ML20196H577
| ML20196H577 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 08/24/1994 |
| From: | NRC OFFICE OF INVESTIGATIONS (OI) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20150F728 | List:
|
| References | |
| FOIA-97-180 NUDOCS 9707300260 | |
| Download: ML20196H577 (192) | |
Text
, , _ _ _ . _ _ _ . - - - - - - -
- - - ~ ' - ~ ~ ~ ~ ' " ^
ORGL\'AL OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS i
Agency:
nuclear negulatory commission i'
IItIe: Investigative Interview of Robert M. Schroeder (CLOSED)
Docket No.
I l I LOCATION:
,.freeland, Michigan DATE: August 24, 1994 PAGES: 1 ~ 37
{
l 10 EXHIBIT
- PAGE l OF DAGE(S)
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
1250 I St., N.W., Suite 306 Washington, D.C.20005 f i
(202) 842 0034 t 3593-: 0 2 8 f' 9707300260 970724 PDR FOIA o,
f'
g4 g GUNTER97-100 PDR _
/dl *, ., , Lf' k(lt 3 c7 ,io t you;& 0
__ __ - . ._ - _ - _ - - - x
I l
l r
1 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 2 OFFICE OF INVESTIGATIONS 3
4 .
X 5 :
In the Matter of :
6 INVESTIGATIVE INTERVIEW OF :
ROBERT M. SCHROEDER (CLOSED) :
7 X
3 9
10 The above-entitled interview commenced pursuant to notice at 2:45 p.m.
11 12 l
13 APPEARANCES:
14 For the NRC: Mr. Richard C. Paul Senior Investigator and 15 Mr. Joseph M. Ulie 16 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Investigation 17 801 Warrenville Road Lisle, IL 60532 18 (708) 829-9672 19 For Dow J,tning: Ms. Lynn Krauss, Esq.
2200 W. Szlzburg Road, CO-1242 3 Midland, Michigan 48686 l 20 (517) 496-4081 21 22 23 24 25
'r 1
l
a o D
1 WITNESS: T BLE OF CONTENTS 2 PAGE:
HITOSHI TAKAHASHI 3 Examination by Mr. Paul 3 4 EXMIBITS (6) Retained by Investigator Paul 5
6 7
8 9
10 11 12 13 14 !
15 16 17 18 19 ;
20 21 22 23 24 25 t
2
o
- r' 1 Freelaind, Michigan 2
August 24, 1994 - 2:45 p.m.
3 MR. PAUL: For the record, this is the 4
interview of Robert M. Schroeder, S-c-h-r-o-a-d-e-r, 5
who is employed as a fire protection engineer with the 6 Dow Corning Corporation.
Location of this interview is
? Freeland, Michigan. Present at this interview in 8
addition to Mr. Schroeder are Richard C. Paul and 9
Joseph M. Ulie, U-1-i-e, who are investigators with the 10 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of 11 Investigation.
And Lynn D. Krauss, a staff attorney 12 with Dow Corning, has agreed this interview is being 13 transcribed by court reporter Yuvondra E. Fantroy.
14 The subject matter of this interview concerns a 15 Dow Corning silicon foam 3-6548 and its use in fire 16 penetration seals.
17 Mr. Schroeder, please stand and raise your right 18 hand.
19 Do you swear that the information you're about to (
20 give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the l 21 truth so help you God?
22 THE WITNESS: I do.
23 MR. PAUL: Please be seated.
24 MS. KRAUSS: For the record, we've discussed 25 earlier that Mr. Paul will make available a copy of the 3
e *
?
[
f*' !
1 transcript for our review and clarification after it's !
2 been transcribed. i 3
MR. PAUL: Reviewed for the purposes of 4 accuracy? '
i 5
MS. KRAUSS: Yes. !
6 EXAMINATION 7 BY MR. PAUL: !
8 Q. l Mr. Schroeder, how long have you been employed by Dow 9 Corning Corporation?
10 A.
I came on board in the early part of 1979 as a co-op. !
i 11 I worked as a co-op fire protection engineer until May 12 of 1982 when I was brought on board full time; from '82 13 until '83 in corporate safety and loss prevention; from t 14
'82 to '85 as senior" safety engineer; '85 through '90 i 15 i as loss prevention superintendent in' charge of fire 16 protection, emergency response, et cetera, for the !
17 Midland plant and from January 1 of '90 until now as 18 fire protection engineer for the fire stop product 1 19 like. i 20 Q. What is your educational background? l i
21 A.
I have an associate's degree in fire science technology 22 from the College of Lake County and a fire protection 23 engineering degree from Illinois Institute or 24 Technology in Chicago.
25 Q. In regards to the Dow corning product 3-6548 silicon y
l 4
- - - . - - . - - . ~ . _ - - . - - . -
l i
i r
1 foam, what is'your responsibilities or involvement with 2 that particular product?
3 A. I've been really responsible for the toch service, the 4 testing, customer problems, really from the point of 5 manufacture till it gets installed at the customer's 6 hande, providing assistance along that route and 7 resolving problems that may develop.
s Q. How long have you been doing that?
9 A. Since January 1 of '92 now. For both commercial and 10 nuclear.
11 Q. In regards to the information the company has 12 accumulated over the years, do you have access to that i
13 particular information -- t 14 A. Uh-huh.
15 Q. -- with regard to this product? Have you -- in regards 16 to a formula change that occurred in 1984, which is 17 Exhibit 1 already marked, I ask you to take a look at 18 that particular document (tendering). ' - - i 19 A. I'm familiar with that.
20 Q. Are you familiar what the particular modification was j l
21 to the product?
22 A. Modification was an adjustment of the platinum level.
23 THE WITNESS: I presume I can go into the 24 details of the formulation? To what extent can I 25 reveal the formulation without --
t' l
5
1
- e. .
i 4
i 1
l a 1 j /~
- 1 MR. PAUL
- There is a provision to protect
{ 2 any proprietary information.
{ 3 Ms. KRAUSS:
i
- 4 We would want to exercise that. 1 Especially if Bob gets into details of formulation i
{ 5 changes.
If we stay at the broad level that Tak 1
( 6
' discussed I don't have any problem.
1 7 Q. i For the purposes of this interview, a general 8
description of the formulation change is adequate. !
9 A. Okay.
There was an adjustment in the catalyst level as 10 fi well as the addition of some other or an increase in !
11 the level of one of the materials. That is basically !
12 our data, catalyst and some SFD 119. The catalyst 13 l level was lowered and the SFD 119 level was increased, '
14 was my recollection.
15 Q.
Are you aware of any performance changes that incurred !
16 t as a result of the modification? I 17 A. I The performance changes that I have been able to review 18 and get together have been equivalent if not better. '
l 19 In terms of fire performance, temperature, 20 transmission. i 21 Q. What are you basing your review on? ;
22 A.
These five reports, if you would like to go over them. !
i 23 Q. Sure. Why don't you identify the five reports?
24 A. Okay.
The five reports are construction Technology, ;
25 Laboratories. The first report is report number C, as l
}
6 i
l 1
i 1
I 4
/*
1 in Charlie, R, as in Robert, 5465-4324.
] Document 2
i identification number is 1191 E.
3
.I The second report is the report number 5502-4324, 4
I document identification number 1208 E, as in Edward. (
j 5 I
.The third report is also from Construction Technology l j 6 Labe. And, again, the number is 5502-4324, document l i i 7
3
< identification number 1203 E, as in Edward. The fourth i 8 l report is document number or report number 5502-4324,
- 9 document identification number 1209 E, as in Edward. ,
t i 10
- And the last report also from construction Technology ,
11 Labs is report 5465-4324, document identification 12 i i
number 1210 E, as in Edward. l
- - 13 In a nutshell, and I've tabbed different points in 1
14
}
1 the report, if you want them these copies are for you.
15 But basically I've tabbed different areas in the report 16 that give general summaries in terms of the actual test 17 results, they give the summaries in terms of residual 18 foam thicknesses and information on the lot numbers 19 tested. These were the reports that were, I believe, !
20 in that letter, additional information was offered and 21 these were the reports from which that information was 22 provided.
23 I have here a letter dated January 8, 1984. I'm 24 sure it is just a problem from the year overlap where 25 people were accustomed to doing the old one. But it r
i r
7
i . e 4
N
- P 1 really should really be '85. That was sent to Jim 1
2 Anderson, vice president at Bisco at his request. He 3
wanted to see some of the reports. So, again, I'll
] 4 provide that to you.
i These, you know, as people 5
responded to that letter and arked for information, 6 reports were furnished.
, 7 MR. ULIE: Can you please identify which lot j s numbers in these five test reports were considered to 9
} be the old formula.?
10 THE WITNESS:
That is referenced in the 11 letters in terms of old and new. It says E2 but, 12
- again, I think that is a transcribing error, but it is 13 actually EZ.
i 14 MR. ULIE: Just a second -- the second 15 numeral should be Z, should be a Z instead of 2?
i 16 THE WITNESS: Yes. Transcribing error.
17 Q. And you've reviewed these particular reports?
4 18 A. Yes.
J 4
- 19 Q. Did you find any difference in product performance 20 between pre-formula modification and post-formula 21 modification?
22 A. Like I say, if nothing it was an improvement in the 23 performance.
24 Q. Why do you say improvement?
25 A. If I can, if I can do this one. The tests were in a e
0 8
)
4 l
i r
1 variety of different configurations. One thing that's
- 2 1
very important in fire stopping, nuclear, commercial or 3
J anything else, is fire stopping is not a commodity type 4 item. It is very specific to the opening size, the 5 penetrations, you know.
For example, a copper pipe
! 6 will conduct heat faster than, let's say, a steel pipe 7
i would because of the thermal conductivity of the 8 material. Insulation thicknesses on, let's say, wire.
9 If you go from PVC, let's say, to a flame resistant 10 teflon, PVC is gonna fare worse than a flame resistant 11 teflon. So what we did is a variation in 12 configurations from the standpoint of opening sizes, 13 what went through the opening to try to get an 14 understanding how the material would perform in a range 15 of configurations. If you would bear with me. Being 16 an engineer I put together a quick spreadsheet.
17 I have given you a reference as to what the 13 headings are. But, basically, of course, all of the 19 labs, the Construction Technology Labs, all the 20 products are 3-6548. Basically for the terms of 21 discussion hern I'll say the old formulation and the 22 modified old formulation. I've referenced the lot 23 numbers involved for'the specific configuration, the 24 size of the opening, its position in the slab, and then 25 basically all of them we were seeking out three-hour r
l 9 i l
6
- r i
1 r
1 1 ratings.
, And then this is the actual result from the 2
standpoint of a flame through. The actual results from :
3 a temperature rating. When the hose stream was, hose 4
stream portion of the test was conducted -- to what 5
extent are you familiar with the E814 and 119 test? I 6 don't uant to bore you.
i 7 MR. ULIE:
4 To the extent that the T rating --
) 8 MR. PAUL: We're familiar.
9 A.
A You know on the hose stream that can be done at one 2
10 half of the rating or one hour. And in all of these 11 cases we performed the hose stream after a full fire 12 exposure. Then, of course, the results of the home
, 13 stream failure. The slab thickness,;the concrete 14 thickness as well as the thickness of the foam 15 installed, whether or not there was damming material 16 used, how much foam was left at the conclusion of the 17 test,,and the actual furnace pressure and then a 18' relative percent residuals. To that end these are all 19 8 inch openings with no penetrating items. This was 20 the modified old formulation and this is the old 21 formulatien (Indicating).
22 If we jump to some quick points, one, in terms of 23 residual material left we had 21 percent of the fcam 24 thickness left versus 14 and 16. So I'm going to say 25 that basically was about the same if not a little bit e.
f 10
< o e l
! i r
1 better.
l 2 l' In terms of the temperature ratings the actual 3
temperature ratings were lost on one of the old 4
formulations at two hours 20 minutes where it went more I i
5 l than 325 above the ambient in about two hours 55 and 6
1 this went the full three hours. In terms of the hose 7
f stream this one here (Indicating) failed and, of
! B course, the new one passed. I'm not going to say that i
9 i is statistically significant but it is representative 10 of the new material is doing fine.
11 In the case of the 4 inch diameter openings, okay, 12 again a different configuration to see how it is going 13 to do with a smaller area exposed. Basically on the 14 modified old formation we had 33 percent of the foam
, 15 thickness left versus 19 percent. In terms of 1
16 temperature ratings because, you know, itra, it is h 17 funny on fire stops, for example, on this we can go 18 i
back and we can look at a lot of the temperature !
i 19 profiles but the problem is just because you have a 20 rating that doesn't mean that the fire stop system is 4
21 going to be necessarily equivalent. All it is saying 22 it will last three hours. It tells you nothing in 4
23 terms of whether it is a better seal than another or 24 anything else. In this case, again, just looking at !
25
- Pure residual foam levels and the fact we hit all the l
i 11
1
- r 1
bingo points we had more foam left so the foam was 2
resisting the fire better.
3 In the case of where we put cable trays through, 4
again, with a variety of cable but they were all on the 5
same configuration, steel cable tray, again in a l 6
variation of configurations, for example, here is where 7
we had 12-inch slab thickness, 12 inchea of foam. We 8
had 23 percent foam left.
9 Okay, and down here same exact configuration. We 10 had 29 percent foam left. So, again more.
In terms of 11 T ratings this one went an hour, this one went 55 12 minutes. okay.
Within the limits of the thermal 13 compliance that is within the ballpark. Fire stop is, 14 unfortunately, as much as we'd like to say it is an 15 exact science it is not. There is some variation.
16 When we get into, for example, 12-inch slab thickness 17 )
with 9 inches of foam and fire resistant board as a !
13 ,
damming material, again, for the new material we'had ' '
19 five inches of foam left versus four and a half.
20 Again, about the same, that is why I'm basing my 21 comments that I feel the foam under the new formulation 22 performed equivalently, if not better. And for 23 subsequent quests that we have done we have not seen 24 any problems with the foam performing in terms of a 25 manner that we never expected.
12
. _ . . _ _ _ _ . _ _ . . _ . _ _ . ~ _ . . _ _ _ _ .._._ __ _ ._ _ ._ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ . . _ _ _ . _ . _
i
- 1 MR. ULIE: The column that is T rated, can 2
you explain that one more time?
3 THE WITNESS The T rating, that is where I 4
went into the thermocouple datas and how they were 5
positioned on the seals, and I was curious to 6
understand where you lose the T range, where did it do l 7
this 325 degree temperature rice over ambient. Looking 8
at all the thermocouplings, not just the seal but on 9
the penetrating items and things like that, these were 10 3 the points when we lost at two hours 55 minutes about 11 two hours 20 minutes, you know, an hour 40 minutes.
l 12 So, for example, these as a comparison we went an hour:
! 13 55 minutes. Again, I would say we are in the ballpark.
i 14 MR. ULIE: But these are three hours, 15 intended to be three-hour rated barriers, correct?
16 THE WITNESS: On F or T7 That is the 17 difference. Do you want a three-hour F rating and one:
18 hour T rating. What are you-seeking out?
19 MR. ULIE: So the H results here that show 20 passes and fails, they're based on the F rating?
21 THE WITNESS: Yeah, the loss -- The way the 22 test is established, to get a F rating you have to 23 prevent the passage of fire and also prevent the 24 passage of the hose stream. For the T range you have 25 to prevent the passage of fire, you have to limit the
/
13 f
. - - - - . . - - . - - - . - . . . . . . - - - - . . . . = _ . - . . - . . . - .~. .
. s a s
s 1
i i /~'
1 3
1 temperature rise to no more than 325 degrees above
! 2 i ambient and prevent the passage of. water. Because, as 3
old saying goes, you can't change the laws of physics.
4 If you put a big thermal conductor through the 5
i d
penetrating item like steel or copper, or something 6
like, you will lose the T rating but you still may have
! 7 a very good integral fire barrier.
J. To understand s
basically when you're losing the T rating that is why 9
they allow you to assign a F rating and a T rating. I
- 10 think this is also a valid way of looking at the foam 11
?
because if there was a problem in the formulation that 12 l there would have been more heat coming through because 13 it had a higher thermal conductivity or something like 14 l l that it should have revealed itself here and we didn't !
i 15 I
see a problem here, didn't see a problem on the flame, k 16 4 and didn't see a problem on the hose stream in terms of l l 17 structural conductivity.
i It went through a range of i 18 configurations.
1.
- 19 I
I would say some of these, again, were fairly t 20 challenging where we had like 9 inch slabs and 9 inch j 21 thickness. For example, in our UL directory because it 22 varies by configuration I don't think we can say what a 23 rule of thumb is, but I can say that when you get into, 24 for example, cable tray cpenings for the cable tray 3 25 Openings that Dow Corning offers in our UL directory l i
e i
{
14 l
4 #
1 l
l l
l f~' l 1
for a three-hours rating we typically call out 12 ;
2 inches of foam -- we don't, if you would optimize them, 3
and that is something you see in the field quite a bit 4 )
where people will optimize designs, where they will try '
5 to make them as cost competitive as possible by only, 6
as the old saying says, let's get just enough to pass 7
what the customer needs because like in fire stop you 8
don't have things like safety factors like you do when 9
you have mechanical design where you say one half, 10 three times, six times, whatever. From this standpoint 11 for d; sip 91 that we have put in our UL directory to 12 cffwr to customers our designs have called out 12 13 cetes but this was, I would say, a pretty high 14 challenge with just 9 inches of foam. This is not 15 typically something that would be done. We were is testing in a worse case type.
17 Q. That is undammed?
18 A. No, that is fire resistant board. We also had nine 19 inch designs for three hours with no damming of old vs 20 new in these configurations. This was kind of an odd 21 duck, I think it was more slab thickness. I think it 22 was intended to be nine but it was reflected in the 23 past report beginning at 9 and a quarter.
24 Q. The T rating is that per ASTM (a) (1) (4) ?
l 25 A. That's correct.
l I
15
.. - , . . . . - . . . - - - . - - . . - . - - - . - . . . ~ . - . . - . - - . - . - - - - . . . - . .
s
- J 3
l l I
k /" ' b
! 1 MR. PAUL:
- 2 Just so we get everything straight t i
- here let me mark all these exhibits. We'll start at t l 3 ,
Exhibit 6 would be the January 8, 1984 letter from Dow I 4 !
Corning to --
5 MR. ULIE: Which is believed to be a typo. i l
j 6 t
MR. PAUL: Shows it to be 1985.
j 7 THE WITNESS: Yes.
8 MR. PAUL: -- to Mr. James Anderson of Bisco, '
1 9 that is 6. \
7 will be Construction Technology l 10 Laboratories Dow test #1. 8 Will be Dow test #2. 9 11 will be Dow test number 3. 10 will be Dow test #4. 11 12 i will be Dow test #5. 12 will be the two-page
{
. 13 compilation prepared by Mr. Schroeder and it a 14 spreadsheet a regarding summary of the tests just '
1 15 described.
16 THE WITNESS: Can I back up something to add 17 clarification for the record?
18 Q. Sure, which item?
19 A. The spreadsheet, Exhibit #12. One of the things, when 20 we get into the hose stream rating, again, because you 21 get into these optimized designs what you may find 22 people doing is backing-off the minimal thickness of 23 foam to keep the fire past and just survive a hose 24 stream. For example, in this test if I had failed the 25 hose stream at three hours, according to EC14 I would e
16
, , . - - , .- . , - . . , , ,m. - ,,
e
- r 1
have had the ability to come back and retest an 2
identical specimen and stop at one hour, perform the 3
hose stream test and if it resisted the passage of f 4
water I would have been still capable of achieving the 5
actual F rating and the actual T rating that were 6
documented.
7 So what that basically means is that, for example, 8
my residual foam, although I'm not going to say exactly 9
what the relationship is because I don't think I really 10 understand it fully but I'll, for assumption purposes, !
11 says it is linear.
If you look at, for example, these 12 12 inches of foam and see that after three hours we
, 13 have two and three-quarters inches left, basically that 14 says to me I consumed basically eight and a quarter 15 inches over three hours. If I do the math on that it 16 is basically about two and a half, two and three 17 quarters inches per hour. So if I backed up two hours is my residual foam would have gone up to basically almost 19 seven, eight inches for that portion of the test. l 20 So again, one of the big things you run into with l 21 People when they're doing their fire stop designs is i 22 just how close to the edge do they want to get. And !
23 becausI, as I mentioned, there is not a safety factor 24 built in that can vary widely. As I mentioned, on our 25 designs we were going 12 inches of foam for three 17
t O C
1 hours. Eight inches of foam for two hours. You may i 2
have had installers because they offered their designs 3
that they tested, a Bisco, a Promatec and ICMS, they 4
had their own library of tests they offered to the 5
nuclear plants primarily. The ones we had in the UL 6
directory were rather limited and certainly not capable 7
of doing everything you'd encounter in a nuclear plant.
8 MS. KRAUSS: Bob, for the record, I would 9 {
like to point this out because it took me a while to 10 understand this. Where you have hose stream failures 11 :
listed at three hours, do you have, based on your i 12 experience in fire test background, do you believe that 13 these systems would have passed if tested earlier?
l 14 THE WITNESS: If we backed up and did the one 15 hour, absolutely.
16 MS. KRAUSS: And that was acceptable under 17 the?
18 THE WITNESS: That is an acceptable provision 19 of 814.
20 MS. KRAUSS: Is that clear to you?
21 MR. ULIE: It is. However, this is the way 22 they were tested?
23 MS. KRAUSS: Yes.
24 MR. ULIE: I understand that is his 25 professional opinion and we acknowledge that.
n 18
o
- f%
1 THE' WITNESS: Okay, t 2 BY MR. PAUL 3 Q.
In regards to your duties, do you deal with customers 4
of Dow corning who are involved in the nuclear power 5 industry?
6 A. Yes. !
7 Q.
Do_you provide them with engineering analyses or what ;
8 is your involvement with the clients? '
9 A.
Most of my efforts, Dow Corning has tried to follow a l
{
10 position where the applicators bring their designs.
t 11 Okay, the value they offer to the customer is the i 12 installation expertise and their test library. What 1
13 Dow corning offers is the technical expertise on the 14 material itself. For example, we'll get inquiries 15 regarding halogen content, and we have done tests to 16 determine halogen content and we can talk about that.
17 We get requests from customers regarding shelf life is issues. When they have an inventory of material they~ 1
) 19 have built up and they want to know whether it can be l
20 used or not, and we help them through issues like that.
21 Radiation resistance questions they have. They may, 22 you know, go to the applicator and they may come to us 23 on that because that is something the applicators have 24 done more testing on than, say, Dow corning has as it 25 relates to designs and fillers they may have added to 19
e
- I r'
1 the filler. Does that?
2 Q. Yes, that answers my question. Are you familiar at all 3
with the requirements of the Nuclear Regulatory 4 ,
Commission in regards to fire barriers? '
5 A.
Was it the subpart L or Subpart R?
6 Q. Appendix R7 7 A. l Appendix -- I am getting OSHA Subpart L for fire 8 brigade and NRC's R. Yeah, I have a copy of that back 9 (
but I'm not going to say I'm verst. in it, though.
10 Q.
Are you familiar that the clients, the ultimate client 11 as being the utility who uses -- whose product is used 12 in fire barriers in nuclear power plants are required 13 to have qualification tests as to the design they have 14 in place in the plant, are you familiar with those 15 requirements?
16 A.
Yes, I am familiar with the requirement that what they 17 put in has to have a design to reflect and support the-is system.
19 Q. A tested --
20 A. A tested design to support what has been installed.
21 Q. Are your tests provided to your power applicators or 22 clients for this purpose?
23- A. Our tests are provided in the UL directory. The fire 24 resistance directory, for example, this year for people l 25 to use as those conditions fit their application.
m t
20
f 6 )
i l
\
l f
1
! Although they weren't specifically targeted to nuclear 2
because we had power applicators that were spending a 3
lot of money to develop their own test designs. I am.
4 aware of the fact that there were nuclear plants that 5
used some of the Dow Corning designs in their facility. i 6 Q. Did they use the Dow Corning test, then, for their !
7 design for their qualifications? 1 l
8 A. They may be using in the reference out of the UL 9 I directory. In a limited number of cases, and I can't
{
10 tell you who, I know we have sent out actual test 11 reports to people by request. i But as a policy we've !
12 stopped that, now. I Actually several years ago wo 13 stopped this because of competition.
14 Q. So, I don't know if you answered the question. Are you ,
15 aware of any instance of a nuclear power licenses of ;
16 the NRC utilizing a -- i 17 A. One of our UL classifications?
18 Q. Any classification test? '
19 A. Yes, I am aware but I can't tell you who because that I 20 don't but I know it's happened.
21 Q. In regards to the term power applicators could you 22 provide an explanation of what that means?
23 A. Power applicators are groups that Dow Corning also sold 24 to. The power applicators I'm familiar with are ICMS, 25 Promatec, Bisco or Brand Utility Services, I believe, n
21
- l 1
l !
i l l
l rD 1
as they're known now and Transco. And these were 2
people who had installation expertise as well as design 3
capabilities and test libraries of different 4
configurations that that offered to nuclear power 5 plants.
6 Q.
l Do you deal with the utility direct or do you deal with 7
the power applicators or a combination?
S A. Combination.
9 Q. So you sell directly to nuclear power plants?
10 A.
The only direct sale I am aware of in my tenure that 11 was a direct sale was, I think, and I would have to go 12 back to look to be certain but there was one facility 13 that insisted on buying direct.
14 MR. ULIE: Who was that?
15 THE WITNESS Again, I'd prefer not to guess 16 and go back and actually get the data.
17 Q. In regards to the sale or marketing of your product do 18 you provide training services on the application of 19 your product?
20 A. In my time we provided training services but not to 21 nuclear power plants and not to the power applicators.
22 That was their responsibility. Our training was 23 limited to commercial applications.
24 Q. Do you provide them with any technical guides as to l
25 installation and application of the foam?
i -s 22
. +
l r
1 A. We had, yes, there were technical guides that were 2 provided.
3 Q. Were you aware that there is a brochure called an 4 application guide. Are you familiar with that 5 docunent?
6 A. We have had a variation of application guides. Our 7
most current one is called an installation and 8 estimating guide.
9 Q. Does that give specifics?
10 A. The installation and estimating guide gives specifics I 11 for each UL design in terms of what assembly it can be 12 used in, descriptions of penetrating items, openings,
, 13 fire stopping methods, actual drawings.
14 Q. But does it describe how to apply the product?
1 15 A. Yes, that's the goal of it.
16 MR. ULIE: Would you have in your library the 17 1984 or '85 edition of what was considered to be a 18 application guide for 3-65487 j 19 THE WITNESS: Yes, I could go back and get j 20 that.
21 Q. Could you provide that to us later?
22 A. Yes.
23 MR. ULIE: And also if there was a separate 24 document that was possibly entitled how to install 25 3-65487
-s l
l 23
l l
l
(
t' 1
THE WITNESS: That is a possibility there was 2
l such a range of literature on this material.
3 Q. Again, we would be looking for that if it was 4 available.
5 A. Just to clarify. You are seeking all application --
6 information that would have been provided to the t 7 customer on how to apply the material?
8 Q. Right.
9 A. In the April '85 time period?
10 Q. Specifically nuclear clients.
11 MR. ULIE: And that would include inspection 12 of the application materials.
, 13 MS. KRAUSS: Have you reviewed any of those?
14 THE WITNESS: Yes, I looked at those.
15 MS. KRAUSS: Do you recall -- a question came 16 up earlier today whether or not Dow Corning recommended 17 removal of damming materials?
18 THE WITNESS: Absolutely. That -- for 19 example, I am aware of the notice. I forget. It is 20 like -- it is a late '80s sent out of here, it was 21 something like Wolf Cre,ok, or something like that there 22 were, it was about the silicon foam and the - .
23 MR. ULIE: It was an NRC document sent out?
24 THE WITNESS: Yes. One of the things that we 25 clearly tell people is when you install the foam, you
~
i i
i i
24
j . .
i
! i i
l,em
, 1 know, we basically say how to do the-lifte, how to do
?
2 the damming, but we also reiterate.that you come back 5
- 3 after 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br />, remove your damming material and t
l 4 inspect to make sure that you've completely filled the I ,
5 voids. Some of the allegations that came out of that 1
] 6 notice that the foam was all of a sudden developing l ,
7 these large gaps and large voids over time and that's
] i i
! s not physically possible with the chemistry of that I i
l' 9 foam. It just won't happen. If anything like that is 4
! 10 happening it's going to be through mechanical forces on 11 the outside forcing these splits or the fact it was
', 12 never inspected to begin with, you know, as i
t , 13 recommended.
1
. 14 MS. KRAUSS: Did the inspection --
]
1 15 inspection / instruction come about before that Wolf 16 Creek?
l j 17 THE WITNESS: Yes, those were there for f
l 18 looking back on like some literature from the late i 19 '70s, we have been saying that. I don't think I could 20 qualify saying that we have been saying it forever but 21 from for as far back as I have looked, from the late 22 70s till now, we have always consistently said after 24 23 hours take the damming material down, inspect and if l 24 the design calls for it reinstall the damaging 25 material. I s~
l 25
, 4 9 i'
! i E
i r
I t
I i r~' l 1 MR.'ULIE: That type of historical 3
2 information, if you could find that in the file, a copy !
i; 3 of that we would also appreciate.
i ,
l 4 THE WITNESS: Okay.
i j 5 MR. ULIE: One other question along these a
- i. 6 same lines with respect to inspection. Do you recall j
t 7 if in your reviewing any of that inspection information I
8 did it say then to reapply the damming board after the ,
j 9 inspection or was there any --
f t
10 THE WITNESS: That was all dependent on the i
l 11 design itself. For example, if the design called for a l [
. 12 damming material like on some of these like where I say 3 '
13 no that the damming isn't called for, you don't have to
]
j 14 leave it there so once you take it down you can leave 1
l 1
, 15 it off but if it breaks like a Mansville or a ,
i 16 carborundum board LD, you know, one inch and that was 17 an integral part of the fire stopping, if the design I i
18 called for that, yes, that had to be put back.up-as ~- -
7 19 part of the design. Again, that goes back to how was I 20 it tested. t i
21 MR. ULIE: Exactly. That is where I was 22 heading with my questioning. so you got right to the 23 point. !
24 Q. Are you familiar with the terms of Part 21 of 10CFR in f 25 regards to reporting of defects?
~
l 26
. . - . - . . - - . -..~. - .._ - -. - ._--....._-.. - ._ _- - -_ - . . - ,
I t=~
l 1 A. You bet you. l 2 Q. And quality assurance requirements of appendix B of l
3 10CFR Part 50? 1 4 A. That I'm not familiar with.
5 Q. In regard to Part 21 or Appendix B, do you recall if 6 any of your power applicatcrs required you to impose 7 those conditions upon Dow Corning when they buy the l 8 product from them?
9 A. These --
l 10 Q. From you, rather?
l 11 A. These materials we are capable of providing in 12 accordance with 10CFR Part 21. We did not provide them 7
13 in accordance with Part B.
14 Q. Quality assurance?
15 A. The quality assurance. That is not -- in terms of I'm 16 going to extend that to people by a lot by lot testing 17 by halogen content, a lot by lot testing of, let's say, 18 other materials where they're interested in a parts per 19 million type level. We have done testing like this on 20 what we call a lot representative basis but we've also 21 told customers that if this is extremely important to 22 you you should perform it by a lot by lot basis because 23 we're not doing that. We are providing a commercial 24 grade material that we recognize is going to be used in 25 a nuclear-type application.
r l
l 27
i o
(~
1 MS. KRAUSS: Can I ask possibly to clarify 2 something?
3 MR. PAUL: Okay.
4 MS. KRAUSS: You said you sell products under 5
10CFR21 but you don't under Part 50. Does that mean 6
that Dow Corning doesn't comply with Part 50 or that 7 you don't certify.
8 MR. PAUL: The question would be is it 9
contractually imposed on Dow Corning as part of the 10 contract to sell materials, is that what you?
11 MS. KRAUSS: Yes.
12 THE WITNESS: For the areas that I'm aware of 13 we only will offer certifications that the material's 14 supplied in accordance with the provisions of 10CFR 15 Part 21 not the Part 50.
16 Q. Appendix B7 17 A. Not Appendix B, Part 50.
18 Q. To your knowledge has Dow Corning ever made a Part 21 19 notification to the NRC?
20 A. I believe. I'm remembering we did on not this material 21 but a different one.
22 Q. Well, we're just discussing 3-6548.
23 A.
Not that I'm aware of on this material.
