. . . . .

'

.

l

GE NUMAC LEAK DETECTION SYSTEM

EMI/RFI ANALYSIS REPORT

for DCP 87-0725.

1

,

_

/3hf9fPrepared By: Larry P. Lawrence / 1

Reviewed By: Lori McGuire/ M 8/5 .' J/ 9r

J/3/95'~Approved By: / - 7v ,

h1a Ih2 l

k40D /[DO OOP 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43.1 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

}

|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), presentat the location of the new General Electric NUMAC Leak Detection System (LDS) will notimpact the safe and reliable operation of the system. In addition it demonstrates, that theemissions generated by the new equipment will not impact safe and reliable operation ofnearby 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 EPRIguidelines recommend two methods for demonstrating that the new digital equipment iscompatible 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 whatis 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 emissionsenvironment.-

2. Perform local tests, surveys, or a combination of testing and analysis to determine theactual environment in which the equipment will be installed. Compare this to the resultsof the equipment susceptibility tests, and show that the equipment testing envelopes theinstalled environment with a 6 dB margin.

Method 2 has been utilized at PNPP by performing a site EMI Survey, to identify the EMIenvironment at the point ofinstallation, and comparing it to the NUMAC equipmentsusceptibility tests to demonstrate that the NUMAC LDS is compatible with the EMIenvironment.

Engineering personnel from PNPPjoined the EPRI/ Utility EMI Working Group in 1993 andparticipated in gathering site specific EMI data to support this and future digital upgrades aswell as providing data for the EPRI TR-102323 Generic Emissions Data. EPRI and PNPPfunded 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. Thegeneric EMI mapping was performed to ensure that the actual worst case EMI noise profileis mapped for various plant locations. NTS Test Procedure 31267-94M (Ref 5.3) describestest procedure and locations monitored, and NTS Test Report 31267-94M (Ref 5.4)documents the EMI emissions testing output data.

A \l.hMRIII.WPD3Ntarch 2.1995

~. . __ _ _ _ _ . . . _ . _ . _ ._ _ . . . . _. _ _ _.

!. . . .

'l' '

..

9

The worst case measured emissions data from the Control Room and at the point of jinstallation 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|

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 |guidance provided in EPRI TR-102323 (Ref. 5.2). NTS Test Report 31267-94M-1 |(References 5.5,5.6, & 5.7) provides the comparison of the Control Room emissions data |with the results of the GE NUMAC LDS susceptibility testing to determine the adequacy of -|the equipment in the control room environment. Dick Meininger (CHAR Services), a |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 'ithe conclusion that the NUMAC LDM will not affect the present on-site equipment nor be !adversely affected by the present on-site electromagnetic environment. |

|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 |(Section 3.2) and then compares the two results to ensure that the NUMAC LDS is |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 locationsin 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

Ie 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 |* RE02 - Radiated Electric Field Emissions,14 kHz to IGHz ;e RE02.1 - Radiated Emissions, Hand Held Radio Profile

:?

IMEMIRFil.WPD .

March 2.1995 4 E

|.

:

!

._- ._ _ _ __ _ _ . . .- -

!

_ _

-- ._.

- . . .

$

*

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 thefrequency 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 andincludes the effects of plant emissions and load - carrying current. Plant load - carryingcurrents dominate this region, particularly around 60 Hz , and thus the above plot is not trulyrepresentative of the plant emissions in this region. The peak emissions are 152 dB A at 60Hz.

MIL-STD-461C (Ref. 5.14) specifies the use of " Load Relaxation Limits" to differentiate

unwanted emissions ( I summ) from the actual load current (I owa). Actual load current wasP

not measured by NTS during the emissions testing. In order to determine a more realisticemissions 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 , CE01 'i

emissions, is equal to the third harmonic amplitude of 128 dB A. This assumption iscons'ervative because the 2nd and 3rd harmonic typically have the largest amplitude in most60 Hz systems. The PNPP worst case CE01 emission profiles, from Ref. 5.4, Figures 6-14and 6-17, support this assumption. References 5.2,5.11,5.12, and 5.13 support this methodofload relaxation. Figure 6.2 shows the corrected bounding CE01 emissions curve and isderived 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 controlroom occurs in Panel 1H13-P691 at a value of 128 dB A (Ref. 5.4, page 6-17). Note thatthe low end peak harmonic at the point ofinstallation, in Panel lH13-P642, is jsignificantly lower at i10 dBpA (Ref. 5.4, page 6-12). |

l

2. The worst case high end peak conducted emissions measured in the control room occurs i

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 lowfrequency 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 Mhz1

'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

|1ATEMIRIII.WPD

5 lMarch 2.1995

I

]

. __ ._ .. - . _ _

;.~.

j- .:'

;.

lq

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

| 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 ' lot in Figure 6.5 shows the highest observed envelope of radiated magnetic fieldpemissions 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. |!

