ML20083C019
| ML20083C019 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Perry  |
| Issue date: | 03/03/1995 |
| From: | Lawrence L, Mcguire L GENERAL ELECTRIC CO. |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20083C018 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9505150075 | |
| Download: ML20083C019 (28) | |
Text
. . . . .
l GE NUMAC LEAK DETECTION SYSTEM EMI/RFI ANALYSIS REPORT for DCP 87-0725 1
Prepared By: Larry P. Lawrence / 1 /3hf9f Reviewed By: Lori McGuire/ M 8/5 .' J/ 9r Approved By: / v 7 J/3/95'~
h1ah2 l I D /[DO OO k40 P PDR i
l TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 P U RPO S E . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2.0 APPROA C H . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3.0 ANALYS I S . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3.1 Plant Emissions Limits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 i 3.2 GE NUMAC LDS EMI/RFI Susceptibility Testing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 3.3 Plant Emissions vs. NUMAC Susceptibility Comparison . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 3.4 NUMAC Emiss ions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I 1
4.0 CONCLUSION
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 5.0 RE8ERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 6.0 FI G U RES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 5 1
~~
\
i
}
l 1
l.
A:\EMIRfil.WPD -
7 March 2.1995
r-o 1.0 PURPOSE i The purpose of this analysis is to demonstrate for the Perry Nuclear Power Plant (PNPP),
that the Electromagnetic Interference (EMI) or Radio-Frequency Interference (RFI), present at the location of the new General Electric NUMAC Leak Detection System (LDS) will not impact the safe and reliable operation of the system. In addition it demonstrates, that the emissions generated by the new equipment will not impact safe and reliable operation of nearby equipment. ;
2.0 APPROACII EPRI TR-102348 " Guidelines on Licensing Digital Upgrades" (Ref. 5.1) and EPRI TR-102323 " Guidelines for Electromagnetic Interference Testing in Power Plants" (Ref. 5.2) contain guidance for effectively addressing the EMI issue for digital upgrades. The EPRI guidelines recommend two methods for demonstrating that the new digital equipment is compatible with the EMI environment (Ref. 5.1, pg. 5-7);
- 1. Test the new equipment to conservative levels that can be shown to be greater than what is credible for the installed environment; a local site survey is not required in this case.
EPRI TR-102323 specifies bounding EMI environments for a typical EMI emissions
- environment.
- 2. Perform local tests, surveys, or a combination of testing and analysis to determine the actual environment in which the equipment will be installed. Compare this to the results of the equipment susceptibility tests, and show that the equipment testing envelopes the installed environment with a 6 dB margin.
Method 2 has been utilized at PNPP by performing a site EMI Survey, to identify the EMI environment at the point ofinstallation, and comparing it to the NUMAC equipment susceptibility tests to demonstrate that the NUMAC LDS is compatible with the EMI environment.
Engineering personnel from PNPPjoined the EPRI/ Utility EMI Working Group in 1993 and participated in gathering site specific EMI data to support this and future digital upgrades as well as providing data for the EPRI TR-102323 Generic Emissions Data. EPRI and PNPP funded National Technical Systems (NTS) to conduct an emissions survey at the PNPP site, including the location for the NUMAC L.DS equipment in the Main Control Room. The generic EMI mapping was performed to ensure that the actual worst case EMI noise profile is mapped for various plant locations. NTS Test Procedure 31267-94M (Ref 5.3) describes test procedure and locations monitored, and NTS Test Report 31267-94M (Ref 5.4) documents the EMI emissions testing output data.
A \l.hMRIII.WPD Ntarch 2.1995 3
~. . __ _ _ _ _ . . . _ . _ . _ ._ _ . . . . _. _ _ _ .
.. 'l 9
The worst case measured emissions data from the Control Room and at the point of j installation was then compared to the GE NUMAC EMI tested susceptibility levels to j
demonstrate compatibility with the environment. A conservative acceptance criteria of 6 dB l
between this wor.st case emission profile and the NUMAC susceptibility limits was ;
established to ensure an adequate safety margin is provided. This is consistent with the l
guidance provided in EPRI TR-102323 (Ref. 5.2). NTS Test Report 31267-94M-1 l (References 5.5,5.6, & 5.7) provides the comparison of the Control Room emissions data l with the results of the GE NUMAC LDS susceptibility testing to determine the adequacy of -l the equipment in the control room environment. Dick Meininger (CHAR Services), a l recognized EMI expert and EPRI TR-102323 author, was contracted by PNPP to perform an !
independent evaluation (Ref. 5.11) of the EMI Analysis performed by NTS to substantiate 'i the conclusion that the NUMAC LDM will not affect the present on-site equipment nor be !
adversely affected by the present on-site electromagnetic environment. l l
I 3.0 ANALYSIS I The following analysis provides the basis and results of both the NTS Plant Emission !
