ML17329A707

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Engineering Analysis of Temperature & Humidity Effects on Foxboro Spec 200 Instrumentation Reactor Protection & Control Sys Replacement Project.
ML17329A707
Person / Time
Site: Cook  American Electric Power icon.png
Issue date: 12/16/1992
From:
AMERICAN ELECTRIC POWER SERVICE CORP.
To:
Shared Package
ML17329A705 List:
References
2985-HEI-12, 2985-HEI-12-R, 2985-HEI-12-R00, NUDOCS 9212180062
Download: ML17329A707 (17)
v • d • e


Text

Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant Units 1 & 2 Engineering Analysis of Temperature and Humidity Effects On Foxboro Spec 200 Instrumentation Reactor Protection and Control System Replacement Project Report Number 2985-HEI-12, Rev. 0

~Sub'ect:

This report shall document results of the Engineering Analysis performed to evaluate temperature and humidity effects on the Foxboro Spec 200 and Spec 200 Micro instrumentation to be utilized in the Donald C. Cook Reactor Protection and Control System Replacement Project.

References:

1. Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant Specification No. DCC-IC-500-QCN; Revision 0; Reactor Protection and Control Instrumentation.
2. Foxboro Report QOAAA01 - Revision A; Program For Class 1E Qualification of Spec 200 Instrumentation Equipment.
3. Foxboro Report QOAAA02 - Revision A; Performance Tests and Operating Influence Test for Rack-Mounted Modules.
4. Foxboro Report QOAAB01 - Revision A; Class 1E Qualification of Spec 200 Instrumentation Equipment To Generic Service Conditions Per IEEE 323-1974 & IEEE 344-1975.

S. Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant UFSAR; Sections 7.2.3, 7.5.3 and 9.10.1; Current Revisions.

6. Foxboro Qualification Reports for various Spec 200 instrumentation; (Reference Attachment I).
7. Foxboro Report QOAAA24 - Revision B; Heat Rise Test on N-2ES Rack.
8. Hurst Engineering Report 2985-HEI Revision 0; Exploratory Heat Rise Testing of Amco Rack Containing Spec 200 Equipment.

D.C. Cook Units 1 8c 2 Engineering Analysis of Temperature / Humidity Effects On Spec. 200 Instrumentation Reactor Protection System Replacement Report Number 29SS-HEI-12 Rev. 0 92121800b2 9212ib i,~e I of4 AEPtcmpqual PDR ADOCK 05000315

--PDR

The Foxboro Spec 200 and Spec 200 Micro Instrumentation to be utilized in the Reactor Protection and Engineered Safeguards Systems upgrade must be designed to operate within the design tolerance when subjected to normal ambient environments of the control rooms as specified in the Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant UFSAR.

~Sco e:

The scope of this analysis is to ensure that the Foxboro instrumentation will operate without loss of protective function over the range of environmental conditions that envelop the Donald C.

Cook specific requirements. This report is limited to the review of Foxboro Qualification documents with respect to the requirements specified in Reference Number 1 above and the Donald C. Cook licensing basis as defined in the UFSAR.

Discussion:

Specification DCC-IC-500-QCN Revision 0, requires that the Reactor Protection System instrumentation operate in a mild environment under the following parameters:

Temperature: 0 - 50 'C (32 - 122 'F)

Humidity: 10 - 90 % RH Pressure: Ambient Location: Indoors (control room)

UFSAR sections 7.2.3 and 9.10.1 state that the control room and adjoining equipment room is maintained at 70 'F +4 15 'F and is designed to maintain a temperature of 75 'F dry bulb and 50 % relative humidity under normal conditions. The system is designed to operate during normal and emergency conditions as required.

Qualification of the Foxboro Spec 200 equipment to meet the intent of IEEE 323-1974 requires that operating influence testing be performed on the subject modules to ensure that they will perform their 1E functions under stated control room environments. This testing demonstrates that the individual modules will perform as required under reference environments and to the extremes of normal operating conditions. The modules have been qualified for Class 1E application by demonstration of module performance functions and of operating influences at service conditions to stated acceptance criteria before, during, and after the specified design basis event.

D.C. Cook Units 1 &2 Engineering Analysis of Temperature / Humidity Effects On Spec. 200 Jnstrumentation Reactor Protection System Replacement Report Number 2985-HEI-12 Rev. 0 Page 2 of 4 AEBcmpqual

Foxboro has qualified all Spec 200 modules included in the qualification program, including rack mounted modules, and power supplies, over the range of 5 'C to 60 'C (40 'F to 140 'F).