!

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 -|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 fromthe 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 jthermocouple 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 |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 !6March 2.1995

!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 50V/m except for the frequency range of 30 MHz to IGHz where the susceptibility was lowerat i V/m. A 1 V/m level has been found acceptable for other applications. However, basedon the results of the PNPP Control Room EMI survey an improvement to this susceptibilitylevel was warranted to provide sufficient margin. The primary cause of the lowsusceptibility level was found to be the use of a. semiconductor ' mperature referencedevice in the Thermocouple Input Unit (TIU). Preliminary *~ ..aig had shown that if thisdevice was replaced by a precision solid-state thermistor G A.e, the NUMAC RF immunityimproved. Therefore, the design of the TIU and associated huware was modified toincorporate this change.

As a result of this modification, an EMI test addendum was de eloped to verify that thechanges made to the NUMAC did solve the problem mirsenture reference instability dueto RF and to establish the new field streng'h susceptibilpy Ms. GE evaluated whether ornot EMI tests performed in the initial testing were impac ed by his modification and wouldhave'to be reperformed. It was concluded that the modificc un did not impact any of theoriginal tests and that only the Mil-Std-462D RS103 test wc ahi have to be repeated. InJanuary,1995, additional EMI testing was performed on the TiPP NUMAC LDS. The GEEMI 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 beenincreased 'due to the hardware modification and is qualified to a minimum of 10 V/m acrossthe spectrum and a maximum of 50 V/m in the frequency ranges 10 kHz to 50 MHz, and500 MHz to 18 GHz.

The following susceptibility tests were conducted on the GF NUMAC LDS and a sununaryof the results, as documented in References 5.9 & 5.10, are provided below.

* IEC 801-2 - Electrostatic Discharge* IEC 801-4 - Electrical Fast Transients / Bursts* IEC 801-5 - Surge Immunity* Mil-Std-462D/CS101 - Conducted Susceptibility, Power Leads,30 Hz to 50 kHze Mil-Std-462D/RS101 - Radiated Magnetic Field,30 Hz to 100 kHze Mil-Std-462D/RS103 - Radiated Electric Field,10 kHz to 18 GHz

IEC 801-2 - Electrostatic Discharge

The LDM was tested for immunity to high voltage electrostatic charges to simulate whatwould happen if a person who has accumulated electrostatic charges touches the LDM withhis hand or a tool. The LDM operated correctly and without failure up to a 8 kV contactdischarge and an air gap discharge of 20 kV.

A AEMIRI II.WPD7March 2,1995

_ _ _ . .

_ . _ . _ _ . . - _. __

...

*

. .-.

,

,

IEC 801-4 - 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 LDMoperated 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 kVSignal 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 jj

)

IEC 801-5 - Suree immunity ,- .

The LDM was tested for immunity to surge pulses on the power line such as those thatmight arise from lighting or power switching transients. Four severity levels of testingwere 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 OxideVaristors (MOVs) were required to be added to the LDMs power supply input to pass theLevel 3 & 4 tests. Test levels 3 & 4 operated correctly and without failure with the additionof 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 theinput power leads. Sine Waves from 30 Hz to 50 kHz were injected onto the input power

| 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 withinspecification at all times.

I

Mil-Std-462D/RS103 - Radiated Electric Field.10 kHz to 18 GHz

The ' DS was tested to demonstrate its immunity to Radiated Fields in the frequency rangeL10 kHz to 18 GIIz. Testing performed after the replacement of the TIU temperaturereference 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 frequencyranges 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 |

PNPP LDS design accommodates these design considerations. Figure 6.9 shows the resultsof the RS103 testing.