24 Q. Concerning a Part 21 filed in regard to the Wolf Creek 25 plant are you familiar with that Part 21 that involved
-~. i i
i 28 l
- )
. e f~
1 Dow Corning and 3-65487 2 A. Yeah.
3 Q. I believe filed by Promatec?
4 A.
It was filed by B and B Promatec and it was because of 5
splits and gaps and voids in the material. And it was 6
a, as I remember it was a general,,it was an 7
informational type notice about some of these problems a
that people should be looking for in their own 9 facilities. Again that is a general, I'd have to see 10 it specifically.
11 Q. Did you get involved with any type of research into 12 this, these problems?
13 A. No, that occurred before my time.
14 Q. Are you aware of any done by Dow corning into these 15 conditions?
16 A. On splits and voids, yes, there was research done to 17 see what, you know, could be done to try to limit 18 that, to reduce that for the customers.
19 Q.
With regard to those particular conditions, are they, 20 is that a normal condition that occurs with the use of 21 this particular product?
22 A. The splits and voids?
23 Q. Right?
24 A.
It is something that with, I'm going to say with 25 improper application, related to everything from e~
29
s e
=
~
1 handling the material to how it is installed, it can 2 happen. You know, just, I hate to say it's just like 3 with using spray paint you can get overspray or 4 improper bonding to surfaces if you don't do things 5 right.
6 Q. Do these conditions affect the performance of the 7 material as a fire seal?
8 A. I couldn't make a general comment to that because it 9 would be on a -- you'd almost have to look at it on a 10 case by case type basis.
11 Q. Are you aware of any testing done by Dow Corning 12 relative to these type of conditions?
- 13 A. I know that there were some tests that were run with 14 splits that we had done and it's, again I can't tell 15 you where, but I think some other people, some of the 16 applicators have done some testing. But as a comment 17 to you having a seal in place with a split or a void 18 was not a recommendation from Dow Corning though entire 19 seals should be filled completely and there was not any 20 comment in terms of like leave a split in place or 21 leave a void in place, that was the whole purpose of 22 come back after 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> to inspect.
^
23 Q. If one of these conditions was found what was the Dow 24 Corning recommended action?
25 A. Tear that part out, okay, and reinstall. ,
-- I l
30
. e r
1 Q. In regards --
2 A. Don't leave it.
3 Q. Okay. In regards to deleminations are you aware of any 4 conditions that cause that phenomenon?
5 A. You can have conditions, everything from, let's say, 6 surface contamination between pours and you can, you 7 know, too thick a lift where you have too much material e poured and not enough times between lifts for the l i
9 hydrogen to migrate out but, again, these things are 10 covered in the instructions we give out to people, no 11 more than an inch, at least 15 minutes between lifts ]!
12 bond to clean, dry surfaces, there were some special
, 13 provisions we sent out in terms of poking, you know, 14 some installation techniques to reduce this possibly.
15 Q. By lift, what do you mean?
16 A. You put in no more than an inch of liquid and then 17 allow that to cure for 15 minutes, come back, put in 18 again no more than an inch of liquid, allow it to cure 19 15 minutes.
20 Q. So each application is a lift?
21 A. Yes. One of the ptoblems that we have with users of 22 this material is that they, you know, in their mindset 23 unfort'unately a lot of people draw an analogy this is 24 just like Great Stuff, you know, the foam you get 25 straight out of a can, you'll have people that will P
t 31
j l
1 i
i I
I completely fill an opening halfway, 6 or 8 inches of ,
, 2 liquid and then expect it to roam up the whole way and
! 3 there you're not going to get a good quality seal. .
4 Q. Did you have any involvement with concerns raised at l 5 Sharon Harris Nuclear Power plant in regard to the [
6 performance of fire seals there?
7 A. Not even familiar with that issue. !
i 8 Q. Are you aware of any lawsuits filed by your power 9 applicators against Dow Corning in relation to the '
10 performance of 3-654s or threats to sue you over the 1
11 performance of the product? l 12 A. None of those have happened in my tenure. ,
- 13 MR. ULIE: Other than the formula !
14 modification change that you mentioned at the beginning !
15 of the interview are there any other formula t 16 modification changes that you're aware of that Dow 17 Corning did to this particular product?
18 THE WITNESS: Formula changes, no.
19 Q. There are some other things that were noticas where we j 20 extended shelf life, where we changed specific gravity 21 because we had improved applicability in terms of 22 measuring it, but those were changes that had gone out 23 after people were notified on.
J 24 Q. Were you aware of any information that exists within 25 Dow Corning that would indicate that there was a change r~
l 32
s
- i 1
i in the performance of the 3-6548 silicon foam because 2
of the 1984 formula change that the performance was 3
less than it was before that?
4 A. Not at all.
5 Q. Formula change?
6 A. Not at all. Just to reiterate, from all the test data 7
I have reviewed on the material and the testing I have 8
actually performed and it has been performed, from what 9 I understand, by the applicators, the material has 10 performed equivalently well if not better.
11 MR. ULIE: How about the same question for 12 some of those other those changes that you indicated?
, 13 THE WITNESS: No, not at all.
14 Q. Have you recently received any complaints from the 15 nuclear industry as to the performance of the 3-65487 16 A. Not on the performance. We've had complaints of like 17 shelf life performance but the complaints we have had 18 they were attributed to other issues not -- more user - -
19 related.
20 MR. PAUL: Can we go off the record and we'll 21 take a break here.
22 (Whereupon, a short break was taken.)
^
23 MR. PAUL: On the record.
24 BY MR. PAUL:
25 Q. Mr. Schroeder, have I or any other NRC representative em.
I 33
e s P
1 here threatened you in any manner or offered you any 2
reward in return for this statement?
3 A. No.
I 4 Q.
Have you given this statement freely and voluntarily?
5 A. Absolutely. I
]
6 Q. Is there anything further you care to add for the !
7 record?
8 A. Yes. Several itams. Regarding the 3-6548 material. t 9 !
That material has been under follow-up service by '
10 Underwriters' Laboratories since the late '70s on a j 11 quarterly basis. Their inspector comes into our l 12 factory to check up on our manufacturing practices
, 13 randomly take samples that are sent back to North Brcok 14 to make sure we're in compliance with their follow-up !
15 procedures and can reflect the UL listing mark on our 16 product that we offer to the customers.
17 Additionally it is under Factory Mutual approval is where, again, they have representatives that will come 39 into the factory and check. i I can't tell you how l 20 frequently but that is a requirement of us carrying the 21 Factory Mutual approval mark.
I 22 MR. ULIE: Do you know if either Factory 23 Mutual or Underwriters' Laboratory was informed of the 24 approximately November 1984 formula change? t 25 THE WITNESS:
That I don't know. But they do r~ l 34 i
I i
l _
.. - . . . . . .. - - . - . . . _ . - - . . . . . . - . - _ = . - . . - - . .
. m I
h I^
l have a, you know, I'll call it a fingerprint of the 2
4 material. Where they can come in and actually look at 3
i
~
the material and see if they see any shifts and if they .
4 I see a shift they will issue a deviation and actually 5 force you to stop production. If a material has gone ;
6 out they'll insist on its callback, and we've not ever I l
i 7
run into that problem. Beyond that we have had, was it 8
)
1 NUPICK, has come in or a representative member ,
j 9 i
companies have come in to audit Dow Corning like 10 Florida Power, what is the outfit -- Duke out of i
11 carolina, --
i 12 MR. PAUL: Duke Power?
13 THE WITNESS: --
and actually audit us and go 14 through our records on this material and other 1
15 materials that have been provided to nuclear 1 16 industries.
i i 17 Q. So you're on their approved vendors list?
- la A. Yes. The material is, unfortunately, just one 1
19 component of a fire stop system. And there are many,
, 20 many other areas, you know, that basically the 21 applicators bring to the table in terms of their l 22 knowledge of how to install the material, to make sura J
23 it geis applied in designs that have been proven by 24 testing and are going to be functional seals for their a ,
j 25 customers. 1 C
l l
d 35 i )
i i
. e
+
F I, r, 1
1 Our practice is, I know we've worked with nuclear a 2 plante, but has predominantly been to go through the 3
applicators and their test libraries and allow them to 4
service the customers because Dow Corning is not an 5
installing company, we're manufacturers and suppliers. ,
6 What the applicators bring to the table is their 7 expertise and their test librarias.
8 BY MR. PAUL: t 9 Q. I have a follow-up question. Have you ever gone into a 10 nuclear power plant at the request of the applicator to i
11 make a determination, a technical determination, on a 12 specific configuration?
13 A. No, I have never done that.
14 Q. Are you aware of it ever happening? !
15 A.
I'd have to, I can't -- I'd have to defer back to Tak.
16 I don't know. I know I have been into a nuclear power 17 plant. The one in the southeastern portion of
- 18 Tennessee. Knoxville.
19 Q. TVA7 20 A.
Some TVA facility where they made a complaint there was 21 a problem with the foam and when we got there, despite 22 all our efforts to try to understand, because what they 23 were saying was not representative of what our retained 24 emnples. When we got there the outcome of that 25 complaint was basically the customers weren't mixing it 36
l r
1 properly. They were doing these mixtures in what I'll '
2 call SEM kits, if you're familiar with those. They're 3
little handheld cartridges that have a specific mixing 4
- protocol to it and they weren't following any of it, l 5 and once we showed them how to do it, it was oh.
! 6 Q. Was it a utility or the power applicator?
7 A. No, it was the utility that was having the problem.
- A 8
l lot of utilities have tried to go around and trying to 9 do things themselves and trying not to deal with the 10 applicators. So that's - .
11 Q. Is that it?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. Just as an aside, we'd ask if you have available those 14 application guides from the '84 to '86 time frame. If l
15 you could send them to me at that address.
16 MR. PAUL: The interview is concluded. Off 17 the record.
l 18 19 20 l 21 l
j 22 i
l 23 24 25
>n l
37
. _ . . - . - - . . . -. . . - . _ . - - - - _ . . . . . - . - - . . . - . _ . - . ~ . - . .
3D '
4 REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE I
l This is to certify that the attached proceedings before the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission In the Matter of:
l i
4 NAME OF PROCEEDING: Interview of Schroeder i
- DOCF2T NUMBER
l PLACE OF PROCEEDING: Freeland, MI were held as herein appears, and that this is the
- original transcript thereof for the file of the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission taken by me and thereafter reduced to typewriting by me or under the
- direction of the court reporting company, and that the
(
transcript is a true and accurate record of the foregoing proceedings.
l h w e ll/f) D b M & -
~
o o )
Official Reporter \
Ann Riley & Associates, Ltd. I l
t' EXHIBIT I PAGE di OF /IAPAGE(S)
k 1
4 i
.M-i D'OW CORNING U.S January 8.1984 1
MIDLAND, MICHIGOI 4064 1slephone:017) 49 4
i Mr. James Anderson j Vice President i Bisco Products Incorporated
} 1420 Renaissance Drive Park Ridge IL 60068
Dear Mr. Anderson:
i two Portland Cement Association test , I amreports enclos I-In order for you to j!
'l DEPOSITION _
represent the old formulation while lo represent the modified.
4 g EXHIBIT I
'f294v pertinent to our discu'ssion of formulation modificatic 14 i mention to you that other tests were run at theI should Association. Portland al C (enclosed) . The results are consistent with tests one performed, feci free to give Tak Takahashi esting a Sincerely, Janet L. Elias Senior Market Supervisor Firestop Marketing JE:mk LET1.8 cc: Clay Brown - Bisco Tak Takahashi - 069 Steve Mays - Chicago Enclosures .
k -
b EXHIBIT _- 7 _
PAGEkOF /fA PAGE(S
j .:.
I Report to l
DOW CORNING U.S.A.
l Midland, Michigan 48640 i 1
l I
i j
FIRE AND HOSE STREAM TESTS OF PENETRATION SEALS -
I DOW TEST NO. 1 j 1
l ll by Michael Gillen l
l l
i l
~- .
l i l i
r l
l
)
Submitted by i CONSTRUCTION TECHNOLOGY LABORATORIES A Division of Portland Cement Association 5420 Old Orchard Road ,
! Skokie, Illinois 60077 !
October 1984 CR5465-4324 EXHIBIT 7 1 Doc. ID #1191E eq N;L OF IT3 PAGE(S) ,
i l '
{
FIRE AND HOSE STREAM TESTS OF I PENETRATION SEALS - DOW TEST NO. 1 !
by Michael Gillen*
INTRODUCTION At the request of Dow Corning U.S.A. (DOW) and as authorized by Purchase Order No. 17262-N, Construction Technology Labora-tories (CTL) performed a series of five fire and hose stream tests on silicone penetration seal systems. This report describes results of the first test in the series, performed on six 9-in.
thick seal systems.
The penetration seal systems consisted of Dow Corning 3-6548 Silicone RTV Foam. The 9-in. thick foam seal systems were in-stalled in four 8-in. diameter and two 4-in. diameter openings, contained in a 48x48x9-in, concrete slab. Slab construction was performed by CTL personnel. Seal systems were installed by DOW Personnel with construction assistance provided by CTL.
The fire and hose stream tests were conducted at the fire research facilitier of CTL on September 20, 1984. The slab con-taining the six penetration seals was subjected to a 3-hr fire exposure in accordance with the time-temperature relationship and procedures specified in ASTM Designations: E119( )** and j E814.(2) Immediately after the fire test, the specimen was removed from the furnace and subjected to a hose stream test in t
accordance with provisions of ASTM Designation: E119.
l
- Senior Research Engineer, Fire Research Section, Construction Technology Laboratories, a Division of the Portland Cement '
Association, Skokie, IL 60077. l
- Numbers in parentheses designate References on Pd@GE%%i EXHIB R- ) '
PACE % OF bb P4GE(S) construction technologyInborstories
\ l
0 0
[
I
SUMMARY
OF RESULTS l
The test assembly, consisting of 6 penetration seal systems in a 9-in. thick concrete slab, was subjected to a 3-hr fire -
test and subsequent hose stream test. -Seals were installed in four 8-in. diameter and two 4-in diameter openings penetrating i
through the concrete slab. The seals consisted of 9-in. thick- >
nesses of Dow Corning 3-6548 Silicone RTV Foam. !
l The following are significant test results:
- 1. No passage of flame occurred through any of the six l seal systems during the 3-hr fire test.
- 2. Limiting end point temperature criteria defined by ASTM l
Designation: E814 were not exceeded on the unexposed surface of any of the six seal systems during the 3-hr fire test.
- 3. No water. projected beyond the unexposed surface of l
- l. Penetration Seal Nos. A-3, A-4, A-5, or A-6 (see Fig. 1) during the 14 second ASTM Designation: E119 i hose stream test.
- 4. Water did project beyond the unexposed surface of Penetration Seal Nos. A-1 and A-2 during the 14 second ASTM Designation: E119 hose stream test.
TEST ASSEMBLY ,
A 48x48x9-in. thick concrete slab specimen containing 6 circular openings, 4 and 8 in. in diameter, was fabricated by l t
! CTL personnel. The openings were located in a nominal 32x32-in, square area central area of the slab. Openings were numbered
)
EXHIBIT l PAGE N OF _hAGE(S) construction tec knology laboratories
. a l
, B" ; , 6" , ,5", 10" ; , 5" ;
6" ;
8" ; ;
I s,
Approx. limit of =
fire exposed creo
- v I I w I I + 1 l + l l
=
l l A-4 A-3 l 9 ,
A-6 A-5 ;;
! A-2 A-1 ! .
+ i I + l U ll ll L___
b __ __I w
u "m
v A-l through A-4: 8" diameter through openings A-5, A-6: 4"diometer through openings Slob thickness: 9" l
FIG. I CONCRETE SL AB LAYOUT WITH OPENING LOCATIONS i
EXHIBIT l PAGE k 3 OF iI >PAGE(S) l- ,
I j
e i
~j A-1 through A-6, as shown in Fig. 1. The slab was allowed to cure for approximately one week following casting and subse-quently force-dried at elevated temperature to reduce internal moisture content of the concrete.
Seal materials installed in the slab openings were provided by Dow Corning, U.S.A. Seal materials consisted of Dow Corning 3-6548 Silicone RTV Foam.
INSTALLATION PROCEDURES Silicone foam seals were installed in openings in the con-crete slab by DOW personnel with construction assistance provided by CTL. The concrete test assembly was placed in a horizontal position and a styrofoam damming board was attached flush with the exposed surface of the slab. Silicone foam materials were mixed and placed by hand in approximately 1-1/2-to 2-in. lifts to a thickness of 9 in., in each opening. Lot numbers, densities, and snap times of foam materials installed in Penetration Nos. A-1 through A-6 are given in Appendix A.
After foam had set, damming boards were removed from the exposed side of the slab and foam in each opening was trimmed flush with the unexposed concrete slab surface.
Foam was allowed to cure for about 2 days prior to fire testing. I l
l EXHlBIT l PAGE b OF _hl PAGUS) construction technology laboratories
e s i
TEST EQUIPMENT & PROCEDURES l
The following sections briefly describe equipment and pro-cedures used to conduct fire and hose stream tests of the !
assembly containing the six penetration seal systems.
l Furnace !
l The test assembly containing the six penetration seal systems was subjected to a 3-hr fire exposure utilizing the ;
small slab furnace at CTL's Fire Research Laboratory. This ,
j furnace provides for testing of small-scale specimens in a horizontal position. Approximate area of fire-exposure is 32x32 in., as shown in Fig. 1.
l Furnace atmosphere temperatures were monitored by three Type K, Chromel-Alumel, protected thermocouples located 12 in below l the exposed face of the test assembly. The fire exposure was controlled according to the time-temperature relationship Prescribed by ASTM Designation: E119, and is tabulated in Appendix B. ;
l Furnace atmosphere pressure was maintained close to ambient 1 laboratory air pressure or slightly negative (-0.02 to -0.08 inches of water). For this test, the average draft was -0.08 inches of water.
Specimen Instrumentation E,ighteen thermocouples were used for measuring temperatures l
l t
on the unexposed surface of the test assembly during the fire !
test, at locations shown in Fig. 2. Sixteen thermocouples were used to measure temperatures on seal surfaces, concrete / seal 4
EXHIBIT 1 1
! P L C E M OF d_h P ^ C"
construction technology laboratories
' ' q O W
nN 1 l
I
)
A-4 A-3 2
X X, 1 17 X 4 l l I
12 X
23
~
10 2'
11 22 8 24 16 I X5 l i 13 X i -
A-2 A-1 1
i X-Thermocouple location I FIG. 2 UNEXPOSED SURFACE AND INTERFACE ;
THERMOCOUPLE LAYOUT i
I
+
e pn0E NI OF19% P A Gr'C' l
g s h i
interfaces, and concrete surfaces on the unexposed side of the v
test assembly. Six thermocouples were used to measure foam f t
temperatures at a depth of 2 in, below the unexposed surface of the seals. In addition, two thermocouples were used to monitor concrete surface temperatures. A list of thermocouple locations is provided in Appendix B.
L Data Acouisition l Furnace atmosphere and specimen thermocouple temperatures I were monitored at 5-minute intervals throughout the 3-hr fire j test. The automated data acquisition system consisted of a !
t Hewlett-Packard HP3455A digital voltmeter and a series of HP3495A data scanners. The data acquisition system controller I was an HP9845T desktop computer.
i Hgtp, Stream Test The hose stream test specified for this test was that des- ;
i cribed in ASTM Designation: E119~and E814 Test Standards. A
?
30' psi solid stream was delivered through a 2-1/2 in, diameter hose equipped with a National Standard Playpipe with a 1-1/8 ^~ ~
in, diameter discharge tip from a distance of 20 ft. Duration of the hose stream test was 14 seconds.
TEST RESULTS i The test assembly containing the six penetration seal 3
j systems was subjected to a 3-hr fire exposure at the fire 4
F.XHin!T 7 PACE NS OF (41, P AGr'C a
construction technology laboratories l
_ _ _ _ ._. _ , a
e s research facilities of CTL on September 20, 1984. Views of the exposed and unexposed surfaces of the test assembly prior to testing are shown in Figs. 3 and 4.
A listing of furnace atmosphere temperature measurements and variations from the standard are given in Appendix B. Variation of the measured furnace temperatures from the standard was approximately 0.04%, based on comparison of total area under the time-temperature curves. This was well within the 5.00% varia-tion permitted by the test standard.II) Average furnace draft pressure was -0.08 inches of water.
A listing of measured unexposed concrete and seal tempera- i tures is also given in Appendix B. The maximum allowable tem-perature rise of 325'F+ ambient as defined by ASTM Desig-nation: E814(2) was not exceeded on the unexposed surface of any of the six penetration seals during the 3-hr fire test.
No passage of flame occurred through any of the six penetra-tion seals during the 3-hr fire test.
After the 3-hr fire exposure, the test assembly was removed from the furnace, as shown in Fig. 5, and subjected to the 14 l second hose stream test. Exposed and unexposed surfaces of test assembly are shown before hose stream testing in Figs. 6 and 7.
No water projected beyond the unexposed surface of Pene-tration Seal Nos. A-3, A-4, A-5, or A-6 during hose stream test-ing. Water did project through Penetration Seal Nos. A-1 and A-2 during hose stream testing. Exposed and unexposed surfaces
~
EXHIBIT _ l P ACE M . OF M PAGEfS) construction technology laboratories
I . o f
I I N i
! I ;*.
. ,, . , A M.: i i
I i
Fig. 3 Exposed Surface of Test Assembly Prior to Test Tzu+sHn m gfQp , . .. **"Lt & ';. .
.aj: , ,
.s
. , . . . .^"
- q .
w ~%Zy <
l,
~
- W~4.
- ;
1.n. ..
- ',' . a. s.,
- p. 7'F -
I Fig. 4 Unexposed Surface of Test Assembly Prior to Test l l
EXHIBIT 3 PAGE 6( OF M PAGPC' construction techtigfogy laborntories
i 1
o r
\
l l
l I
l
~ . - ~ . _ _ _
6 A
!. Ah 4
l . . ; .... n n ..
1 I
i i
l 1
Fig. 5 Specimen Removed from Furnace After Fire Testing b l l
, i j
j
. l 1 l l EXHimT 1 1
i, PACE A OFl t P AG r'c b construction technology laboratories l
l l
6 l
, : <s .x \
s m.,
i I
j .. -
l 1
l 1
1
~~
e
.j 2,,; . , -
p
.. e m
- v. ;
W~? ?
b
(
Fig. 6 Exposed Surface of Test Assembly Prior to Hose Stream Testing
', % p..... -
, .4
.i'Ib.',
k, N$ t- , ,
l l
l ~
- 9l ,,
?h ' ,[ . ,
d
, 4 's-
$ y[.f' .1 ~
. , , f,
~,.
s? f _
9, .. _ .
~ ~
t' ? : .. .
, * ~l , . . - 5
,' . .h 5^ 'l A
- j ,. "
s,53 Ol.~! ~ ~ ' f
- p'.'-- .,g,y; , .< %-- ,
Fig. 7 Unexposed Surface of Test Assembly Prior to Hose Stream Testing FXHlBIT l
, "E . OF . _3 '2.P AGEW construction technology laborato:1es
- e. .
of the test assembly after hose stream testing are shown in Figs. 8 and 9.
Following the-tests, measurements were made of the thickness l
l of remaining silicone seal material from each opening, Fig. 10.
Remaining thicknesses of unburned materials are given below in Table 1.
i IABLE 1 - THICKNESS OF UNBURNED SILICONE FOAM l
Remaining Penetration No. Foam Thickness. in. i A-1 1 1/4 to 1 3/4 in. I l A-2 1 1/4 to 1 3/4 in.
[ A-3 1 7/8 to 2 3/8 in. ,
A-4 2 in. '
A-5 1 3/4 to 2 in.
- A-6 3 in.
l l LABORATORY RESPONSIBILITY l
! l The Construction Technology Laboratories is a Division of i the Portland Cement Association and was not involved in the j design of the Penetration Seal System. Personnel of the Con-struction Technology Laboratories make no judgment of the suit-ability of the materials or seal systems for particular end point uses. Acceptance of the test results for guidance for field installation is the prerogative of the authority having jurisdiction.
- CONCLUDING REMARKS This report described fire and hose stream tests conducted on six silicone penetration seal systems. Significant test !
results are presented in the section entitled
SUMMARY
OF RESULTS at the,beginning of this report. !
r.XHimT 7 I m 3a[_ OF DAGE(S) construction technology laboratories
-, I
l 4
i l
l l
i Y- *
.% ;\'f . f 'f *
.f.
t '
'*: ;; f' ,.. 4 ~ '
-. '?
. <! s . '
n ..
i v .
7 ; ;_ , . .;
- m. ... -
WP' ~
.'4 '?] . l -
?%4*hyf
.J,,5:?
=
- : . ~;., . _ .:,*. :: C .
l" -
, W
_, r'
^'e
- g. .
._a g
,., p x
. .. - -[,e .
'.M-
- ;r -
- I XE.45 ~E.y *O &*4h$
1
.mW ~ ~~ x $ _ ..
l Fig. 8 Exposed Surface of Test 18,ssembly After i
Hose Stream Testing
~
i
- 8.9 .
- e *
. t t.
s Fig. 9 Unexposed Surface of Test Assembly After Hose Stream Testing
- '.( H I T T l constiucjOtrtechn5 OF P AG 19E(S' boratories
s -
i l
l l 1
i i
l i
l 1
i .
i
\ k' l .- -
- ~% _ -
- EA . . ,- ...
- an, e
- 7 .
s -
% ,.c -
- ?.' '.
.-- x _=> .;, m, u- . % < g wQ r- '
. 4 7 :. # .. -'
l
- y *. ;'.;g;_.*%
- ~m
--e* ~%QQRs . _
+-
n-~ w I
l Fig. 10 Unburned Silicone Foam Material from Penetration Seals l
1 l
- "XHPIT 7
{ ~14-
- h .n Jalt_PAGE9 b construction technology laboratories 1
4
e e <
l REFERENCES 7
- 1. ASTM Designation: E119, " Standard' Methods of Fire Tests of Building Construction and Materials," American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, PA, 1983.
- 2. ASTM Designation: E814, " Standard Method of Fire Tests of Through-Penetration Fire Stops," American Society for 7 Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, PA, 1983. ;
l l
)
i I
l .
l l
l
\
4 I
a EXHIRIT r
D3 OF JR PAGEIS) !
construction technology laboratories l
I
. ~ . . - . _ -- -. . . ~ . .-. .. -. - - . . . . - - . . . . - . . . . . . . . - . . _ -
l
.6- e- \
l l
l i
i i
n
.s l
1
]
i APPENDIX A l 1
Dow Corning 3-6548 Silicone RTV Foam Material Lot Numbers
- l. Foam Densities i Foam Snap Times l
l l'
i l' l l~
I.
l i
i t
4 i
1 f EXHIBIT 7 P AGEA OF th P age'9' construction technology laboratories l
e e DOW CORNING 3-6548 SILICONE RTV FOAM INSTALLATION Date of Installation: September 18, 1984 t
Mixing Technique: Hand Ungreased Cup Silicone Components Density Snap Time, Lot Combinations Ib/ft3 min:sec EZO94001A/EZO94001B 20.9 1:40 EZO94002A/EZO94001B 21.2 1:57 EZO94002A/EZO94004B 21.7 1:53 EZO94003A/EZO94004B 21.1 2:08 Concrete Slab Penetration Openino Nos. Lot Nos. Installed A-1 EZO94001A/EZO94001B A-2 EZO94002A/EZO94001B A-3 EZO94002A/EZO94004B A-4 EZO94003A/EZO94004B A-5 EZO94001A/EZO94001B A-6 EZO94002A/EZO94004B EXHIBIT l g PACE $8l OF 81PAGE(S) construction technology laboratories
e .
APPENDIX B Furnace Atmosphere Temperatures Specimen Thermocouple. Reference Chart Specimen Temperature Readings Test Comments 1
l l
I i
- F.XHIBIT
- er hk OF N3 PAGUS)
It construction technology laboratories
- k. - _ _ _ - _ _ - _ - _
e e CR5465 - DOW CHEMCIAL - 09/20/84 FURHACE ATMOSPHERE TF.MPERATURE (DEG. F)
TEST TIME, FURNACE ASTM E119 VARIATION FROM Hr: Min TEMP. TEMP. A3TM TEMP.
F F F 0:00 80 68 12 0:05 952 1000 -48 0:10 1280 1300 -20 0:15 1397 1399 -2 0:20 1466 1462 4 0:25 1511 1510 1 0:30 1558 1550 8 0:35 1578 1584 -6 0: 40 1613 1613 0 0:45 1643 1638 5 0:50 1659 1661 -2 0:55 1680 1681 -1 1:00 1685 1700 -15 1:05 1716 1718 -2 1:10 1737 1735 2 1:15 1740 1750 -10 l 1:20 1763 1765 -2 1:25 1782 1779 3 1:30 1795 1792 3 1:35 1785 1804 -19 1:40 1813 1815 -2 1:45 1841 1826 15 1:50. 1852 1835 17 1:55 1857 1843 14 2:00 1877 1850 27 2:10 1866 1862 4 2:20 1877 1875 2 2:30 1888 1888 -0 2: 40 1896 1900 -4 2:50 1921 1912 9 3:00 1939 1925 14 j AREA UNDER CURVE = 294723 DEG. F-MINUTES ARER UNDER ASTM E119 CURVE = 294600 DEG. F-MIHUTES VARIATION FROM ASTM CURVE = 00.0418 %
F.XHIBrr ~7 PAGEhI OF AkPAGE(S)
e o 1
CR5465 - DON CHENCIAL - 09/20/84 THERN0 COUPLE REFERENCE CHART 1:RAME PRINT THERNOCOUPLE THERN0 COUPLE HO. HO. HO. LOCATION .
11 1 1 A-4 2 IH. DOWN FR. TOP SURF.
11 2 2 A-4 UNEXPOSED SURFACE 11 3 3 A-4 UNEXPOSED SURFACE '
11 4 4 A-4 PEN. INTERFACE ;
] 41 5 5 A-2 2..IN. DOWN FR. TOP SURF.
11 6 6 A-2 UNEXPOSED SURFACE l
11 7 7 A-2 UNEXPOSED SURFACE 11 8 8 A-2 PEN. INTERFACE 11 9 9 A-6 2 IH. DOWH FR. TOP SURF.
11- 10 10 A-6 UNEXPOSED SURFACE ,
11 11 11 A-6 PEH. INTERFACE 11 12 12 UNEXPOSED CONCRETE SURFACE H.
13 A-1 2 IH. DOWH FR. TOP SURF.
12 1 l
- 12 2 14 A-1 UNEXPOSED SURFACE 12 3 15 A-1 UNEXPOSED SURFACE 12 4 16 A-1 PEN. INTERFACE 12 5 17 A-3 2 IH. DOWN FR. TOP SURF.
12 6 18 A-3 UNEXPOSED SURFACE i 12 7 19 A-3 UNEXPOSED SURFACE f 12 8 20 A-3 PEH. INTERFACE 12 9 21 A-5 2 IH. DOWN FR. TOP SURF.
j 12 10 22 A-5 UNEXPOSED SURFACE 12 11 23 A-5 PEN. INTERFACE 12 12 24 UNEXPOSED CONCRETE SURFACE S.
i 1
1 3
1
?
EXHIRIT 7 PACE G 2 OF !9 > PAGE(S)
_ _ _ _ _ _ . . _ . . _ . . . . ~ . . _. . . _ - . _ _ _ _ . . - . _ . _ - . . ._ . _ . . . _ _.._._._.._
e * ,
i l
CR5465 - DOW CHENCIAL - 09/20/84 l UtiEXPOSED TEMP. READINGS (DEG. F.) I i
TEST TIME, >' T/C HO. % l Hr: lii n 1 2 3 4 5 6 ;
0:00 80 78 78 77 79 78 l 0:05 78 77 77 76 78 77
- 0:10 79 78 78 77 78 77 0:15 78 77 77 77 78 77 0:20 78 77 77 76 78 77 ;
0:25 79 77 77 76 78 77 l
0:30 79 77 77 76 78 77 0:35 78 77 77 76 78' 77 !
0: 40 79 77 77 76 78. 77- .
0: 45 79 77 77 76 78 77 l 0:50 78 77 77 75 78 77 l i
0:55 79 77 77 75 78 77
! L:00 79 77 77 74 78 77 l l 1:05 79 78 77 73 79 77 1:10 79 78 78 72 79 77 1:15 79 78 78 71 79 77 }
1:20 80 78 78 69 30 78 f
1:25 81 78 78 68 31 78 l 1:30 83 78 78 66 32 78 !
1:35 84 7,8 , -7 9 65 $4 79 i l
1:40 87 _ [7,9, , '4 79 , 64 ,,
86 _
79f j 1: 45 90 79 '80 76 89 80 l 1:50 95 80 81 100 94 80 l 1155 101 81 82 104 102 81 !