Qualification testing for temperature influence on the Spec 200 instrumentation was completed at these elevated temperatures to satisfy IEEE 323 requirements that margin be provided from operating conditions. To confirm the adequacy of the temperature margins, a variety of rack loading configurations were tested at ambient temperatures of 40 'C (104 'F).

Humidity influence testing has been completed at 50 to 95  % RH (86 'F (30 'C) max wet bulb) to envelop normal operating conditions and to document adequate margin.

Because the Spec 200 equipment to be utilized at the Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant is to be installed in existing racks, additional supplemental testing is to be performed to confirm the assumption that the heat rise in the cabinets, combined with the worst case control room temperature of 122 'F, will not exceed the equipment qualification temperature of 140 'F.

Based on the heat rise testing documented in report QOAAA24 and the fact that the existing cabinets allow better ventilation than the tested Spec 200 racks, a high level of confidence exists that the supplemental heat rise testing will confirm the heat rise assumptions stated previously.

The generic Foxboro program for qualification of Class 1E equipment is delineated in Test Procedure QOAAA01. This document describes the procedures to be implemented and the acceptance criteria specified to ensure qualification of the Spec 200 equipment.

Foxboro Test Procedure QOAAA02 defines the performance and operating influence tests to be conducted on the rack mounted modules prior to and following seismic qualification tests. This document outlines the specific reference conditions, test conditions and performance and operating influence tests to be on the subject modules.

Foxboro Test Report QOAAB01 summarizes the qualification results achieved by Foxboro for the generic qualification of the Spec 200 racks, rack mounted modules, power supplies and cables.

Modules qualified by similarity to type tested equipment are described in Foxboro reports QOAAA05 and QOAAA06.

Equipment specific qualification test results are contained within the Foxboro documents identified in Attachment 1 of this report.

D.C. Cook Units I &2 Engineering Analysis of Temperature / Humidity Effects On Spec. 200 Instrumentation Reactor Protection System Replacement Report Number 2985-HEI-12 Rev. 0 Page 3 of 4 AEBcmpqual

==

Conclusion:==

Based on review of the Foxboro qualification test program and equipment specific test data, it is concluded that adequate documentation exists to demonstrate that the subject equipment will perform as required under reference environments and when subjected to extreme service conditions. Temperature and humidity influence testing has been satisfactorily performed and documented such that the Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant operating environments are enveloped by the test profiles.

The temperature and humidity profiles to which the Spec 200 equipment was subjected, adequately address the normal and extreme service conditions which are anticipated at the Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant control rooms. The qualification test results in conjunction with supplemental cabinet heat rise testing to be performed by Foxboro (reference Hurst Engineering Report 2985-HEI-09), should indicate that the Spec 200 equipment performance specifications exceed the worst case environmental conditions documented for the Donald C. Cook equipment.

~Arovsls:

)tIie s~

Prepared By Date Reviewed By Date Approved By Date D.C. Cook Units 1 &2 Engineering Analysis of Temperature / Humidity Effects On Spec. 200 Instrumentation Reactor Protection System Replacement Report Number 2985-HEI-12 Rev. 0 Page 4 of 4 AEPtcrnpqual

ATTACHMENT¹I Pg. 1 of 1 Report 2985-HEI-12 Revision 0 FOXBORO SPEC 200 / SPEC 200 MICRO DOCUMENTATION LIST Qualification Similarity E~ui m~en Document Document N-2AI-C2L QOAAB15 N-2AI-H2V QOAAA06 QOAAB35 N-2AI-P2V(C) 1-01878 QOAAB29 N-2AI-T2V QOAAB28 N-2AX+VE QOAAA06 N-2AX+P(C) 1-01833 QOAAB21 N-2CCA-S QOAAB69 N-2CCA-D QOAAB69 N-2AO-L2C-R(C) 1-01830 QOAAB34 & QOAAB60 N-2AO-V2H(C) QOAAA06 (note 1) QOAAB17 N-2AX+DP11 QOAAB69 N-2AX+DP10-E QOAAA06 QOAAB14 N-2ANU-DM QOAAB69 N-2ARPS05-A6 QOAAA37 Part 2 P0300CQ QOAAA20 Part 4 TEST PANEL QOAAA20 Part 4 WIRING QOAAB61 General u lification Documents QOAAAO1 QOAAA02 QOAAA04 Parts 1-4 QOAAA05 QOAAA08 QOAAA20 Parts 1-4, Appx. A QOAAA24 QOAAA39 QOAAA40 QOAAB01 QOAAB58 Notes:

1. This card will have a supplementary qualification report issued in the near future.

This report will be reviewed for additional temperature / humidity concerns upon receipt.

gyeAee4~

EQUIPMENT QUALIFICATIONREPORT/ANALYSIS EVALUATIONNO. ~~~ME-/4 ~. o (Typical) Page 1 of 10 Source Document I.D. Title Rev.

