S ETC BOUNDED BY CONFIRM TEST NEAT SERIES f

L -- _

- 1^ .

.- 4 -

." s, .

1 g.. -

=

3 ~. .

s.  ;

= - ; - . ,

. y .

. . . w .. .. ,,

.+. ~ ..

ER-ME-067

' APPENDIX C Rev. !

Page 63 of 69 l

CONDUrr 2 IN CONDUTT 2 IN CONDUTT 3 IN CONDUrr i 1/2 CONDUIT 1 1/2 CONDUrr 2 IN COMMODrrY CONTROL INSTRUMENT POWER CONTROL INSTRUMENT POWER FILL 8-35%

FILL 9-28% FILL 13-3'2% FILL 4-54%

FILL 29 46% FILL 26-35%

4-1,2,3,s.5 41.2.3,4,5 4 1,2.3.4,5 4-1,2),4,5 4.f,2,3,4,5 4-1,2,3,4,5 M2-1701 4 6.7, 6-1 0 4 -6,7. 6-1.2 46,7,6-1,2 44,7,6-i,2 4-6,7,61,2 44.7,6-1.2 DETAIL No.

YES YES YES YES YES TEXTED YES SCilEME 7 SCilEME 7 SCllEME 2 +7 SCIIEME 7 5CilEME 7 CONFIGURATION SCIIEME 2 +7 YES YES YES YES YES YES TEST BASED ON 3/4 COND. B ASED ON 3/4 COND.

BASED ON 3/4 BASED ON 3/4 COND. BASED ON 3/4 COND.

ACCE3'T4Bl.E > ')

COND.

N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A ACCEI'TED ENGINEERING EVALUATION N/A N/A 20% BY N/A N/A .e4 BY CALCULATION /

DERATING

' ATION/ TEST FACTOR TEFT 11L. R6802 METIIOD 2 2 3 2 2 2 TESTING CATEGORIES I

l i

1

c ,

ER-ME-067 APPENDIX C Rev. ! ,

Page 64 of 69 I'

l CONDUIT 4 IN CONDUTT 4 IN CONDUTF 5 IN COND'ITT 3 IN CONOUR 3 IN CONDUTT 4 IN I COMMODfTY - CONTROL' INSTRUMENT POWER -.

COf(TROL INSTRUMENT POWER FILL 13 26%

'i f FILL 940% FILL 34-38% Fil 22-51%

FILL 40% FILL 12-54% '

j 4 -I .2,3,4,5 41,2,3.4.5 4-1,2,3,4.5 4-1,2,3,4,5 4 I,2,3,4,5 4 1,2,3,4,5' M2-1701 4 -6,7. 6 ',2 ' 44.7.61.2 4 6,7,6-1,2  ;

DETAIL NO. 44,7,6-1,2 4 6.7, 6-1,2 4 6,7,6g YES YES YES YES YES YES TESTED BOUNDFD SCllEME BOUNDED SCIIEME SCHEME 2 SCIIEME 7 - SCllEME 7 BOUNDED SCifEME CONFIGURATION 2+7 '2+7 2+7 t

YES 'YE5 YE3 YES YES TEST YES BOUND BY 3,5 COND. SOUND BY 3,5 COND.

Bol!ND BY 3.5 COND-ACCEPTABLE N/A N/A l N/A N/A N/A ACCEPTED ENGINEERING EVALUATION N/A N/A 20% BY N/A N/A 20% BY DERATING CALCULATIONI CALCULATION /IEST FACTOR TEST UL. R6802 UL. R6802 j

METi!OD 3 3 I 3 3 TESTING I CATEGORIES f

APPENDIX C - ER-ME4)67 -

Rev. 1.

Page 65 of 69 COMMODirY CONDUTT 5 IN CONDUrr 5 iN TRAY 12 X 4 TRAY 12 X 4 TRAY 12 X 4 TRAY 18 m 4 CONTR.0L INSTRUMENT POWER CONTROL . IN51RUMENT POWER FILL 3341% FILL 32-51% - FILL 45-107% FILL 22-20% FILL 348% FILL 42-135%

M2-1701 4-1,2,3,4,5 4 - 1,2,3,4,5 5-1,2,3,3.1 5-1,2,3,3.1 ' 5-1,2,3,3.1 51,2,3,3I-DETAIL No. 44,7,6-1,2 44,7,6-1,2 TESTED YES YES YES YES YES YES CONFIGURATION SCHEME 2 SCllEMS 2 3C11EME 3 SCHEME 3 SCIIEME 3 SCHEME 1 -

TEST 1 ES YES YES YES YES YES ACCEFTABLE BOUNDED B?" 36 TRAY .--

ACCEL'TED N/A N/A N/A ENGINEERING EVALUATION _

, DERATING N'A N/A 40% BY N/A N/A 40% BY FACIOR CALCULATION / CALCULATION / '

METllOD TESTING TESTING IrL.82-335-F-1 frL.82 335-F-1 TESTING 3 3 N/A N/% N/A CATEGORIES lN/A

n .- --

~

ER ME-067

- APPENDIX C

• Rev.' I - '

Page 66 of 69 TRAY IS X 6 TRAY 24 X 4 TRAY 24 X 4 TRAY If X 4 TRAY 18 X 6 ' CONTROL COMMODITY TRAY 13 X 4 CONTROL POWER i CONTROL INSTRUMENT POWER FILL Il-53%

FILL 9% FILL 9% FILL i1-52%

FILL 30% FILL 545%

5-1,7,3,3.1 5-1,2,3,3.1 58,2,3,3.1 5-1,2,3,3.1- 5-1,2,3,3. I M2-l?01 5-1,2,3,3.1 DETAIL NO.