Testing Data for PNPP (Section 3.1) and the GE NUMAC LDS Susceptibility Limits l (Section 3.2) and then compares the two results to ensure that the NUMAC LDS is l
compatible with the existing EMI environment (Section 3.3). Analysis is also provided to j
- ensure that'the NUMAC LDS Emissions will not impact existing equipment in the control ;
room (Section 3.4). j 3.1 Plant Emissions Limits !
Conducted, Transient, and Radiated Emissions were measured by NTS at various locations in the plant, including the NUMAC LDS point ofinstallation in the Control Room. NTS ,
Test Report 31267-94M (Ref. 5.4) documents the tests performed and the emissions output ;
data. The following emissions tests were conducted in accordance with MIL-STD-461 & !
462 and a summary of the emissions results are provided below ; j I
e CE01 - Conducted Emissions, Low Frequency 30 Hz to 15 kHz, Power and Signal Leads {
e CE03 - Conducted Emissions, High Frequency 15 kHz to 50 MHz, Power and Signal ;
Leads ,
o CE07 - Conducted Transient Emissions, Power and Signal Leads [
e REXX - Radiated DC Magnetic Field Emissions !
- RE01 - Radiated Magnetic Field Emissions,30 Hz to 50 kHz l
- RE02 - Radiated Electric Field Emissions,14 kHz to IGHz ;
e RE02.1 - Radiated Emissions, Hand Held Radio Profile
?
I MEMIRFil.WPD .
March 2.1995 4 E l
p CE01 - Conducted Emissions . Low Frequency 30 Hz to 15 (Iir, The plot in Figure 6.1 shows the highest observed envelope of conducted emissions in the frequency range 30 Hz to 15 kHz on the power, signal, and neutral lines (Ref. 5.6, Fig. 4-3).
The region from 30 Hz to 120 Hz is viewed as the device power consuming region and includes the effects of plant emissions and load - carrying current. Plant load - carrying currents dominate this region, particularly around 60 Hz , and thus the above plot is not truly representative of the plant emissions in this region. The peak emissions are 152 dB A at 60 Hz.
MIL-STD-461C (Ref. 5.14) specifies the use of " Load Relaxation Limits" to differentiate unwanted emissions ( I summ) from the actual load current (IP owa). Actual load current was not measured by NTS during the emissions testing. In order to determine a more realistic emissions profile, Figure 6.1 has been modified by normalizing the current profiles to a 1 ,
Amp (120 dB A) refeence by making the conservative assumption that the 1 umm i , CE01 emissions, is equal to the third harmonic amplitude of 128 dB A. This assumption is cons'ervative because the 2nd and 3rd harmonic typically have the largest amplitude in most 60 Hz systems. The PNPP worst case CE01 emission profiles, from Ref. 5.4, Figures 6-14 and 6-17, support this assumption. References 5.2,5.11,5.12, and 5.13 support this method ofload relaxation. Figure 6.2 shows the corrected bounding CE01 emissions curve and is derived from the worst case peak emissions at the low end and high end frequencies as
- follows;
- 1. The worst case low end peak Harmonic conducted emissions measured in the control room occurs in Panel 1H13-P691 at a value of 128 dB A (Ref. 5.4, page 6-17). Note that the low end peak harmonic at the point ofinstallation, in Panel lH13-P642, is j significantly lower at i10 dBpA (Ref. 5.4, page 6-12). l l
i
- 2. The worst case high end peak conducted emissions measured in the control room occurs at the point of installation in Panel IH13-P632 at a value of 71 dB A (Ref. 5.4, page 6-14).