- 2:00 108 82 83 107 .114 ~ 82' - -
2:10 128 84 85 114 155 84 l 2:20 156 86 89 121 222 88 2:30 192 90 93 128 310 93 2: 40 239 96 99 134 428 101 2:50 308 103 107 141 530 112 3:00 420 112 117 148 712 124 l
i .
l 4
F.XHIBIT 7
% .. m G 3 0F 19 ~2 PAGE(S)
. - . . ~ . . - _ - . - . . - . . . . ~ ~ . - . _ . . - . - . _ .. -. - - - _ . . . . . - . - . . ~ . - . - -
e s e
CR5465 - DOW CHEMCIAL - 09/20/84 UNEXPOSED TEMP. READINGS (DEG. F.)
TI:S T TIME, j( T/C NO.
Hr: Min 7 8 9 10 11 12 0:00 78 78 79 78 78 78 ,
0:05 77 77 78 77 77 77 0:10 77 .77 78 77 77 77 0:15 77 77 78 77 77 77 0:20 77 77 78 77 77 77 0:25 77 77 78 77 77 77 0:30 77 77 78 77 77 77 0:35 77 77 78 77 77 77 ;
.0: 40 77 78 78 77 77 78 0:45 77 78 78 77 78 78 0:50 77 79 78 77 79 79 0:55 77 81 79 77 81 81 :
1:00 77 83 80 77 83 83 l 1:05 77 86 81 78 86 86 1:10 77 89 84 78 91 90 1:15 77 94 87 79 97 94 !
1:20 77 100 92 79 104 '99 i 1:25 78 106 98 81 114 104 ;
1:30 78 114 105 82 126 110 l 1:35 78 121 113 84 136 116 j 1:40 79 - - -
128 121 86 145 123 i
, l l
1:50 79 140 141 91 151 137 1:55 80 143 150 93 152 144 2:00 81 145 160 96 155 151 2110 82 151 177 100 161 163 2:20 86 158 196 104 171 172 2:30 92 164 219 108 175 177 2: 40 100 170 241 til 178 182 2:50 113 178 258 114 183 185
~3: 00 130 185 273 117 186 187 l
l F.XHIBIT 7 m "E 64 OF l91PAGE(S)
a > ,
1 CR5465 - DOW CHEMCIAL - 09/20/84 UNEXPOSED TEMP. READINGS (DEG. F.)
TEST TIME, )N T/C HO.
Hi-: M i n 13 14 15 16 17 18 l 0:00 79 78 78 78 80 78 0:05 78 77 77 77 78 77 l 0:10 78 77 77 77 79 77 l 0:15 78 77 77 77 78 77 0:20 78 77 77 77 78 77 l 0:25 78 77 77~ 77 78 77 0:30 78 77 77 77 78 77 0:35 78 77 77 77 78 77 0: 40 78 77 77 77 78 77 0:45 78 77 77 77 78 77 0:50 78 77 77 77 78 77 0:55 78 77 77 77 79 7 .- j 1:00 78 77 77 77 79 77 l 1:05 78 77 77 78 79 77 1:10 79 77 77 78 79 77 j 1:15 79 77 77 78 80 77 I 1:20 79 77 77 78 80 77 1:25 80 77 77 79 81 77 l 1:30 81 77 77 85 _ ~ _83_ 78 1:35 82 78 77 87 85 78 1: 40 84 76 78 86 __ _ 8 8 78 1:45 87 78 78 93 91 79 1:50 91 79 78 90 95 79 1:55 96 80 79 86 101 79 2:00 102 80 79 85 108 80 2:10 120 83 81 85 127 81 2:20 150 86 83 86 158 83 2:30 200 90 87 88 200 85 2: 40 261 98 92 90 246 88 2:50 340 109 100 94 295 93 3:00 462 126 110 95 350 99 EXHIBIT 17 pt,CE GS_ OF 9 I7._ P AGE (S) 23
'e o l CR5465 - DOW CHEMCIAL - 09/20/84 UNEXPOSED TEMP. READINGS (DEG. F.)
TEST TIME, T/C NO. i
- j. Hr: Min 19 20 21 22 2 0:00 78 78 79 78 7 i 0:05 77 77 78 77 7 0:10 77 77 78 77 7 -. ;
0:15 77 77 77 77 7 0:15:00 0:20 77 77 78 77 7 01:30:01 I 0:25 77 77 78 77 7 3:00:00 l
0:30 77 77 77 77 7 0:35 77 77 77 77 7 H3SE STi 0:40 77 77 78 77 7 NO WATE.
0:45 77 78 78 77 7 srREAM l 0:50 77. 78 78 77 7 0:55 77 79 78 77 8 usTER D j 1:00 77 80 79 77 8 STREAM L 1:05 77 81 80 78 8 t
1:10 77 82 82 78 8 NOTES:
1:15 77 84 85 79 9 DRAFT R ,
j 1:20 77 86 88 80 9 R:1. TEM 1:25 78 88 92 81 it p.q , p,y 1:30 78 90 97 82 le T'C #4 1:35 79 93 103 84 11 T'C #21 1: 40 79 95 109 86 11 1: 45 80 98 117 88 12 T'C #1-1:50 80 101 125 91 13 SURFACE 1:55 81 103 134 93 12 G300 FC 2:00 82 107 143 95 11 g.g 3 g !
2:10 84 112 159 101 13 g.; g - l 2:20 87 120 181 106 10 g.3 3 ;
2:30 90 127 225 til 12 p.4 _ ; j 2:40 95 134 0 116 1e A-5 1 0 !
2:50 101 143 312 119 14 g.g _ ;
3:00 109 150 371 125 it i
f-i I i l
l i l i EXHIBIT .___ i PAGE6G 34 l
l - .._ _ _ __ , __ _ __ _ J
- o. *
) __ _
CR$465 - DOH CHEMCIAL TEST COMMENTS 4 -
3 0:15:00 Fc -
i 01: -
i 30:00 PEN A-1 A-6 EXPOSED SURFACES APP INCANDE j l 3:00:00 t10 SMOKE OR'mRU A-6 HOTED WARDS TO B 1
, OTHER OCCURANCES NOTED.
l HOSE STREAM TEST:
t i
tt0 HATER PROJECTED EEYOND TH STREAM TEST FOR SEC. 14 E UtIEXPOSED IN FEtt A-3 & A-4 SURFA
{ & A-5 AND A-6.
U1tER DID PROJECTED BEYOND TH 1
STREAM TEST IN PEN. A-1 8. A-2.E I
t V'1 EXPOSED SURFA NOTES:
{ i DRAFT RUti AT .08 NEG.
R.1 TEMP AT START =
R >1. R. H. 75 DEC. F.
{ T'C #4 AT START = SS'4 i
- HAS REPAIRED i T/C #21 4 NAS REPAIRED 5- T'C #1-5-10-13-17-21 SURFACE.
MERE INSTALLED 2 INTHE DOHN F
{ O N B G30D r0AM UNEX f upp g3 3 3,4 RENA!HING
-1 3/4 IN PLACE AFTER TEST FIRE A-2 1
- \
A -3 1 A -4
'/8 - 2 3/8 IH.(ELOWN OUT DUR 7/8 - 2 3/8 IH. HOSE STREAM)
M) 1
- 2 IH.
g A-5 1 3/4 - 2 IH, t___.___
A 3 IH.
i --
i i ___
i L i
! \
1 i
w EXHIBIT --
e-7 -
G 1 c.:- t 4 -
< , s Report to DOW CORNING U.S.A.
Midland, Michigan 48640 i
T >
FIRE AND HOSE STREAM TESTS OF CABLE TRAY SEALS -
DOW TEST NO. 2 i
by Michael Gillen !
I Submitted by CONSTRUCTION TECHNOLOGY LABORATORIES A Division of Portland Cement Association 5420 Old Orchard Road Skokie, Illinois 60077 I f October 1984 l CR5502-4324 7 Doc. I~D #1208E EXHIBIT l -
PAGE O.OF ]9.LPAGE(S)
- . .. - ~.- _ - .- _. -. -- .._ - - . . . ._
-e s l'
I i
r l
FIRE AND HOSE STREAM TESTS OF l PENETRATION SEALS - DOW TEST NO.' 2
_ by Michael Gillen*
INTRODUCTION
- At the request of Dow Corning U.S.A. (DOW) and as authorized l by Purchase Order No. 17262-N, Construction Technology Labora-tories (CTL) performed a series of five fire and hose stream tests on penetration seal systems. This report describes results of the second test in the program, performed on two [
cable tray penetration seals.
The penetration seal systems consisted of Dow Corning 3-6548 Silicone RTV Foam and a 1-in. thick layer of Fiberfrax Hotboard ceramic fiber damming board. The 9-in. thick foam seal systems were cast around two cable tray assemblies installed in a 30x30-in. opening within a 48x48x12-in. concrete slab. The 30x30-in. opening was divided into two 14-1/2x30-in. areas by_a 1-in. thick piece of insulation board, as shown in Fig. 1.
Slabs were constructed by CTL personnel. Seal systems and cable trays were installed by DOW personnel with construction assis-tance provided by CTL.
1 The fire and hose stream tests were performed at the fire research facilities of CTL on October 15, 1984. The slab con-taining the two cable trays and penetration seals was subjected.
to a 3-hr fire exposure in accordance with the time-temperature !
i l
- Senior Research Engineer, Fire Research Section, Construction l Technology Laboratories, a Division of the Portland Cement :
Association, Skokie, IL 60077.
4 l
EXHIBIT 7 P A GC'c' PACE 'IO OF Te construction (pc nologylaboratories
. _ _ . - . ~ . . . . - - .. - . - . .
4 a
A lN . ..# ,
- .. n Approx Limit of Fire Exposed Areo . .'. .
8
. D. .- , , "
I l . ' . ' . '.
1
. p'9 4
nnnnnnnnnnnn 15" ouuuuuuuuuuuu
\
1" Insulation Board i N
Silicone S
/ Foam -
4 4.. x l8.. Cable Troy j f ob!es C 15"
. E muuuuuutu p-
.p.',.[ ,
j . ,. *'9 , .
",o
... . e
...J . .
.. . . , . gn w,.g, \- g.
. .4..,.D.-.
, 8" ;
I 30" I 8"
PLAN VIEW FIG. I LAYOUT OF CONCRETE SLAB WITH TWO SIL! CONE FOAM SEALS AND PENETRATING CABLE TRAY ASSEMBLIES I
i eXHmIT 7
- 1I OF NLPAGE(S)
a s relationship and procedures specified in ASTM Designations:
E119 51)* and E814.(2) Immediately after the fire test, the specimen was removed from the furnace and subjected to two hose l
)
stream tests in accordance with provisions of IEEE 634( ) and l ASTM Designation: E119.
SUMMARY
OF RESULTS The test assembly, consisting of two cable trays and pene-tration seal systems,was subjected to a 3-hr fire test'and )
subsequent hose stream tests. Seals were installed in two 14-1/2x30-in. openings penetrating through the 12-in. thick concrete slab. The openinge were separated by a 1-in. thick i piece of insulation board. The seals consisted of 9-in.
thicknesses of Dow Corning 3-6548 Silicone RTV Foam and 1-in.
thick Fiberfrax Hotboard ceramic fiber board. .
The following are significant test results: i
- 1. No passage ot flame occurred through either of the two seal systems during the 3-hr fire test.
- 2. Limiting end point temperature criterion defined by i ASTM Designation' E814 was not exceeded on the unexposed surface of either of the two seal systems during the 3-hr fire test. Limiting end point temperature rise defined by ASTM Designation: E814 was exceeded at several measuring points on cables in both penetrations. Limiting end point temperature criterion defined by IEEE 634 was not exceeded on either of the two seal systems. ,
- Numbers in parentheses designate References on Page 18.
EXHIBIT 7 PAGE 1 0FJ#f2PAGE(S) construction technology laboratories i
d 2
- 3. No water projected beyond the unexposed surface of either of the two penetration seals during the 14 i second IEEE 634 hose stream test.
- 4. No water projected beyond the unexposed surface of either of the two penetration seals during the 24 second ASTM Designation: E119 hose stream test.
TEST ASSEMBLY A 48x48x12-in. thick concrete slab specimen containing a 30x30-in. square opening was fabricated by CTL personnel. The opening was located in a nominal 32x32-in. area in the central area of the slab. The slab was allowed to cure for approxi-mately one week following casting and subsequently force-dried at elevated temperature to reduce internal moisture content of the concrete.
Seal materials installed in the slab openings were provided by Dow Corning, U.S.A. Seal materials consisted of Dow Corning 3-6548 Silicone RTV Foam and 1-in. thick Fiberfra'x Hotboard ceramic fiber board.
INSTALLATION PROCEDURES Installation of cable tray assemblies and seal systems are described in the following sections.
Cable Trays Assemblies Two cable tray assemblies were installed in the concrete !
test slab, as shown in Fig. 1. Cable trays were nominal 18-in, wide x 4-in. high 16 ga. galvanized steel ladder-back trays.
4 2 f F.XHIBIT 7
~' cobs son t5ctu fe$oi$l ries
l e a j
Trays were Model No. PLMS-SS12-1800-4-12 manufactured by U.S.
Gypsum Company. Certification for trays is provided in Appen-dix A. Trays were cut to 5-ft lengths.
Two types of cables were installed in each cable tray: 600v single conductor MCM350 copper power cable with insulation Type XEHW and 600v AWG10/3C cable with XLP neoprene jacket. Cables were cut into 5-ft lengths prior to installation in the cable trays. Cable fill in each tray consisted of 14 lengths of i
MCM350 power cable and 40 lengths of AWG10/3C cable. Cables i were secured to trays with nylon tie-wraps.
Completed cable tray assemblies were installed so that ends of trays extended 12 in. below the exposed surface of the test i
slab and 3 ft above the unexposed surface of the test clab.
Trays were bolted to a steel angle framework on the unexposed !
1 side of the concrete slab to provide rigid support and minimize tray movement during seal construction and testing.
Seals
-Seals were installed in openings in the concrete slab by DOW personnel with construction assistance provided by CTL. The concrete test assembly was placed in a horizontal position and 1-in. thick pieces of ceramic fiber damming board were attached 9 in, below the unexposed surface of the slab. The ceramic fiber board was Fiberfrax Hotboard manufactured by Carborundum.
The damming board was cut to fit tightly around projecting cable tray assemblies. Small gaps between the ceramic fiber board and cables were filled with pieces of CeraFiber ceramic fiber blanket manufactured by Johns-Manville.
i eXHt91T 7
' 'cEristr Y 5* Y $ **
.- .. __ = -_. - . . . .- . .. . . _ . .
1 The 30x30-in. opening was subdivided into two 14-1/2x30-in.
openings using a 9x30-in. piece of 1-in. thick insulation board.
The insulation board was Fiberfrax Hotboard.
The board was installed in the opening as shown in Fig. 1. ;
Silicone foam materials were mixed and placed both by hand and machine in approximately 1-1/2 to 2-in. lifts to a thickness ;
I of 9 in. in each opening. Lot numbers, densities, and snap i times of foam materials installed in both penetrations are given in Appendix A.
After setting the foam in each opening was trimmed flush I with the unexposed concrete slab surfaces.
Foam was allowed to cure for approximately 7 days prior to fire testing.
i TEST EQUIPMENT & PROCEDURES The following sections briefly describe equipment and pro-cedures used to conduct fire and hose stream tests of the assembly containing the cable tray penetration seal systems.
Furnace I
'The test assembly containing the two cable tray penetration seal systems was subjected to a 3-hr fire exposure utilizing the j small slab furnace at CTL's Fire Research Laboratory. This furnace provides for testing of small-scale specimens in a hori-zontal position. Approximate area of fire-exposure is 32x32 in., as shown in Fig. 1.
Furnace atmosphere temperatures were monitored by three Type !
F X '-! ! T SI i cS$s9Ere SEod. UM
.i
G 4 K, Chromel-Alumel, protected thermocouples located 12 in. below the exposed face of the test assembly. The fire exposure was controlled according to the time-temperature relationship pres-cribed by ASTM Designation: E119, and is tabulated in Appendix B.
Furnace atmosphere pressure was maintained close to ambient ,
laboratory air pressure or slightly negative (-0.02 to -0.08 inches of water). For this test, the average draft was -0.08 inches of water.
i Specimen Instrumentation A total of 30 thermocouples were used for measuring tempera-tures on the unexposed side of the test specimen at locations shown in Fig. 2. Six thermocouples were used for measuring temperatures of electrical cables and cable trays at a distance of 1-in above the unexposed surface of the test assembly during the fire test. Twenty-two thermocouples were used to measure temperatures on seal surfaces, concrete / seal interfaces, cable / seal and tray / seal interfaces, and concrete surfaces on the unexposed side of the test assembly. Two thermocouples were I used to measure foam temperatures at a depth of 2 in. below the '
unexposed surface of the seals. A list of thermocouple loca-tions is provided in Appendix B. I D_ata Acouisition Furnace atmosphere and specimen thermocouple temperatures were monitored at 5-minute intervals throughout the 3-hr fire test. The automated data acquisition system consisted of a
~-
"?
constructidegpdhWSS(E) l
! s . l l j l
! l
! i
! l l
)
b '
l 4 (N -
m . . . .%
.A .. . .
.s ., .
. %7 ,
l G- -
.f....
. ..X 3 .
A.
26 24 . . a XXX
'.f. l
. X 30 X 27 25 .. !
5 28X X29 eTroy 4x ):;:6 2XXI #2 i X7 1 1
I" Insulation Boardg ,
8X wymammummmimmmwmnmmwm x23 0 vo l
X9 11 X Xlo 12 X n]jl3 4-Troy i
. . l4 18X X 19
- 1
.b . . h . X16 X2l .
XI7 X20 X22
.1 ' . p .
u l5 *
, l f . .a ' '# - . ." .. ...
. % ~ ~ A '. .
.'p-
..~*, . . , . . . , *
. )
. \
- .. N. .. . . :
, 30" i 1
X-Thermocouple Locations FIG. 2 UNEXPOSED SURFACE AND INTERFACE I
THERMOCOUPLE LOCATIONS i
I l
l i
EXHIBIT 7 e!CE 7 7 OF M 'bPAGE(S)
e . .
Hewlett-Packard HP3455A digital voltmeter and a series of HP3495A data scanners. The data acquisition system controller was an HP9845T desktop computer.
Hose Stream Test Two hose stream tests were conducted after fire testing of the test assembly. Hose stream test procedures were those des-cribed in the IEEE 634 and ASTM Designation: E119 Test Stan-dards. Equipment and procedures for these tests are as follows:
IEEE 634 - A 75 psi hose stream was delivered through a 1-1/2 in. diameter hose equipped with a fog nozzle set at a discharge angle of 30* from a i
distance of 10 ft. The spray was delivered over an exposed area of 36x36-in. for a duration of 14 seconds.
ASTM E119- A 30 psi solid stream was delivered through a 2-1/2 in. diameter hose equipped with a National Standard Playpipe with a 1-1/8 in. diameter dis-charge tip from a distance of 20 ft. The stream was delivered over an exposed area of 48x48-in.
for a duration of 24 seconds.
l l
TEST RESULTS The test assembly containing the two cable tray penetration seal systems was subjected to a 3-hr fire exposure at the fire research facilities of CTL on October 15, 1984. Views of the exposed and unexposed surfaces of the test assembly prior to testing are shown in Figs. 3 and 4.
l EXHIBIT 7 j
construction technology laboratories
I i
i i
s 4 -
y t e
- b .,
} "'
^
., f ,
) \ '\
I ,m
~ ~ -
Fig. 3 Exposed Surface of Test Assembly Prior to Test Q
l o ..
r- h,,.g ,
~
g ,, c l ,', p. -
.', ? .
l j 'p rg
~
i
,.ik-:
lE l . ;
' ,,,3 .
.1 .
~r r,
,p , .
t , 4 7, '_ -
p '/, - (dr ,)
y .
w -
g_s.-- ,
~ * $$ . v
% 78 4' pS-
, ;} .
- r. s 7.a. . - :. .
5 -- - -
, ., 9 i
2 Fig. 4 Unexposed Surface of Test Assembly Prior to Test I
f EXHIPIT I l P ACE H OF l 3 7. P AGEfS) construction technology laboratories
A listing of furnace atmosphere temperature measurements and variations from the standard are given in Appendix B. Variation of the measured furnace temperatures from the standard was approximately 0.10%, based on comparison of total area under the time-temperature curves. This was well within the 5.00% varia- d tion permitted by ASTM Designation: E119. Average furnace draft pressure was -0.08 inches of water. i A listing of measured unexposed concrete, interfaces, cable, and seal temperatures is also given in Appendix B. The maximum allowable temperature rise of 325'F+ ambient as defined by ASTM Designation: E814( } was not exceeded on the unexposed sur-face of either penetration seal during the 3-hr fire test.
I l Limiting end point temperature rise defined by ASTM Designation:
E814 was exceeded at several measuring points on cables in both 4 i penetrations. Limiting end point temperature criterion defined by IEEE 634 was not exceeded on either of the two seal systems.
i 1
No passage of flame occurred through either penetration seal during the 3-hr fire test.
After the 3-hr fire exposure, the test assembly was removed from the furnace, as shown in Fig. 5, and subjected to the IEEE 634 and ASTM Designation: E119 hose stream tests. Views of exposed and unexposed surfaces of test assembly before hose stream testing are shown in Figs. 6 and 7. Views of hose stream
! tests are shown in' Figs. 8 and 9.
- No water projected beyond the unexposed surface of either penetration seal during hose stream testing. Views of exposed and unexposed surfaces of the test assembly after hose stream
, testing are shown in Figs. 10 and 11.
EXH! PIT 7" Pbn'sIrv c N labYor *
! + .
i
! IGA l S; -g T5km; q:.
i i
l i
~
! 4
.. ?<
! a
] '.v- : .
4,
- tg
, a
, ; -- - -s,..,
L Fig. 5 Specimen Removed from Furnace After Fire Testing i
I l
EXHIBIT 7 PACE [ OF l9 LPAGEfS) construction technology laboratories
-: < . 3_ ' s-Y w
(
- h. }[rh
+- .'y a J,
- [' s j . .
r, s
t y, ,
9
._~sg s r
k,
- , ,', u J,.. y ..
, 1
' \.o -
x 3 7 +
-oc
_ ,y
( s'p[g asin c .-
1 W
- % ( '4 .
=
~
v g
i
- "4-
.p.
' "', I .
Ep
- Fig. 6 Exposed Surface of Test Assembly Prior to Hose Stream Testing
- .. n.
3, . -,
- p. .
,' , Q, .. , ! '
\
~.: -
) , ,fe #
- g. .
?.Z w ,& n
,. .s ;_'.,_,!._*1 . *
.; . 1, *'* j , ' .'
^
. s .] * ~ - - ..
a m -
/ c
-- tu 4 ..
n s s G p+ f s n 'l'
< 4
._ - * .. .. ' ,=_,* #
+.
Y.1= * .
2 'j4 l
- l< . .
l
- 3 g' f d Y.. . . u f k' g ' ' *. .
,l Fig. 7 Unexposed Surface of Test Assembly Prior to Hose Stream Testing EXHimT . 7 i
PAGE 7 L OF _d 2-PtGns construction technology laboratories e
i d
- o o a
a 1
4 i
1 J
t ,
-a. ,
I m '- w j,_ ,
^
, = .
p .! O . t D. (_.
(
i 7.3 . . ,m: . -- ,_ . :,; r
- a. .z.
,g -
1: :
- ~-
c, ,r p .
n; -
~
{' j
{#f2, .. .
e' 'en . ; .
a-W ug. > . ~ . A
..*l- % ,
. ,+. :-
? -
.n
<s- t*
t
>J~; c" 'h . + >. . . * , ..
- s. C; '
Y.y i '
.. . t
+
f ,;3 ,..
y ;
. ,%g' b -
.?
c- %k '% , _ .4 .
t ~: w _'. . . ..
y ,. . . - ,
- g. m.<. -
~ ~:~ -~sd' ~ ' -
.. ,. g.-
. m :~. ._.. ,
Fig. 8 IEEE 634 Hose Stream Test l
?
.- c n
Gg- - g l .
~ ; figitt) i _
e ,
s, y
\ - Ic , '
I e s -,
T
- y 1 .
- ,1; -
3 2, -
'n .,
$ [.- , .'
i
, .s: - "R a T _ ,
.f , -- ,.
kN - ] ' h^ *
~.
c't -
- .r_ r ._
.g
.. Le ~ '
.v.
~r _ *>
a t e
,a
%. , wn ..
a-
,.3 .
4
~
,"", _ 4- _
.- .p,..a ~ ~
t ,
m-
+
- .* ._ e. , '*,,
,p, . ;
r s'Y '...
g .
- f,e.~. _ .w ,< . , <- . .
54,
) Fig. 9 ASTM E119 Hose Stream Test i
B h
l' EPMP'T 7 3 Frs..i .7 3_ OF lT Z. Pr.GUS) ..
i construction technology laboratories
e -
j l
l l
gj 7, f-}7%
- sseus -
.p-@ . - r +7> %;. a g
-- is q g_ .
i -- '
.[ - '
\ '
- 4. ' .T , .n 5
~ ~ ~ ' '
J
\. ,
, ' ~~ g, N a
3 m 4 s t
- s *
, 't a h ') .
^
.. i ,
i
- s. e #
g Sh t -
\ f ^
~
~
r.
! -/
We '
a :
k s. .
f Fig. 10 Exposed Surface of Test Assembly After 1
l-Hose Stream Testing
- i 1 -
e
/ ..
Sfr J .
(
q 4
5 p.+- ,
?
Fig. 11 Unexposed Surface of Test Assembly After Hose Stream Testing f ?" !!"iT 7
[' ,? 1 OF f72 Pt C c'c construction technology laboratories
Following the hose stream tests, measurements were made of the thickness of remaining silicone seal material from each opening, as shown in Fig. 12. Remaining thicknesses of unburned I
materials are listed in Table 1.
l TABLE 1 - THICKNESS OF UNBURNED SILICONE FOAM l
Measurement Thickness, inches Location
- Tray No. 1 Tray No. 2
)
i West end of seal 7 7 !
West leg of tray 6 5-1/2 1 Mid-point of seal 4-1/2 4-1/2 l East leg of tray 5-1/2 5 l East end of seal 7 6-3/4
- See Fig. 1 for orientation.
LABORATORY RESPONSIBILITY The Construction Technology Laboratories is a Division of the Portland Cement Association and was not involved in the l design of the Penetration Seal System. Personnel of the Con-
! struction Technology Laboratories make no judgment of the suit-l ability of the uaterials or seal systems for particular end point uses. Acceptance of the test results for guidance for field installation is the prerogative of the authority having jurisdiction.
CONCLUDING REMARKS l This report described fire and hose stream tests conducted 1
on two silicone penetration seal systems. Significant test re-sults are presented in the section entitled
SUMMARY
OF RESULTS l
at the beginning of this report.
i F '"-!! P'T 7
-16 ' ' ' F. 8.3 OF li 2 PAGE(S) construction technology laboratories
~
l l
1 i
,.., c w x q I m I l
?'
E ,
t . .-. - -
i i
i e
E3N
)
.1.. i.
Fig. 12 Unburned Silicone Foam Material from Penetration Seals I A = Tray No. 1 L = Tray No. 2 1
1
?
l l
l l
4 1
?
EXMintT 1 P t, c,:- 64 OF 19 L P AGEG) construction technology laboratories
e a REFERENCES i
- 1. ASTM Designation: E119, " Standard Methods of Fire Tests of Building Construction and Materials," American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, PA, 1983.
- 2. ASTM Designation: E814, " Standard Method of Fire-Tests of Through-Penetration Fire Stops," American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, PA, 1983.
l
- 3. Standard IEEE 634-1978, "IEEE Standard Cable Penetration Fire-Stop Qualification. Test," The Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers, Inc., New York, NY.
I I
I I
{
t i
FXMIPiT _ 7 pgS1 OF Jh r
- O
construction technology laboratories
e , e a
APPENDIX A Dow Corning 3-6548 Silicone RTV Foam Material Lot Numbers Foam Densit'ies
, Foam Snap Times Material Certification for Cable Trays l l
FXMIPIT 7
q D * 'C AGF f T t PAGE(S) construction technology laboratories
s s E f0RNING 3-6548 SILICONE RTV FOA Date of Installation: October 9 - 10, 1984 Mixing Technique:
Hand and Machine Ungreased Silicone Components Cup
_ Lot Combinations ' Density Snap Time,
_ lb/ft3 EZO94001A/EZO94001B _ min:sec Hand mix Hand mix 18.9 Machine mix 18.1 1:56 Machine mix 17.6 2:04 17.5 1:35 1:37 EZO94003A/EZO94004B Hand mix Machine mix 18.3 17.9 3:20 I_ 2:45 l DEPOSmON g EXHIBIT r- _ Concrete Slab Nos.
Openina Penetration I,ot Nos. Installed Tray No. 1 (south)
Tray No. 2 (north) EZO94001A/EZO94001B EZO94003A/EZO94004B t
a
s s ,
l l
l Report to DOW CORNING U.S.A. I Midland, Michigan 48640 ,
i i
f FIRE AND HOSE STREAM TESTS OF CABLE TRAY SEALS -
DOW TEST NO. 3 i
?
i by Michael Gillen l
i l
l Submitted by l
CONSTRUCTION TECHNOLOGY LABORATORIES A Division of Portland Cement Association
, 5420 Old Orchard Road Skokie, Illinois 60077 October 1984 CR5502-4324 Doc. ID #1203E EXHIBIT 7 !
PAGE 4l OF 19A PAGE(S) i I
a .
)
FIRE AND HOSE STREAM TESTS OF PENETRATION SEALS - DOW TEST NO. 3 by Michael Gillen*
1 i
INTRODUCTION At the request of Dow Corning U.S.A. (DOW) and as authorized ,
by Purchase Order No. 17262-N, Construction Technology Labora-tories (CTL) performed a series of five fire and hose stream I tests on penetration seal systems. This report describes results of the third test in the program, performed on two cable tray penetration seals. ;
The penetration seal systems consisted of Dow Corning 3-6548 [
Silicone RTV Foam and a 1-in. thick layer of Fiberfrax Hotboard ceramic fiber damming board. The 9-in. thick foam seal systems were cast around two cable tray assemblies installed in a 30x30-in. opening contained in a 48x48x12-in, concrete slab.
I The 30x30-in. opening was divided into two 14-1/2x30-in. areas '
by a 1-in. thick piece of insulation board, as shown in Fig. 1.
Slabs were constructed by CTL personnel. Seal systems and cable l
trays were installed by DOW personnel with construction assis-tance provided by CTL.
The fire and hose stream tests were performed at the fire research facilities of CTL on October 17, 1984. The slab con-taining the two cable trays and penetration seals was subjected to a 3-hr fire exposure in accordance with the time
- Senior Research Engineer, Fire Research Section, Construction Technology Laboratories, a Division of the Portland Cement Association. Skokie, IL 60077. ;
1 l EXH13!T
( i YAI* cons c o o'hho'retarles
... .
- dL AN g.,,#.
Approx Limit of Fire Exposed Areo *
.',. 6,,
.D. .
y F- 1 . ' . ' . '. I"
.s 9 uououooooutixa 15"
\
I" Insulation Board NNAWNWMNWNNWMM Silicone n i Foam
- 4"xl8" Cable Troy j f obles C
15" M ~m l l .p-
. . ..g. -
. l
.y...L . J .9 . -
i" a
...P .
4 g n
\
w.. .- .%p..... .
.g, l
.b. .4. .
. .. v 8" 1 "_ 30" 8" 1
I PLAN VIEW i I
FIG. I LAYOUT OF CONCRETE SLAB WITH TWO SILICONE FOAM SEALS AND PENETRATING CABLE TRAY ASSEMBLIES ,
l FXHIPIT 7 P CE $3.. OF lt t PAGE(S)
= - - . - - - - _ . .- -. - _ . _ .- . - _ . . - ~ . ~ _ - - - _ - . . .
e s ;
! temperature relationship and procedures specified in ASTM Desig-nations: E119 III' and E814.( ) Immediately after the fire test, the specimen was removed from the furnace and subjected to two hose stream tests in accordance with provisions of IEEE 634(3) and ASTM Designation: E119.
I i
i
SUMMARY
OF RESULTS l The test assembly, consisting of two cable trays and pene-I tration seal systems in a 12-in. thick concrete slab. was sub- 1 jected to a 3-hr fire test and subsequent hose stream tests. -
l l Seals were installed in two 14-1/2x30-in. openings penetrating l through the concrete slab. The openings were separated by a l
l-in. . thick piece of insulation board. The seals consisted of ;
9-in. thicknesses of Dow Corning 3-6548 Silicone RTV Foam and 1-in. thick Fiberfrax Hotboard ceramic fiber board.
