ML18037A640

Test Rept for Analysis of Main Control Mapping Data & Ge/ C&C Numac Lab EMI Test Data for Brown Ferry Nuclear Plant

ML18037A640
Person / Time
Site:	Browns Ferry
Issue date:	12/10/1993
From:	Burr C, Jerry Dozier, Freeman M NTS/SMA, INC.
To:
Shared Package
ML18037A638	List: ML18037A637 ML18037A640 ML20062L920 ML20062L929 ML20062L932
References
31370-94M, NUDOCS 9401050441
Download: ML18037A640 (20)

Text

Test Report No. ~t70- 4M No. of Pages 15 TEST REPORT FOR ANALYSISOF MAINCONTROL ROOM MAPPING DATA AND GE /C&C NUMACLABORATORYEMI TEST DATA FOR TENNESSEE VALLEYAUTHORITY BROWN'S FERRY NUCLEAR PLANT P.O. BOX 2000 DECATUR, AL35609-2000 Contract No.

P-4N2D-82277E Prepared by:

Independent Reviewer:

Martin J. Fr an, P.E.

NTS/Northeast 533 Main Street, Acton, MA 01720 Date <<~>/>>

Date /Z /~ i >

Chris NTS pher

. Burr, EMC Test Engineer ortheast Reviewed and Approved by:

Jam NT

. Dozier, Quality ager, Nuclear Services ortheast Det. t'l>"l~>

KHD/EMI/3137094N.TE 940i05044i 93i223 PDR ADOCK 05000259 P

PDR

TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION PAGE NO.

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Scope 1.2 Purpose 2.0 APPLICABLEDOCUMENTS 3.0 GENERAL REQUIREMENTS 4.0 ANALYSIS 2-1 3-1 4-1 to 4-8 4.1 4.1.1 4.1.2 4.1.3 4.2 4.3 Site Electromagnetic Environment vs.

NUMACEMI Test Data Conducted Emission/Susceptibility Analysis Magnetic Field Emission/Susceptibility Analysis Electric Field Emission/Susceptibility Analysis IEC 801-5 Analysis CS114 Analysis

5.0 CONCLUSION

S AND RECOMMENDATIONS 5-1 5.1 Conclusions 5.2 Recommendations Report No. 31370-94N Page No. i

LIST OF FIGURES Fi re Title Pa e

4 1 4-2 4-3 4-4 4.5 Conducted Emission/Susceptibility Analysis 4-4 Magnetic Field Emission/Susceptibility Analysis 4-5 Electric Field Emission/Susceptibility Analysis 4-6 IEC 801-5 Analysis 4-7 CS114 Analysis 4-8 Report No. 31370-94N Page No. ii

LII I~II UC 0

1.1

~co e

This report describes in detail the analytical methods and procedures used, and the reults obtained therefrom, in analyzing the electromagnetic emission mapping data taken at the Tennessee Valley Authority Brown's Ferry Nuclear Station, Units ¹1 and ¹2 and ¹3 and comparing this mapping data to the data obtained during the laboratory testing of the General Electric Nuclear Measurement Analysis and Control (NUMACRBVRM)Unit. Laboratory EMItesting ofthe NUMACwas performed at the C&C Laboratory in Freemont, CA.

This report is an adjunct to NTS Report No. 60252.04-94N-2 "Analysis of EMI Main Control Room Mapping Data and GE RBVRM EMI Testing Data", dated 25 June 1993 and does not repeat what is contained therein.

1.2

~Pu ose The purpose of this analysis is three fold:

2) 3)

To compare the site electromagnetic profile measurement data to the NUMAC equipment conducted and radiated susceptibility measurement data to determine the adequacy of the NUMACequipment for use within the measured site (BFN) environment.

To compare the IEC STD 801-5, Level 2 laboratory test data taken on the NUMAC with the BFN electromagnetic emission mapping data to determine if the NUMAC, as installed, is acceptable for use in the BFN environment.