Based on the above values, Figure 6.2 represents the worst case CE01 conducted low frequency emissions measured in the control room. The peak emissions are 128 dB A at ,
120 Hz.
CE03 - Conducted Emissions . High Freauency 10 kHz to 50 Mhz 1
'lhe plot in Figure 6.3 shows the highest observed envelope of conducted emissions in the I frequency range 10 kHz to 50 MHz on the power, signal, and neutral lines (Ref. 5.6, Fig. 4-5). The peak emissions are 92 dBpA at 84 kHz.
l l
ATEMIRIII.WPD 1 March 2.1995 5 l I
]
.~.
j- .:
l q
CE07 - Trancient Emiuions.10 Hz to 50 MHz j i
The plot in Figure 6.4 shows the highest observed envelope of transient emissions m the l
. frequency range 10 Hz to 50 MHz on the power, signal, and neutral lines (Ref. 5.7, Fig. 4- 1'
. 6). The peak emissions are 123 dB A at 2 MHz.
REXX - Radiatad DC Maanatic Field Fmiaminne 30 Hz to 50 kHz Analysis of the DC Magnetic Field Emissions shows that the emissions to be at or near the ,
magnitude of the earths magnetic field and therefore should not pose a susceptibility threat j to any on-site equipment or systems (Ref. 5.6, page 4-6).
j i
RE01 - Radiated Maonetic Field Emissions. 30 Hz to 50 kHz
~
i The 'plot in Figure 6.5 shows the highest observed envelope of radiated magnetic field emissions in the frequency range 30 Hz to 50 kHz in the Control Room (Ref. 5.6, Fig. 4-7). i The peak emissions are 107 dBpT at 150 Hz. l
- RE02 - Radiatad Electric Field Rmimmions.15 KHz to 1 GHz The plot in Figure 6.6 shows the highest observed envelope of radiated electric field ;
emissions in the frequency range 15 kHz to 1 GHz in the Control Room (Ref. 5.6, Fig. 4-8). j The peak emissions are 120 dBpV/m (1 V/m) at 458 MHz.
3.2 GE NUMAC LDS EMI/RFI Susceptibility Testing i The PNPP GE NUMAC LDS underwent initial susceptibility testing in June,1993 to -l demonstrate its immunity to EMI/RFI . The tested system consisted of a Leak Detection. ;
Monitor, Thermocouple Input Unit, and a Relay Output Unit. The signal wiring to and from the interface unit was accomplished with shielded wires and thermocouples using standard 7 wiring installation practices. Conduit was not used in the tested configuration to simulate worst case exposure to the signal wires. The tested configuration c]osely matches the PNPP j thermocouple signal wire installation in that shielded thermocoup?e cable is used and the i cable is not in conduit in the control room panel. However, the thermocouple cable is l installed in conduit and raceway outside the Control Room which provides additinml i shielding. The GE EMI Compatibility Test Report (Ref. 5.9) provides the results of the j susceptibility testing.
i AEMlRFil.WPD !
March 2.1995 6 r
- . ~ _ . . . _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ .
The results of the initial testing showed that the radio frequency susceptibility (Mil-Std-462D, Test RS103) of the NUMAC was shown to be non-susceptible to field strengths of 50 V/m except for the frequency range of 30 MHz to IGHz where the susceptibility was lower at i V/m. A 1 V/m level has been found acceptable for other applications. However, based on the results of the PNPP Control Room EMI survey an improvement to this susceptibility level was warranted to provide sufficient margin. The primary cause of the low susceptibility level was found to be the use of a. semiconductor ' mperature reference device in the Thermocouple Input Unit (TIU). Preliminary *~ ..aig had shown that if this device was replaced by a precision solid-state thermistor G A.e, the NUMAC RF immunity improved. Therefore, the design of the TIU and associated huware was modified to incorporate this change.
As a result of this modification, an EMI test addendum was de eloped to verify that the changes made to the NUMAC did solve the problem mirsenture reference instability due to RF and to establish the new field streng'h susceptibilpy Ms. GE evaluated whether or not EMI tests performed in the initial testing were impac ed by his modification and would have'to be reperformed. It was concluded that the modificc un did not impact any of the original tests and that only the Mil-Std-462D RS103 test wc ahi have to be repeated. In January,1995, additional EMI testing was performed on the TiPP NUMAC LDS. The GE EMI Compatibility Test Report Addendum 1 (Ref. 5.10) documents the testing performed, setup and test results. The results of the test show that the inununity to RF has been increased 'due to the hardware modification and is qualified to a minimum of 10 V/m across the spectrum and a maximum of 50 V/m in the frequency ranges 10 kHz to 50 MHz, and 500 MHz to 18 GHz.