The following are significant test results:
- 1. No passage of flame occurred through either of the two seal systems during the 3-hr fire test.
- 2. Limiting end point temperature criteria defined by ASTM ;
Designation: E814 were not exceeded on the unexposed I
surface of either of the two seal systems during the 1 3-hr fire test. Limiting end point temperature cri-i l terion defined by IEEE 634 as 700*F was exceeded on l
- Tray No. 2.
J
- Numbers in parentheses designate References on Page 17.
"tv.1MT 7
~3~ '
Ty{ GF (T LPAGE(S) construction technology laboratories
. e !
I i
l i
- 3. No water projected beyond the unexposed surface of either of the two penetration seals during the 14 second IEEE 634 hose stream test.
- 4. No water projected beyond the unexposed surface of either of the two penetration seals during the 24 second ASTM Designation: E119 hose stream test.
TEST ASSEMBLY A 48x48x12-in, thick concrete slab specimen containing a 30x30-in. square opening was fabricated by CTL personnel. The opening was located in a nominal 32x32-in. area in the central area of the slab. The slab was allowed to cure for approxi-mately one week following casting and subsequently force-dried at elevated temperature to reduce internal moisture content of the concrete. t i
Seal mat'erials installed in the slab openings were provided by Dow Corning, U.S.A. Seal materials consisted of Dow Corning 3-6548 Silicone RTV Foam and 1-in thick Fiberfrax'Hotboard i
ceramic fiber board. ,
INSTALLATION PROCEDURES Installation of cable tray assemblies and seal systems are described in the following sections.
l Cable Trays Assemblies Two cable tray assemblies were installed in the concrete test slab, as shown in Fig. 1. Cable trays were nominal 18-in.
4 wide x 4-in, high 16 ga. galvanized steel ladder-back trays.
F.XHPIT 7 !
1
- Dinst?vctioise'hnolepileSI%S0 c ries l l
, e .
Trays were Model No. PLMS-SS12-1800-4-12 manufactured by U.S.
Gypsum Company Certification for trays is provided in !
Appendix A. Trays were cut to 5-ft lengths.
i Two types of cables were installed in each cable tray: 600v i
single conductor MCM350 copper power cable with inrulation Type ;
XHHW and 603v AWG10/3C cable with XLP neoprene jacket. Cables were cut into 5-ft lengths prior to installation in the cable trays. Cable fill in each tray consisted of 14 lengths of MCM350 power cable and 40 lengths of AWG10/3C cable. Cables !
l were recured to trays with nylon tie-wraps.
Completed cable tray assemblies were installed so that ends l
l of trays extended 12 in. below the exposed surface of the test slab and 3 ft above the unexposed surface of the test slab.
Trays were bolted to a steel angle framework on the unexposed side of the concrete slab to provide rigid support and minimize tray movement during seal construction and testing.
Seals seals were installed in openings in the concrete slab by DOW personnel with construction assistance provided by CTL. The concrete test assembly was placed in a horizontal position and 1-in. thick pieces of ceramic fiber damming board were attached l
{ 9 in. below the unexposed surface of the slab. The ceramic fiber board was Fiberfrax Hotboard manufactured by Carborundum. l The damming board was cut to fit tightly around projecting cable tray assen.blies. Small gaps between the ceramic fiber board and cables were filled with pieces of CeraFiber ceramic fiber j blanket manufactured by Johns-Manville. p g
" ' ~ ~ b-construction technology laboratories
6 o The 30x30-in. opening was subdivided into two 14-1/2x30-in.
openings using a 9-in. widex30-in. long piece of 1-in, thick insulation board. The insulation board was Fiberfrax Hotboard.
l The board was installed in the opening as shown in Fig. 1.
l l Silicone foam materials were mixed and placed by hand and -
by machine in approximately 1-1/2 to 2-in. lifts to a thickness of 9 in. in each opening. Lot numbers, densities, and snap ,
times of foam materials installed in both penetrations are given
! in Appendix A.
l After foam had set, the foam in each opening was trimmed flush with the unexposed concrete slab surfaces. ,
Foam was allowed to cure for about 7 days prior to fire t
testing.
TEST EQUIPMENT & PROCEDURES The following sections briefly describe equipment and pro- i cedures used to conduct fire and hose stream tests of the assembly containing the cable tray penetration seal systems.
! Furnace The test assembly containing the two cable tray penetration seal systems was subjected to a 3-hr fire exposure utilizing the small slab furnace at CTL's Fire Research Laboratory. This l
! furnace provides for testing of small-scale specimens in a hori-l zontal position. Approximate area of fire-exposure is 32x32 in., as shown in Fig. 1.
Furnace atmosphere temperatures were monitored by three Type F.XHIO'T 7 _
_,, eAcill_^~ttS' l construction technology laboratories
e o i 1
K, Chromel-Alumel, protected thermocouples located 12 in. below ;
! the exposed face of the test assembly. The fire exposure was l
controlled according to the t'ime-temperature relationship pres- ,
cribed by ASTM Designation: E119, and is tabulated in Appendix B.
Furnace at:nosphere pressure was maintained close to ambient laboratory air pressure or slightly negative (-0.02 to -0.08 inches of water). For this test, the average draft was.-0.08 i inches of water.
Specimen Instrumentation A total of 30 thermocouples were used for measuring tempera- ;
tures on the unexposed side of the test specimen at locations ;
l shown in Fig. 2. Twelve thermocouples were used for measuring l temperatures of electrical cables at a distance of 1-in. above l l
the unexposed surface of the test assembly during the fire test.
l l Sixteen thermocouples were used to measure temperatures on seal I surfaces, concrete / seal interfaces, cable / seal and tray / seal interfaces', and concrete surfaces on the unexposed side of the ~~
test assembly. Two thermocouples were used to measure foam temperatures at a depth of 2 in. below the unexposed surface of the seals. A list of thermocouple locations is provided in Appendix B.
Data Acauisition Furnace atmosphere and specimen thermocouple temperatures l
were monitored at 5-minute intervals throughout the 3-hr fire l test. The automated data acquisition system consisted of a F.XMmiT 7 l pfr,t M OF M 'k P M:"'"
? construction technology laboratories I
l .B 4
,s .. .t>, - .- %
by .-3,.
.N t -
j .
\ . .
n .
g.. .
9, .
' d , , . '. ~ ' X , ,
'i* ,
3 I
'.f.
X 29 X 25 l
. 30X -
,5 X28 '
l i 2X ""3 X27 X 26 e Troy X7 X8 #l l- X4 X3 I" Insulation Boardg 16X YA5%YMmmon%Yvemsmabsys;wmew X 24 @
X 14 i
"g X13
. 15X
'l2 X io X9 e Troy ul9 v
- 2 6..
'. XiB X 21 X 22
^20 X23
.. yl7 1 , .- p - v y,s - . .~ .
- 4
.y~p.. .
'. : . Q .' .' ' .' ; n ', ' *. . ' O-30" v X- Thermocouple Locations 1
FIG. 2 UNEXPOSED SURFACE AND INTERFACE I THERMOCOUPLE LOCATIONS l
l l
i l EXH!RIT 7 p . .- 3 9 OF (9 % PAGE(S) l l
m a Hewlett-Packard HP3455A digital voltmeter and a series of HP3495A data scanners. The data acquisition system controller was an HP9845T desktop computer.
Hose Stream Test Two hose stream tests were conducted after fire testing of the test assembly. Hose stream test procedures were those des-cribed in the IEEE 634 and ASTM Designation: E119 Test Stan- ,
dards. Equipment and procedures for these tests are as.follows: ,
IEEE 634 - A 75 psi hose stream was delivered through a !
l-1/2 in, diameter hose equipped with a fog ,
nozzle set at a discharge angle of 30* from a distance of 10 ft. Duration of the test was 14 seconds.
ASTM E119- A 30 psi solid stream was delivered through a 2-1/2 in. diameter hose equipped with a National Standard Playpipe with a 1-1/8 in. diameter dis-charge tip from a distance of 20 ft. Duration of the test was 24 seconds.
TEST RESULTS The test assembly containing the two cable tray penetration seal systems was subjected to a 3-hr fire exposure at the fire research facilities of CTL on October 17, 1984. Views of the exposed and unexposed surfaces of the test assembly prior to j
testing are shown in Figs. 3 and 4.
FX'-!!mT 7 l
l
_9_
Jpo OF d2_. P3 Cr'S) cor:struction technology laboratories
.~ ,
.- .= . - . - .. _ _ _ - - . _. -- - - _ - . -- .
, a e A listing of furnace atmosphere temperature measurements and variations from the standard are given in Appendix B. Variation of the measured furnace temperatures from the standard was approximately 0.02%, based on comparison of total area under the j i
time-temperature' curves. This was well within the 5.00% varia- 1 tion permitted by the Test Standard.II) Average furnace draft ;
pressure was -0.08 inches of water.
A listing of measured unexposed concrete, interfaces, cable, Ltd seal temperatures is also given in Appendix B. The maximum al?owable temperature rise of 325'F+ ambient as defined by ASTM Designation: E814(2) was not exceeded on the unexposed sur-face of either penetration seal during the 3-hr fire test.
No passage of flame occurred through either penetration seal during the 3-hr fire test.
After the 3-hr fire exposure, the test assembly was removed from the furnace, as shown in Fig. 5, and subjected to the IEEE 634 and ASTM Designation: E119 hose stream tests. Views of exposed and unexposed surfaces of test assembly before hose stream testing are shown in Figs. 6 and 7.
No water projected beyond the unexposed surface of either penetration seal during hose stream testing. Views of exposed and unexposed surfaces of the test assembly after hose stream testing are shown in Figs. 8 and 9.
Following the hose stream tests, measurements were made of l
the thickness of remaining silicone seal material from each opening, as shown in Fig. 10. Remaining thicknesses of unburned materials are listed below in Table 1.
FXHimT __ 7 p;7 (o( .0F It S PAGE(S) construction technology laboratories i
I
I I o a i
i i
i c ,; . . - . -
- 4
- -
l ^*'].'
j $/$4 -
.t.,-
1 l k . ~' '
' S' e
l l g - .m#
q hI .
16'
- :s p.n '
Fig. 3 Exposed Surface of Test Assembly Prior to Test M
T~
- kY 'a'y
! M. .[
l Fig. 4 Unexposed Surface of Test Assembly Prior to Test h
F.XHm!T 7 f p. _;fo g OF M *2, P '.GEf S) construction technology laboratories l
l _
- O i
I i
i i
vi f . xu .
I l
4 L
i
,m i -
i
.a 6
I I. . _ .
1 Fig. 5 Specimen Removed from Furnace After Fire Testing l l
! l f
I l
l l
2 F.XHIB!T 7 P! ^I IO30F lil""~ ~ - --
construction technology laboratories
- l. s i
, \
a
?
>; I
? j 5 y *)," :-
y .
e t n . . y .'; . t . -
~-
e,
.a .
- a. .
~
s-q O
,fi'~ '
.. m .
l 7 %.
~
L. .
,:~
a~
Fig. 6 Exposed Surface of Test Assembly Prior to Hose Stream Testing Y
Ls } l V i
{. . , ." . s-,ut< ys, . +r, A ;- fs .- x uq. ,,gu.rtn s
- T.'
11 Mi .:?f L.9
&J .:
1
,D )$.?,ad ' 1.[*'~' . ' id ,
p ',
1
. ;h , s
, = M. F- '
- t- s:h,- : j. .
l l
. 1 ;
.r ._ : ,e 1 .
l
. . l e , .
I -
m . 5- j . .- . . . . . . < . , 5 F" 1 1
( l .
= i.
. -- L. [. ;
P c- '
4 1
- ~ " . ' $
9 .. ,,, _
- C1 -
.. .. -( -',
.-e ,
- p*
l
- p~ .. . F. ,= g,I.
4 I % . -4
.e
+. :. . .
.J , . N* . y . .
~
g' . .'. : - Q ,
- ,[*t ,. .
'< c
- h. 9 (.....h,4 ..v ... I
. '4..L Fig. 7 Unexposed Surface of Test Assembly Prior to Hose Stream Testing
,..'"'tT 7
(o 4.m: _( jj.P AGE (S) construction technology laboratories
-. -.-_.-.- - . - - - _ . . . -. . ___- _-_--__- _ _ ___-_~ -
1 a G
{
l l
i f .1-i r 1.. .
l l
k -
s, l
Fig. 8 Exposed Surface of Test Assembly After Hose Stream Testing 69&'l ,,,~. -
_ y 1-I
N . ..,,
- ' ' ~
~$
'k Fig. 9 Unexposed Surface of Test Assembly After Hose Stream Testing EXH!n'T 7 p . S & Oi- 19 'L P AGE (S) construction technology laboratork
a a 6
}
s.
}
}
i 4
1 i,
t.
,-c.ra 7 .-
.?'
7 4.sp. ..
4 ft.i . . *g *
% s~ ~
- * , j'% . - ;-
- 'g[T ! . - ;. .
Ni .
t p
v, +.:.e..s.
~
.4..
- . 4 * $**' 4'd i .. . . < , , 1 ',
k UP A % tet J.E .:(f+_iG R .'.?l7-ef~%. _ _ _ _
L'*
i . . .
.- ~ 4 '
! ,J:uS l.
c-t -
i jf ' R -
l a 1 s.
.. .n i
y .
8 4
n -
.t i
- I l
4 t
Y":: 2= = Mr i_Einrmwy9, , - ~~ - -
a Fig. 10 Unburned Silicone Foam Material from Penetration Seals i
1 l
l 8
i i
i i
e l
i i
t i
t 1
1 i
J EXH!mT 7
~
l0. 9, OF li 2. P ' CTIE) j 2 j construction technology laboratories j
d
l 1
i TABLE 1 - THICKNESS OF UNBURNED SILICONE FOAM ;
Measurement Thickness. inches '
Location" Tray No. 1 Tray No. 2 West end of seal 7 7 West leg of tray 5 5 l Mid-point of seal 6 4-1/2 i East leg of tray 5 5 East end of seal 7-1/2 7 1
- See Fig. 1 for orientation.
LABORATORY RESPONSIBILITY The Construction Technology Laboratories is a Division of the Portland Cement Association and was not involved in the design of the Penetration Seal System. Personnel of the Con-struction Technology Laboratories make no judgment of the suit-ability of the materials or seal systems for particular end point uses. . Acceptance of the test results for guidance for field installation is the prerogative of the authority having I jurisdiction.
l l
CONCLUDING REMARKS l l
This report described fire and hose stream tests conducted l on two silicone penetration seal systems. Significant test l
results are presented in the section entitled
SUMMARY
OF RESULTS l
at the beginning of this report.
F.XH10'T 7 1
P L CE t o "7 OF (Ar t P ' ~ ta' .
construction technology Ian s.mtories
, .. . . . . _ . . . . _ _ - .. _ . _ . _ _ _ . . _ _ . _ _ _ _ . _ ~ . . . _ _ . _ _ . . _ . .
J s Q t REFERENCES
- 1. ASTM Designationi E119 " Standard Methods of Fire Tests of Building Construction and Materials," American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, PA, 1983.
- 2. ASTM Designation: EB14 " Standard Method of Fire Tests of Through-Penetration Fire Stops," American Society for >
Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, PA, 1983.
- 3. Standard IEEE 634-1978, "1EEE Standard Cable Per.etration Fire-Stop Qualification Test," The Institute of Electrical
- and Electronic Engineers, Inc., New York, NY.
G 4
i s !
EXHtPIT _ 7 -
_17, PACF.(OI OF M A N "
construction technology laboratories
. - .e .
l i
i APPENDIX A Dow Corning 3-6548 Silicone RTV Foam l Material Lot Numbers Foam Densities Foam Snap Times i
, Material Certification for Cable Trays r
1 i
l l
l 1
I i-i 1
! FMH' pit _ 7 1
. -c l09_ OF 19 4_ P? C"")
l%
- construcilon technology laboratories
_ _ _ _ _ . _.._,_ _ _ . _ . _ -_ . _ _ . - _ . _ _ . . . _ . . _ _..m.._ _ . _ . . . . . . . _ .
I
- DOW CORNING 3-6548 SILICONE RTV FOAM INSTALLATION f 4-Date of Installation
- October 9 - 10, 1984 ;
l '
i Mixing Technique: Hand and Machine
' Ungreased
} Cup Silicone Components Density Snap Time, .
Lot Combinations lb/ft3 min:sec EZO94001A/EZO94001B Hand mix 18.9 1:56 Hand mix 18.1 2:04 Machine mix 17.6 1:35 !
Machine mix 17.5 1:37 EZO94002A/EZO94004B '
Hand mix 18.0 2:52 !
Hand mix 18.2 2:41 Machine mix 17.8 2:34 ,
Concrete Slab Penetration Openinc Nos. Lot Nos. Installed Tray No. 1 (north) EZO94002A/EZO94004B Tray No. 2 (south) EZO94001A/EZO94001B i
l EXH'"!T 7
, - ~- ( t o_ OF M 1 PAGE(S) construction technology laboratories 1 i
e se !
- r .' ;'E UNITED' STATES GYPSUM COMPANY !
Penckneyville, Ilknois 62274 t
September 28, 1984 Portland Cement 5420 Old Orchard Road PCA 3562E Building E Skokie. Illinois 60077 Attention: Tom Rowe 1 l
Reference:
Otto Frankenbush Order No. 90015 U. S. Cypsum Order No. CT-913561 l
Dear Mr. Rowe:
i This is to certify that the material furnished on the above order has been l fabricated in accordance kith standard U. S. Gypsum procedure. The material !
and galvanizing conform to ASTM A569,and ASTM A525.
i Sincerely, !
as two Susan Heumann Quality Technician SH/gt ,
cc: S. Leach File FN H!"'T 7 p - it t._. O~ J 1 F * * ~
l l
10 ! l lO; 5
- ll
^o e 1
i i
j I
f f
i i
i i
APPENDIX B l
Furnace Atmosphere Temperatures
- Specimen Thermocouple Reference Chart ;
Specimen Temperature Readings I Test Comments 4 r
?
l l
l ,
Pai l ,
I ;
I i
I 4
1
)
4 EH10'T 4 i
- U1_ OF IT T Pf U'",) l Al construction technology laboratories
..n -
9
e ..
l l
l 03!!{I - IDa - : (- :T 5-FURNACE ATf;DEFHERE TEMPERATURE ( I' E G . F) ,
TEST TIME, FURNRCE RSTM E119 VAR 16110N FROM Hr: Min TEMP. TEMP. RSTM TEMP.
F F F l 0:00 85 68 17 l l
e:e5 te57 18e0 57 0:10 1317 1300 17 {
0:15 1404 1399 5 {
0:20 1418 1462 -44 ;
0:25 1484 1510 -26 0:30 1540 1550 -10 0:35 1577 1584 -7 ;
0: 40 1615 1613 2 l 0: 45 1635 1638 -3 0:50 1658 1661 -3 0:55 1671 1681 -le 1:00 1710 1700 10 ,
1:05 1717 1718 -1 1:10 1740 1735 5 l
1:15 1740 1750 -10 1:20 1769 1765 4 1:25 1790 1779 11 1:30 1792 1792 -8 1:35 1810 1804 6 1: 40 1816 1815 1 1: 45 1822 1826 -4 1:50 1831 1835 -4 l 1:55 1834 1843 -9 f 2:00 1858 1850 8 2:10 1858 1862 -4 2:20 1870 1875 -5 2:30 1900 1888 12 2:40 1902 1900 2 2:50 1906 1912 -6 3:00 1929 1925 4 i
{ l RRER UNDER CURVE = 294649 DEC. F-MINUTES RRER UNDER RSTM E119 CURVE = 294600 DEC. F-MINUTES VRR1RTION FROM RSTM CURVE = 00.0166 %
1 I
2x 7
l
_ _{f 2 OF l_1_ PAGE(S)
e e CF*!cI - ion --
10 17 44 TaERMOCOUPLE REFERENCE CHAST FRAME PRINT THERMOCOUPLE THERMOCOUPLE l NO. HO. HO. LOCATION 9 1 25 T1 SURFACE MID DIST.
9 2 26 T1 1 IH. UP OH INST. CABLE '
9 3 27 T1 CABLE Ig 9 5 28 T1 1 IH. OUT FR E6dh CABLE
'/ 6 29 T1 SURFACE NID DIST.
9 7 30 T1 1 IH. OUT FR TRAY $
11 1 1 T1 PEN INTERFACE 11 2 2 T1 SURFACE MID DIST.
11 3 3 T1 2 IN. DOWN FR SURFACE 11 4 4 T1 1 IH. DUT FR POWER CABLE l 11 5 5 T1 TRAY INTERFACE I 11 6 6 T1 1 IN. UP DH TRAY 11 7 7 T1 POWER CABLE INTERFACE 11 8 8 T1 1 !H. UP OH POWER CABLE 11 9 9 T2 INST. CABLE INTERFACE j 11 10 10 T2 1 IN. UP OH INST. CABLE i 11 11 11 T2 TRRY INTERFACE ]
11 12 12 T2 1 IN. UP DN TRRY l l
12 1 13 T2 1 IN OUT FR INST CABLE 12 2 14 72 2 IN.' DOWN FR SURFACE l 12 3 15 T2 SURFACE MID DIST. -
)
l '
12 4 16 CONCRETE SURFACE WEST l 12 5 17 T2 PEN INTERFACE l 12 6 .18 T2 1 IH. OUT FR TRAY l 12 7 19 T2 1 IN. UP DN POWER CABLE' 12 8 20 T2 POWER CABLE INT I 12 9 21 T2 1 IH. DUT FR POWER CABLE 12 10 22 T2 SURFACE MID DIST.
12 11 23 T2 SURFACE MID DIST.
12 12 24 CONCRETE SURFACE EAST i
I I I
1 l
i EXHIBIT 7 PACI N OFJTLP' ~
4 ,
CE5501 - * : .. - :D - 24 UNEXFOSED TEMF. R E AL 1 r4Gi (FEF. F.)
TI:SI TIME, T/C HO. ,
i H-: Min 1 2 3 4 5 6 0:00 SO 80 G1 80 80 0:05 79 79 80 79 80 -
0:10 79 79 80 79 83 0:15 79 79 80 80 90 0:23 79 79 80 83 101 ~~
0*25 79 79 80 86 114 0 0:30 79 79 81 93 129 0:
0:35 79 80 81 101 144- 0 0: 40 80 81 81 til 159 0 0: 45 80 81 81 121 173 0 '
0:50 81 82 82 132 185 1 0:55 81 83 83 143 197 1 '
1:00 82 84 83 154 208 1:05 82 86 84 163 218 >
1:10 83 87 86 172 226 ; i 1:15 83 88 87 179 234 1 1:20 84 90 88 186 241 i i
1:25 85 91 90 192 247 2 l 1:30 85 93 92 198 253 2 '
I i 86 94 204 1:35 94 259 2 i j 1: 40 87 ~ 96 ~ 96 209 263 2 l 1: 45 87 97 98 214 268 2 '
1:50 88 29 101 219 272 2:
1:55 89 100 103 224 277 2:
90 ~~~-
2:00 101 106 228 2S1 2i -
2:10 92 104 112 238 238 24 2:20 94 107 118 247 296 25 2:30 95 109 124 254 302 25 2: 40 97 112 131 264 315 26 --
2:50 99 114 137 273 321 27i
'3:00 101 116 145 281 327 28:
i k
I EXMlpiT 7 PAGE M OF111'
e e CF!!s. - ::a - : (- ;' ! .;
UNEXFOSEL TEMF. F E AD1'4CS (PEF. F.)
TI:S T T!nE, T/C HO.
H : Min 7 6 9 10 11 12 0:00 81 81 80 81 '80 Da 0:05 84 84 79 81 80 0:10 110 109 80 89 85 0:15 152 147 83 103 94 0:20 213 205 87 123 106 0:25 266 261 90 145 119 0:30 0:35 313 348 309 346 97 169 134 f ,02*0 104 192 148 0: 40 384 376 111 211 163 me
$g g 0:45 408 402 116 229 176 50*8 0:50 430 418 118 246 188 0:55 448 432 120 0:561 261 201 ,gg; 1:00 460 446 123 274 213 55*
1:05 475 460 125 288 223 l 1:10 488 473 130 300 233 SE 1:15 503 482 133 312 241 g, 1:20 517 491 133 323 249 1:25 530 500 134 332 258 1:30 544 508 136 341 264 1:35 556 516 139 350 271 1: 40 .. 567 523 140 160 276 1: 45 576 530 140 366 281 .
1:50 586 535 146 376 286 1:55 595 540 147 385 292 2:00 603 545 146 393 298 2:10 619 556 154 409 309 2:20 632 564 153 419 318 2:30 643 573 155 431 324 2: 40 656 582 158 440 334 ;
2:50 666 587 160 450 341 1 L --
~3:00 676 596 162 456 348 2 r" n"'T 7 25 3 }ke OF 0 %r
e e
~!!01 - ::. - 10 :7 E4 UNEMFOSED TEMF. R E FiL I NG S (DEF. F.)
TI:St TIME. T/C HO.
H.*: Min 13 14 15 16 17 18 0:00 80 81 80 80 80 79 0:05 80 80 79 79 79 0:10 80 80 79 79 0:15 80 80 79 79 i 0:20 82 81 79 79 7 0:25 84 80 79 79 7 0:30 88 81 80 79 en #
0:35 93 81 81 79 SE' 0:e2:00 0: 40 99 81 81 80 81 0:13:00 0: 45 106 81 82 80 81 0:50:00 0:50 113 82 83 80 82 0:50:00
'0:55 121 83 84 80 83 0:56:0E 1:00 130 84 86 81 83 1:00:01 1:05 138 85 87 81 84 1:55:0 1:10 147 86 BB 82 85 1:15 155 88 90 82 86 HOSE f 1:20 163 90 91 82 87 Ho WB 1:25 171 92 92 83 88 sTREF 1:30 179 94 94 84 89 1:35 186 96 95 84 90 H0 W 1: 40 193 99 96 85 91 stRE 1:45 199 102 98 86 92 1:50 204 105 99 87 93 HOTI 1:55 210 108 100 88 94 gm
.2:00 215 111 102 89 95 R.f 2:10 224 117 105 91 98 sti 2:20 233 124 107 93 100 F1 2:30 240 131 109 94 102 nc 2: 40 248 138 111 97 105 Ri 2:50 256 145 113 100 108 0
- 3:00 263 152 116 102 111 - ,
l l
r" 'i-'T 7
.Illor ]Ik 1 . .. . .
o o C555'; -
l C+ - 10 17 E4 UNEXF05EF TENF. REALINGS (DEF. F.)
TI:St TIME, T/C NO.
H : Min 19 20 21 22 23 24 0:00 81 80 80 80 80 80 0:05 88 88 79 79 79 79 0:10 122 119 80 79 70 0:15 175 166 82 79 0:20 240 223 87 80 0:25, 292 275 94 81 0:30 334 320 104 83 0:35 366 356 115 86 - ,
0: 40 399 388 127 88 0:02:00 0: 45 424 410 138 91 g:13:00 I 0:50 444 426 150 94 g:50:00 0:55 462 447 160 98 1 g:50 00 1:00 478 465 169 101 14 0:56:00 I 1:05 493 485 177 104 11 g:00:00 0 l 1:10 504 500 184 107 11 1:55*00 1:15 516 515 191 110 1 11 1:20 526 528 197 112 121 HOSE O 1:25 539 542 203 115 124 80 WAI '
1:30 549 554 209 117 127 STREAD i 1:35 558 565 214 119 130 1:40 566 575 219 121 133 H0 M6I i 1: 45 577 588 223 124 135 S1RERM 1:50 583 600 228 126 138 1:55 590 612 232 128 140 HOTES I
2:00 597 624 237 129 143 RM-2:10 610 647 246 133 147 R.H*
2:20 624 666 254 136 152 DRRF 2:30 633 677 262 139 154 F 13E 2: 40 645 690 270 141 158 M00' 2:50 654 702 279 144 161 BFI 3:00 667 715 288 146 165 OR F M '-! ' " ' T ,_ y , ,
23 i I 6 e.- l9 2,, -
L
! e 4 l^ l C5:502 -
IW -
- 0':7 63 UNEXFOSED TEr:3 READ 1HCE t, D E F . F.)
TI:S T T IME, T/C HO.
H+: Min 25 26 27 28 29 30 0:00 80 81 79 80 80 80 0:05 79 81 79 80 79 79 ,
0:10 79 92 80 80 79 79 l 0:15 80 107 82 80 00 0:20 80 126 85 81 0:25 80 144 86 83 0:30 81 164 91 88 0:35 83 183 93 93 J
0140 84 200 94 100 ,
0: 45 86 215 97 107 0.e2:g0 CBIL 0:50 88 231 99 114 g g3:00 I ,
90 246 101 121 g e:00 1IU 0:55 l'l 1:00 92 258 102 127 g.50 00 I
g:56100 1:05 95 271 101 133 1:10 97 282 103 137 g.00:00 BE '
1:15 99 292 105 140 . g;55 ge Bf 1:20 101 302 105 142 1 ,
311 107 144 gogE STRE 1:25 104 1 1:30 106 321 108 147 11 go ug1ER I
1:35 108 330 110 149 11 stREBM 1: 40 110 338 til 150 11 1: 45 112 346 113 153 121 go WBTE 1:50 114 358 114 156 123 stREBM 1:55 115 368 116 159 125 l 2:00 117 376 116 161 126 go1ESI gM. T'
~
2:10 119 392 120 165 130 i 2:20 122 407 122 168 133 R.H. f 2:30 124 420 126 170 135 WBF' ]
2: 40 126 429 131 173 139 p13E i 2:50 129 438 142 175 142 MOST )
3:00 131 446 140 176 145 871' !
- 04 l l
1 I
"My! PIT 7 M
~ '
OF fi 4A
4 4
5 C !!O; -
! I06 -- 10 17 64 i TEST COMMENTS 0:02:00 0:13:00 BLUE CABLE & JACKET MATERIAL NG NOTED ON EXPOSE TO i GREEN FLANING HOTED INSIDE FURNAC 0:50:00 LIGHT SMOKE NOTED FROM CRBLE TR i 0:50:00 0:56:00 BLUE LIGHT & SMOKE NOTED FROM #2 CABLE TRAY
- 1
- 00:00 ARER AROUND T/C #25 H 1:55:00 RRER AROUND T/C #25 NOTED TOTO H ED BACK
. H0SE STREAM TESTS:
, HQ WATER PROJECTED BEYOND THE STREAM TEST FOR 14 SEC. DURING UNEXPO IEEE-I i
4 H0 WATER PROJECTED BEYOND THE STREAM TEST FOR 24 SEC. UNEXPOS DURING ASTM I N01ES:
RM.
TEMP AT START = 79 DEG. F.
R.H. AT START = 41'4
' {_ /T) ;
l DEPOhlT DitRFT RUN AT .08 HEG.
g EXHIBl r- FIBERFRAX HOTBOARD REMRIHEDIREIHTEST. PLACE MOST OF THE FIBERFRAX HOTBOARD REMAI AFTER THE HO AFTER 0:4 THE EXPOSED REMOVING SURFACE. THE SLAB FROM THE FURH NOTD TO STILL b~f.
r",H!"'T
_ . - _ . . . . - - . _ - . - . - -. . - = _ _ . . . . . . - . _ . ~ - . . . - . - - . _ - . .
j!
i Report to DOW CORNING U.S.A. i Midland, Michigan 48640 i
FIRE AND HOSE STREAM TESTS .
OF CABLE TRAY SEALS - '
DOW TEST NO. 4 l
l I
by Michael Gillen !
i l
l l
Submitted by i i
CONSTRUCTION TECHNOLOGY LABORATORIES A Division of Portland Cement Association ;
5420 Old Orchard Road
. Skokie, Illinois 60077 October 1984 *
} CR5502-4324 7 Doc. ID #1209E EXHIBIT PAGE lENE' OF NSL PAGE(S) i i
-e .
FIRE AND HOSE STREAM TESTS OF PENETRATION SEALS - DOW TEST NO. 4 by 7
Michael Gillen* !