:

1

3.3 Plant Emissions vs. NUMAC Susceptibility Comparison |1

The following comparison is made between the worst case plant conducted, transient, andradiated emissions and the NUMAC susceptibility testing limits to demonstrate that theNUMAC 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 inFigures 6.2 (Low Frequency) and 6.3 (High Frequency). The NUMAC ConductedSusceptibility 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 jthe high frequency conducted test per Reference 5.2 pg. B-11. A comparison of the ControlRoom conducted emissions and NUM AC conducted susceptibility is shown graphically in

Ail'MIRill.WPDMarch 2.1995 9

. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

__ ____-

i. . . . . . .

.

4

Figure 6.10. The results of the comparison show that a minimum of 14 dB margin existsbetween the worst case Control Room conducted emissions and the NUMAC conductedsusceptibility testing. This is well within the 6 dB acceptance criteria. The margin increasesto 32 dB by using data from the conductors connected to the NUMAC at the point ofinstallation.

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 wasperformed in accordance with IEC 801-4 and IEC 801-5 respectively. There is not a clearcut generally applied method for comparing measured transient emissions in the frequencydomain to NUMAC susceptibility transient and surge test levels in the time domain. Twodifferent approaches were utilized to perform the comparison to determine if adequatemargin exists and both methods conclude that the NUMAC is immune to measured planttransients;

1. The NTS analysis report, Ref. 5.7, provides the comparison ofIEC 801-4 and 801-5transient testing waveforms in the time domain to transient emissions measurements inthe frequency domain. The method used for the conversion of the time domain

~

waveforms to frequency domain is the Fourier Transform. The results of the conversionshows 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, theIEC 801-5 equivalent frequency spectra will not have any effect on the susceptibilitythreshold safety margin and is therefore ignored in performing the conductedsusceptibility analysis. The frequency domain conversion of the IEC 801-4 susceptibilitysignal is plotted in Figure 6.11 (Ref. 5.7, Figure 4-10). The highest observed CE07tmnsient emissions measured is also plotted on the same graph. A comparison of the datashows that the worst case signal spectra from the transient susceptibility signals injectedinto the NUMAC is a minimum of 26 dB greater than the measured transient levels in thecontrol room. This exceeds the recommended 6 dB margin acceptance criteria.

2. An independent evaluation of the above approach was performed by CHAR Services toj validate the NTS conclusions. CHAR recommended an alternate approach for

comparison of transient and surge testing to transient emissions and is documented inReference 5.11. The results of the informal analysis shows that a 32 dB margin existsbetween the transient susceptibility testing and the transient emissions. This indicates astrong immunity of the NUMAC to plant transients. i

|

1

AYMIRill.WPDMarch 2.1995 10

_ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

..

.

.

Radiated Magnetic Field Emissions

The worst case site radiated magnetic field emissions measured during RE01 testing isshown graphically in Figure 6.5. Figure 6.8 represents the worst case signal levels injectedinto the NUMAC during radiated magnetic field testing performed in accordance withRS101. Figure 6.12 graphically represents the comparison of the radiated magnetic fieldemissions and the NUMAC susceptibility. It can be seen from a comparison of this data thatthe ' worst case signal spectra from the susceptibility signals injected into the NUMAC isapproximately 60 dB greater than the magnetic field emissions found onsite. This by farexceeds the recommended 6 dB margin acceptance criteria. Therefore, this shows that theNUMAC is not susceptible to the worst case radiated magnetic field measured in the ControlRoom.

Radiated Electric Field Emissions

The' worst case site radiated electric field emissions measured during RE02 testing is showngraphically in Figure 6.6. Figure 6.9 represents the worst case signal levels injected into theNUMAC during radiated electric field testing performed in accordance with RS103. Figure6.13 graphically represents the comparison of the radiated electric field emissions and theNUMAC susceptibility. It can be seen from a comparison of this data that the worst casesignal spectra from the susceptibility signals injected into the NUMAC is a minimum of 20dB (50 MHz to 500 MHz) greater than the e!cctric field emissions found onsite. This by farexceeds the reconunended 6 dB margin acceptance criteria. Therefore, this shows that theR MAC is not susceptible to the worst case radiated electric field measured in the ControlRoom. :

|

3.4 NUMAC Emissions.

The NUMAC design features, operational history, and proximity to other digital equipmenthave been considered in the analysis of the potential effects of the NUMAC emissions onnearby equipment. '

Design Features : The same design features which contribute to NUMAC EMI immunityalso 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 andwithin the chassis contribute to low emissions. The chassis also has a line capacitor toremove 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.WPDMarch 2,1995 II

_ _ _ _ _ _

- .-

.

.

conducted emissions are expected.