The following susceptibility tests were conducted on the GF NUMAC LDS and a sununary of the results, as documented in References 5.9 & 5.10, are provided below.
- IEC 801 Electrostatic Discharge
- IEC 801 Electrical Fast Transients / Bursts
- IEC 801 Surge Immunity
- Mil-Std-462D/CS101 - Conducted Susceptibility, Power Leads,30 Hz to 50 kHz e Mil-Std-462D/RS101 - Radiated Magnetic Field,30 Hz to 100 kHz e Mil-Std-462D/RS103 - Radiated Electric Field,10 kHz to 18 GHz IEC 801 Electrostatic Discharge The LDM was tested for immunity to high voltage electrostatic charges to simulate what would happen if a person who has accumulated electrostatic charges touches the LDM with his hand or a tool. The LDM operated correctly and without failure up to a 8 kV contact discharge and an air gap discharge of 20 kV.
A AEMIRI II.WPD March 2,1995 7
IEC 801 Electrical Fast Transients / Bursts ,
e The LDM was tested for inununity to repetitive bursts of high frequency voltage transients ;
on its power and signal lines. . Four severity levels of testing were performed. The LDM operated correctly and without failure at all four levels.
Level 1 Power Supply Pulses = .5 kV ;
Signal Pulses = .25 kV i
Level 2 Power Supply Pulses = 1 kV Signal Pulses = .5 kV Level 3 Power Supply Pulses = 2 kV >
Signal P@es = 1 kV ,
Level 4 Power Supply Pulses = 4 kV. ;
Signal Pulses = 2 kV j j
)
IEC 801 Suree immunity ,
The LDM was tested for immunity to surge pulses on the power line such as those that might arise from lighting or power switching transients. Four severity levels of testing were performed.
Level 1 Power Supply Pulses = .5 kV ,
i Level 2 Power Supply Pulses = 1 kV Level 3 Power Supply Pulses = 2 kV Level 4 Power Supply Pulses = 4 kV The LDS operated correctly and without failure up to level 2. Two additional Metal Oxide Varistors (MOVs) were required to be added to the LDMs power supply input to pass the Level 3 & 4 tests. Test levels 3 & 4 operated correctly and without failure with the addition of the MOVs which have been designed into the PNPP NUMAC LDS.
i A \EMIRFil.WPD ,
March 2.1995 8 j I
Mil-Std-462D/CS101 - Conducted Suscentibility. Power Leads. 30 Hz to 50 kHz The LDS was tested to demonstrate its immunity to low frequency signals coupled to the input power leads. Sine Waves from 30 Hz to 50 kHz were injected onto the input power l leads at levels shown in Figure 6.7. The LDS operated within specification at all times.
Mil-Std-462D/RS101 - Radiated Magnetic Field. 30 Hz to 100 kHz The LDS was tested to demonstrate its immunity to low frequency magnetic fields in the frequency range from 30 Hz to 100 kHz as shown in Figure 6.8. The LDS operated within specification at all times.
I Mil-Std-462D/RS103 - Radiated Electric Field.10 kHz to 18 GHz The L ' DS was tested to demonstrate its immunity to Radiated Fields in the frequency range 10 kHz to 18 GIIz. Testing performed after the replacement of the TIU temperature reference device shows that the LDS is immune to field strengths of 10 V/m (140 dB V/m) in the frequency range 50 MHz to 500 MHz ; and 50 V/m (154 dB V/m) in the frequency ranges less than 50 MHz, and greater than 500 MHz. These levels are valid if shielded .
. signal cables are used and unused TIU input terminations are conected to ground. The l PNPP LDS design accommodates these design considerations. Figure 6.9 shows the results of the RS103 testing.
1 3.3 Plant Emissions vs. NUMAC Susceptibility Comparison l 1
The following comparison is made between the worst case plant conducted, transient, and radiated emissions and the NUMAC susceptibility testing limits to demonstrate that the NUMAC LDS is not impacted by the existing EMI at the point ofinstallation.