INTRODUCTION At the request of Dow Corning U.S.A. (DOW) ard as authorized by Purchase Order No. 17262-N, Construction Technology Labora-tories (CTL) performed a series of five fire and hose stream
- tests on penetration seal systems. This report describes i results of the fourth test in the program, performed on two i cable tray penetration seals.
i The penetration seal systems consisted of Dow Corning 3-6548 Silicone RTV Foam. The 12-in. thick foam seal systems were cast around two cable tray assemblies installed in a 30x30-in.
opening within a 48x48x12-in. concrete slab. The 30x30-in. j l
opening was divided into two 14-1/2x30-in. areas by a 1-in. (
thick piece of insulation board, as shown in Fig. 1. Slabs were constructed by CTL personnel. Seal systems and cable trays were installed by DOW personnel with construction ass'is-- ' -_. .
tance provided by CTL. !
The fire and hose stream tests were performed at the fire research facilities of CTL on October 19,.1984. The slab con-taining the two cable trays and penetration seals was' subjected to a 3-hr fire exposure in accordance with the time temperature ;
- Senior Research Engineer, Fire Research Section, Construction Technology Laboratories, a Division of the Portland Cement Association, Skokie, IL 60077.
EXHIB!T 7 p; ^ G10 _Lt? o * ^-
construction technology lobumtories
_ .- . -n ,-
e e
... . . a N .y..#.
Approx Limit of Fire Exposed Areo "
8,,
.b. .- ,,
I l . , ' . ' . '. 1"
.s 9 1
nnnnnnnnnnnn 15" txxxxxxxxxxxu
\
I" Insulation Board MMMMMMMMMMMMMNN Silicone S '
s Foam 4"xl8" Cable Troy j f obles C
15" nnnnnnnnnnnn m xo **
,,. .p*
- p. ." . ', L )*P g' . - l" j 1 .. .
- h l
.~ '., .. . . ., , .
l . .
- O, .
- gn
.- .. .\.
- w.. .A*
4..'.p... .. ..
l
\
8" _
I ". 30" .
1 ",. 8" t
l PLAN VIEW ;
I FIG. I LAYOUT OF CONCRETE SLAB WITH TWO SILICONE i
FOAM SEALS AND PENETRATING CABLE TRAY ASSEMBLIES ;
\ l I
i
~
EXH t!T 7
- - '; Q.i OF M 2. PA GOS)
- e a relationship and procedures specified in ASTM Designations:
E119(1)* and E814.( ) Immediately after the fire test, the specimen was removed from the furnace and subjected to two hose stream tests in accordance with provisions of IEEE 634(3) and l ASTM Designation: E119.
i
SUMMARY
OF RESULTS The test assembly, consisting of two cable trays and pene-tration seal systems slab, was subjected to a 3-hr fire test and subsequent hose stream tests. Seals were installed in two I 14-1/2x30-in. openings penetrating through the 12-in. thick con-l l crete slab. The openings were separated by a 1-in. thick piece of insulation board. The seals consisted of 12-in. thicknesses of Dow Corning 3-6548 Silicone RTV Foam.
The following are significant test results:
- 1. No. passage of flame occurred through either of the two seal systems during the 3-hr fire test.
- 2. Limiting end point temperature criterion defined by !
ASTM Designation: E814 was not exceeded on the unexposed surface of either of the two seal systems during the 3-hr fire test. Limiting end point temperature rise defined by ASTM Designation E814 was exceeded at several measuring points on cables in both Tray Nos. 1 and 2. Limiting end point temperature criterion defined by IEEE 634 was exceeded at one measuring point on a power cable in Tray No. 1.
- Numbers in parentheses designate References on Page 18.
[ * '"T 1
-3~'
~ T C js.6_ OF (n P/,GE(S) construction technology laboratories
, e l
t
- 3. No water projected beyond the unexposed surface of
. either of the two penetration seals during the 14 ,
second IEEE 634 hose stream test.
- 4. No water projected beyond the unexposed surface of the penetration seal containing Tray No. 1 d'uring the 24 I
second ASTM Designation: E119 hose stream test.
l Water did project beyond the unexposed surface of the penetration seal containing Tray No. 2 during the ASTM Designation: E119 hose stream test.
l TEST ASSEMBLY A 48x48x12-in. thick concrete slab specimen containing a !
30x30-in. square opening was fabricated by CTL personnel. The opening was located in a nominal 32x32-in. area in the central area of the slab. The slab was allowed to cure for approxi- !
1 mately one week following casting and subsequently force-dried at elevated temperature to reduce internal moisture content of the concrete.
Seal materials installed in the slab openings were provided by Dow Corning, U.S.A. Seal materials consisted of Dow Corning 3-6548 Silicone RTV Foam.
INSTALLATION PROCEDURES Installation of cable tray assemblies and seal systems are described in the following sections.
! -gpmT 1 l'M, 0- M b PAGE(S) constr65 tion technology laboratories
_ __ . _. _- _.._-__.m .._ _ _ . _ . . . . _ _ . _._.. _ _ _ ._. ..
I Cable Trays Assemblies i Two cable tray assemblies were installed in the concrete test slab, as shown in Fig. 1. Cable trcys were nominal 18-in.
wide x 4-in. high 16 ga. galvanized steel ladder-back trays.
Trays.were Model No. PLMS-SS12-1800-4-12 manufactured by U.S. '
l Gypsum Company. Certification for trays is provided in Appendix A. Trays were cut to 5-ft lengths.
Two types of cables were installed in each cable tray: 600v single conductor MCM350 copper power cable with insulation Type >
XHHW and 600v AWG10/3C cable with XLP neoprene jacket. Cables were cut into 5-ft lengths prior to installation in the cable ;
trays. Cable fill in each tray consisted of 14 lengths of MCM350 power cable and 40 lengths of AWG10/3C cable. Cables l
were secured to trays with nylon tie-wraps.
Completed cable tray assemblies were installed so that ends of trays extended 12 in. below the exposed surface of the test slab and 3 ft above the unexposed surface of the test slab.
Trays were bolted at two locations to a steel angle framework on the unexposed side of the concrete slab to provide rigid support and minimize tray movement during seal construction and '
testing.
l Seals Seals were installed in openings in the concrete slab by DOW personnel with construction assistance provided by CTL. The concrete test assembly was placed in a horizontal position and 1-in. thick pieces of ceramic fiber damming board were attached I ~7 i
EXH10!T _
P 4? E .9 0._ O F O I '
construction technology laboratories
\
to the unexposed surface of the slab. The ceramic fiber board was M-Board manufactured by Johns-Manville. The damming board was cut to fit tightly around projecting cable tray assemblies.
Small gaps between the ceramic fiber board and cables were filled with pieces of CeraFiber ceramic fiber blanket manufactured by Johns-Manville. I The 30x30-in. opening was subdivided into two 14-1/2x30-in.
openings using a 12-in. wide x 30-in. long piece of 1-in. thick insulation board. The insulation board was M-Board. The board was installed in the opening as shown in Fig. 1.
l Silicone foam materials were mixed and placed both by hand and machine in approximately 1-1/2 to 2-in. lifts to a thickness of 12 in. in each opening. Lot numbers, densities, and snap times of foam materials installed in both penetrations are given in Appendix'A.
After foam had set, damming boards were removed from the exposed side of the slab. The foam in each opening was trimmed flush with the unexposed concrete slab surfaces.
Foam was allowed to cure for approximately 9 days prior to fire testing.
I TEST EQUIPMENT & PROCEDURES The following sections briefly describe equipment and pro-cedures used to conduct fire and hose stream tests of the assembly containing the cable tray penetration seal systems.
t Furnace l The test assembly containing the two cable tray penetration .. -
- . M), OFAL P,.L ,
construction technology Isboratories
e e i seal systems was subjected to a 3-hr fire exposure utilizing the small slab furnace at CTL's Fire Research Laboratory. This furnace provides for testing of small-scale specimens in a hori- l zontal position. Approximate area of fire-exposure is 32x32 in., as shown in Fig. 1.
Furnace atmosphere temperatures were monitored by three Type K, Chromel-Alumel, protected thermocouples located 12 in, below the exposed face of the test assembly. The fire exposure was t controlled according to the time-temperature relationship pres-cribed by ASTM Designation: E119, and is tabulated in Appendix B.
I Furnace atmosphere pressure was maintained close to ambient ;
laboratory air pressure or slightly negative (-0.02 to -0.08 inches of water). For this test, the average draft was -0.08 1
inches of water. l Specimen Instrumentation 1
A total of 30 therreocouples were used for measuring tempera-tures on the unexposed side of the test specimen at locations shown in Fig. 2. Six thermocouples were used for measuring temperatures of electrical cables and cable trays at a distance i
of 1-in. above the unexposed surface of the test assembly during the fire test. Twenty-two thermocouples were used to measure !
temperatures on seal surfaces, concrete / seal interfaces, cable /
seal and tray / seal interfaces, and concrete surfaces on the l
l unexposed side of the test assembly. Two t
EXHIP'T l i p;c.; t A o;- M1. pem construction technology laboratories
. . I 1
. I 1 l l 1 1
1
.s.. g ..
y
.A .. .
3.. ..
..,.g..
g.
4 ' '. , , . . y *
.g. ' "
. . . X 30 X 26 25 .
l 8
yl 29
- l 4 X !
l X : '2 2BX X27 l l 3 3 X7 X8 )
5 X6 X
s 13 X %%W6%%Y/MMRo%WRMMMM/MMMM X24 8 X12 X io 14 n,gg 3
im X 9 y
... ) :16 X2I X 19 _
6 . . g' , XI7 X20 .
XiB X 22 .
23v - . 9 . . M.
e y,a .. .
.. *< . y p ..
.:.Q.':' :.%..,:,p. . .
, 30" ,
\
l X-Thermocouple Locations FIG. 2 UNEXPOSED SURFACE AND INTERFACE THERMOCOUPLE LOCATIONS
! DC-lT l l
'! J.: , . l DOF Ji? P ' ^-
- .e- e i
I thermocouples were used to measure foam temperatures at a depth of 2 in. below the-unexposed surface of the seals. A list of i
thermocouple locations is provided in Appendix B.
k; Data Acauisition 1
j Furnace atmosphere and specimen thermocouple temperatures were monitored at 5-minute intervals throughout the 3-hr fire
{ test. The. automated data acquisition system consisted of a J
Hewlett-Packard HP3455A digital voltmeter and a series'of I HP3495A data scanners. The data acquisition system controller i
i was an HP9845T desktop computer.
l Hose Stream Tests Two hose stream tests were conducted after fire testing of i
i the. test assembly. Hose stream test procedures were those des-cribed in the IEEE 634 and ASTM Designation: E119 Test Stan-dards. Equipment and procedures for these tests are as follows:
IEEE 634 - A 75 psi hose stream was delivered through a ,
i 1-1/2 in. diameter hose equipped with a fog ;
nozzle set at a discharge angle, of 30' from a distance of 10 ft. The spray was delivered over an exposed area of 36x36 in for a duration of 14 seconds.
ASTM E119- A 30 psi solid stream was delivered through a 2-1/2 in. diameter hose equipped'with a National Standard Playpipe with a 1-1/8 in. diameter dis-charge tip from a distance of 20 ft. The stream was delivered over an exposed area of 48x48 in, for a duration of 24. seconds. 7 ggpq 7
_9- P r. . (_3..(_ OF ( O PAG W construction technology laboratories
TEST RESULTS The test assembly containing the two cable tray penetration seal systems was subjected to a 3-hr fire exposure at the fire research facilities of CTL on October 19, 1984.
A listing of furnace atmosphere temperature measurements and variations from the standard are given in Appendix B. Variation of the measured furnace temperatures from the standard was approximately 0.03%, based on comparison of total area under the time-temperature curves. This was well within the 5.00% varia-tion permitted by the Test Standard.Il} Average furnace draft pressure was -0.08 inches of water.
A listing of measured unexposed concrete, interfaces, cable,
! and seal temperatures is also given in Appendix B. The maximum allowable temperature rise of 325'F+ ambient as defined by ASTM Designation: E814 I} was not exceeded on the unexposed surface of either penetration seal during the 3-hr fire test. Limiting l
end point temperature rise defined by ASTM Designtaion: E814 was exceeded at several measurlug points on cables in both seals.
l Limiting end point temperture criterion defined by IEEE 634 was exceeded at one measuring point on a power cable in Tray No. 1.
No passage of flame occurred through either penetration seal during the 3-hr fire test.
After the 3-hr fire exposure, the test assembly was removed
- l. from the furnace, as shown in Fig. 3, and subjected to the IEEE F
634 and ASTM Designation: E119 hose stream tests. Views of e
exposed and unexposed surfaces of test assembly before hose r
stream testing are shown in Figs. 4 and 5. Views of hose stream 9
tests are shown in Figs. 6 and 7.
EXHtmT
.pt gg
- ' cons truc tio'h RechnoloR$dpe(9)pfles
, e e i
No water projected beyond the unexposed surface of.either of the two penetration seal during the IEEE 634 hose stream test. No water projected beyond the unexposed surface of the l
penetration seal containing Tray No. 1 during the ASTM Designation: E119 hose stream test. Water did project beyond the unexposed surface of the penetration seal containing Tray No. 2 during the ASTM Designation: E119 hose stream test.
Views of exposed and unexposed surfaces of the test assembly after hose stream testing are shown in Figs. 8 and 9.
Following the hose stream tests, measurements were made of the thickness of remaining silicone seal material from each opening, as shown in Fig. 10. Remaining thicknesses of unburned materials are listed in Table 1.
TABLE 1 - THICKNESS OF UNBURNED SILICONE FOAM Thickness. inches Measurement Location
- Tray No. 1 Tray No. 2 West end of seal 6 5 West leg of tray 3-3/4 3-3/4 Mid-point of seal 4 3-3/4 East leg of tray 3-1/2 2-3/4 East end of seal 5 5
- See Fig. 1 for orientation.
l P'H!MT 1
' ~
i l P " G E'S' construction technology laboratories
l
! i i
a l l 1
I 3- / 7\ ,
- -l v l
l I
) .g l 4.:
s 4
O. - f -
{
'[ i 4,) >
- es ..
j '.
l '. I Fig. 3 Specimen Removed from Furnace After Fire Testing i
F.XHtP!T
_j N OF W1 PAG"-
construction technology laboratories
e .
i
,g
\ .
~~,,
os .
Fig. 4 Exposed Surface of Test Assembly Prior to Hose Stream Testing d
^
, f
\
5 f , .g .
i w
4 .
' ,N ;- '%,
,6. ' '
e \' *y, q C h. ,- ,,
-' ?i
/&
Fig. 5 Unexposed Surface of Test Assembly Prior to Hose Stream Testing F.X H !T "I p' - 13 5 ,- - M s , , - . ..
construction lechnology laboratories
l* i l
I
$;,. -t 5 E~ ' #
h /4h w I i c &d '
~
t ~.x ,_
j -
j -
~_ -
l l Fig. 6 IEEE 634 Hose Stream Test t rM e7 ,g. -
3 -
.) T --
l '!
\
I I l 1
l ,
f 1
l
~~
r:(;
'x
.~ ..
Fig. 7 ASTM E119 Hose Stream Test u."T l
construct n4? n hS$0?o$ ,
l l l l
r
! i i
l Y 7, '
43 ' bQis "f . _ [ '[' ~~
l I i \
1
~
i, . ,
d.
... ,s,
,f 3 ar -. -
\
t Fig. 8
! Exposed Surface of Test Assembly After I
1 Hose Stream Testing
-!- ~
. . . . . . .. . .: .+..$
.y ;
- z. , f' ~ .,
g% g:
p
? ,
1 . -
M
&.~~~~.
- ,- i
)
' r . k g ..
~
e n. .
Fig. 9 Unexposed Surface of Test Assembly After Hose Stream Testing
'~ " M ' ' ' T )
con-tiuct o e n *E$rb$
l 1 l l 1 r. .us . , . . .-
j g , w: , . . . -.
l M y t
Ms%
T.: -
- a, j
- r i
l l
(a)
/U ~/7~'7 l
Og b\
~ i l
I i
=
l
- 4-8
}
l (b) i l
t Fig. 10 Unburned Silicone Foam Material from Penetration Seals A = Tray No. 2 B = Tray No. 1 EXH!O!T 1 PJ T' IA k O F U 1 P' " '^'
construction technology laboratories
___.\
. - __ .. .. . _ _ _ _ .. . . _ . _ _ _ _ _ ~ - _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ . . _
a .
LABORATORY RESPONSIBILITY The Construction Technology Laboratories is a Division of the Portland Cement Association and was not involved in the design of the Penetration Seal System. Personnel of the Con-struction Technology Laboratories make no judgmen't of the suit-ability of the materials or seal systems for particular end ,
point uses. Acceptance of the test results for guidance for field installation is the prerogative of the authority having jurisdiction.
CONCLUDING REMARKS This report described fire and hose stream tests conducted l
on two silicone penetration seal systems. Significant test results are presented in the section entitled
SUMMARY
OF RESULTS at the beginning of this report.
I i
l l'
f D(H '. T '~/
. 139 rs in ~ - -
construction technology laboratories
s e ,
REFERENCES
- 1. ASTM Designation: E119, " Standard Methods of Fire Tests of Building Construction and Materials," American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, PA, 1983.
p
- 2. ASTM Designation: E814 " Standard Method of Fire Tests of Through-Penetration Fire Stops," American Society for .
j Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, PA, 1983.
- 3. Standard IEEE 634-1978, "IEEE Standard Cable Penetration i Fire-Stop Qualification Test," The Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers, Inc., New York, NY. f I
l l'
]
i l
! 1 l
\
1 i
l l
l I
l i
i I
(
}.
F.XH! SIT 7 !
(y o
__ _ _ c.-
($4p e cerg) construction technology laboratories
a ,o ;
i i
E l
i c
I i i
i l l APPENDIX A l
Dow Corning 3-6548 Silicone RTV Foam i
(' Material Lot Numbers s Foam Densities l Foam Snap Times i
\
Material Certification for cable Trays i I
l I
i I
l l
! 4 l
l l
l EXHl0!T 1 g 0 : m . b4_1. o- tw n construction technology laboratories l
j DOW CORNING 3-6548 SILICONE RTV FOAM INSTALLATION Date of Installation: October 9 - 10, 1984 Mixing Technique: Hand and Machine Ungreased Cup -
Silicone Components Density Snap Time, Lot Combinations 1b/ft3 min:sec EZO94001A/EZO94001B Hand mix 18.9 1:56
)
Hand mix 18.1 2:04 Machine mix 17.6 1:35 Machine mix 17.5 1:37 EZO94002A/EZO94004B Hand mix 18.0 2:52 Hand mix 18.2 2:41 Machine mix 17.8 2:34 l
Concrete Slab Penetration Openino Nos. Lot Nos. Installed Tray No. 1 (north) EZO94002A/EZO94004B Tray No. 2 (south) EZO94001A/EZO94001B l
i 4
I ,
i F.XHIO!T 3 p;sO2 NkOF ;111 P A GE(S) p construction technology laboratories
. - - . ~ . . _ . - .. .
UNITED STATES GYPSUM COMPANY Pinckneyville. Ilhnois 62274 l
i September 28, 1984 )
i i
l Portland Cement 5420 Old Orchard Road PCA 3562E Building E Ekokie, Illinois 60077 l i
Attention: Tom Rowe i
Reference:
Otto Frankenbush Order No. 90015 U. S. Cypsum Order No. GT-913561
Dear Mr. Rowe:
This is to certify that the material furnished on the above order has been f abricated in accordance with standard U. S. Gypsum procedure. Se material and galvanizing conform to ASTM A569,and ASTM A525.
Sincerely, l
1 as ""
Susan Heumann Quality Technician SH/gm ,
cc: S. Leach File 1
l F.XHfmT l.
l PAOC ,l%3 - M t i
l' D! 'f
.. . -- - ~. -. . . - . . . - . , . - . . _ . = - . - . - . - . ~ . - . . -. - - - - - . - . .. .
O s l
l l
i l
1 I
l l
1 1
APPENDIX B 1
Furnace Atmosphere Temperatures Specimen Thermocouple Reference Chart Specimen Temperature Readings !
Test Comments i
i i
l i
l i
l i
l l
l 1
i i ,
,... j 1
i 6
1 F.'/ M i ntT _ 7 i
~
- p. , ; ; ,4 OF '_\i tP ' C r'# :
construction technology laboratories
a- .
CR5502 - D0W - 10 19,64 FURNACE ATNOSPHERE TEMPERATURE (DEC. F)
TEST TIME, FURNACE ASTN E119 VARIATION FRON Hr: Min TEMP. TEMP. A3TM TEMP.
F F F 0:00 93 68 25 0:05 1000 1000 80 0:10 1151 1300 -149 0:15 1408 1399 9 0:20 1474 1462 12 0:25 1506 1510 -4 0:30 1562 1550 12 0:35 1571 1584 -13 0: 40 1599 1613 -14 0: 45 1662 1638 24 0:50 1673 1661 12 0:55 1688 1681 7 1:00 1710 1700 10 1:05 1708 1718 -10 1:10 1746 1735 11 1:15 1764 1750 14 1:20 1776 1765 11 1:25 1784 1779 5 1:30' 1794 1792 2 1:35 1798 1804 -6 1:40 1800 1815 -15 1:45 1836 1826 10 1:50 1843 1835 5 1:55 1841 1843 -2 2:00 1847 1850 -3 ,
2:10 1856 1862 -6 2:20 1877 1875 2 2:30 1869 1888 -19 2: 40 1905 1900 5 2:50 1910 1912 -2 3:00 1928 1925 3 AREA UNDER CURVE = 294510 DEG. F-MINUTES AREA UNDER ASTM E119 CURVE = 294600 DEG. F-M1HUTES VARIATION FROM ASTM CURVE = -0.0305 ::
O
- .o ._ s m ,3 (
cU M5 -0Ji 4PAGEIS)
a e CR5507: - h* .J -
10'1944 THERM 0COUFLE FEFERENCE CHART 3RAME PRINT THERMDCOUPLE THERM 0 COUPLE NO. NO. NO. LOCATIOE 11 1 1 T1 1 IN. OUT FR TRAY 11 2 2 T1 TRAY INTERF. ACE 11 3 3 T1 1 IN. UP DN TRAY 11 4 4 T1 SURF MID DIST.
11 5 5 T1 2 IN. DOWN FR SURFACE 11 6 6 T1 1 IN. OUT FR POWER CABLE 11 7 7 T1 1 IN. UP ON POWER CABLE 11 8 8 T1 POWER CABLE INTERFACE 11 9 9 T2 1 IN. UP ON INS! CABLE 11 10 10 T2 1 IN. OUT FR IN37 CABLE 11 11 11 T2 INST CABLE INTERFACE
!! 12 12 T2 2 IN. DOWN FR SURFACE 12 1 13 CONCRETE SURFACE WEST 12 2 14 T2 SURF MID DIST.
12 3 15 T2 TRAY INTERFACE 12 4 16 T2 1 IN. UP DN TRAY 12 5 17 T2 1 IN. OUT FR TRAY 12 6 18 T2 SURF MID DIST 12 7 19 T2 1 IN. UP ON POWER CABLE 12 8 20 T2 1 IN. DUT FR POWER CABLE 12 9 21 T2 POWER CABLE INTERFACE 12 10 22 T2 SURF MID DIST 12 11 23 T2 PEN INTERFACE 12 12 24 CONCRETE SURFACE EAST 13 1 25 T1 PEN INTERFACE 13 2 26 T1 SURF MID DIST 13 3 27 T1 INST CABLE INTERFACE 13 5 28 T1 1 IN. UP DN INST CABLE 13 6 29 T1 1 IN. DUT FR INST CABLE 13 7 30 T1 SURF MID DIST r.XH!N!T 7 34 lyte op M4 p.er,q)
. _ __ _ . . . - . . _ . _ >m= - . . . . . . - _ . . . _ . ~ _ . _ _ . . . _ _ _ . . . _ _ . _ - - . . . _ _ _
v s CF!302 - DOW - 10 19.'64 UNEXPOSED TEMP. FEADINGS (DEG. F.>
TCSI TIME, T/C NO.
H-: Min 1 2 3 4 5 6 0:00 79 79 79 79 79 79 0:05 80 80 79 79 80 79
.0:10 80 80 00 79 80 79 0:15 80 84 84 79 30 81 0:20 80 88 89 79 90 83 0:25 81 93 94 79 SO 85 0:30 81 99 101 79 80 89 j
- 3:35 82 105 106 80 SO 95 l 0: 40 83 112 116 80 80 102 0: 45 83 120 124 80 80 109 !
l 0:50 84 124 131 81 SO 116
{
0:55 85 132 139 81 80 117 l 1:00 86 136 146 82 81 123 i 1:05 87 143 153 82 81 128 1:10 88 149 158 83 31 128 j 1:15 90 154 164 83 82 134 l 1:20 91 158 169 84 33 137 1:25 92 167 176 85 83 141 !
1:30 93 173 181 85 94 144 l 1:35 94 183 190 86 85 159 )
1:40 97 199 205 88 86 173 1:45 100 209 214 90 88 182 1:50 102 215 220 91 89 192 1:55 104 220 226 92 90 200 2:00 106 221 230 93 92 203 2:10 110 238 244 95 95 216 2:20 114 252 256 98 99 225 2:30 118 266 268 100 103 236 2: 40 122 281 278 103 108 245 2:50 125 296 290 103 113 255
'3:00 128 308 302 107 119 247 i
g . _ %- co r-
UNITED STATES GYPSUM COMPANY l Pincknerville. tilinois 62274
\
\
September 28, 1984 Portland Cement 5420 Old Orchard Road PCA 3562E Building E Skokie, Illinois 60077 Attention: Tom Rowe
Reference:
Otto Frankenbush Order No. 90015 U. S. Cypsue Order No. GT-913561
Dear Mr. Rowe:
This is to certify that the material furnished on the above order has been fabricated in accordance with standard U. S. Gypsum procedure. The material '
and galvanizing conform to ASTM A569,and ASTM A525.
I Sincerely, e ,, b s u s w ' .
Susan Heumann Quality Technician !
SH/gm ,
cc: S. Leach File FMHf riT __
lW nF _$_4 AGE (S) ac /!
l lOll
- fl 1
O ,
s i
i 5
i APPENDIX B Furnace Atmosphere Temperatures Specimen Thermocouple Reference Chart '
Specimen Temperature Readings ',
Test-Comments !
1 4
4 1
\
I i
F.XM!P'T 7
- ,;c,; (N9 OF lT 9P'^~'" l construction technology laboratGries l 1 l -
. . . . .. . ~ _ - . - . .-. .. ~.
-.~ _ . -_ _ ._.. . .. ~ . . . . _ - . . . ..
O. a t
I CR5502 - DOW - 10/15/84 FURHACE ATMOSPHERE TEMPERATURE (DEG. F)
TEST T1ME, FURHACE ASTM E119 VARIATION FROM l
Hr: Min TEMP. TEMP. A3TM TEMP.
! F F F l ____
0:00 78 68 10 0:05 1956 1000 56 l 0:10 1342 1300 42 0:15 1367 1399 -32 !
0:20 1425 1462 -37 0:25 1471 1510 -39 :
0:30 1532 1550 -18 0:35 1592 1584 8 i I
0:40 1620 1613 7 0: 45 1653 1638 15 0:50 1665 1661 4 ;
0:55 1665 1681 -16 I 1:00 1694 1700 -6 !
l 1:05 1719 1718 1 1:10 1739 1735 4 1:15 1753 1750 3 j 1:20 1768 1765 3 1:25 1793 1779 14 i 1:30' 1794 1792 2 1:35 1813 1804 9 !
1: 40 '1812 1815 -3 1: 45 1819 1826 -7 1:50 1826 1835 -9 '
1:55 1843 1843 -0 2:00 1846 1850 -4 2:10 1876 1862 14 2:20 1876 1875 1 2:30 1899 1888 11 2: 40 1902 1900 2 2:50 1911 1912 -1 ;
5:00 1927 1925 2 l
+
l AREA UNDER CURVE = 294887 DEG. F-MINUTES i AREA UNDER ASTil E119 CURVE = 294600 DEC. F-MINUTES VARIATION FROM ASTM CURVE = 00.0974 %
r.,ois -
SV ["' g. qv i
b sm . - .-. --. ,-. , , _
- . - . _~ -. . .- . . . - . - _ - . . - - - - - .- -.~. . -, -. - - . -
O
- i CR5502 - DOW - 10/15/84 THERMOCOUPLE REFERENCE CHART r
- RAME PRINT THERMOCOUPLE THERMOCOUPLE I HO. HO. HO. LOCATION 9 24 1 T2 SURF MID DIST ;
~
9 2 25 T2 2 IH. DOWH FR SURFACE I
9 3 26 T2 SURF MID DIST 9 5 27 T2 1 IH. OUT FR INST. CAELE 9 6 28 T2 INST CABLE INT 9 7 29 T2 1 IH. UP OH INST CAELE i 9 8 30 T2 1 IH. OUT FR TRAY l 11 1 1 T2 1 IH. UP OH POWER CAELE j 11 2 2 T2 POWER CAELE INT.
11 3 3 T2 PEH INTERFACE i i 11 4 4 T2 SURF MID DIST ;
11 5 5 T2 1 IH. UP OH TRAY 11 6 6 T2 TRAY INTERFACE !
11 7 7 T2 1 IN. OUT FR POWER CAELE
- 11 8 8 CONCRETE SURFACE WEST
! 11 9 9 T1 1 IN. OUT FR INST CAELE 11 10 10 T1 1 IH. UP OH INST CAELE f I 11 11 11 T1 INST CAELE INT 11 . 12 12 T1 SURF MID DIST l 12 1 13 T1 1 IH. UP OH TRAY 12 2 14 T1 TRAY INTERFACE ;
^
! 12 3 15 T1 PEN INTERFACE 12 4 16 T1 1 IH. OUT FR TRAY 12 5 17 T1 SURF MID DIST 12 6 18 T1 POWER CAELE INT 12 7 19 T1 1 IH. UP OH POWER CAELE 12 8 20 T1 2 IH. DOWN FR SURFACE 12 9 21 T1 1 IH. OUT FR POWER CAELE 12 10 22 T1 SURF MID DIST 12 11 23 COHCRETE SURFACE EAST
/
l 4
l 4
l i
' lh OF M P AGEff' 4
. . . _ _ _ _ . . _ . _ = . . . .-- ____ . ._. _ . _ _ _ _ . . _ . . _ _ . . . _ _ . _ . _ _ _ _ _ . . _ . _ _ _ _ _ . _ . . . _ _
O ,
k i
CR5502 - DOW - 10/15/84 UNEXPOSED TEMP. READINGS (DEG. F.) ,
TESI TIME, T/C HO.
H-:Nin 1 2 3 4 5 6 l 1
0:00 80 80 80 80 80 80 0:05 84 85 79 79 79 79 ;
0:10 114 115 79 79 30 81 l 0:15 159 159 79 79 85 86 0:20 215 220 79 79 91 94 ,
0:25 262 265 79 79 99 104 0:30 304 310 79 80 108 116 0:35 333 345 79 80 118 128 0: 40 358 383 79 81 126 141 0: 45 381 391 79 81 134 152 3 0:50 ,400, 415 80 82 142 163 i 0:55 *4[7/ 439 80 83 149 173 ,
1:00 430 453 80 84 156 183 1:05 441 456 80 84 161 190 1:10 . 453 465 81 85 166 199 1:15 463. 492 81 86 171 206 1:20 473 487 81 87 177 214 1:25 486 533 82 88~ 181 219
! 1:30 499 550 82 89 137 226 l l
l 1:35 510 571 82 89 190 232 l 1:40 518 580 83 90 192 238 l 1: 45 521 584 83 90 194 240 1:50 526 595 84 91 197 246
! 530 1:55 604 84 92 200 250 2:00 535 610 E5 93 204 254 2:10 547 630 86 94 209 262 2:20 560 656 88 96 218 271 2:30 573 676 89 97 224 279 2: 40 582 689 91 99 230 286 :
2:50 591 701 92 100 236 291 3:00 599 714 94 102 242 297 i
i 4
I
'- T F.XH!P!T
.l5J.0F ( t TPr"'t
! 30 i
. i CR5502 - DOW - 10/15/84 ,t UNEXPOSED TEMP. READINGS (DEG. F.) ?
TEST TIME, T/C NO. ,
H:-: M i n 7 8 9 10 11 12 0:00 80 80 80 81 80 80 0:05 79 79 79 78 79 79 l 0:10 82 79 79 69 85 79 i 0:15 90 79 80 56 97 79 ;
0:20 102 79 81 126 114 80 I 0:25 119 79 82 150 133 80 l
0:30 140 79 84 176 155 80 i
'3:35 160 79 86 201 173 80 0: 40 177 79 87 222 192 81 j 0: 45 191 79 89 244 213 81 0:50 201 79 91 266 231 '82 0:55 209 80 93 284 249 83 1:00 215 80 95 299 267 84 1:05 220 80 96 313 279 84 l l
1:10 225 81 98 326 291 85 l 1:15 230 81 100 339 305~ 86 [
l 1:20 235 81 101 352 321 86 1:25 242 82 103 363 331 88 !