Operational history: The installed base of NUMAC instruments has recorded over 25,000instrument months of operation with no reported evidence of emissions on nearbyequipment. This installed base has the same basic hardware configuration (i.e. CPUmodule, chassis, analog module, display etc.) as the PNPP LDS.

Proximity to other digital equipment: The NUMAC power supply and signal leads do notfeed any other digital equipment. All outputs from NUMAC are isolated via relays for tripsand annunciation signals via the relay logic chain. The PNPP LDS modification does notalter these external logic paths. Therefore, there is no expected interaction from NUMACon nearby equipment.

4.0 CONCLUSION'

Plant EMI surveys have identified the EMI sources within the Control Room, andspecifically at the point ofinstallation of the NUMAC LDS within the Control Room.Sources measured included both Radiated and Conducted Emissions. The RE01, RE02, andREXX tests measured continuous wave radiated emissions in the frequency range 30 Hz to 1GHz and in the DC range. The CE01, and CE03 tests measured continuous wave conductedemissions in the frequency range 30 Hz to 50 Mhz. The CE07 test measured transientemissions in the frequency range 10 Hz to 50 Mhz.

EMI susceptibility testing was performed on the NUMAC LDS to demonstrate its immunityto EMI emissions in the PNPP Control Room. NUMAC susceptibility testing includedConducted, Radiated, and Electrostatic Discharge tests.

The RS101 and RS103 tests demonstrated the NUMACs immunity to radiated emissions inthe frequency range 30 Hz to 18 GHz. The radiated susceptibility signals injected into theNUMAC are greater than the worst case measured Control Room radiated emissions, by 60dB for radiated magnetic and 20 dB for radiated electric. This meets and exceeds the 6 dBmargin acceptance criteria.

The CS101 test demonstrated the NUMACs immunity to conducted emissions in thefrequency range 30 Hz to 50 KHz. The conducted susceptibility signals injected into theNUMAC are greater than the worst case measured point ofinstallation conducted emissionsby 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 FastTransients / Bursts and Surges respectively. The conducted transient susceptibility signals

A \EMIRril.WPDMarch 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 marginacceptance criteria.

The 801-2 test demonstrated the NUMACs immunity to high voltage electrostaticdischarges 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 existingEMI levels will not impact safe and reliable operation of the NUMAC LDS. In addition, theNUMAC design and operational history show that the emissions generated by the NUMAC .will not impact safe and reliable operation of nearby equipment.

.

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

.

.

i

|1

#|)

!

A:\EMIRFil.WPDMarch 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' t ofInstallation and Genericm -

'

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* t ofmInstallation 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 |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 ofInstallation 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 |

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.WPDumh 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 Relaxation6.3 CE03- Conducted Emissions, High Frequency6.4 CE07- Conducted Transient Emissions6.5 - RE01- Radiated Magnetic Field Emissions

6.6 RE02- Radiated Electric Field Emissions6.7 . CS101- Conducted Susceptibility, NUMAC7

f 6.8 RS101- Radiated Magnetic Field Susceptibility, NUMACL

6.9 RS103- Radiated Electric Field Susceptibility, NUMAC6.10 Conducted Emissions vs. NUMAC Conducted Susceptibility6.11 Conducted Transient Emissions vs. NUMAC Conducted Susceptibility6.12 Radiated Magnetic Field Emissions vs. NUMAC Radiated Magnetic Field

Susceptibility

6.13 Radiated Electric Field Emissions vs. NUMAC Radiated Electric Field Susceptibility

.

OI

I1

|

1

~ O- A:\EMIRFil.WPDMuch 2. I995 15

- - _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _

.

eM

.

CE01-Conducted Emissions, Low Frequency.

190

170

150 'N N

130 NN N

110 \ '

90 \%

N70 N"

50

30

10

10 100 1000 10000 100000Frequency (Hz)

Figure 6.1 -

i_ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ . . . __ _ --. _. - _ _ __. . - .

.

. = = . ~

CE01-Conducted Emissions, Low Frequency with LoadRelaxation .

200

1801

160 ,

140-

N120 ,

< % ,

1* Ni

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

_ _ - -

Nm~% %_

60 A' N w

' % .

A' wi .

'10

-40

10000 100000 1000000 10000000 100000000Frequency (Hz)

Figure 6.3 .

i

_ _ - _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - ._. _ __ . - - . - - - - --

.