YES YES YES YES TESTED YES' YES SCIIEME I SCIIEME I SCIIEME I SCl!EME I CONFIGURATION SCllEME I SCIIEME I YES YES YES YE5 YES YES BOUNDED BY 36 TEST BOUNDED BY 36 BOUNDED BY 36 TRAY DOUNDED BY 36 ACCEPTABLE BOUNDED BY 36 BOUNDED BY 36 TRAY TRAY TRAY TRAY TRAY I ACCEPTED

{ ENGINEERING

! EVALUA flON 40% BY N/A 40% BY N/A DERATING N/A N/A CALCULATION!

CALCULATION /

FACTOR TESTINO TESTING METIIOD ITL.82-335.F-1 M. 82-3'5 F-1 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A TEL TING N/A CATEGORIES l

l 1

f l

t -

APPENDIX C ER-ME-067 a-Rev.1 J Paga 67 o' f 69 P

COMMODITY TRAY 24 X 4 TRAY 24 X 6 TAAY 30 X 4 TRAY 30 X 6 - TRAY 3J X 6 TRAY 16 X 6

!N.*TRUMENT CONTROL POWER CONTROL INSTRUMFNT CONTROL F!LL 113% FILL 20-120% FILL 2144% FILL 21% FILL 6%

! FILL 15-55%

M2 170* 5-1,2,3,3.t 5-1,2.3.3.i 5-1,2,3,3.1 5-1.2.3.3.1 5-1.2.3.3.1 5-1,2.3,3.I DETA!L NO. ,

TESTED YES NO NO NO NO NO CONI IGUR ATION SCilEME 1+2 TEST YES YES YES YES YES YES ACCEPTABLE IX)UNDED BY 35" BOUNDED BY 36' BOUNDED BY 36* DOUNDED BY 36'- BOUNDED BY 36' SCIIEME I TRAY TRAY TRAY TRAY TRAY ACCEPTED ENGINEERING EVALUATION DERATING N/A N/A 40% BY N/A 40% BY N/A FACTOR CALCULATION / CALCtJLATION/

MI' f fIOD TESTING TESTING TTL.82-335-F-1 ITL82-335-F-1 TESTING N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A CATEGORIES l

)

APPENDIX C ER-ME-067 1 Rev.1 Page 68 of 69 t

COMMODITY TRAY 36 X 6 AIR DROPS PITLL/ JUNCTION TWO TRAYS TWO CONDUTrS ELEC BOXES INSTRUME TT VARIOUS BOXES IN COMMON IN COMMON IN COMME!TT FILL .6% VARIOUS ENCLOSURE ENCLOSURE ENCIDSURE M2-1701 5 1,2,3,3.1 3-I,1.1.1 2.2.2 1 2-2.3 N/A N/ A - N/A DET All NO, 3-3.4.5 TESTED No YES YES NO NO NO CONFIGURATION ITL. 84-5-387 SCllEME 2 TEST YES NO YES N/A N/A N/A ACCEf'rABLE SCllEME I l ACCEPTED TEST DATA ,

TEST PATA TEST D ATA ENGINEERING EVALU ATED FOR EVALUATED FOR EVALUATED FOR EVALUATION CONFIGtIRAT10N CONFsGURATION CONFIGURATION ACCEL'rABLTTY r.CCEPTABLrrY ACCEPTABLTTY DERATING N/A Vi lOUS BY VARIOUS VARIOUS VARIOdS VARIOUS FACTOR CALCULATION JUSTIFICATION IN JUSTIFIC ATION IN JUSTIFICATION IM JUSTIFICATION IN METilOD 16345-EE(B) 140 DCA ENGINEERING DCA ENGINEERING DCA ENGINEERING DCA BASIS BASIS BASIS ENGINEERING BASIS TESTING N/A 4 3 N/A N/A N/A CATEGORIES KEY 4 = TESTING TO CONFIRM FLEXI PLANKET SCllEDULED IN NEXT SERIES -OF TEST

- APPENDIX C ER ME-067 Rev.I o, Page 69 of 69 _

J COMMODfrY STRUCTURAL STEEL "ARIOUS M2-170s N/A DETAIL NO.

TESTED PART;AL UL. X611 CONFIGURATION I TEST EVALUATION NOT ACCEPTABLE COMPLETE ACCEITED ENGINEERING EVALUATION _ _

eeh DERATING N/A FACTOR METIIOD TESTING N/A CATEGORIES