1:30 252 82 106 378 339 89 1 1:35 257 32 107 399 350 89 1: 40 261 83 107 401 362 90 1: 45 264 83 108 409 373 91 i i
1:50 268 84 109 417 383 91 i 1:55 272 84 109 423 394 92 2:00 278 85 110 431 403 93 2:10 285 86 111 443 424 95 2:20 298 88 114 454 441 96 2:30 308 89 115 465 455 98 2: 40 319 91 117 476 468 100 ;
331 93 120 486 479 103 2:50 )
3:00 342 95 122 496 491 105 ,
l
'l l
3-F.X H'"!T 1 1
- ' l.5i3L OF Iill P3.G"'
3{
1 r
k e
?
1 I
CR5502 - DOW - 10/15/84 i UNEXPOSED TEMP. READINGS (DEG. F.) '
TEST TINE, T/C NO.
Hr: Min 13 14 15 16 17 18 ;
0:00 80 80 80 80 30 80 0:05 73 79 79 79 79 81 0:10 81 02 79 79 79 101 0:15 85 89 79 79 79 131
- 0:20 91 98 79 79 80 176 0:25 98 108 79 80 31 220 l 0:30 107 120 79 81 83 262 i l 0:35 115 133 79 82 85 306 0 40 123 144 79 84 88 336 0: 45 131 156 80 85 91 353 0:50 139 167 80 87 94 366 0:55 146 178 80 89 96 382 1:00 152 188 81 91 99 390 1:05 158 196 81 94 101 485
~'~
1:10 163 205 82 95 104 4 16-1:15 169 214 82 98 106 429 1:20 174 222 83 99 109 427 1:25 179 229 84 102 112 437 1:30 186 237 84 104 115 449 1:35 190 243 85 106 116 462 1: 40 193 249 86 108 120 475 1:45 195 253 86 110 122 486 1:50 198 259 87 112 124 497 1:55 201 264 88 114 126 506 2:00 204 269 89 116 128 516 2:10 209 278 90 119 131 535 ]
2:20 216 287 92 123 134 551 2:30 221' 297 95 126 137 564 2: 40 227 306 97 130 140 575 2:50 232 316 99 133 142 585 3:00 237 324 102 136 145 -593 1
_m I
i 4
h
-)
~
f.XHfPIT
,2$)
! ?~~.kbY.OF 1
e- a CR5502 - DOW - 10/15/84 UNEXPOSED TEMP. READINGS (DEG. F.)
TI:S T TIME, T/C HO.
He: Min 19 20, 21 22 23 24 0:00 80 80 80 80 80 81 0:05 83 79 79 79 79 79 0:10 111 79 80 79 79 79 0:15 151 79 82 79 79 79 .
i l 0:20 206 79 87 80 79 80 ;
0:25 259 79 95 81 79 80 0:30. 302 79 106 82 79 81 0:35 336 80 119 84 79- 82 0:40 364 80 133 86 79 83 L 0: 45 391 81 150 88 79 84 0:50 414 83 16b 90 79 85 0:55 431 85 177 92 79 87 1 1:00 446 87 188 94 79 88 1:05 460 90 199 96 80 90 1:10 473 94 209 98 80 91 l 1:15 485 98 218 101 80 92 1:20 494 102 225
~
l t
103 80 94 1:25 507 107 232 105 81 95 1:30 519 112 241 107 81 97 ,
1:35 528 117 247 109 81 98 !
1: 40 536 123 251 111 82 99 l 1:45 543 128 254 113 82 100 1:50 549 134 257 115 83 101 1:55 555 141 259 116 83 102 562 2:00 147 263 118 84 103 . .
! 2110 575 160 268 121 85 105 f
2:20 588 173 274 124 87 108 2:30 598 186 279 128 89 110 2: 40 605 200 285 131 91 112 2:50 613 213 292 134 93 115 3:00 620 227 298 137 95 117 e
i 1
.i i D N'"'T 3 r-- 15. 5 ar . lit r39r,si
! 33 4
i
e e i
CR5502 - DOW - 10/15/84 UNEXPOSED TEMP. READINGS (DEG. F.)
TEST TINE, T/C HO.
Hi:Hin 15 26 27 28 29 30 t
0:00 80 81. 81 80 80 81 .
0:05 79 79 79 80 80 79 0:10 79 79 79 88 90 79 0:15 79 80 80 104 106 80 I 0:20 79 80 81 126 127 80 >
0:25 79 81 83 151 152 81 0:30 79 82 87 179 176 81 !
0:35 79 83 93 200 200 82 !
I 0: 40 79 85 99 226 222 84 0:45 80 87 106 247 244 85 0:50 80 89 113 266 264 87 :
0:55 80 90 122 284 281 89 l 1:00 81 92 130 297 296 90-1:05 81 94 139 310 310 92 1:10 82 96 147 321 322 94 I 1:15 82 97 155 333 333 96 1:20 83 99 162 345 343 98 1:25 84 100 168 354 351 180 !
1:30 84 102 173 364 360 102
.1:35 85 104 178 377 370 104 1:40 86 105 182 397 379 105 )
1:45 86 107 185 411 388 107 1:50 87 108 189 422 398 109 t
1:55 88 109 193 433 404 110 2:00 89 110 197 446 413 til l l 2:10 90 113 204 470 426 114 2:20 92 116 211 486 439 117 2:30 95 118 217 500 447 119 2: 40 97 121 221 512 459 122 2:50 99 124 225 522 470 124 3:00 102 127 227 532 479 127 i
i 1
F.XH!*!T 7 4
k.. O F M
- P t.G P s) 3
._ m ___ . _ _ . .._.____.__._. _ __ _ _ . . _ . _ . . _ . . . . _ _ _ . . _ . _ _ _ _ . _ . _ _ . _ . .
CR5502 - DOW - 10/15/84 TEST COMMENTS '
0:02:00 MELTING OF CABLE JACKET MATERIAL NOTED ON EXPOSED SURFACE 0:10:00 BLUE & GREEN FLAMING NOTED IN FURNACE 0:15:00 T/C #10 CORRECTED 0:35:00 T/C #19 ON TRRY #1 FAILED T RAT!HG 0:35:00 T/C #1 ON TRAY #2 FAILED T RATING ,
0: 41:00 LIGHT SMOKE NOTED FROM POWER CABLES IN TRAY #1 0:41:00 LIGHT SMOKE t10TED FROM POWER CABLES IN TRAY #2 0:41:00 BLUE & GREEN FLAMING HO LOHGER HOTED IN FURNACE HOSE STREAM TESTS:
}
NO WATER PROJECTED BEYOHD THE UNEXPOSED SURFACE DURING IEEE-634 HOSE STREAM TEST FOR 14 SEC. i H0 WATER PROJECTED BEYOND THE UNEXPOSED SURFACE DURING ASTM E-119 HOSE SIREAM TEST FOR 24 SEC.
110TES:
i RM TEMP AT START = 73 DEG F.
R.H. AT START = 70*(
DRAFT RUN AT .08 NEG.
FIBERFRAX HOTBOARD REMAINED IN PLACE AFTER THE FIRE TEST
, MOST OF'THE FIBERFRAX HOTBOARD REMAINED IN PLACE AFTER THE HOSE STREAM AFTER REMOVING THE SLAB FROM THE FURNACE IT WAS HOTED TO STILL BE BURilING ON THE EXPOSED SURFACE i
F.XH!9?T 7 F. ndS1 GF }$V' ~
35
. .. . . - - - - - - . - . = . ... . . . . . . . , = .- . ... . . . .. - .
i CR5501 - DOLI - 10<19 64 UNEWOSED TEMP. READINGS (DEG. F.)
TI:ST TIME, T/C HO.
H : Min 7 8 9 10 11 12 0:00 80 80 79 79 80 80 0:05 83 84 80 00 81 80 ,
0:10 104 107 83 79 87 80 9:15 135 150 91 80 100 80 0:20 176 197 101 81 119 80 0:25 224 239 113 82 140 80 0:30 261 277 127 83 165 80 ,
0:35 292 305 141 85 193 80 0: 40 317 333 157 87 220 80 0: 45 339 356 173 90 244 80 0:50 359 376 187 93 266 81 0:55 377 398 200 97 287 81 ;
1:00 392 411 211 100 307 81 I 1:05 405 427 223 104 324 81 I 1:10 416 430 235 107 341 82 1:15 427 444 246 111 356 82 1:20 437 456 256 115 369 82 1:25 447 474 266 118 332 83 1:30 457 487 275 122 393 83 1:35 470 506 285 126 407 84 I 1:40 487 532 298 132 426 85 1:45 496 549 309 139 443 86 1:50 507 567 319 145 458 87 !
1:55 515 580 328 151 472 88 i
- 2:00 520 589 337 156 483 89 l
2:10 5 3 ', 614 353 167 510 91 i
2:20 549 634 368 176 535 95
.2:30 5'? 652 306 184 549 98 2: 40 575 670 404 192 567 102 2:50 588 686 416 199 533 107 3:00 595 708 426 205 596 113 m
s "XH'"!T 7 f
.. l$I OF lh PAGE(S) 3G
CR5502 - DOW -
10 19-24 UNEXFOSED TEMP. READINGS (DEG. F.>
TI:S T TIME, - T/C HO. I H.-: M i n 13 14 15 16 17 18 0:00 79 79 79 79 78 78 0:05 80 79 79 79 79 79 0:10 79 79 80 79 79 79 0:15 80 79 84 82 79 79 0:20 8 'J 79 88 85 30 80 1 0:25 79 79 93 88 SO 80 '
0:30 79 79 98 92 81 81 0:35 79 79 105 96 82 82 0: 40 79 79 112 101 34 83 0: 45 79 79 119 107 85 84 0:50 79 79 126 112 87 86 0:55 79 79 133 117 89 88 1:00 79 80 141 122 90 89 1:05 80 80 148 128 92 91 1:10 80 81 154 132 94 93 ;
1:15 80 81 161 137 96 95 I 1:20' 80 82 167 141 98 96-1:25 80 -82' 175 146 100 98 1:30 81 83 181 152 102 100 ,
1:3o 81 83 190 159 105 102 I
'1:40 82 85 205 174 109 105 l
1: 45 83 87 216 185 113 109
! 1:50' 84 88 226 193 116 112 I 1:55 85 90 '237 201 120 115 I
2:00 86 91 247 206 124 1 '. B ,
,2:10 87 94 270 225 131 173 l 2:20 90 97 290 243 139 129 "
.2:30 92 100 310 264 146 133 2: 40 94 103 328 282 151 137 i 2:50 97 105 344 296 157 140 1 3:00 100 108 359 308 163 143 i i e.
]
k i i
EXH!"!T 7 37 pj,n SA I optw pf 2 e.,
1 1
o e CR9502 - LOW - 10/19 64 UNEXPOSED TEMP. READINGS (DEC. F.)
T!:ST TIME, T/C NO.
H t- : Min 19 20 21 22 23 24 [
0:00 80 79 80 79 79 80 0:05 83 79 85 79 80 80 0:10 103 79 111 79 79 80 1 1
0:15 133 81 151 80 80 80 i 0:20 172 83 196 80 80 80 !
0:25 217 87 236 80 80 79 l 0:30 256 92 271 81 79 79 l 0:35 288 100 298 82 80 79 l 0: 40 316 108 322 83 30 79 !
0:45 337 117 342 85 SO 79 0:50 357 127 363 86 80 79 l 0:55 375 137 381 88 80 79 1:00 392 147 398 89 80 79 l 1:05 407 156 412 91 80 79 1:10 418 165 422 92 80 79 1
1:15 428 173 431 93 81 79 1 1:20 437 180 441 94 81 79 1:25 444 187 451 96 81 79 1:30 452 193 459 97 81 79 1:35 462 202 498 99 82 80 1:40 476 208 511 103 83 80 I
1: 45 488 214 527 107 84 81 1:50 500 220 526 111 85 82 1:55 510 227 540 115 86 82 2:00 519 232 546 116 87 83 2:10 536 242 571 123 89 84 2:20 553 251 585 127 91 86 !
2:30 570 259 605 133 94 88 l 2:40 586 267 616 137 97 90 I 2:50 601 275 632 141 100 92 i 3:00 610 283 636 143 103 94 I
~~
l )
! t e
4 e %
Jfr KrQ.0F.3 W '" Q
s o i
CF5502 - DOW - 10 19e64 UNEXFOSED TEMF. READINGS (DEC. F.>
. T !*.S T T I M E , T/C HO. i H. : Min 25 26 27 28 29 30 0:00 79 79 80 80 '79 80 0:05 80 80 81 81 79 80 0:10 80 80 88 86 79 80 0:15 80 80 99 96 30 80 0:20 80 80 112 108 81 80 0:25 79 80 125 120 82 81 0:30 79 81 138 134 34 81
- 0
- 35 79 81 152 150 38- 82 0: 40 79 82 167 165 90 82 0:45 79 83 182 181 94 83 0:50 79 84 194 194 99 84 0:55 79 85 208 206 101 85 r l
1:00 79 86 221 216 104 86 1:05 79 88 233 231 108 87 1:10 80 89 245 244 112 88
( 1:15 80 90 257 256 115 89 I 1:20 80 91 269 268 119 90 f r
j 1:25 80 93 281 281 124 91 1:30 80 94 291 293 128 92 1:35 81 96 304 307 131 94 82 317 1: 40 98 320 135 96 l 1: 45 82 101 330 333 141 99 I 1:50 83 104 341 346 146 101 ;
1:55 84 106 356 361 150 104 L 2:00 85 108 370 377 155 106
.2:10 86 113 395 401 161 109 2:20 89 118 422 425 166 113 2:30 91 122 446 446 170 117 >
2: 40 93 126 477 469 173 120 2:50 95 130 507 487 176 123 3:00 98 132 530 503 130 125 1
l
)
e' 14 L OF M 't P/ ?EO 34
l -
I i
i i
CF5502 - Dou 19 ia
! TEST COMMENTS l -
j 0:00:00 CABLES NOTED TO EE BURNING AND MELTING ON EXPOSED
{
I 0:04: 00 FURNACE PRESSURE POS. / CORRECTED
! 0:05:00 NORTH FURNACE CHANCED j 0:06:00 ELUE & GREEN FLAMING NOTED INSIDE FURNACE i 0:08:00 FURNACE PRESSURE POS. / CORP,ECTED 0:30:00 BLUE &
j GREEN FLAMING NO LONGER NOTED INSIDE FURNACE 0: 40:00 FURNACE PRESSURE POS. / CORRECTED i
l 0:50:00 L*GHT SMOKE NOTED FROM CAELE TRAYS #1 & #2 I 2:25:00 T/C #26 PULLED LOSE / CORRECTED 2: 40:00 FURNRCE PRESSURE POS.
2:55:00 FURNACE PRESSURE RETURNED TO NEG.
H0SE STREAM TESTS:
i NO WATER PROJECTED BEYOND THE UNEXPOSED SURFACE DURING IEEE STREAM TEST FOR 14 SEC.
f DEPOSIT 1oy {
f IIII NO WATER PROJECTED BEYOND THE UNEXPOSED SURFACE DURING AST
{
{
STREAM TEST FOR 24 SEC. FOR TRAY #1 W9TER DID PROJECTED BEYOND THE UNEXPOSED SURFACE DURING AS ,
STREAM TEST AT APPROX. 20 SEC FOR TRRY #2 !
DRAFT RUN AT .08 NEG. EXCEPT AS NOTED 4 .
j
l h
Report to DOW CORNING U.S.A.
Midland, Michigan 48640 e
FIRE AND HOSE STREAM TESTS OF PENETRATION SEALS - ;
DOW TEST NO. 5 l
by e
Michael Gillen i
Submitted by l CONSTRUCTION TECHNOLOGY LABORATORIES A Division of Portland Cement Association 5420 Old Orchard Road Skokie, Illinois 60077 I
l October 1984 CR5465-4324 Doc. ID #1210E 7 PAGE [6YOF % A PAGE(S) i l
)
. - . - . - - - . - _ . _. - . _ - - = _ . ---. ..
1 l
l FIRE AND HOSE STREAM TESTS OF PENETRATION SEALS - DOW TEST NO. 5 ,
by l
Michael Gillen* l l INTRODUCTION At the request of Dow Corning U.S.A. (DOW) and as authorized l
l by Purchase Order No. 17262-N, Construction Technology Labora-I tories (CTL) performed a. series of five fire and hose stream tests on silicone foam penetration seal systems. This report ,
i describes results of the fifth test in the series, performed on I
six S-1/4-in. thick seal systems.
The penetration seal systems consisted of Dow Corning 3-6548 Silicone RTV Foam. The 9-1/4-in. thick foam seal systems were i installed in fou: 8-in. diameter and two 4-in. diameter openings, contained in a 48x48x9-1/4-in. concrete slab. Slab construction was performed by CTL personnel. Seal systems were installed by <
l i l I DOW personnel with construction assistance provided by CTL.
1 The fire and hose stream tests were conducted at the fire j research facilities of CTL on October 24, 1984. The slab con-l taining the siX Penetration seals was subjected to a 3-hr fire exposure in accordance with the time-temperature relationship and procedures specified in ASTM Designations: E119 II)**
- Senior Research Engineer, Fire Research Section. Construction j l Technology Laboratories, a Division of the Portland Cement ;
l l Association, Skokie. IL 60077.
l ** Numbers in parentheses designate References on Page 16.
F.XH'mT
! - ^ l(< 3_ OF U PAGE(S) :
l t
I construction technology laboratorie
. e and E814.I ) Immediately'after the fire test, the specimen was removed from the furnace and subjected to a hose stream test in accordance with provisions of ASTM Designation: E119.
l l SUMHARY OF RESULTS The test assembly, consisting of 6 penetration seal systems in a 9-1/4-in. thick concrete slab, was subjected to a 3-hr fire test and subsequent hose stream test. Seals were installed in l four 8-in. diameter and two 4-in. diameter openings penetrating through the concrete slab. The seals consisted of 9-1/4-in.
l thicknesses of Dow Corning 3-6548 Silicone RTV Foam.
l l
The following are significant test results:
- 1. No passage of flame occurred through seal systems in Penetration Seal Nos. B-2, B-3, B-4, B-5. or B-6 (see Fig. 1) during the 3-hr fire test. A burn-through was l observed in Penetration Seal No. B-1 at 2-hr 59-min into the test.
- 2. I.imiting end point temperature criterion defined by ASTM Designation: E814 were not exceeded on the un-exposed surface of any of the six seal systems during the 3-hr fire test.
- 3. No water projected beyond the unexposed surface of l Penetration Seal Nos. B-3, B-5, or B-6 (see Fig. 1) during the 14 second ASTM Designation: E119 hose stream test.
l 3 tii m r i
iw FlTV Pf,0&S) l construction technology laboratories
. 8" _l 6" _1 10" _
10" _,6"_.
8" _
n Approx. limit of fire exposed oreo e l
l
(-----.------- 3 m
I.
l + + o o
B4 + B-3 , ( i B-6 =
9 l ,, .
l
- l. _
~
l ~C l
B-5 I + + l n l =
I. l l B-2 B-i '.
L l Jk 3
m B-l through B-4: 8" diameter through openings B-5, B-6: 4" diameter through openings Slob thickness: 9W" ;
i i
FIG.I CONCRETE SLAB LAYOUT WITH l OPENING LOCATIONS 1
I EXH:"'T 7
.- J47 or M+r m ,,
- 4. ' Water did project beyond the unexposed surface of j 1
Penetration Seal Nos. B-1, B-2, and B-4 during the 14 ;
second ASTM Designation: E119 hose stream test. l TEST ASSEMBLY 4
A 48x48x9-1/4-in. thick concrete slab specimen containing 6 j circular; openings, 4 and 8 in. in diameter, was fabricated by CTL personnel. The concrete specimen was a previously tested 1
9-in, thick slab.that had be'en patched and repaired for reuse.
~
Application.of cementitious patching materials increased the i nominal slab thickness from 9 in. to 9-1/4 in. The six circular l j
openings were located in a nominal 32x32-in. square area central area of the slab. Openings were numbered B-1 through B-6, as shown in Fig. 1.
Seal materials installed in the slab openings were provided by Dow Corning. U.S.A. Seal materials consisted of Dow Corning l 1
3-6548 Silicone RTV Foam.
INSTALLATION PROCEDURES 1.
Silicone foam seals were installed in openings in the con- l
! crete slab by :)OW personnel with constructio.n assistance I f .provided by CTL. The concrete test assembly was placed in a horizontal position and a styrofoam damming board was attached l flush with the-exposed surface of the slab. Silicone foam materials were mixed and placed by hand in approximately 1-1/2 to 2-in. lifts to a thickness of 9-1/4 in. in each opening. Lot uumbers, densities, and snap times of foam materials installed f
! in Penetration Nos. B-1 through B-6 are given in Appendix A.
y .-,1 7 l ~ 4- _
$$ ~
{gt n,-,,.
l construction tectmology leboratoris l
After foam had set, damming boards were removed from the exposed side of the slab and foam in each opening was trimmed flush with the unexposed concrete slab surfaces, j Foam was allowed to cure for approximately 5 days prior to ;
fire testing. i TEST EQUIPMENT & PROCEDURES The following sections briefly describe equipment and pro-cedures used to conduct fire and hose stream tests of the as-sembly containing the six penetration seal systems.
Furnace l
l The test assembly containing the six penetration seal sys-tems was subjected to a 3-hr fire exposure utilizing the small i
slab furnace at CTL's Fire Research Laboratory. This furnace provides for testing of small-scale specimens in a horizontal position. Approximate area of fire-exposure is 32x32 in., as i shown in Fig. 1.
L l
Furnace atmosphere temperatures were monitored by three Type i
K. Chromel-Alumel, protected thermocouples located 12 in, below the exposed face of the test assembly. The fire exposure was 1
controlled according to the time-temperature relationship pre-scribed by ASTM Designation: E119, and is tabulated in Appen- I 1
dix B.
Furnace atmosphere pressure was maintained close to ambient i
laboratory air pressure or slightly negative (-0.02 to -0.08 inches of water). For this test, the average draft was -0.05 inches of water.
77M'"IT 7 ly t op (1 , p,W E(
c o n s truc tsonTech n 6 logy ~lebora to rie
l
)
1 l
Specimen Instrumentation Eighteen thermocouples were used for measuring temperatures l on the unexposed surface of the test assembly during the fire i test, at locations shown in Fig. 2. Sixteen thermocouples were used to measure temperatures on seal surfaces, co'ncrete/ seal in-terfaces, and concrete surfaces on the unexposed side of the test assembly. Two thermocouples were used to monitor concrete surface temperatures. An additional six thermocouples were used to measure foam temperatures at a depth of 2 in, below the un-exposed surface of the seals. A list of thermocouple locations is provided in Appendix B.
Data Acquisition Furnace atmosphere and specimen thermocouple temperatures were monitored at 5-minute intervals throughout the 3-hr fire test. The automated data acquisition system consisted of a Hewlett-Packard HP3455A digital voltmeter and a series of HP3495A data scanners. The data acquisition system controller was an HP9845T desktop computer.
Hose Stream Test The hose stream test specified for this test was that des-cribed in ASTM Designations: E119 and E814. A 30 psi solid stream was delivered through a 2-1/2-in, diameter hose equipped with a National Standard Playpipe with a 1-1/8-in. diameter discharge tip from a distance of 20 ft. The stream was de-livered over an exposed area of 36x36 in. for a duration of 14
! seconds.
--e..-, 7_
l ~ k l O *** k% T P/, 9 ("
~
l construction technology' laboratories j
' I
s y,,
l l
l B-4 B-3 l
h XI l l IX 20X 23 1 4 X3 B-6 2X I
XO X9 >
ll l
1 12X G-5 i
14 X
B-2 X13 B-1 15 81 , X5 }
l X16 i 19 i
I X-Thermocouple Locations l l
FIG. 2 UNEXPOSED SURFACE AND INTERFACE l THERMOCOUPLE L AYOUT l
l l
T'S""!T l l_ 1 OF _ 1'> r' ^ ~'"
le e l
TEST RESULTS i
The test assembly containing the six penetration seal sys- '
tems was subjected to a 3-hr fire exposure at the fire research facilities of CTL on October 24, 1984. Views of the exposed and j L
f unexposed surfaces of the test assembly are shown in Figs. 3 j and 4.
A listing of furnace atmosphere temperature measurements and ;
variations from the standard are given in Appendix B. Variation of the measured furnace temperatures from the standard was approximately 0.23%, based on comparison of total area under the time-temperature curves. This was well within the 5.00% varia-tion permitted by ASTM Designation: E119.( Average furnace draft pressure was -0.05 inches of water.
A listing of measured concrete and seal surface temperatures ,
is also giv.en in Appendix B. The maximum allowable temperature rise of 325'F+ ambient as defined by ASTM Designation: E814( }
was not exceeded on the unexposed surface of any of the six i
penetration seals during the 3-hr fire test.
No passage of flame occurred through the following five penetration seals during the 3-hr fire test: B-2, B-3, B-4, B-5, and B-6. A burn-through was observed in Penetration Seal No. ;
B-1 at 2-hr 59-min into the 3-hr test, as shown in Fig. 5.
After the 3-hr fire exposure, the test assembly was removed from the furnace, as shown in Fig. 6, and subjected to the 14 second ASTM Designation: E814 hose stream test. Exposed and i
i
- T"mT 0 M 7_07113: P f. W f
-8_ I construction technology laboratorie.
.J= .
l l
l l
l I
t I
A ^
i t
~
l
?
l i
i I
l- - .
Fig. 3 Exposed Surface of Test Assembly Prior to Test i
~ 1_L 1
ri E ti ~1 :11 1, ,r_
i t s .
- ::.g a . {ss.s y .
t % - :-
b' ' #.w.. ~ ,-
i
', g 4
1
' ^
5.$.
ix .
' v _* ,
-- ~g-
. . ~ e %_
-~
._ ~
. =- e. . . . . . . c Fig. 4 Unexposed Surface of Test Assembly During to Test
,,..-'T l
_9_
11k OF (D PAGE(S) construction technology laboratories
O e 0
y ,; e ,
7
"*t ;
.2 2*
,,rJ# @ }-
,p Et (7 .
- s, '-
.'s
,. Qs. ,
Fig. S Burn-through on Penetration Seal No. B-1 l,, .h
\
Fig. 6 Specimen Removed from Furnace After Fire Testing s;p m7 7 1 N -- 19 2 p.>.cr construction tscYoIQy le6eratories
unexposed surfaces of test assembly are shown before hose stream testing in Figs. 7 and 8.
No water projected beyond the unexposed surface of Penetra-tion Seal Nos. B-3, B-5, or B-6 during hose stream testing.
Water did project through Penetration Seal Nos. B-1, B-2, and B-4 during hose stream testing. Exposed and unexposed surfaces of the test assembly after hose stream testing are shown in Figs. 9 and 10.
Following the tests, measurements were made of the thickness of unburned silicone seal material from each remaining opening, as shown in Fig. 11. Remaining thicknesses of unburned materi-als are given in Table 1.
TABLE 1 - THICKNESS OF UNBURNED SILICONE FOAM Remaining
- Penetration No2 Foam Thickness. in.
B-3 1-1/2 to 1-3/4 in.
B-5 3 to 3-1/4 in.
B-6 2-1/2 to 2-3/4 in.
- Excluding peripheral char. B-1, B-2, and B-4 not measured.
LABORATORY RESPONSIBILITY The Construction Technology Laboratories is a Division of the Portland Cement Association and was not involved in the de-sign of the Penetration Seal System. Personnel of the Construc-tion Technology Laboratories make no judgment of the suitability of the materials or seal systems for particular end point uses.
7 s,,p w -e ] _
g g 7.- Q * ^ IS construction technology laboratorie:
a ,
j I
1 r .-, .. .
w .' I , .
9f .-
- ?. , . : ; .. , J., . ,,, , - " -
..+
- M 'Q *
- h. _ ' ' %,.9 '
W
~..
l V .~~- .
9 kc, ,
.,y ..
- .p s +g~,- ,,
%~ b5r kk z . ,.
y
- ~
j Fig. 7 Exposed Surface of Test Assembly Prior to Hose Stream Testing j
I < * , . - ~ , ..-
14 , .'d i f
$4- vi s I
>" ,?;.';%c.
f "A A 4 . g' ^ -,.
L 'u.* J. .
- L . *
- l' l 'f -
i S t -
y at ..I gy .%
f i
e 4
a.
% f. .. . a.. g - s _.
0 . .9 - ---
l w .
1 a.n .w ,
t*; .:.
a ,$, % . .s . . . . .. - l ~ .-
a p' .,
- . . (Q,7 .
g..~k, ,*
0 l t. T. , . % .'Y. - ..- .
s
..e -
. . m .: . . < . .
9 4
1 j Fig. 8 Unexposed Surface of Test Assembly Prior to Hose Stream Testing 1
i
- gug.tsm!T p
j - -
g g _ - gp construction technology laboratories i
i . _ - - - - . , _ - - _ - . - .
_ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ . . _ . _ _ _ _ . . . _ _ . _ . . _ . _ _ . . _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ . ~ . _ . _ _ . . _
-a G i
i
! l
! l l
1
- I p.m . f 9%f af i
[.d'&?$h
~
i ,s- '~
l . ~ w: : ._ \
- v. j{ hh}$ _
vm .J9#i ^ .- v , -
ytG.e-qun ;
, n _ ,
! 1.}p.., m '
eq j .
y . h k s }* g, , 'N 4
r .ss c
' 1.Y- { {?
j G e.
- i 1 c.
- J. 1
. . J _.. 3;s ..v1 --
- :; i p (. . . . c ? ** " *2
- e0 l 1, $
p siM- ?IihWJ l
[kWh'4.!.i
'I A ~ T~ A
. ..~
a -* . ? . .s, e .* .. % 7 e- M = rm . . - ;3 1
i Fig. 9 Exposed Surface of Test Assembly After i j Hose Stream Testing )
i i i I a
l . -.
f ~~ - ' *-Q.%:ru e. r ., .
t A r
- a.
l t
s , %, I..
3 =f:% "
! c H
5 g -
i j A d
i . +Tsod)C%. i4 . W,.hg i Fig. 10 Unexposed Surface of Test Assembly After
. Hose Stream Testing 4
y 9_.
N - (Ci L construction technology laboratories i
a w _ __ .__ _ ___ __ _._____ _ _ _
se a M
j i
1 i
1 1
4 i
l i
i 1
'39 1
i
~
/
i i
,^
~ !
4 Fig. 11 Unburned Silicone Foam Material i from Penetration Seals e
i d
i I
I
.I l
1
- I
(
)
i l l 4 I i i 1
4 i
4 i
4 1
- s e , r e r~ - }
}
l g ... c(
g, .-
I, J
f construction technology laboratories ,
e-- -, - . , , ,-,:------ --
s a Acceptance of the test results for guidance for field installa-tion is the prerogative of the authority having jurisdiction.
CONCLUDING REMARKS This report described fire and hose stream tests ccnducted on six silicone penetration seal systems. Significant test re-sults are presented in the section entitled
SUMMARY
OF RESULTS at the beginning of this report.
I l
1 l
l l . . . . . . . - ')
~'
ME ' ~ IT4 cons truction technology laboratories lI
't a REFERENCES .
- 1. ASTM Designation: E119, " Standard Methods of Fire Tests of (
Building Construction and Materials," American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, PA, 1983'.
l
- 2. ASTM Designation: E814, " Standard Method of Fire Tests of Through-Penetration Fire Stops " American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, PA, 1983.
s t
l i
i l
l l
r l
l
.i f
i
. . .. - 9
-16_ l{ 0 -- M1 --
construction technology laboratorit j
- c. - --.
.. - . . _ _ . . . ~ . . . . _ . . _ . _ _ . . _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ .. . - . -._. _ ._ . - _ __ . _ _ _ _ -, _ . . _ . _. _-._
e O.
l i
i i
l
, . 1 l Y l
i '
j
' i l -
9 e
t t
i
?
APPENDIX A l i
Dow Corning 3-6548 Silicone RTV Foam ,
l Material Lot Numbers Foam Densities l i
Foam. Snap Times f
)
i 6
i i
l f
. i d
i i
I i
l I
l
\
l l
4 i
=
l I
i
, , . . . - l
( .. (j b - - , -
IJ construction technology laboratori-1.
, ~ , , , -
__ _ _ . . . _ . . _ . . _ _ . . . - _ _ _ . _ . - _ _ . _ . ~ . . _ ._._ _ _ ._ _._.____._.__
DOW CORNING 3-6548 SILICONE RTV FOAM INSTALLATION !