Conducted Low and Ifigh Freauency Emissions The worst case Control Room Conducted Emissions measured are graphically shown in Figures 6.2 (Low Frequency) and 6.3 (High Frequency). The NUMAC Conducted Susceptibility testing included the Low Frequency CS101 test which is shown in Figure 6.7.
The high frequency (50 kHz to 400 MHz) conducted test was not performed since the i RS103 radiated test, covering the frequency range 10 kHz to 1 GHz, may be substituted for j the high frequency conducted test per Reference 5.2 pg. B-11. A comparison of the Control Room conducted emissions and NUM AC conducted susceptibility is shown graphically in Ail'MIRill.WPD March 2.1995 9
i . . . . . . .
4 Figure 6.10. The results of the comparison show that a minimum of 14 dB margin exists between the worst case Control Room conducted emissions and the NUMAC conducted susceptibility testing. This is well within the 6 dB acceptance criteria. The margin increases to 32 dB by using data from the conductors connected to the NUMAC at the point of installation.
Conducted Transient Emissions The worst case Control Room Conducted frmsient Emissions measured are graphically.
shown in the frequency domain in Figure 6.4. The NUMAC transient and surge testing was performed in accordance with IEC 801-4 and IEC 801-5 respectively. There is not a clear cut generally applied method for comparing measured transient emissions in the frequency domain to NUMAC susceptibility transient and surge test levels in the time domain. Two different approaches were utilized to perform the comparison to determine if adequate margin exists and both methods conclude that the NUMAC is immune to measured plant transients;
- 1. The NTS analysis report, Ref. 5.7, provides the comparison ofIEC 801-4 and 801-5 transient testing waveforms in the time domain to transient emissions measurements in the frequency domain. The method used for the conversion of the time domain
~
waveforms to frequency domain is the Fourier Transform. The results of the conversion shows that the IEC 801-4 equivalent frequency spectra peak amplitude is 158 dB A.
Since the IEC 801-4 peak amplitude is greater than the IEC 801-5 peak amplitude, the IEC 801-5 equivalent frequency spectra will not have any effect on the susceptibility threshold safety margin and is therefore ignored in performing the conducted susceptibility analysis. The frequency domain conversion of the IEC 801-4 susceptibility signal is plotted in Figure 6.11 (Ref. 5.7, Figure 4-10). The highest observed CE07 tmnsient emissions measured is also plotted on the same graph. A comparison of the data shows that the worst case signal spectra from the transient susceptibility signals injected into the NUMAC is a minimum of 26 dB greater than the measured transient levels in the control room. This exceeds the recommended 6 dB margin acceptance criteria.
- 2. An independent evaluation of the above approach was performed by CHAR Services to j validate the NTS conclusions. CHAR recommended an alternate approach for comparison of transient and surge testing to transient emissions and is documented in Reference 5.11. The results of the informal analysis shows that a 32 dB margin exists between the transient susceptibility testing and the transient emissions. This indicates a strong immunity of the NUMAC to plant transients. i l
1 AYMIRill.WPD March 2.1995 10
Radiated Magnetic Field Emissions The worst case site radiated magnetic field emissions measured during RE01 testing is shown graphically in Figure 6.5. Figure 6.8 represents the worst case signal levels injected into the NUMAC during radiated magnetic field testing performed in accordance with RS101. Figure 6.12 graphically represents the comparison of the radiated magnetic field emissions and the NUMAC susceptibility. It can be seen from a comparison of this data that the ' worst case signal spectra from the susceptibility signals injected into the NUMAC is approximately 60 dB greater than the magnetic field emissions found onsite. This by far exceeds the recommended 6 dB margin acceptance criteria. Therefore, this shows that the NUMAC is not susceptible to the worst case radiated magnetic field measured in the Control Room.
