Camera trips reactor.

Status
Not open for further replies.

ELA

Senior Member
Occupation
Electrical Test Engineer
Was some testing agency going to test that "Killer Camera" for radiated emissions and publish the data I hope?

I have tested and troubleshoot a fair amount of radiated RF interference issues but never thought we had to worry about a camera before. I would like to know the radiated emissions numbers on it to make any judgement about the potential for interference.

Wouldn't a camera have to meet the FCC emissions requirements for unintentional radiaters?
An if so wouldn't the control panel in question have been tested for EMI immunity to at least that bare minimum level?

Plainly these cameras must be banned anywhere a cell phone is not permitted....:roll:

Wheres the beef (dBuv or uV/m)?
 

nc5p

Member
Location
Tempe, AZ
There is a high voltage flyback transformer in cameras to charge the flash capacitor. Most cameras have built in flashes these days. That transformer may well have generated the noise. If the flash went off, there could also be a significant impulse event if it was close to unshielded, low level (sensor) circuits. I helped a photographer once photograph a hospital emergency room. The flash equipment set off the patient alarms. Some of the later model Nikon models also have optional wireless links to dump the images to a wi-fi network.
 

zog

Senior Member
Location
Charlotte, NC
Many MV systems now use light sensing relays for arc flash detection these days, you actually test them with a camera flash. I have commiioned a few of these systems.

http://library.abb.com/global/scot/scot229.nsf/veritydisplay/aed31e7860092ce3c2257069001ad58e/$File/REA10_751404_LRENe.pdf
 

Rampage_Rick

Senior Member
ron said:
It has happened to Halon Control Panels too. I think it was a nuclear plant in CT.
Happened in '97 I believe. In this case they were taking photos of the ANSUL cabinet to update training manuals. The EPROMs inside the cabinet didn't have stickers over the erasure window, and the camera flash messed with the EPROM data enough to fault the program and cause an instant halon release. I think they found through testing that some types of camera flashes could effect the EPROMs from twice as far away as the digital camera that caused the original fault.

-edit- It was Haddam Neck, CT
Found the NRC report on the subject: http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/gen-comm/info-notices/1997/in97082.html
 
Last edited:

petersonra

Senior Member
Location
Northern illinois
Occupation
engineer
Rampage_Rick said:
Happened in '97 I believe. In this case they were taking photos of the ANSUL cabinet to update training manuals. The EPROMs inside the cabinet didn't have stickers over the erasure window, and the camera flash messed with the EPROM data enough to fault the program and cause an instant halon release. I think they found through testing that some types of camera flashes could effect the EPROMs from twice as far away as the digital camera that caused the original fault.

-edit- It was Haddam Neck, CT
Found the NRC report on the subject: http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/gen-comm/info-notices/1997/in97082.html
There was an interesting article in the ISA magazine recently about a safety PLC that failed in an uncontrolled way when a camera flash erased or partially erased an EEPROM.

http://www.isa.org/InTechTemplate.c...Management/ContentDisplay.cfm&ContentID=69733

5TI and 550 PLC systems were extremely susceptible to RFI. If you were in a control panel and used a walkie talkie it was almost a certainty that the PLC would act up. It took several years for TI to come up with a fix.
 
Last edited:

ELA

Senior Member
Occupation
Electrical Test Engineer
petersonra said:
There was an interesting article in the ISA magazine recently about a safety PLC that failed in an uncontrolled way when a camera flash erased or partially erased an EEPROM.

http://www.isa.org/InTechTemplate.c...Management/ContentDisplay.cfm&ContentID=69733

5TI and 550 PLC systems were extremely susceptible to RFI. If you were in a control panel and used a walkie talkie it was almost a certainty that the PLC would act up. It took several years for TI to come up with a fix.


From the article:
"A painstaking review and testing revealed the photoflash penetrated the window of the UV-PROM, which garbled the instruction being accessed by the central processing unit (CPU)."