Date of Installation: October 18, 1984 ,
Mixing Technique: Hand Ungreased ;
Cup '
Silicone Components Density Snap Time, Lot Combinations 1b/ft3 min:sec i LAB EXP001A*/ LAB EXP001B* 22.5 1:21 LAB EXP001A*/ LAB EXP004B* 21.6 1:20 LAB EXP003A*/I.AB EXP004B* 19.7 2:28 .
EZO94001A/EZO94001B 22.4 1:17
- Dow Corning Laboratory Book Reference No. 5584139 Dated 10-1-84.
i Concrete Slab Penetration Openina No,s. Lot Nos. Installed B-1 LAB EXP001A/ LAB EXP004B B-2 LAB EXP003A/ LAB EXP004B ,
B-3 EZO94001A/EZO94001B j B-4 LAB EXP001A/ LAB EXP001B l B- S LAB EXP003A/ LAB EXP004B l' B-6 LAB EXP001A/ LAB EXP001B i
i t
t l'
l 3
., . - 'l .
~"
QD ~ ~ (k h If construction technology laboratorie.
. _ . _ . _ . _ . . . ~ . . . . . . _ . . . . _ _ . _ _ . _ . . _ . . _ . . ._ ,- . _ _ . . - ..._
.......___.--...._..___.._m._..
- e a-I' i
i i
+ .
! 4/ j 8 l
t :
i i.
> APPENDIX B t l
Furnace Atmosphere Temperatures Specimen Thermocouple Reference Chart Specimen Temperature Readings Test Comments
,i i
i i
f
)
i t
I E
t b
l
~
-- . o e s ._
ig3 -- > -
canstruction technology laboratories
CR5502 - DOW - 10/24/64 FURNRCE RTMOSPHERE TEMFERRTURE (DEG. F)
TEST TIME, FURNRCE RSTM E119 VARIRTION FROM TEMP. TEMP. RSTM TEMP.
Hr: Min F F F
\ -
76 68 8 l 0:00 905 1000 -95 e:e5 1330 1300 30 l 0:10 1399 4 8:15 1403 1456 1462 -6 l 0:20 1512 1510 2 0:25 1556 1550 6 0:30 1572 1584 -12 0:35 1615 1613 2 0:40
( 1666 1638 28 0:45 1640 1661 -21 0:50 1681 -4 0:55 1677 1749 1700 49 ,
1:00 1712 1718 -6 1:05 1722 1735 -13 1:10 1750 -6 1:15 1744 1765 11 .
1:20 1776 1758 1779 -21 1:25 1861 1792 69 1130 1826 1804 22 1:35 1815 11 1:40 1826 1
1842 1826 16 1:45 1835 14 1:50 1849 1843 4 1:55 1847 I
1851 1850 1 I
2:00 1862 6 l 2:10 1868 1895 1975 20 2:20 1888 0 2:30 1888 1900 -3 2: 40 1897 1899 1912 -13 2:50 1952 1925 27 3:00 RRER UNDER CURVE = 295280 DEG. F-M1HUTES DEG. F-MINUTES ARER UNDER RSTM E119 CURVE = 294600 VARIRTIDH FROM RSTM CURVE = 00.2308 */.
I
- . . . , , ~ ~
l 176 at ao l
{
l CR5501 - DOW -
10'24'64 THERMOCOUFLE REFERENCE CHART FRAME PRINT THERMOCOUPLE THERMOCOUPLE NO. HO. HO. LOCATION
=
11 1 1 PEN B4 2 IN. DOWN FR SURFACE I 11 2 2 FEH B4 UNEXPOSED SURFACE ;
11 3 3 PEH B4 UNEXPOSED SURFACE 11 4 4 PEH B4 PEH. INTERFACE 11 5 5 PEN B2 2 IH. DOWN FR $URFACE 11 6 6 PEH B2 UNEXPOSED SURFACE 11 7 7 PEH B2 UNEXPOSED SURFACE 11 8 8 PEH B2 PEN. INTERFACE 11 9 9 PEN B6 2 IN. DOWN FR SURFACE 11 10 10 PEN B6 UNEXPOSED SURFACE 11 11 11 PEN B6 PEN. INTERFACL 11 12 12 UNEXPOSED CONCRETE SURFACE 12 1 13 PEN B5 2 IN. DOWN FR SURFACE 12 2 14 PEN B5 UNEXPOSED SURFACE 12 3 1" PEH B5 PEN. INTERFACE 12 4 16 PEN B1 2 IN. DOWN FR SURFACE 12 5 17 PEH B1 UNEXPOSED SURFACE 12 6 18 PEN B1 UNEXPOSED SURFACE 12 7 19 PEN B1 PEN. INTERFACE 12 8 20 PEN B3 2 IN. DOWN FR SURFACE 12 9 21 PEN B3 UNEXPOSED SURFACE 12 10 22 PEH B3 UNEXPOSED SURFACE 12 11 23 PEN B3 PEN. INTERFACE 12 12 24 UNEXPOSED CONCRETE SURFACE l e
t i
i
/7 6 (T c --
a
le l
)
CR5302 - DOM - 10'24/64 SPEC 1nEN THERMOCOUPLE READ 1 HGS (DEG F) _
Tils T T IME, Tec NO.
4 5 6 2 3 l Hi-: M i n 1 74 75 75 74 0:00 75 74 l 74 l 74 74 74 75 0:05 75 74 74 75 74 f 0:10 75 74 74 74 75 74 l 0:15 75 74 74 74 75 74 l 0:20 75 74 74 74 75 74 l 0:25 75 74 74 74 74 75 74 0:30 75 l 74 74 74 75 74 1 9:35 75 74 74 75 74 j 0: 40 75 74 74 75 75 74 0: 45 75 74 74 75 75 74 0:50 75 75 74 76 75 74 l 0:55 75 74 74 76 75 74 1:90 75 75 74 77 75 74 1:05 75 75 75 75 I 75 75 75 79 1:10 75 75 75 80 75 1:15 75 75 82 75 75 1:20 75 75 75 84 75 75 1:25 76 76 76 86 76 76 l 1:30 76 76 76 89 76 76 l 1:35 77 76 77 92 77 76 1: 40 78 77 77 95 79 76 1: 45 80 77 77 98 81 76 1:50 83 77 77 102 84 77 1:55 BB 77 77 106 88 77 2:00 96 78 79 114 105 79 j 2:10 121 79 83 121 153 82 2:20 273 82 88 135 274 85 2:30 538 85 101 175 467 94 2: 40 684 91 133 201 660 109 2:50 820 115 195 203 791 139 3:00 952 157 l
7 gg - Ita -
- a.
__ m . - .._ _ . .___. . _. . . . _ _ - .
I l
CR5502 - DOW -
10/24/04 SPECIMEH THERM 0COUFLE READ 1HCS (LEG F)
TI'Sr TIME, T/C NO.
7 8 9 10 11 12 He: Min 74 ?5 75 74 75 75 et90 74 74 74 74 74 74 0:05 74 74 74 74 74 74 0:10 74 74 74 74 74 74 0:15 74 74 74 74 74 74 0:20 74 73 74 74 74 74 0:25 l 74 73 74 74 74 74 0:30 74 73 74 74 74 74 0:35 74 73 74 74 74 75 0:40 74 74 75 74 75 75 0:45 74 75 75 74 75 75 0:50 74 75 75 75 76 76 0:55 74 75 76 75 77 78 1100 74 76 77 75 78 79 1:05 75 77 78 75 80 82 1:10 75 79 80 76 83 84 1:15 75 81 82 77 86 87 1:20 75 83 85 78 89 91 1:25 75 85 87 79 93 95 1:30 75 87 90 80 98 100 ,
1:35 76 90 94 82 103 105 1: 40 75 92 97 83 109 111 1: 45 75 95 101 84 115 117 1:50 75 98 105 86 122 123 1:55 75 101 lie BB 130 130 2:00 77 109 123 93 148 146 2:10 79 118 136 99 168 165 2:20 81 129 153 106 189 181 2:30 86 144 168 114 199 187 2: 40 99 167 173 121 202 191 2:50 130 192 178 .127 205 192 3:00 t
I
~w,,, }
Ni :Jp .:
13
.. . -- . . _. . _. . . . - . _ -. .. - . . - - _ = _ .
CR?502 - DOW - 10/34/E4 SPECIMEN THERMOCOUPLE RERDINGS (DEG F)
T l'.S T T I M E ,
T/C HO.
15 16 17 18 13 14 H-: Min 74 75 74 74 0:00 75 74 74 74 74 74 0:05 74 74 74 74 74 74 0:le 74 74 74 74 74 74 0:15 74 74 74 74 74 74 74 74 0:2d 74 74 74 74 74 74 0:25 74 74 74 74 74 0:30 74 74 74 74 74 74 74 0:35 74 74 74 74 74 0:40 74 74 75 74 74 )
74 74 0: 45 74 74 75 74 75 75 0:50 74 74 75 75 74 0:55 75 76 75 74 74 l 1:00 75 75 77 75 74 74 1:05 76 75 78 76 74 74 l 1:10 77 75 00 76 75 74 f 1:15 78 75 '
82 77 75 75 1:20 80 76 85 79 75 75 1:25 82 77 88 82 76 75 1:30 85 78 91 86 76 75 1:35 89 79 94 110 77 76 1: 40 93 80 97 151 77 76 97 81 1: 45 77 75 102 82 101 253 1:50 78 75 j 108 84 105 378 1:55 79 76 85 109 485 2:00 115 119 649 86 78 :
2:10 130 90 805 103 86 148 95 129 2:20 138 105 169 101 142 682 2:30 136 157 784 187 2: 40 191 107 169 828 178 166 2:50 213 114 175 1726 275 213 3:00 238 119 l
I l
-.c,. ._ q 18%
. 19 2 . .. ,,.
d
CR5502 - DOW - 10'24/64 SPECIMEN THERMOCOUPLE RERDlHCS (DEC F)
TI:ST TIME, T/C HO.
22 23 24 19 20 21 Hr:
a Min 74 74 74 74 75 74 0:00 74 74 74 74 74 0:05 74 74 74 74 74 74 74 0:le 74 74 74 74 74 0:15 74 74 74 74 74 74 74 0:23 74 74 74 74 74 0:25 74 74 74 74 74 0:30 74 74 74 74 74 74 74 74 0:35 74 74 74 74 74 0:40 74 74 74 74 75 0: 45 74 75 74 74 75 j 74 75 75 0:50 75 76 75 74 74 0:55 75 74 75 78 75 75 75 1:00 76 80 l 75 75 74 1:05 75 '
75 76 82 76 75 75 1:10 75 77 85 77 75 75 1:15 75 78 88 77 76 75 1:20 79 92 l 78 75 75 1:25 78 76 80 96 79 85 75 1:30 81 100 99 76 76 1:35 80 76 77 83 105 1: 40 81 118 77 85 109 82 142 75 1:45 78 86 114 83 166 75 1:50 78 88 120 84 199 75 1:55 79 91 126 86 231 76 2:00 97 143 299 80 83 2:10 91 90 105 161 98 378 85 2:20 115 176 462 94 99 2:30 107 187 105 til 128 2: 40 122 548 126 145 189 140 645 119 2:50 163 192 712 136 145 3:00 160
- e==
M4Ft 5a*
=5 c-e
_ .__ _ _ _ _ . - . . . . ._ = _ .. _ . . . . . _ - - _ . _ _ . .
CR9502 - DOW - 10/24 64 TEST COMMENTS 0:02:00 LIGHT SMOKE HOTED INSIDE FURNACE 0:35:00 FORM MRTERIAL ON EXPOSED SURFACE GLOWING 2:00:00 FORM MATERIRL OH UNEXPOSED SURFACE NOTED TO BE RISING IN PEN B1 & B2 RND B4 2:30:00 21 EXPRNDED 2 1/4 IN.
2:30:00 B2 EXPANDED 1 1/4 IN.
2:30:00 B4 EXPANDED 2 1/2 IN.
2:57:00 LIGHT SMOKE NOTED FROM FEN B1 2:59:00 BURN-THRU IN PEH B1 :
HOSE STREAM TEST:
NO WRTER PROJECTED BEYOND THE UNEXPOSED SURFACE DURING ASTM E-119 HOSE I STRERM TEST FOR 14 SEC. IN PEN B3 L B5 RHD B6 WATER DID PROJECTED SEYOND THE UNEXPOSED SURFACE DURING ASTM E-119 HOSE STRERM TEST RT 0 SEC. IN PEN B1 WATER DID PROJECTED BEYOND THE UNEXPOSED SURFRCE DURING RSTM E-119 HOSE 1
STREAM TEST AT 10 SEC. IN PEN B2. I WATER DID PROJECTED BEYOND THE UNEXPOSED SURFACE DURING ASTM E-119 HCSE STREAM TEST RT 2 SEC. IN PEH B4 NOTES:
DRAFT RUN AT .05 NEG.
RM. TEMP. RT START OF TEST = 74 DEG. F.
NO SMOKE WRS NOTED ON THE UNEXPOSED SURFACE OTHER THRH REPORTED.
4 l
l
{
1 l-ITD -- /91/
w
d F G H l l l J l K l A Al B l C l D I E I l l (Pt Ratine 1 Lah Product Report Number Docwnent QE1 Openine Site PL'S LOTA LOTB Formulation 1191E 8" NCNE EZO94001 EZO94001 Old Formulation 3 <
2 CTL 36548 CR5456-4324 A-1 3 CTL 36548 CR5465-4324 1210E B-3 8" NOE EZO94001 EZO94001 Old Formulation 3 k"2 1191E A-3 8* KNE EZO94002 EZO94004 Modified Old 3 4 CTL 36548 CR5456-4324 5
6 7 CTL 36548 CR5456-4324 1191E A-5 4" NCNE EZO94001 EZO94001 Old Formulation 3 y [
3 0 8 CTL 36548 CR5456-4324 1191E A-6 4" NCNE EZO94002 EZO94004 Modified Old b i 10 11 CTL 36548 CR5502-4324 1209E T-2 14.5" x 30' CABLETRAY EZO94001 EZO94001 Old Formulation 3 hy<
EZO94001 Old Formulation 3 12 CTL 36548 CR5502-4324 1203E T-2 14.5" x 30" CABLETRAY EZO94001 3
{
CTL 36548 CR5502-4324 1208E T-1 14.5" x 30" CAR _FTRAY EZO94001 EZO94001 Oto Formulation 13 1203E T-1 14.5" x 30" CABLETRAY EZO94002 EZO94004 Modified Old 3 14 CTL 36548 CR5502-4324 1209E T-1 14.5" x 30" CAR FTRAY EZO94002 EZO94004 Modified Old 3 15 CTL 36548 CR5502-4324 16 17 Lah Lab where test was conducted 18 Product ProductTested 19 Report Number Test Report Reference Number 20 Document Test Document Reference Number 21 GE2 Slab Opening identification Number 22 Openine Sire Opening Size (inches) 23 P1 'S Penetrating item Description (Sce test report for Specifics) 24 LOT A Lot Number identification 25 LOTB Lot Numberidentification 26 Comment Formulation Tested 27 (P) Ratine Proposed Test Length (hours) 28 (A ) F- Ratine Actual Fire Rating (hours) 29 (A) T- Ratine Actual Temperature Rating (hours) 30 Hose Stream Time at which Hose Stream Test was performed (Hours) 31 H-Results Results of Hose Stream Test 32 Sah Thickness of Concrete Slab (inches) .
33 Thickness Thickness of Foam Installed (inches) __
34 Dammine Damming Material Used (Note FRB - Fire Resistant Board) , _ /a l( 35 RerMuni Residual Foam Thickness following Fire Exposure and Hose Stream Test (inches) l DEPOSITION EXHIBIT 36 fressure Fumace Pressure e
l 37 % Resid. Foam % of Residual Foam relative to original thickness of foam installed
~ s
a T U l @
A L l M l N I O IP I O l R I S l l (A) F- Ratine (A)T-Ratine Hose Stream H-Results Sjabt Thickness Dammine Residual Pressitr.g % Resid. Foam a" 1
2 3 ~255 3 Fall 9 9 NCHE 1.25 -0.08 14 $
3 ~2-20 3 PASS 9.25 9.25 NCNE 1.5 -0.05 16 4 3
9 9 NCNE 1.88 -0.08 21 l E 4 3 3 3 PASS 6 tu 5 ._ O 6
9 9 NCNE 1.75 -0.08 19 N 3 3 3 PASS 7
9 9 NCNE 3 -0.08 33 l b ----
10 { {
3 12 12 NCNE 2.75 -0.08 23 11 3 -1:00 Fall ~~
3 -0:40 3 PASS 12 9 FRB 4.5 -0.08 12 50 3 -0$0 3 PASS 12 9 FRB 4.5 -0.08 l 13 3 12 9 FRB 5 -0.08 56 14 3 -0:40 PASS 12 12 NCNE 3.5 -0.08 29 15 3 -0:55 3 PASS l
16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 _
29 30 31 32 33 34
'I 35 36 37 t e9_ _ _ __ _ _. _ - - _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ __-_ . _ _ - _ _ _ . _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _
. _ _ . __ _ _ . . = . - _ . _ . . - _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ . -
1 l
i i i l 1 i 1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA l
l a 2 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION.
1 3 :
l 4 OFFICE OF INVESTIGATICH3 f
5 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -X
^
f l 6 In the Matter of: :
\ l.
! 7 INVESTIGATIVE INTERVIEW : "
8- Clayton W. Brown (CLOSED) :
9 - - - - -- - - - - - - - -- -X
)
l 10 Nuclear Regulatory Commission L ,11 Executive Conference Room j
12- 1 801 Warrenville Road-13 Lisle, Illinois l
14 Tuesday, September 20,' 1994 15 l 16 The above-entitled matter commenced at 9:50 a.m.,
17 when were present:
18 RICHARD C. PAUL, Senior Investigator 19 JOSEPH M. ULIE, Investigator 20 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 21 Office of Investigation 22 Region III 23 801-Warrenville Road l
24 Lisle, Illinois 60532-4351 25 i'
)(
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. FXHIBIT l
Court Reporters OFE37 PAGr'4'
?393.026 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 PAGE I Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034 >
/ 6 (C M
_ L ~ - :
2 1
PROCEEDINGS 2
[9:50 a.m.)
3 MR. ULIE: Today's date is September 20th, 1994, 4 at approximately 9:50 a.m. For the record this is an 5 interview of Clayton W. Brown spelled B-r-o-w-n, who is 6 currently a technical consultant to Brand Fire Protection 7 Services. The location of this interview is The Executive 8
Conference Room of the United States Nuclear Regulatory 9 Commission's Region III Headquarters Office, located at 801 10 Warrenville Road, Suite 255, in Lisle, Illinois.
11 Present at this interview are Richard C. Paul, 12 spelled P-a-u-1, Senior Investigator, and Joseph M. Ulie, 13 spelled U-1-i-e, Investigator, both with the United States 14 Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of Investigations.
15 As agreed, this interview is being tape recorded 16 by court reporter Ronald N. LeGrand.
i 17 The subject matter of this interview regards a 1 18 fire barrier material known as Dow Corning Number 3-6548, 19 Silicone RTV Foam which is used in the nuclear industry in )
l 20 part as a fire resistive barrier to seal penetration l l
l 21 openings, so as to separate fire areas. This interview will 22 also allow Mr. Brown time to provide any additional ,
l
! 23 information pertinent to the subject matter of the interview 24 for which Mr. Brown may wish to make a part of this record 25 of proceeding.
, ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W.,
Suite 300EXHPIT washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034 -
- 2 OF 8f PAGE(S)
.. i i-3
{
1 Whereupon, 1 2
CLAYTON W. BROWN r 3 was called for examination by an investigator for the NRC 4 and, having been first duly sworn, was examined and 5 testified as follows: :
'6 EXAMINATION i
i 7 BY MR. ULIE:
i 8 Q Please be seated.
9- For the record please provide your full name?
10 A Clayton W. Brown.
11 Q Due to the number of name and/or organizational I
12- changes that have occurred since you were the company 13 President of Brand Industrial Services Company, more
)
14 commonly known as-BISCO, could you provide an overview of 15 the organizational changes BISCO and its successor Brand 16 went through and your position when these changes occurred, 17 as best that you can recall?
18 A Approximately five years ago, the controlling 19' interest in our parent company, Brand Insulations, or the 20 Brand Companies, was acquired by Waste Management Company.
21 At that time the Brand Companies were involved in many 22 specialized forms of contracting, like industrial .
l 23 scaffolding, asbestos abatement, et cetera. I was also i 24' president of about five different asbestos abatement I 25 companies and, when Waste Management acquired control, they l
1 i-ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
! Court Reporters g
1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 FX4F"T
.(202) 842-0034 .-
p g .8 f P AGEfS'
__ - ~ , _ . , _ - . _ . _ _ _
4 1
restructured the company and over the period of five years 2 continued to restructure the company to where BISCO's name 3 was changed to Brand Utility Services as part of Brand 4
Marine Services and it was at one time Brand Nuclear 5 Services and currently it is Brand Fire Prote'ction Services.
6 I had, even though I retired three years ago and 7
became a consultant at their request, constantly argued not 8 to lose the name of Brand. We were the only company left in 9 the entire organization that retained a Brand name for its 10 marketing purposes. Other than that, about a year ago the 11 entire group of companies were integrated into Rust 12 International. As of September 1, our group for the nuclear 13 fire service was acquired by a John Giangi who was President 14 of the Brand Marine Group. Now he is sole owner and has 15 separated himself from the Rust group and we are continuing 16 to do business as Brand Fire Protection Services.
17 MR. ULIE: For this interview, the names Brand and 18 BISCO will be used interchangeably.
19 BY MR. ULIE:
20 Q Does the fire barrier penetration seal used by 21 BISCO and used in the past at nuclear plants have the 22 specific name and number designation of Dow corning 3-6548 23 Silicone RTV Foam?
24 A That'is the product, one of the products we use. I 25 Q For purposes of this interview, this is the ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 3. . .o q f
84 b34 I L OF .51 P AGE (S) l
1 l
l 5
1 particular type of foam that we would like to have addressed 2 when you respond to our questions. We are just going to 3 refer to it as silicone foam, i 4 A Okay.
5 Q How many years have you been involved in the i 6 penetration fire barrier seal business?
7 A About 17.
8 Q And how many of those years have you been 9 specifically involved in installing seals at nuclear power 10 facilities?
11 A Seventeen.
12 Q Approximately how many nuclear power plant units 13 did BISCO have a contract to install penetration seals?
14 A Fifty-five in the United States and six more in 15 countries.
16 Q Did BISCO co-develop the silicone foam material 17 with Dow Corning?
18 A Yes.
19 Q Could you provide background details in a summary 1
20 form regarding the development of the silicone foam? '
21 A Before my coming with the company, the research 22 and development group of Brand Industrial Services was 23 looking for a better product for nuclear fire seals. They 24 had worked with urethanes and cellular concretes, et cetera, 25 but as they saw the nuclear industry developing they l
l ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters k
1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 l r3Fu m!"r 2 84 b3 OF [ NGES)
5 .
- r. {
1 realized there had to be a better, more versatile material :
1 2 with a longer life. Knowing the durabilities of silicones, l 1
3 they contacted Dow Corning and together created a foam, a 4 foaming which is 3-6548.
5 Q Would you please read over this November 12th, 6 1984, letter from Dow Corning to its power applicators which 7 identifies a silicone foam formulation change. I had a 8 question with respect to that document. '
9 A Yes.
10 Q Do you recall receiving this letter?
11 A Yes. l 12 O The letter specifies fire endurance testing was 13 conducted that showed the modified formulation met or 14 exceeded to properties of the existing silicone foam. Did i i
15 BISCO's review of these tests concur with Dow Corning's '
16 statement, do you recall? l 17 A Well, our subsequent testing showed that the 18 material passed three-hour fire tests.
19 Q So BISCO performed additional tests on their own 20 'that showed acceptable results?
21 A Not just because of the reformulation, but in our 22 regular business we are conducting many tests.
23 BY MR. PAUL:
24 Q Were these tests conducted after the formula 25 change similar or in the exact configuration as the tests l ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
l Court Reporters 1
1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 ...*T k 84 034 [ ._OF g RAGES
_ _ _ _ _ . - ~ _ _ - _ . - . _ - . _ _ _ _ - _ . _ . _ _ . . _ ..-..m. _ _ . _ . - _ _ _ ,
L... . I l.
i 7 I
~
1 I' performed before the formulation change, do you know?
l 2 A Both.
l 3 Q Both? '
4 A BISCO has hundreds of fire tests of many j 5 configurations and I couldn't put a general' answer on it. !
l 6 It was -- some of the configurations may have been more I l
l 7 complex than the originals.
8 Q Did you ever have any discussions with Dow Corning 9 regarding this formulation change?
' [
10 A Yes, I was interested in the reasoning for it. t
{
- 11 They were broadening -- actually, we had received, I !
.12 believe, two notices. One, they had found a different I 9
13 source for one or two of the components and also they were 14 broadening their tolerances of the'f'ormula for manufacturing l
[ ,
15 reasons that had no effect on the finished product. l l
16 BY MR. ULIE:
17 Q What is of specific concern to us today is whether
{ -
l 18 you are aware of any problems with the silicone foam that 1 19 were nonexistent prior to this formula change that took j 20
- place around the '84 timeframe,but that began to occur !
21 subsequent to the formula change? !
l
! 22 A Problems, no, I am not aware of any. l 23 O Nothing, based on your experience? i 24 A No. !
25 Q Are you aware of seal tests that were conducted on r
3 ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 EXW T jf (202) 842-0034 p. y _ g p g 7 ,. - ,. .
1 J
l 'i I
8 1 the same seal configurations that passed fire endurance 2 testing prior to the formula modification change, but failed 3 the ASTME-119 conditions of acceptance after the formula 4 modification change?
5 A By BISCO or others?
6 Q I will leave it open to anyone?
7 A No, not for that reason.
8 0 Specifically related to Dow Corning?
9 A No.
10 0 And this particular product that we are talking 11 about?
12 A Correct.
13 MR. ULIE: Rich, do you have any questions on the 14 formula modification change, at this point?
15 MR. PAUL: Not as to the specific event, but I 16 would go back to it in general.
17 THE INTERVIEWEE: If I can just add something?
18 MR. ULIE: Please?
19 THE INTERVIEWEE: If you talk to a testing lab, 20 - most of the testing used to be done by Construction i
21 Technology Laboratories.
22 BY MR. ULIE:
23 Q Such as Portland Cement Association? l 24 A Portland Cement Association, that is where all of I 25 our testing was done. They would tell you that you could I
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters i 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Wash ton 20005 I,^,,~,',,,,, y
9 1
ran the same test identical, let's say, ten times and you 2 might experience a couple of failures. It was just a fact 3 of probabilities in the testing business.
4 BY MR. PAUL:
5 Q As far as testing, generally, what is the role of 6 the testing laboratory in the tests conducted for BISCO as 7 far as CTL's role, as far as oversight and writing the 8 report? What were the procedures?
9 A Well, we constructed the test, the configuration 10 and took it to them and then they took the test from there.
11 They did all the monitoring, providing all the results, all 12 the observations, et cetera.
13 O Did the testing lab do any quality control over 14 the construction and test article?
15 A No , we did the quality control of the construction 16 of the test.
17 O So the testing facility actually constructed or 18 used the furnace? What was their role as far as --
l 19 A We mounted the test slab on their furnace and they ;
l 20 configured the furnace to the appropriate test standards and 21 then they had a control room where all of the thermocouples 22 and readings were fed to and they monitored the test through ,
23 the full three hours. Then they did the hose stream test 24 and provided the results.
25 BY MR. ULIE:
l ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 22 84 b34 __
9 g ., .9_ _ m
. __ v m _
e 10 1 Q Did they actually write the report?
2 A Not always. Not always, but the reports were the 3- . result of -- we have always had people present and the 4 reports were the result of -- maybe for expeditious reasons, 5 we would write the report as a result of the tests that were
.6 given to us, send it to them for their review. They would 7 review and make any corrections or modifications and sign 8- off on the tests then.
9 Q So there were titaes when BISCO personnel would 10 actually write the test report and submit it to the test lab 11 for review?
12 A As a result of their-findings and the information 13 provided to us, like charts of thermocouple readings, et 14 cetera, those things, or if there was a leakage or a failure 15 or whatever.
16 BY MR. PAUL:
17 Q In those cases that BISCO wrote the report would ,
18 it be on BISCO letterhead or would it be on test laboratory 19 letterhead?
20 '
MR. ULIE: When the report was actually issued.
21 THE INTERVIEWEE: We gave them the report and the 22 report -- I am not 100 percent sure, but I believe the i 23 reports were always on their letterheads, the summary page 24 and the attest'ing to the results of the test.
25 BY MR. ULIE:
, ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 ~.
f d2 84 b34 fp j [ f p?.CE(S)
11 1 0 The next series of questions is generally related 2 to the nine-inch seals that I know NRC personnel talked to 3 us in the past.
4 Did BISCO conduct a testing program to qualify 5 various design configurations for generic use at nuclear 6 power plants? I think we have been talking along the 7 line -- the answer is yes?
8 A Yes.
9 0 Were these tests provided to nuclear utilities for 10 their use in demonstrating the qualifications of particular 11 seal designs?
12 A Yes.
13 Q Are you aware of the nine-inch seal, nine-inch 14 fire barrier seal, that had the damming boards removed after 15 installation that was successfully qualified for a three-16 hour rating using the ASTME-119 conditions of acceptance?
17 A Yes.
18 Q Can you identify what the test report number is?
19 A I don't know.
20 Q would that be in the file at Brand offices or 21 where would that be?
22 A Well, the fire test is, but the problem was, there 23 was no subsequent or we cannot find the subsequent hose 24 stream test report because BISCO had a fire in their 25 facility and we lost a lot of documents and all we can ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 "OtT I 84 b34 // CJ 31PME(S)
~ = . - . . - - - .- .. . . - . . ~ . . . . --- -.--..-- -
- - ~ ;~ - .-.-~~-m .
l
' 12 . I
- 1. i
-assume is that that hose stream test report was lost in that l 2 ' fire. I 3' .B MR. PAUL: ,
I 4 !
'O Do you know in what timeframe that particular fire j 5- qualification test was conducted?
i
)
6- A It was before I came with the company. It was l 4
- 7 early '70s. i k
8 0 Who was the president of the company at that point i 9- in time, before you came in? i 10 l A Before me was a Stanley Mandeltort. 1 11 O Could you spell his last name, to the best you 12- recall?' ' i' 13 A M-a-n-d-e-1-t-o-r-t. If-I knew the year of'the.
'14 test, I could tell you if he was present at the' time. It !
i 15;
'may not have been under his' administration. .He'was not i 16 there for a long time. Prior to him the president was
-17 William O'Brien. >
18, Q O'Ryan?
19 A- O'Brien. .
20 Q O'Brien.
21 BY MR. ULIE:
22 Q Would it have been subsequent to that --
going I 23 back to the time the vendor branch of the NRC did an 24 inspection of BISCO, I believe it was 1987, and they looked 25 into this area. I reviewed the inspection report. It ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters g 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 r vi.umT 3 Washington,'D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034 M nF3 PMM
13 1 talked about an October 1976, Portland Cement Asso.ciation 2 test and talked about a subsequent hose stream test that had 3 been performed. So do you believe that test you are j
4 referring to was that subsequent hose stream test that would 5 have been some time after October of '76?
6 A It sounds like it. If it was conducted in '76, I 7 should say that it was under Mandeltort.
8 Q After installation of a penetration fire seal, 9 what was BISCO's recommendation regarding final inspection?
10 In other words, what I am really looking after is the 11 damming board material, whether one or both -- if there were 12 two damming boards put in place, was it common practice or 13 policy at BISCO to remove one or both of those or did it 14 depend on a particular configuration? -
15 A Our technology, unlike all other contractors in 16 the business, is the seal, the finished seal, is without 17 damming boards left in place, except for floor seals where
! 18 there is a damming board on the bottom only, to support the ,
t 19 material as it is being applied and that particular board we l 20 always made it of fire-rated material so it wouldn't have to 21 be removed for labor reasons, labor costs.
22 All of Brand's technology is based on no damming l 23 board left in place so that you could do a complete visual 24 inspection of the silicone.
25 Q So after the installation -- and actually the 4
d ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 p,...mq jI _
- ""UET"'<th3 is ,33_v w
14 1 BISCO installers walk away to turn it over to the utility?