Radiated Electric Field Emissions The' worst case site radiated electric field emissions measured during RE02 testing is shown graphically in Figure 6.6. Figure 6.9 represents the worst case signal levels injected into the NUMAC during radiated electric field testing performed in accordance with RS103. Figure 6.13 graphically represents the comparison of the radiated electric field emissions and the NUMAC susceptibility. It can be seen from a comparison of this data that the worst case signal spectra from the susceptibility signals injected into the NUMAC is a minimum of 20 dB (50 MHz to 500 MHz) greater than the e!cctric field emissions found onsite. This by far exceeds the reconunended 6 dB margin acceptance criteria. Therefore, this shows that the R MAC is not susceptible to the worst case radiated electric field measured in the Control Room. :
l 3.4 NUMAC Emissions The NUMAC design features, operational history, and proximity to other digital equipment have been considered in the analysis of the potential effects of the NUMAC emissions on nearby equipment. '
Design Features : The same design features which contribute to NUMAC EMI immunity also assist in minimizing emissions from the NUMAC. Each NUMAC electronic module ,
utilizes multi-layer PC boards that are designed with numerous large bypass capacitors and !
with power / ground multi-layer planes to provide distributed capacitance for intemal signals.
Signal routing is as direct as possible. The shielded chassis and the shielded cables into and within the chassis contribute to low emissions. The chassis also has a line capacitor to remove any remaining noise. Fmally, the LDS interface panels are completely passive (i.e.
they contain no active electronic circuits which can generate fields). Thus, low RF and ATEMtRrli.WPD March 2,1995 II
conducted emissions are expected.
Operational history: The installed base of NUMAC instruments has recorded over 25,000 instrument months of operation with no reported evidence of emissions on nearby equipment. This installed base has the same basic hardware configuration (i.e. CPU module, chassis, analog module, display etc.) as the PNPP LDS.
Proximity to other digital equipment: The NUMAC power supply and signal leads do not feed any other digital equipment. All outputs from NUMAC are isolated via relays for trips and annunciation signals via the relay logic chain. The PNPP LDS modification does not alter these external logic paths. Therefore, there is no expected interaction from NUMAC on nearby equipment.
4.0 CONCLUSION
Plant EMI surveys have identified the EMI sources within the Control Room, and specifically at the point ofinstallation of the NUMAC LDS within the Control Room.
Sources measured included both Radiated and Conducted Emissions. The RE01, RE02, and REXX tests measured continuous wave radiated emissions in the frequency range 30 Hz to 1 GHz and in the DC range. The CE01, and CE03 tests measured continuous wave conducted emissions in the frequency range 30 Hz to 50 Mhz. The CE07 test measured transient emissions in the frequency range 10 Hz to 50 Mhz.
EMI susceptibility testing was performed on the NUMAC LDS to demonstrate its immunity to EMI emissions in the PNPP Control Room. NUMAC susceptibility testing included Conducted, Radiated, and Electrostatic Discharge tests.
The RS101 and RS103 tests demonstrated the NUMACs immunity to radiated emissions in the frequency range 30 Hz to 18 GHz. The radiated susceptibility signals injected into the NUMAC are greater than the worst case measured Control Room radiated emissions, by 60 dB for radiated magnetic and 20 dB for radiated electric. This meets and exceeds the 6 dB margin acceptance criteria.
The CS101 test demonstrated the NUMACs immunity to conducted emissions in the frequency range 30 Hz to 50 KHz. The conducted susceptibility signals injected into the NUMAC are greater than the worst case measured point ofinstallation conducted emissions by 14 dB. This meets and exceeds the 6 dB margin acceptance criteria.
The 801-4 and 801-5 tests demostrated the NUMACs immunity to Electrical Fast Transients / Bursts and Surges respectively. The conducted transient susceptibility signals A \EMIRril.WPD March 2.1995 O
q- ~-
injected into the NUMAC are greater than the worst case measured Control Room conducted transient emissions by 26 dB. This meets and exceeds the 6 dB margin acceptance criteria.
The 801-2 test demonstrated the NUMACs immunity to high voltage electrostatic discharges up to 8kV (direct contact) and 20 kV (air gap). The test level meets and exceeds the recommended levels from the EPRI EMI Guidelines (Ref. 5.2).
Therefore, the NUMAC testing has demonstrated its immunity to EMI/RFI at levels which
. exceed the EMI environment at the point ofinstallation in the Control Room. The existing EMI levels will not impact safe and reliable operation of the NUMAC LDS. In addition, the NUMAC design and operational history show that the emissions generated by the NUMAC .
will not impact safe and reliable operation of nearby equipment.