To determine ifthe testing performed by GE and C&C sufficiently bounds the requirements ofMIL-STD-461D, Test Method CS114, Curve 5, so as to preclude the necessity to perform CS114 testing on the NUMAC in the future.

Report No. ~137 )~4N Page No. 1-1

2.0 APPLl ABLE8 CUMENTS IEC Standard 801-5 NTS Test Report 60254.04-94N-2 TVAMemo C&C Labs Test Report MS3I-001F,TR International Electrotechnical Commission IEC Standard, dated 10 January 1990 Test Report for Analysis of EMI Main Control Room Mapping Data and GE RBVRM EMI Testing Data, dated 25 June 1993 Untitled, from G. Hicks (TVA-Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant to M.

Metcalf (NTS), dated 26 October 1993 Electromagnetic Compatibility Test Report on RBVRM Part Number: 304A37148G001, Serial Number: 093091-EP-1, dated September 1993.

Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Part 50, Appendix B, u li A

urance Criteria for Nuclear Power Plant and Fuel Prossecin Plants, January 1988 Cd f PM*& R 2 f 2, Pl 1 ld, 2 22,~if Defect and None m liance, as of January 1988 NTS/Northeast Quality Manual, Revision 3, dated 14 July 1992 NTS Interdivision No. 60379-94N, dated 12-1-93 Report No. ~1't70- 4N Page No. 2-1

The requirements of this analysis are threefold:

1)

Compare the site electromagnetic profile measurement data to the NUMAC equipment conducted and radiated susceptibility measurement data to determine the adequacy of the NUMAC RBVRM equipment for use within the measured site (BFN) environment.

2)

Compare the IEC STD 801-5, Level 2 laboratory test data taken on the NUMAC with the BFN electromagnetic emission mapping data to determine ifthe NUMAC, as installed, is acceptable for use in the BFN.

3)

Determine ifthe testing performed by GE and C&C sufficiently bounds the requirements of MIL-STD-461D, Test Method CS114, Curve 5, so as to preclude the necessity to perform CS114 testing on the NUMAC in the future.

Report No. 31370-94M Page No. 3-1

4.0 ANALYSIS 4.1 Site Electroma netic Environment vs. NUMAC EMI Test Data An analysis has been performed to compare the site electromagnetic profile measurement data to the NUMAC conducted and radiated susceptibility measurement data to determine the adequacy of the NUMAC RBVRM for use within the measured site electromagnetic environment.

Figures 4-1 through 4-3 show the results of this analysis.

4.1.1 Conducted Emission/Susce tibilit Anal sis Figure 4-1 shows the conducted emission/susceptibility analysis.

On Figure 4-1 is plotted the CE01 and CE03 site survey mapping data compared to the conducted susceptibility laboratory test data.

Also on Figure 4-1 the data from the C&C Test Report is labeled with the appropriate test method (in this instance "IEC 801-4 SUSCEPTIBILITY SIGNAL SPECTRA"). It can be seen from the data plotted on Figure 4-1 that the injected susceptibility signal levels (injected into the NUMAC during laboratory EMI testing) are greater (by at least 78 dB) than the site survey mapping data over the entire frequency range of the site survey mapping tests.

This shows that the GE NUMAC will not be susceptible to noise existing on the site prime power lines with at least a 78 dB safety margin.

4.1.2 Ma netic Field Emission/Susce tibilit Anal sis Figure 4-2 shows the magnetic field emission/susceptibility analysis.

On Figure 4-2 is plotted the RE01 site survey mapping data compared to the magnetic field susceptibility laboratory test data.

On Figure 4-2 the data from the C&C test report is labeled with the appropriate test method (in this instance "RS101 SUSCEPTIBILITY SIGNAL SPECTRA").

It can be seen from the data plotted on Figure 4-2 that the injected susceptibility signal levels Report No. 31370-94N Page No. 4-1

4.0

~ANALY IS (continued) 4e1 Site Electroma netic Environment v. NUMACEMI Test Data (continued)

(injected into the NUMAC during laboratory EMI testing) are greater (by at least 62 dB) than the site survey mapping data over the entire frequency range of the site survey mapping tests.