QOHrfd'4>l W cies I Qo 0~ pdC4r~

g~ ol Qav.s lE 'C 5 zoo ~rrr~ 4 /

PO No. Specification No.

Equipment Identification: ~o -0' Prepared By: HM Cl3 Date: ~ra.

Reviewed By: Da<<:~la Z.

Approved By: Date: << i I The document preparer s all use this checklist to evaluate the qualification report/analysis per the following issues. Section 1 is the. "Qualification Assessment/Summary." This section is a brief summary of the adequacy of the subject documents. This summary is based on the results of the answers to the questions listed in Section 2 of this document. Any additions or changes to the report(s)/analyses which are required in order to provide proper qualification should be listed in this section of this form. Approval will be subject to the open items listed in this section.

Section 2 of this form is the Report(s)/Analyses Evaluation Checklist. A "Y", "N", or "N/A" response should be given for each question listed. Each response shall be properly explained and justified, giving specific section references within the subject procedure(s).

SECTI N I - UALIFICATIONASS SMENT/

SUMMARY

Provide a comprehensive statement of device qualification for the parameters addressed by the report(s)/analyses. Include any clarifications, corrections, or changes necessary to provide proper device qualification per the report(s)/analyses.

EQUIPMENT QUALIFICATIONREPORT/ANALYSIS EVALUATIONNO. ~~l~

Page 2 of 10 SFCTI N 2 - REPORT /ANALY ES EVALUATIONCHECKLIST ENERAL UALIFICATI N ISS ES

1. Does the report/analysis properly identify the test specimens used, and the components, systems, or structures which are qualified based on the results. Y[+N[]N/A[]

s.

2. Were the same specimens used throughout the testing process? Y[~N[]N/A[]

I p s/

3. Does the report address the testing of the proper components for qualification? (Identical components or adequate similarity proved?) Y[~[] N/A[]
4. Were the applicable interactions with other equipment properly simulated?

t / s.g.

Y~ ] N/A[] Aa '~

S 5.

]fog Did the test parameters components?

\

4 ~v, lr'27 properly envelope the required environments for the YP~+]N/A[]

~4~ ~-~ i> ~.

@z.

o EQUIPMENT QUALIFICATIONREPORT/ANALYSIS EVALUATIONNO P<

(Typical) Page 3 of 10

6. Was the acceptance criteria properly chosen to demonstrate qualification?

Y[~[]N/A[]

aw ~~ 923

~ >'d

~

a

.C. r ~/4rfgCC

/6 y, /c~~~ we~pag+ ~~$ op/+ '.

Was equipment performance data recorded before, during and after the test to demonstrate ualified operation and functio ity? Y[~[] N/A[ ]

cDL voce n s

8. Were the test methods in general accordance with the test procedure and purchase specifications?

'~ceo Y[~[] N/A[]

323 746 (5c bw 5 ~5 V

9. Were proper margin/safety factors applied to the test parameters per industry standards? Y[ ] N[] N/A[]

4, fe 8 gu- 0o wo W QJ-"Ia

10. Can qualification of the equipment be clearly determined based on this report/analysis? Y[~[] N/A[]
11. Were test sequences, logic and protocol acceptable? Y~[]N/Af ]

SZ5 4'eve re

EQUIPMENT QUALIFICATIONREPORT/ANALYSIS EVALUATIONNO. 2'/85=8%-P'-a O .(Typical) Page 4 of 10

12. Was the testing performed in general accordance with IEEE Standards 323 and 344 per Reference 7.1?

mc Y[~[] N/A[]

13. Are the analyses, logic, graphics, formulas, equations, and mathematics understandable

~d valid? r~

Y[~[]N/Af ]

14. e the variables identified?

A]

Y[~[]N/A[]

Are uncommon or simplified formulas, equations, and mathematical procedures explained and bases documented? Y[ ] N[ ] N/A[~

l.M S'o

16. acumen Ale calculations

~(f:cc.~AS~ So W ~

numerically correct with units shown? Y ] N+] N/A[~

~C

17. Are assumptions and judgments reasonable and acceptable with bases explained and

? Y[~[]N/A[,]

EQUIPMENT QUALIFICATIONREPORT/ANALYSIS EVALUATIONNO. ~1<< ~~~/< Mo typical) Page 5 of 10

18. Have inputs been correctly selected, referenced, interpreted, and used?

g//

Y[~[ N/A[ ]

Peg Cgq

19. Are outputs an conclusions correct and justified? Y[ ] N[ ] N/A[ ]

A,'

r~ gg

20. Did the tested configuration appropriately match the to be installed configuration?

Y[~N[ N/A[ ]