, ~. . .--. .... . .
i l
1 l
)
A:\EMIRFil.WPD March 2,1995 13
F
5.0 REFERENCES
r 5.1 EPRI TR-102348, Guidelines on Licensing Digital Upgrades, Dated Deceinber 1993. ,
.5.2 EPRI TR-102323, Guidelines for Electromagnetic Interference Testing in Power Plants, Dated September 1993.
5.3 NTS Test Procedure 31267-94M, Test Procedure for Po'mt ofInstallation and Generic -
Electromagnetic Interference (EMI) Mapping of Control Room and PNPP Unit 1, Dated 10/22/93.
5.4 NTS Test Report 31267-94M, Test Report for Point ofInstallation and Generic t Electromagnetic Interference (EMI) Mapping of Control Room and PNPP Unit 1, Dated 11/19/93.
5.5 NTS Test Report 31267-94M-1 Revision 0, Test Report for Analysis ofPo* m t of Installation and Generic Emissions Mapping Data, Dated 12/8/93.
5.6 NTS Test Report 31267-94M-1 Revision 1, Test Report for Analysis ofPo~mt of l Installation and Generic Emissions Mappm' g Data, Dated 1/13/94.
5.7 .NTS Test Report 31267-94M-1 Revision 2, Test Report for Analysis ofPoint of Installation and Generic Emissions Mapping Data, Dated 3/7/94. ,
5.8 Intentionally Blank ,
5.9 C & C Report MS3I-001F.TR, Electromagnetic Compatibility Test Report on NUMAC, Dated September 1993. :
5.10 C & C Report MS3I-001F.TR Addendum I, Electromagnetic Compatibility Test l Report on NUMAC, Dated 1/17/95.
5.11 CHAR Report CSR048, Independent Evaluation ofNTS Repost 31267-94M-1 ; ,
Analysis of Point ofInstallation and Generic Emissions Mapping Data, Dated 11/1/94.
5.12 Telecopy Transmittal- Tun Shank to Lori McGuire, Load Relaxation, Dated 5/6/94. :
5.13 Telecopy Transmittal- Jim Shank to Larry Lawrence, Load Relaxation, Dated 5/12/94. I 5.14 MIL-STD-461C, Requirements for the Control ofElectromaf=*ic Interference ,
Emissions and Susceptibility, Dated 8/6/87.
?
1 i
A\EMIRFII.WPD umh 2.1995 14 i
I
'4 6.0 FIGURES
,S. 6.1 CE01- Conducted Emissions, Low Frequency V 6.2 CE01- Conducted Emissions, Low Frequency with Load Relaxation 6.3 CE03- Conducted Emissions, High Frequency 6.4 CE07- Conducted Transient Emissions 6.5 - RE01- Radiated Magnetic Field Emissions 6.6 RE02- Radiated Electric Field Emissions 7
6.7 . CS101- Conducted Susceptibility, NUMAC L 6.8 RS101- Radiated Magnetic Field Susceptibility, NUMAC 6.9 RS103- Radiated Electric Field Susceptibility, NUMAC 6.10 Conducted Emissions vs. NUMAC Conducted Susceptibility 6.11 Conducted Transient Emissions vs. NUMAC Conducted Susceptibility 6.12 Radiated Magnetic Field Emissions vs. NUMAC Radiated Magnetic Field Susceptibility 6.13 Radiated Electric Field Emissions vs. NUMAC Radiated Electric Field Susceptibility O
I I
1 l
1
~ O- A:\EMIRFil.WPD Much 2. I995 15
eM CE01-Conducted Emissions, Low Frequency 190 170 150 'N N
130 N
NN 110 \ '
90 \
70 N "
N 50 30 10 10 100 1000 10000 100000 Frequency (Hz)
Figure 6.1 -
i
. = = . ~
CE01-Conducted Emissions, Low Frequency with Load Relaxation .
200 180 1
160 ,
140 120 N ,
i 1* N 80 ,
N 60 40 20 0
10 100 1000 10000 100000 Frequency (Hz)
Figure 6.2 <
i
CE03-Conducted Emissions, High Frequency 210 160
< 110 N
m~% %_
60 A '
N w A
wi .