- -.

..

CE07-Conducted Transient Emissions.

190

170

150

130,

* % ,,

110 ',

1 NE

90

70

50 -

30

10

10 100 1000 10000 100000 1000000 10000000 100000000Frecuency (Hz)

Figure 6.4 -

t

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _. _ _ _ . _ _ _ . _ _ _ __.

' :! !I I

:i

.

.

000001

N,''

sno 0

i 0s 0

0s % 1i

m '

w-,

Ed

%l

ei ,

%F 5i. , ' ^c )

zH 6) t (

- e*

0 y e0 cn 0 n rg e u1 ua q g

e i

M rF F

de %t -a si

d' _a

R _

-1 0

00 ._

1

_ER

_

_

01

0 0 w0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0. 4 2 8 6 4 2 0 8 6 4 2 2 4

2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 - -

c.g

||

: !

.

.

,

000

M,

|'

q 0| ' ii 0|

i

0-0-

1

s' 0

00s 00n 0o 00i

s 1

%s

i

m '

Ed 0

0l 0e 0i 0 6F 0

0 )1 zc H 6

i (rt y ec rc ne ue ul q gE e ir

0 F Fd 0

0e 0t 0

0a 1i

daR

-

20 0E 0

0R 001

=000010 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a0 0 0 0

8 6 4 2 0 8 6 4 2 0 6 4 22 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1

!

t

..

.

..=- e

.

CS101-Conducted Susceptibility, NUMAC.

200

180

1

160

140 w ,, 'N %120 ~,,

<S 100u

80

60

40 I:

!'

20

O

100 1000 10000 100000Frequency (Hz)

Figure 6.7 .

.

- ._

|| ||||

:

- -

.

.

t

es

00

, 0, 0- 0- 1

-m

C .==A%

- M- U

N --

, --y - 0

t ' 00i ' 0l

i1b -

-i

t' -p

e --c %suS 8-- )E .

-i H 6- z

l

e - (

- 0 y e4 i

,' 0 cF 0 n rW e u1 u. c - q g- ei

it r

e - F Fn 'g 'aM Ndeta 0

i- 0

d 1

aR

- _

1_0

% _

_

1 _

S_

__

Rr

,

01

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 8 6 4 2 0 8 6 4 22 1 1 1 1 1

hS,

|||||

_ ._

.

._..

RS103-Radiated Electric Field. Susceptibility, NUMACi

l.

280 _ _ _

260

240

220 !

200

180

160E

-

140v

120

100

80

60 -

40

20

0

10000 100000 1000000 10000000 100000000 1000000000Frequency (Hz) .

Figure 6.9 .

i_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ - . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ - - - _ _ _ _ - - _ .--

.

.

.

!t

Conducted Emissions (CE01) vs. NUMAC ConductedSusceptibilityj(CS101),

200

180 * CS101 ---

160 + CE01___

|

140

N %120 %mw

' %< sN

5 100 - m" N

* *80 ct

-- % ,

60

.

40

20

0

100 1000 10000 100000Frequency (Hz)

Figure 6.10 ,

i

- .

,. ._

.

. .

.- Conducted Transient Emissions (CE07) vs. NUMACConducted 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 100000000Frequency (Hal

Figure 6.11i

__ - _ _ _ _ _ - - - _ _ _ - - _ - - - . , - - - - _ - - , - - _ - - - _ - - - c -_ w' 9 - _- --- u+-

.

.

4

Radiated Magnetic Field Emissions (RE01) vs. NUMACRadiated Magnetic Field Susceptibility (RS101)

200

180 % : RS101 -~~% % * =.

160 --o-- RE01___' % ---

140'N %

120---

--,,

: A& 100 ^= % s x .

80

% N60 s .

' % % ''

40 x s.

20

0

10 100 1000 NFrequency (Hz)

Figure 6.12 .

f

4

_ .

Radiated Electric Field Emissions (RE02) vs. NUMACRadiated Electric Field Susceptibility (RS103)

280 - - -

-g

|||260

240 RS103

N220 .

C RE02 -

200

180

160g - :.

$ 140%

'

120 -----

100 -

|80 ;g ;

' '60 ,

%

040

20

0

10000 100000 1000000 10000000 100000000 1000000000

Frequency (Hz)

Figure 6.13 .

i

- - - - _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . - - - _ _ - - - - _ - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ __ .. .._. . _ . - - - . - - , -