~ C54

c. ~4 md~/

SEI MI ALIFICATIONI

21. Is component seismic classification identified? Y[] N[] N/A[~

~s ~W eu, /

22. Were physical interactions/spatial confiicts with other items considered?

Y[] N[ ] N/A[+

us >t,

EQUIPMENT QUALIFICATIONREPORT/ANALYSIS EVALUATIONNO. >~<<+~-.'> ~

(Typical) Page 6 of 10

23. Did the equipment performance meet the acceptance criteria before, during and after each OBE and DBE/SSE event? Y[] N[] N/A[~

2.(

24. Did the number and duration of OBE and DBE/SSE events incorporated into the testing meet the requirements of Reference 7.1? Y[] N[] N/A[~

4t. C

25. Did the testing envelope the necessary OBE and DBE/SSE response spectra that define the seismic input at the mounting/support? Y[ ] N[] N/A[~
26. Was information necessary to assess or include amplification and dynamic response incorporated into the test?

z Y[] N[] N/Af~

27. Was information necessary to assess or include mounting/support, weight and non-seismic loads incorporated into the test?

a ~l.

Y[] N[] N/A[~

EQUIPMENT QUALIFICATIONREPORT/ANALYSIS EVALUATIONNO. 49'8'J=~~ -n. ~. o (Typical) Page 7 of 10

28. Was information necessary to assess or include physical/structural strength been incorporated into the test report? Y[ ] N[ ] N/A[g S a.x
29. Did the method used assess the postulated failure modes and associated critical characteristics? Y[] N[] N/A[~
30. As applicable, has dynamic analysis performed on electrical components, systems, structures, been performed in accordance with the mathematical principles and procedures as required by Reference 7.1? Y[ ] N[ ] N/A[@

Z.(.

31. For seismic analyses and testing, are computer programs, software, and firmware in accordance with NEP 2.6 and GP's 2.6, 3.7, 4.4, and 15.5? Y[] N[] N/Af~

TEMPERAT RE/HUMIDITY ALIFI ATI N I Rack Heat Rise Testin

32. Did the test/analysis appropriately consider the worst case temperatures in the environment which the installed device will experience? Y[+N[]N/A[]

-A 'r- L,

, /Oi

//gal.C41+YQ Np EQUIPMENT QUALIFICATIONREPORT/ANALYSIS EVALUATIONNO. >18s-m-n ~.

(Typical) Page 8 of 10

33. Did the test allow enough settle time to adequately determine a steady state operating temperature? Y[~[]N A[]

~on

34. Did the test/analysis take into account the required arrangements of the internal equipment? Y~N[] N/A[]

4c, lh cu Ao

35. Were the temperature measurement points chosen appropriately to make determinations of the heat rise effects? Y[] N[] N/A[+
36. Does the test account for the ambient room humidity for the installed equipment?

'u~s Y[~[]N/A[]

goFo4 i '/~

"F So'c- >2.

37. Were the power supplies and other internal equipment appropriately loaded to show near 5 ~

worst case operational scenarios for heat loss?

Mo 5 rM Y[] N[] N/A[~

Ass

EQUIPMENT QUALIFICATIONREPORT/ANALYSIS EVALVATIONNO. >~<s -~az, ~ o g ypIcal) Page 9 of 10 EMI/RFI/ESD UALIFICATIONISSUES

38. Were the appropriate industry standards referenced? Y[] N[] N/A[~

wlX / /

39. Were the installed configuration of cables, connectors, and internal wiring identical to or reasonably similar to the required installation configuration? Y[] N[] N/A[~

5

40. Did the test generally confoim to the methods specified by the required industry standards? Y[] N[] N/A[+

as 35

41. Did the test perform a susceptible frequency search over the applicable frequency range? Y[] N[] N/A[~
42. Did the test perform susceptibility tests at the frequencies identified as present in the EMI/RFI site survey? Y[] N[] N/A[~

Sc as

I~

~

'c4~pMpz EQUIPMENT QUALIFICATIONREPORT/ANALYSIS EVALUATIONNO. ~~s<

CI ypical) Page

~+2 ~~

10 of 10

43. If the equipment experienced a processor lockup, did the equipment outputs go to a proper fail and restart state? Y[ ] N[] N/A[+

S~ 05 3$

TEST ANOMALTE List all anomalies, resolutions, and justifications below. Ifopen items remain for justification of anomaly resolution, please indicate in the explanation.

~

2 Ql+

Co v ~ S:m:lag I-2 o-

o. 4 Ss

-~cG fr a

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML17329A707&oldid=2425763"