10
-40 10000 100000 1000000 10000000 100000000 Frequency (Hz)
Figure 6.3 .
i
CE07-Conducted Transient Emissions 190 170 150 130 ,
110 '
1 N E
90 70 50 -
30 10 10 100 1000 10000 100000 1000000 10000000 100000000 Frecuency (Hz)
Figure 6.4 -
t
!I I
- i 0
0 0
0 0
1 N,
s n
i o 0 0
s 0 0
i s % 1 m '
E w-d l
i e ,
F % 5 c )
^
z
) te i.
H
(
6
- 0 y e n
g
- 0 c 0 ne r u
1 u
a q e i g
M F r
F d
t e %
a i
d s R-a ' _
1 0 0
0 1 ._
E R
0 1
0 4
2 0
2 2
w0 8 2 1 0
6 1
0 4
1 0
2 1
0 0
1 0
8 0
6 0
4 0
2 0
2 0
4-c.g ll
0 0
0 q
M 0
l l
l ii i
0
- 0
- 0 1
s 0 0
0 s 0 0
n 0 i
o 0 0
s 1 s
i m '
E d 0 l 0 0
i e 0 0
F 0 0 )
6 i
c 1 H
(
z 6
r t y c e r
c n e u l
e q u g E e r
i 0 F F d 0 0
t e 0 0
0 i
a 1 d
a R-2 0 0 E 0 0
R 0 0
1
=
0 0
0 0
1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8
2 6
2 4
2 2
2 0
2 8
1 6
1 4
1 2
1 0
1 a0 6 4 0
2 0
t
..=- e CS101-Conducted Susceptibility, NUMAC 200 180 1
160 140 w ,, '
N %
120 ~,,
S u
100 80 60 40 I 20 O
100 1000 10000 100000 Frequency (Hz)
Figure 6.7 .
ll llll t
es 0
0 0
0
- 0
- 1 m
C =
=
A %
M U
N -
y - 0 t ' 0 i
l i
b -
' 0 0
1 i
t p ' -
e --
c %
s u
S - 8
- )
El i
H z
6 4 i e -
0 y
(
e 0 c r W F ,' 0 1
ne u
c - u q g i
t - e r i e - F F n '
g a '
M N d
t e
i a -
0 0
d 1 a
R- _
1 0 %
1 _
S r
R 0
1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 6 4 2 0 8 6 4 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 hS, lllll
i RS103-Radiated Electric Field. Susceptibility, NUMAC l
280 _ _ _
260 240 220 !
200 180 160 -
E 140 v
120 100 80 60 -
40 20 0
10000 100000 1000000 10000000 100000000 1000000000 Frequency (Hz) .
Figure 6.9 .
i
t Conducted Emissions (CE01) vs. NUMAC Conducted Susceptibilityj(CS101),
200 180
- CS101 ---
160 + CE01 ___
l 140 N %
120 m w %
' % s
< N -
5 100 m
" N 80 ct -- %
60 40 20 0
100 1000 10000 100000 Frequency (Hz)
Figure 6.10 ,
i
Conducted Transient Emissions (CE07) vs. NUMAC Conducted Transient Susceptibility (801-4) 190 170 150 \
%g 130 " 1,
\ ,
110 \ '
s t
90 IEC 801-4 50 CE07 30 10 10 100 1000 10000 100000 1000000 10000000 100000000 Frequency (Hal Figure 6.11 i
__ - _ _ _ _ _ - - - _ _ _ - - _ - - - . , - - - - _ - - , - - _ - - - _ - - - c -_ +- w' 9 - _- --- u
4 Radiated Magnetic Field Emissions (RE01) vs. NUMAC Radiated Magnetic Field Susceptibility (RS101) 200 180 % % : -~~
% * =.
RS101 160 '
--o-- RE01 ___
140 N %
120 --
A
=
100 ^ % s 80 x .
% N s 60 .
40 x s 20 0
10 100 1000 N Frequency (Hz)
Figure 6.12 .
f
4 Radiated Electric Field Emissions (RE02) vs. NUMAC Radiated Electric Field Susceptibility (RS103) 280
-g 260 lll 240 RS103 220 N .
C RE02 -
200 180 160 :.
g
$ 140 120 -----
100 -
l 80 g ; ;
60 ,
0 40 20 0
10000 100000 1000000 10000000 100000000 1000000000 Frequency (Hz)
Figure 6.13 .
i
- - - - _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . - - - _ _ - - - - _ - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ __ .. .._. . _ . - - - . - - , -