2 Do you recall the policy being that there would be no 3 damming board?
4 A Correct.
5 Q Put back?
6 A Correct. There may be some very rare occasions on 7 a special design where there had to be a damming board. For 8 instance, there was one plant where we were directed to use 9 a specific design that left damming board in place and we 10 were hesitant to use it because any syctem that leaves 11 damming board in place has failures in it because the foam 12 forms gas pockets, like underneath a cable tray. In this 13 specific plant we did a number of seals at a direction to do 14 it and we were using a specific design with damming board in 15 place and even cautioning our applicators as to the 16 potential problems of installing the foam. Later it was j 17 discovered there were voids in the foam and we went back, l 18 under warranty, repaired those voids.
19 Q That is what I am trying to make a distinction 20 with the installers removing the damming boards, but then 21 putting back one or both boards. You know, what the policy 22 was of BISCO. It was not to put back either of the damming 23 boards?
24 A Our damming board was an inexpensive ethefoam, 25 like styrofoam, and it was removed and discarded. It was ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Peporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 I , , , , ,' , - - JI (202) 842-0034 /g4 7,jff -
15
~
1 not fire-rated so it could not be left in place and that was 2 the basis of our technology except for floor seals.
3 0 Okay, except for floor seals and times when the 4 customer would require that damming boards be left in place?
5 A Or if there was a special design, because often we 6 ran into conditions where we had to construct a special 7 design which naturally was supported by fire testing of some 8 sort.
9 Q Okay. So, generally speaking, three occasions 10 that a damming board could be put back?
11 A Yes.
12 MR. ULIE: Rich, do you have any further questions 13 in this area?
14 BY MR. PAUL: l l
15 Q In regards to the nine-inch seal, in 1985, I l l
16 believe, ANI, American Nuclear Insurers, withdrew their !
17 approval for insurance purposes of the BISCO nine-inch l 18 undammed seal; do you recall that?
19 A Yes.
20 Q Could you tell us a little bit about or tell us 21 about the circumstances surrounding that action by ANI, the 22 best that you recall?
23 A The way it was done -- you have to realize our 24 files have hundreds of tests and the way we discovered the s
25 hose stream test was lost in some manner was ANI couldn't ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 . . , . , . -
f 2 84 b3 /g - j[ p s c gg
16 1 : find it in their files and they asked us for a copy. So our 3 2 engineering manager went through the files and couldn't find 3 it which caused a dilemma, not having a supporting hose {
4 stream test. So ANI put out a notice to that effect, as I 5 recall, and then asked if we would retest that particular t 6 design.
7 In fact, if I remember, on the first test, they 8 even shared in th'e cost of it, but they changed the 9 configuration that made it more restrictive than the j 10 original test that we were -- the whole subject was about. '
I 31 When we ran the test it failed. So we ran it a second time, -
12 as I recall, and it ran for, I think, two hours-and-45, and ;
13 ANI approved it then and sent out notices that they approved :
14 the design for insurance purposes only.
15 Naturally, when the first notice went out to the i-16 various utilities where the design was used, there was a 17 concern, but there is a conflict in our industry of 18 overlapping and conflicting test standards. We did have a 19 successful test of a nine-inch seal without damming board 20 with a hose stream that met the NRC standards. So I put out 21 a notice to everyone giving them a copy and informing them, 22 they should not be concerned because we have a test that met 23 the NRC standards, but did not meet ANI standards. That
. 24 difference was'ANI requires testing to be done with PYC-i-
i 25 jacketed cables which is very severe and the NRC didn't. I 1
j ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
! Court Reporters r"'"*'~_ I
-1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 84 b3 .J . re m i
17 1 don't remember what the jacketing was on the cables in the 2 successful test.
3 Q Do you recall the date of the successful test?
4 Q The 2-hour-and-45-minute?
5 O No, the 2-hour-and-45-minute was the ANI test, 6 right? In 1985 is the date I have. The test that you 7 mailed out that met the NRC requirements, which test was 8 that?
9 A I don't know. I would have to look it up.
10 0 Was that before this test or contemporaneous, do 11 you know?
12 A I can't remember.
13 BY MR. ULIE:
14 0 Would you be able to identify or find that test 15 and provide a copy to either Rich Paul or myself?
16 A Sure.
17 BY MR. PAUL:
18 0 In regards to that failure, well, the ANI termed 19 it failure. In regards to that specific test, did you have 20 any reason to believe that there was any difference in the l
21 performance of the foam material, the Dow Corning foam l 22 material, from the previous test?
23 A No. If anything, the only change we observed in 24 the Dow product, I can't tell you at what point in time, is 25 that it had a higher density which makes it more fire
, ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 -- --
~~'7 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034 3f
/7 ^
18 1 resistant. It used to be that foam was in the range of 16, 2
I think 16 to 20 pounds or 16 to 18 pounds, and suddenly it 3 started running 20 to 23 pounds. Well, this was of concern 4
to us because, commercially, we are paying by the pound for 5 materials. When we are quoting a job, if we are using that 6 lighter number we are losing money. So we monitored. Our 7
quality assurance manager, through our quality control 8
program, constantly monitored densities and, anyway, from 9 coast to coast on every project we were on and we saw the 10 density rise. We just compensated for it commercially and 11 it paid a better sale.
12 Q In regards to the relationship that BISCO had with ;
i' 13 Dow Corning, did you rely on their -- any training or 14 installation techniques developed by Dow as far as wh'at 15 BISCO would do when they worked in a nuclear plant as far as 16 installing these seals of this material?
17 A No. We relied on Dow for technical advise about 18 materials. We communicated with them on a regular basis 19 because we were always running into odd applications and we 20 would take their input, but if a test had to be constructed 21 to support a unique' design it was based on our knowledge.
22 Q As far as installation methods, were those BISCO 23 initiated or were they Dow Corning initiated?
24 A We extracted information from their knowledge 25 naturally, but all installation was based on our procedures.
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 20005
-o- T jf
""""i"!'"84S: 63 f f _ _ , y, = , _
- _ _ . . ~ _ . _ _ _ _ . . . _ . _ _ _ ~ _ _ _ . _ . _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _
l 19 j 1 Some ofiit is extrapolated from their experience with their l 2- material.
3' O One other area, as far as inspection techniques, 4
inspection of the completed product, were those Dow Corning '
t 5 adopted procedure or were those BISCO initia'ted procedures? -
6 'A BISCO procedures.
?
7 BY MR. ULIE: l l
8 Q Are you familiar'with seal deficiencies such as t
9 cracking, splitting or gaps, lack of fill and voids that i 10 wereidentified--beingidentifiedwithasinstalleds"dhSh, "
11' which was the subject of an NRC information notice back in i 12 1988? i
/l 13 A Yes. !
14- Q Based on your experience what do you believe the !
15 prob 3em was a result of?
16 A Poor application. Was that Wolf Creek 1 17 or Calloway? i is Q Wolf Creek was the subject of that. '
i 19 A I was very. disturbed at the report because the- .
l
. 20 ' contractor was trying to blame the material, but again that l-l- 21 was damming left in place and I remember there was a very 22- high -- because I talked to Calloway about it. There was a i I
23 very high percentage of voids as they started to inspect, 24- taking damming'off, and that is the flaw of damming left in
- 25 place. It was an application problem, not a material ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters jf 4
1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 3 00 "* "' T _,_
22 84 - b34 /f ~ Jff..
. . , , - . - - . ., - .n,..
20 1 problem.
2 O Can you describe any settlements or other legal 3
actions that involved BISCO and Dow Corning against each 4 other relative to the silicone foam that you are aware of?
5 A Well, there was some legal action, litigation, 6 before I came to Brand, but it was strictly commercial. it 7 wasn't over the materials. It had to do with sharing the 8 royalty over the co-development of the material, but it was 9
resolved out of court and I don't even know what the terms 10 were of the resolution. There has never been any other 11 litigation between Brand and Dow.
12 BY MR. PAUL:
13 0 What about the settlement over -- any type of 1 14 settlement where BISCO contended there was something with 15 the product, meaning the silicone foam? Did they ever give 16 you a credit or anything for product? l 17 l A There was something at one time. It was nothing
]
18 big, but, yes, they compensated us through additional l 19 material, but I don't even remember the details of it.
20 Q Can you recall if the details had anything to do 21 with the product performance, the Dow Corning product?
22 A No, it was quality. You see a very important 23 factor of this business is an extensive quality control 24 program with various stages of inspection including raw 25 materials and samplings, et cetera. None of the other i
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 _,. . - . .
/
Washington, D.C. 20005 f -
(202) 842-0034 ;{p j{f
21 1
contractors in the business have the same extensive quality 2 corttrol program that we have. They have, in my judgment, 3
very borderline inspection and that is why you get a 4 Calloway or a Wolf Creek.
5 Somewhere, I can't even remember the project, the 6
initial inspection of the raw material brought something to 7 the attention to our quality control group. I don't even 8
remember the details of it, but I can recall that part of 9 it. Therefore, some of the material I think had been used, 10 a little of it, but, again, through our system we knew where 11 every lot number was installed and whatever happened from 12 there. I just remember Dow compensated us in some way with 13 some materials but, as I said, it wasn't a big issue, 14 Q In regards to that situation, did you have any l I
15 concerns regarding the Dow Corning product being deficient?
16 A No, never.
17 Q Just as an overview, over the years, including ;
18 through the formula change, has the product performed !
19 consistently in your experience? l 20 A To the best of my knowledge, yes. We have never 21 had a warranty call back in the 17 years I have been with 22 the company except that one design I told you about where we 23 were told to put in that design. '
24 MR. ULIE: Do you have any other questions or 25 topics that you want to go over?
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 - " - -
y Washington, D.C. 20005 l (202) 842-0034 // ~~J f.f_'
~~'
1 1
j i
1 22
^
1 MR. PAUL: I have a couple.
2 BY MR. PAUL:
3 Q It is my understanding that BISCO installed the 4 silicone foams used'in WNP2, Wolf's 2 and also'in San 5 Onofre? :
6 -A Not'all of them. !
)
7 0 Not all of them? !
l 8 A And not all of them at Wolf's 2. !
9 O Are you aware of the recent licensee event report i i
10 filed by WNP2 regarding the seals where they declared them !
11- inoperable?
l 12 A Not all of them.
13 0 Well, declared a certain amount -- a certain 14 number of them. ,
i 15 A In fact, I talked to the -- who wrote the report .
16 from the NRC about it because I was amazed.
. l 17 0 What information do you have on this particular 18 event, and I would like to discuss some things about it?
19 A Sure. I was surprised when I saw that notice and
- a i
20 I saw it quite some time after the fact. That is, during my
~
21 consulting period, and I am not in the office a lot. When I !
i 22 called the gentleman who wrote the report and he asked if he
- 23. could call me back in 15 minutes. The reason for that was !
24 he got a few other people in the room and we were on a i 25 conference call. I asked him what this was all about I
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. :
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 - r---
f !
b4 b34 / / r _3. _.r r
,c,
,, .%, , . . --c---__
i 23 I
l* 1 because I wasn't aware of any deficiencies out there and he 2- told me. He kept referring it to BISCO's seal material. I 1
j 3 said it is not a BISCO material, it is Dow Corning. We use 1
4 'a product with our.own product number. We call it SF20 in 5 our system.
6 They said, what do you mean, It isn't all BISCO l 1
7' material? I said, no. I said, furthermore, Bechtel 5 i
8 installed a lot of seals after we left that project. These 9 are Bechtel's seals, which didn't surprise me. I said, 10 well, that is what the situation is. !
So we had a long 11 general conversation about the seals and I offered our full i 12 assistance in any way, providing information.
[ 13 He said, well, what do you know about San Onofre? ;
I '
14 I said Bechtel installed the seals. He said, BISCO's seal 15 was used there. I said, don't say that. We have never 1
16 worked at San Onofre installing fire seals. I said, Bechtel 17 installed them at San Onofre, too.
j l
18 I am sorry, that was Diablo Canyon. He asked me l
l 19 about Diablo Canyon and your incident at San Onofre, if l
l 20 there was an incident, the same thing occurred there where 21 Bechtel wanted us to leave the job before all the work was 22 completed. There was still some to be done and they did 23 that work. So whenever these issues come up, I suggest to l-24 our people, identify the seal and see if they are our seals 25 or Bechtel's seals.
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
f' Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 .....,-._
f 22 84 034 J J - ,[ [_ - ,-
. . . ,- 3 --, - 4 _...,m - _ ,~. ,
-- --..- -. - . - . . . - . ~ . . - - . - , . . . . . _ . - . . - . .. -
l 24 i
-1 BY MR. ULIE: '
i 2 Q So, if I understand correctly, both the Diablo 3 Canyon and at' , Bechtel purchased the Dow Corning l
4 material or their installer or contractor, and the seal is 5
installed and BISCO was not related to those' two incidents.
6 A Absolutely, that is exactly what the inspector '
.7 told ms. He said, no,.these were Bechtel' installed.
(
8 BY MR. PAUL:
9 Q So in this particular caso BISCO didn't provide 10 any qualification tests, it was totally separated from the
)
11 seals in question? l 1
12 A One of the flaws of our industry is people who i 13 take a BISCO test, Bechtel or whomever, naturally Bechtel <
14' was our largest client and we did a lot of plants and in ')
1 i
15 doing so we had to submit our designs and technology to -l 16 them -- through them for approval which they obviously !
17 copied for their own files. They have done work'using our i 18 technology without our knowledge.
19 I had all of our documents copyrighted some years ]
20 back to protect ourselves from this because we suddenly saw 21 this was becoming flagrant around the country for 22 unauthorized people. Even though every single document of 23 ours had a proprietary statement and cannot be used without 24 approval, people have been using them. That is an issue I l
- 25 will expand on when I get my own free time. It is critical.
j
[ ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
3 Court Reporters
- 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 - " ' - -
[
5 j """"i"*'"84E: 63 At t
r 51 --
25 1 Q For our information, we are aware that there are 2 certain issues as far as the silicone foam seal, such as 3 delamination, voids, things like cracking, has BISCO ever 4 experienced any of these problems with their seals?
5 A I would have to say we probably have seen some 6 cracks which were caught by quality control, but a lot of 7 people are installing this product without full knowledge of 8 how to do it. It is a very sensitive product that requires 9 explicit procedures on how to install it, how much liquid 10 you put in because it expands 300 percent. If you put in 11 too much liquid, it won't expand as much and it will react 12 strangely. Some people think that, well, I am going to get 13 it done faster where --
14 I Korea they installed liquid in one-third of the 15 entire opening when you are not supposed to put more than 16 maybe an inch, inch-and-a-half, thinking it would all 17 expand. They had all sorts of splits, cracks and problems, 18 but they thought they would save time by doing that.
19 Well, you don't save time, you get the flawed seal 20 because so much of this was filtering out from sources --
21 whatever it is, this goes back some years -- Dow ran a fire l 22 test deliberately creating delaminations by putting in lifts 23 of silicone foam, letting it cure and I think they spread 24 vaseline on it so the next lift wouldn't bond. They did all 25 these things. We experienced what we call edge curl.
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 -->--
7 2 84 b34 M-J_- -
26 1
Silicone foam is subject to thermal expansion and 2
contraction and, if you install silicone foam on a very hot 3
day, like we had a lot,of problems in a Philippines and in .
4 Mexico where we had to refrigerate the material before we 5 installed it -- a lot of people don't know this. So the 6
people installing in hot climates are probably causing 7
trouble for themselves because if you install on a hot day 8 and that silicone foam is up against concrete and the lower 9 level of a nuclear plant is much cooler, that silicone foam 10 will contract.
11 We call it edge curl and we have observed its 12 size. We have measured it. We have had people check it and 13 we found the same thing Dow Corning found in their testing ;
14 of delaminations or splits. That is because it is subject 15 to thermal expansion and contraction, once the fire hits it, 16 it expands and seals up. So there is not problem.
17 I know of a plant that just last year tore out all 18 their seal without talking to anybody because they had edge 19 curl and they thought they were all flawed. I later talked -
1 20 to them when it was all over with and said, why didn't you 21 call us, we have a test to show that is no problem. What we 22 do, because aesthetically, looking at it, people get 23 concerned, we will in areas and certain applications run a 24 bead of silicone caulk around that perimeter so that edge 25 curl is out of sight. But our testing deliberately causing ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 --
[
2 4 b3 /I [
. . . . _ _ _ - - _ __ _.- ~__.._______._____..m.__m . ... _ _ _ .. .
i
.. 1 27 I
. )
'l that showed no problem and Dow had run a test showing 2 delamination is no problem. Once the heat hits it in a i
3 fire, it closes up, but the splitting is usually a poor !
4 application. '
5 O Do you know if Dow published any notices or ,
l 6 anything on edge curl? ,
7 A I don't know about edge' curl, but they made the -- [
8 .I think they made the test available on the delamination :ba 9 order to put this whole issue to bed, that there was 10 something wrong with the materials.
.11 Q So, as far as the application of the material in 12 fire seals in nuclear plants, what I understand you to say 13 is, it is very installation dependent? ,
14 A Absolutely, absolutely, j 15 Q And there is a certain amount of technique i L 16 required for the applications? !
- 17. A Absolutely. At one point the woman that wrote <
18 that letter you showed me wrote a letter to the NRC on that ,
19- issue, saying that they should be concerned that properly 20 trained people are installing this material. The President 21 of the International Brotherhood of Insulators wrote a ,
22 letter to the NRC on the same issue because they knew, r
23 working with the material because it is on union assignment, i 24 those insulato'rs, they knew the sensitivity of it. They had j 25 a local'in South Bend, Indiana, called Local 75B where the 3
d l ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD !
l Court Reporters 4
1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 - " * ' ~
. _ [_ :
! Washington, D.C. 20005
! (202) 842-0034 f ' ~ _ Yf_ ~
y
_ _ . _ _ . . _ . _ . - . . . _ _ _ . _ _ _ . . _ . _ . - ._ ._ . . _ _m._ _ _ _ _ _ . _ ..
9 33 1- and are continuing to install seals without the '
2 sophisticated knowledge necessary. '
3 Now what is the sophisticated knowledge? We i 4
encountered a problem -- not a problem, something unique at .!
5 Shoreham where, because of the length of time it took to !
6 construct that plant, they had epoxy-coated all the concrete 7 walls and all the sleeves before any of the seals were put ,
8 in. Well, the silicones had never been fire tested against 9 epoxies because the other problem is that epoxies leech 10 amines and amides which neutralize the catalyst, or maybe if l
11 it doesn't neutralize it, it seriously affects the catalyst 12 that is in the silicone foam. So, first of all, we had to )
l 13 request an analysis of the epoxy and we ran an extensive 4
14 serious of tests to show that the designs we were going to r
i 15 use in that plant were compatible in epoxied openings. .
l 16 Nobody else knows that. Bechtel, Daniel, they don't know '
\ ,
17 that. They put it in the opening and something happens. '
18 We also encountered it at Wolf Creek.and Fort 19 Shuntley, we can use the same. technology and we have a l 20 ' chemical analysis of that epoxy that didn't leech any 21 contaminants.
l 22 Sulfurs, pulling compounds on cables are sulfur-l 23 based often. That prevents the silicone from sheering in
! 24 contact with the cables. Our procedures require the wiping 25- down and cleaning of pipes to get any sort of contaminant 4
j l ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters F.XHIBIT 7
1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 i
Washington, D.C. 20005 PAGE SUE OF 39 PAGEfS)
(202) 842-0034
J f
34 l
-s 1 off before you install the silicone foam. Most.of the i
2-people that were doing this work didn't know that, so they I 3 . went on the material. It is a sensitive material and you 4 have to'know what you are' working with.
5 There are many examples like this that our people L6 -
are trained to be alert to, and our procedures cover these '
7 . things of what you should and shouldn't do.
8 BY MR. ULIE:
9 Q A question I had, with respect to Bechtel, 10 Daniels, and some of the'other companies that you mentioned 11 that were not approved power applicators from Dow Corning, 12 how was it that Dow Corning -- how were they able to get the 13 material,!were they purchasing it directly from Dow Corning?- I
'14 A No , not without a settlement. Some of our power 15 applicators, in order to get half a load, would joint 16 :
venture with them. Now a training program -- I fought for l l
17 years not to train utilities to do their own maintenance j 18 for, again, the fear of these things going wrong, but we i j
19 were back to the. wall. Even ANI set standards for training, '
20 if we trained anyone else, ANI also says, but the ultimate 21 liability lies' with BISCO. So we created a very 22 comprehensive exculpatory agreement that we required a 23 utility to sign before we trained them.
24 The training -- our training program would run 25 anywhere from eight to ten days. Whereas, you know, the TSI ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters EXHIBIT 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 PAGEli OF +3 k PAGEfS)
(202) 842-0034 .
l l
l;
1 35 I l 1- program, they have maybe two days of training on the TSI 2
l system, which is foolish, that should be much longer. Other 3
people aren't training eight to ten days, and this agre~ement ;
j i
4- also required they could not retrain.
5 Our concern was like.the old party game where you ;
6 whisper something in someone's ear and when it is repeated ;
7 five times it comes out entirely different. However, we did' 8
concede to one utility who videotaped our entire training 9' program because they wanted to retrain, and we said, based 10- on that, if that is your training program, that we would )
\
11 concede. But we wouldn't even allow retraining for our fear l l 12 'of all of the proper information not being passed on.
13 So back in '88, a lot of utilities were being I 14* abused the power applicators. They were ccncerned, 15 rightfully so. So in '88, EPRI hired IMPELL to create a 16 computer database of all testing of fire seals, and we saw 17 through it'immediately. They came to us first because we 18 have the largest test library in~the world, and we saw 19 through it right away. We said, no, we won't cooperate, 20 'because someone was going to take pictures and do their own 21 work or unqualified people.
22 I know there is a plant in the Midwest that did
- 23 some retrofit modifications by two guys on a pickup truck 24 who used to be'in the union and said, we can do it. Tom 25 Gilmore, if you remember, he was my vice president. He got {
! i V ,
l 1
2 ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 EXHlBIT $
) Washington, D.C. 20005 pt GEZh$ OF 53i PAGE(S) i (202) 842-0034
. -.- -. _ . .- . - - -.- - - - - . - - . _ . ~ . . . - - - . . . . - - . . -
40 .
1 to the fire when we are constructing these plants lar ANI, i
2 NRC, whomever. After they are turned over into operation, F 3 .that is when the whole damned thing falls apart. ANI has no "
4 further~ involvement, and they usually hire either.a general 5 maintenance contractor or a local contractor in their user 6 district -- they try to always use' people in their user f i
7- district -- to maintain the fire seals who doesn't know a j 8 damn thing about it.
l 9 Davis Besse some years ago was some disaster 10 because of that and we were brought back in to correct it 11 all, but that continues to exist in the business and it is i e
12 prevalent out there of people who don't understand this.
13 BY MR. PAUL: l 14 Q What type of maintenance is required on the seals? !
- 15 A They are constantly pulling cables, punching new
! 16 pipes or conduits through, or somebody swings a scaffolding 1 17 support and cuts a flexible boot or gouges the material out.
18 There are utilities that will repair silicone foam with.
19 other materials for which there is no supporting fire test 20 usually. It is unfortunate.
21 Part of what is driving it is, utilities trying to 1
l 22 save money. They thinking bringing in a contractor like ,
l 23 ourselves is going to cost them a lot of money. We have l j 24 been at Susquehanna I think 12 years now. I think it is the ,
l l 25 smartest utility in the business. When we finished the 1
j i ANN RILEY'& ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters i j 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 30b HitHT
{ Washington, D.C. 20005 OF [3jb. P AGr'C' i j (202) 842-0034 PAGE 3l J
l .
I l
41
- l 1 plant, they had us stay to do the maintenance and 1 1
2 modification work, and working together set up a program 3
that interfaces with all other contractors.
4 A lot of utilities don't know when a seal is 5 violated. I have walked through plants and seen holes all 6 over the place. But at Susquehanna, there is a form an 7
electrician fills out when he is going to pull the cables, 8
violate a seal, it comes to our project manager, whether it 9 is a pipe or whether damage has been done, whatever it is.
10 I have tried to sell this concept to other utilities, that 11 looks like a waste of money, that is foolish, it is cheaper 12 than hell. It is very cheap. But, unfortunately, some of 13 these utilities have had some bad experiences with other 14 companies.
15 I think there are some major, major problems out l 16 there in my own opinion, but we have been unable to bring it i
17 to the attention of anyone who would really take action.
18 Q The major problems being the repairs, et cetera, i 19 performed by the utilities that you elaborated on, those are 20 the major problems?
l 21 A And contractors doing the work and putting in new 22 seals, too, because they modify plants.
23 BY MR. ULIE:
24 Q Untrained contractors?
25 A Untrained contractors.
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
g3 Court Reporters EXHIBIT 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 PAGE 33 0r 39 PAGEfS)
(202) 842-0034
J 44 L1 construct it, configure it, et cetera.
i The results became i
l 2 documented with IEEE. l 3- Q In regards to the Dow product, you mentioned.your ;
.4 experience at Diablo Canyon. Did you ever not report any 5
deficiency with the product because of fears of losing a .
6 job,Las far as the Dow product was concerned? s i
s
- 7. A I have lost jobs because of my refusal to do 8 things. I' lost Sharon Harris and I lost Vogel. Both- !
9 utilities wanted us to train Daniel to do the work and I 10 said no. I said, the least I will do is,.it will be my i
11 management group, my installers running the machines and my l l
12 quality control. Daniel can support that they want to.
13 They wouldn't take it, they wouldn't accept it. Eventually 14 Vogel got into trouble and called for our help. They wanted 15 to buy a fire test because a seal was installed that didn't 16 have a supporting fire test and they found out we had the 17 only one in the country. So I had long talks with those 18 people telling them, I warned you about this, you know, and 19 I charged them an arm and a leg for that damned fire' test. -
20 0 would that test have been valid based on 21 installation technique?
22 A Yes. I didn't give them procedures, they only 23 wanted the fire test.
24 Q So it would have been up to whoever reviewed it to l
- 25 determine if they used the same installation techniques as i
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. p,yyl gly h i Court Reporters l 1250 I Street, .N.W., Suite 300 PAGE 33 OF3 ? PAGE(S)
Washington', D..C. 20005 (202) 842-0034 l-
h 45 ;
1 BISCO did?
2 A Absolutely. l 1
3 0 You are saying, based on your previous i
- 4. conversation, the installation techniques, a critical 5 factor, is where this test is representative ~ of this- !
(
6 installed configuration; am I understanding you right on !
t 7 'that?
8 A i
That's right. ANI's policy was that the j
4 9 procedures you wrote in constructing a prototype test became !
10 the construction procedures. I think their words were :
11 variations or something will not be tolerated. '
ANI do a 12 tremendous job. When they stepped out of the picture, they {
' 13 left a big void. They really policed them.
I -
Even they i l'4 weren't able to control them all, but they were a real good I
i 15 organization for policing the business,.and they gave a I i
s 16 tremendous knowledge of what worked or didn't work with !
. 17 silicone foam and naturally other materials, I am sure. i i
18 Q I am a little concerned now, has BISCO sold a !
19' number of these tests, is this fairly common, the situation !
l 20 you mentioned with Vogel, have you done that often, selling i 21 the tests, or could you identify to us in the future on what 22 tests you sold to which utilities that BISCO didn't install? !
23- A No , it is not a bi~g thing with us. Maybe for !
24 selfish reasons, as contractors, that is where we aren't j
[ 25 engineering, we are contractors. We try to convince the I
\
J i
i ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. EXHIBIT i Court Reporters !
1250 I Street, N.W.,
Washington, D.C. 20005 Suite 300 PAGE 3Y bF3i PAGE(S) ;
(202) 842-0034
' 1 l
46 1 client or whoever is requesting it the importance of 2 installing it ourselves, being the installer. For whatever 3
their reasons are, certain utilities say no, we only want 4 the information or we only want to buy the material. We 5
sell a lot of materials to utilities, and who is putting it 6 in, I haven't the faintest idea, and we certify it because 7 we have a OA program that certifies the material. The 8 selling of tests has not been a big thing.
9 Q So in addition to also -- you act as a wholesaler 10 for the Dow Corning material, say, to Bechtel?
11 A Yes, recently. Yes. Recently. The brings up a 12 very interesting issue, as the nuclear industry came down 13 and business dropped off, Dow Corning decided they would --
14 to utilize their manufacturing facility, decided to package '
15 the material for the commercial market, and they came out 16 with what is known as fire stop foam. Unfortunately, their 17 promotional literature referred to it as 3-6548, as being 3-18 6548, but they wouldn't certify it, there is no 19 traceability, nothing 20 So some utilities started buying it because it was 21 cheaper bec.ause Dow didn't have to control it the way they 22 controlled 3-6548. They didn't have to provide paperwork, 23 traceabilit:y, any of those things. That material has been 24 used in sone plants and some contractors have bought it who 25 are doing work in plants.
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 PAGE 35 OF di PAGE@
Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
, _ __ . ~ . . . . _ - .._.. _ _. _ ._ _ _ ._.___ _ _,_ _ ___ - _ _ _ _ _. . _ _
l l..
47 1
I raised a lot of hell with Dow about it when we
! 2 started to find this stuff surfacing in places, and as of 3
! the first of this year -- also, as part and parcel of this, 4
i 6548 was available to Dow commercial distributors in smaller 5
containers, and we buy the big 55-gallon drdms because there i 6 t were commercial uses for 6548 even before they created fire 7 stop foam.
We found some utilities were dumb enough to buy 8 it from commercial distributors at a much higher price than :
j i
9
'what they could buy it from us because it was in their user !
10 district.
Why that is so important, I don't know, and they 11 were buying material without any traceability.
12 l I raised lots of hell with Dow about this. First 13 l
of all, those commercial distributors are not supposed to 14 sell to utilities by your own agreements with them, only ;
-15 power applicators got it. As of the first of this year, Dow !
l 16' finally closed that door completely. !
In their own words, ;
17 6548 is no longer available for utilities from -- well, it -
18 !
is no longer available under that nomenclature from anyone 19 other than power applicators. They closed the door. The 20 turned the fire stop foam over to 3M. t They formed a i 1
21 marketing, joint marketing arrangement with them, and 3M is >
22 going to market the fire stop foam, according to their !
23 l
agreement, for commercial purposes only, but you are going !
24 to find people using it in nuclear plants because they are !
25 going to go through this whole commercial dedication i i
l 3
i f
I ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters FXHINT k '
1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 - '- @ 'OF hk PAGE(S) :
Washington, D.C. 20005 ?
i (202) 842-0034 I l i
i 48 1 business which is a big mistake.
2 O Was it common for the utilities that imposed 3 Appendix D, the Quality Assurance Requirements, and Part 21 4 on you when you obtained the contracts?
5 A 4
Absolutely, every contract.
6 Q And those -- I 7 A Every contract.
l 8 Q So now I think what you are saying is, they are !
9 dedicating the commercial Dow Corning as a nuclear product, 10 upgrading or whatever they do?
11 A And Dow has asked us and others, if they identify 12 any breaches of this that we are to notify them and they 13 will take action because Dow understands the difference.
14 How their products are being used, they can't control, and 15 rather than some of these unauthorized installers coming to 16 a power applicator contractor to buy the material or a 17 utility who is doing it themselves, they are going to 18 commercial distributors trying to buy it. It is not even 19 available to the commercial distributors any more.
20 That is why I say, our feet were held to the fire 21 when we constructed these plants, but after they went into 22 operation everything all went to hell.
23 Q By that you mean maintenance by untrained people 24 and where you went into detail and explained further?
25 A I once asked ANI, aren't they policing the ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. p Court Reporters EXHIBIT o 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 mE 3_2_ OF _3 ? PAGE(S)
(202) 842-0034
=
.s 52 1 Q Is there anything further you would care.to add 2 for the record?
)
3 A Not that I can recall at this time.
4 MR. ULIE: Then this interview is concluded.
5 Thank you.
6 (Whereupon, at 11:10 a.m., the interview was 7 concluded.)
8 9
10 11 12 13 14 c
15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters pyggy h 1250 I Street, N.W.,
Suite Washington, D.C. 20005 300 PAGE 3 7 or d t ' s(s)
(202) 842-0034
53 REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE This is to certify that the attached proceed-ings before the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission in the matter of:
NAME OF PROCEEDING:
Interview of Brown DOCKET NUMBER:
PLACE OF PROCEEDING: Lisle, IL were held as herein' appears, and that this is the original transcript thereof for the file of the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission taken by me and thereafter reduced to typewriting by me or under the direction of the court report-ing company, and that the transcript is a true and accurate record of the foregoing proceedings.
D / /) Il C^. - /Jn d29N N=//WQ% (/ m
/
Official Reporter Ann Riley & Associates. Ltd.
! e PAGE 39 OF 31PAGE(S)
--