This shows that the GE NUMACwillnot be susceptible to magnetic field radiation existing at the site with at least a 62 dB safety margin.

4.1.3 l

tri Fiel Emi si n/ u ce i ilit An 1 si Figure 4-3 shows the electric field emission/susceptibility analysis.

On Figure 4-3 is plotted the RE02 site survey mapping data compared to the electric field susceptibility laboratory test data.

On Figure 4-3 the data from the CHIC Test Report is labeled with the appropriate test method (in this instance "RS103 SUSCEPTIBILITYSIGNALSPECTRA"). It can be seen from the data plotted on Figure 4-3 that the radiated susceptibility signal levels (broadcast at the NUMAC during laboratory EMI testing) are greater by at least 64 dB than the site survey mapping data over the entire frequency range of the site survey mapping tests with the exception of the 163 to 169MHz frequency range (due to the Fl-F4 hand-held radios) where a 10 dB margin exists. This shows that the GE NUMACRBVRMwillnot be susceptible to electric field radiation existing at the site with at least a 64 dB safety margin with the exception of the 163 to 169 MHz frequency range.

4.2 IEC 801-5 Anal sis Figure 4-4 shows the IEC 801-5 emission/susceptibility analysis.

On Figure 4-4 is plotted the CE03 site survey mapping data compared to the IEC 801-5 susceptibility laboratory test data.

On Figure 4-4 the data from the C&C Test Report is labeled with the appropriate test method (in this instance "IEC 80-5 SUSCEPTIBILITY SIGNAL SPECTRA" ). It can be seen Report No. ~1370- 4N Page No. 4-2

4.0

~ANALY I (continued) 4.2 ~0-4 4

from the data plotted on figure 4-4 that the susceptibility signals broadcast at the NUMAC during laboratory EMI testing are greater (by at least 51 dB) than the site survey mapping data over the entire frequency range of the site survey mapping tests.

This shows that the GE NUMACwillnot be susceptible to noise surges existing on the site prime power lines with at least a 51 dB safety margin.

4.3 ~14 Figure 4-5 shows the CS114 emission/susceptibility analysis.

On Figure 4-5 is plotted the MIL-STD-461D, CS114, Curve 5 Limit(the most severe limit)compared to the IEC 801-4, 1

Level 4 conducted susceptibility laboratory test data.

On Figure 4-5 the data from the C&C Test Report is labeled with the appropriate test method (in this instance "IEC 801-4 SUSCEPTIBILITY SIGNAI. SPECTRA"). It can be seen from the data plotted on Figure 4-5 that the IEC 801-4, Level 4 injected susceptibility signal levels (injected into the NUMAC during laboratory EMI testing) are greater (by at least 46 dB) than the MIL-STD-461D, CS114, Curve 5 limit. This shows that the IEC 801-4, Level 4 requirement is a minimum of 46 dB more severe test requirement than the MIL-STD-461D, CS114, Curve 5 limitover the entire frequency range of the MIL-STD-461D, CS114, Curve 5 requirement.

Report No. 31370-94N Page No. 4-4

SEMI LOGARITHMICI CYCLES X SO OI VISIONS Q

KEUFFEt. 6 ESSER CO.

Eesest sss v aeL 46 6463 0O P

lV lOY (00+

lH

<&%6,QC.q (5Q

'eissvrcE 8-l coTET ocwass EssLswoNlrzvscE&1"Its'iLlTY Awsensls l00H

~

- ~

~ 'SW ~

C

~

w R.~W le EMk' s

s "issss4$ t Ri! Eesrer) AR"., r ie"

~O VI

~

I Ol

'IC CO IO I CO I

I I

"'G W '8ail4.NiiitimMIC4 eVCI.te C~

I R~Ce ICEUFFCL Ct ESSKII CO.

NCDE IO >>OO.

II X '8 UIVISI6&

VI Ol

'4 CO I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I Pl VI I I

I I

46 6012

>>I s'n a v c>>l>>II I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I IO I

I I

I I

I I

I Vl I

I I

I I

I I

I I

"I a

V C>>eCO I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I 10 10

XSSWIIC 55CLI8l~70 IVI 5k'lUF7XI 0 KSSN\\ CO Nlktk Oi OAA 46 6212 lP)w)i Qw Ol V CO wOI k

Cwf I

I Ow Ow V COwO s

s s

~

I I

I I

I II kk-w I

I

~rw

• v Crwl I

I I

~

I I

I I

v Ca wOI w

~

I ~

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I

kkI, I

I I

I I

I I

v CO wOw I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I II I

I I

I I

wl Itr'"

'L' I',I w'I I

w'JI

'Jl

'I I I>> I ftl "I

k 1

w I'I'IL" I

ff I

I!.'

err,'

I I

I I

I" ll f

LI I w

I w

I r

w, "Ij

ll]

Ih

)f'ff'

~

l005 LI)

Cw'l twl ill I jl

'Ii I

.'I Ip

)

I

SO<I-LOOAOIVMMtCI CVCLSS X SC OISICIOHS Ca KEVFFEC. Ss ESSER CO.

NSCC IO S.CC.

46 6012 V

t i'lo CCS

~

Stl S

S S

C)s 4 CC S

I S

S)S 4 CO SOI I

I I

I I

CO S'SC e

4 COeI I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

~

CSS SCS 4 CC SC) CS I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I allo

/6o I'/o 8o I

[I!

'XO I

ll 0

-'/0

/n FIHQu&ILIC'I (IIy)

IDoR

'-'.:;.'m"-

-. -"I+'x't '>>a>>I7t>>Mitttttii7iosa'cixtxia>>iliiiiiioxx

~/

ob I

I Iv lO I

~

I I

I o

oi oi v o>>toI

~o Lo V O>> iOI

~

I Ot Oi

~

~

XXI

• V I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

~ i

~r%II I II I

I I

~

~ -

xv H w '4 46 6212 ai O

Ot P VCOIOI I

~

I

~

~

~ i I

I I

I I

I I II I

I I

I I

I I II I

I I

I I

I I

I I oo I

I I

I I'

I I

I I

I I

I V CO to>

I I

I I

~

~

~

I I II I

I I

I I

I I I

~

xaew w

I "xt&~gyoor~4w' rj)

I I

ll I Ajj flf I

i'i ll i

I

!ll

'll I

iJ' il Jl Il P ill ill I i ff Ill jjl

<<l.

't

'I I

Ijt't Ill tl I,II

,I l I]l

'il ili.I t

ljl tjl o

, jl j ft fl 1,

i, f

I III ru (0)C

5.0 CONCLUSION

S AND RKCOMME<NDATIONS 5.1 Conclusions Analysis of the test data shows:

1)

The comparison of the site electromagnetic profile measurement data to the NUMAC RBVRM equipment conducted and radiated susceptibility test data shows the NUMAC equipment to be adequate for use within the measured site environment.

2)

The comparison of the IEC STD 801-5, Level 2 laboratory test data taken on the NUMAC with the BFN electromagnetic emission mapping data shows the NUMAC, as installed, is acceptable for use in the BFN environment.

3)

The comparison testing performed by CHIC sufficiently bounds (with at least a 46 dB safety margin) the requirements of MIL-STD-461D, Test Method CS114, so as to preclude the necessity to perform CS114 testing on the NUMAC in the future.

5.2 Recommendations It is recommended that no further EMI/EMC testing be performed ont he GE NUMAC RBVRM. This supersedes the recommendations of Section 5.2 of NTS Report No. 60254.04-94N-2 "Analysis of EMI Main Control Room Mapping Data and GE RBVRM EMI testing data.

Report No. 31370-94N Page No. 5-1

0'