It has long been know that UV-PROMS, or often refered to as just EPROMS, can be upset by different light sources. They are normally purposely erased by putting them under a UV light.
The erasure window should always be covered after programming. They should be contained within equipment and never be exposed to a light source that might accidentally corrupt them.

EEproms are a different animal and they can also be corrupted but I have not heard of them being corrupted by a light source. I would be interested to know more if that were true for EEproms.
 

Rampage_Rick

Senior Member
ELA said:
EEproms are a different animal and they can also be corrupted but I have not heard of them being corrupted by a light source. I would be interested to know more if that were true for EEproms.
Well perhaps you and I are the only ones that know the difference between Electronically Programmable and Electronically Erasable/Programmable ROMs. I think this was merely a typo.

Ahh, the good 'ol days of staring into the UV eraser as the bits made their way to binary heaven
 

steve66

Senior Member
Location
Illinois
Occupation
Engineer
zog said:
Many MV systems now use light sensing relays for arc flash detection these days, you actually test them with a camera flash. [/quote

Maybe the flash tripped their "Nuclear Meltdown Sensing Relay". :0


Steve
 

zog

Senior Member
Location
Charlotte, NC
NRC report is out

If you have access the NRC website, the document # is 081490318

For all others, here is a summary:

On March 23, 2008 at 2216 hrs, while at approximately 94.5% reactor power, as.
part of a planned coast down for a scheduled refueling outage, the 22 Main Boiler
Feed Pump (MBFP) {SJ} speed rapidly decreased to 2400 RPM. The speed reduction
resulted in reduced feedwater flow to steam generators (SG) {AB} lowering SG
water levels. Automatic Turbine runback initiated due to the speed reduction of

22 MBFP below 3300 RPM. Due to unloading of the 22 MBFP, Control Room (CR) {NA}
Operators performed immediate actions of Feedwater Abnormal Operating Procedure
{2-AOP-FW-l) and manually initiated a Reactor Trip (RT) {JC}. All control rods
{AA} fully inserted and all safety systems responded as expected. The event was
recorded in the Indian Point Corrective Action Program (CAP) as condition Report
CR-IP2-2008-01333. Immediately prior to the event a planner was photographing
the MBFP speed control {JK} Lovejoy signal processor power supplies {JX} for an
upcoming refueling outage. The event occurred when the planner had taken a fourth
picture at approximately 18 to 24 inches from the equipment. System Engineering
(SE) reviewed plant data and verified that at the time of camera use steam flow
to 22 MBFP turbine decreased very rapidly and 22 MBFP suction flow decreased to
approximately 2800 GPM. The Lovejoy signal processor contains both analog and
digital components with the digital regulation board (governor board) {90} the
main digital component. Engineering concluded that the cause of the malfunction
of the 22 MBFP Lovejoy controls was the camera based on discussion with Lovejoy
manufacturer and review of the camera specifications. The camera is rated by the
Federal Communications Commission (FCC) as radio frequency interference (RFI)
device. The CR staff and planner were.not aware that just having a digital
camera turned on in close proximity to other digital equipment could cause a
problem. The planner had been taking pictures with the same camera in CR for the
last several months for outage preparation. The CR staff was used to having staff
members including engineers, simulator staff and Public Relations personnel
taking photographs in the CR. The planner request to CR staff to photograph
"power supplies" was allowed since previous activities had no adverse effect.
Planning personnel did not perceive a correlation between the use of a camera and
its effect on plant equipment but were aware of Security requirements for camera
use on site. The procedure for camera use on site is security procedure EN-NS-
214,"Camera Controls for Access and Use." The responsibility of SE performing a
technical evaluation was not listed under section "5.0 Responsibilities" of
procedure EN-NS-214, and the Indian Point Energy 'Center Nuclear Management Manual
(NMM) Review and Approval Form of new procedure EN-AD-101,"Change Management,"
did not indicate any requirement for cross-discipline review. Based on
interviews, no communication plan was used for the new procedure.


Here are some other NRC documents on the topic, it has happened before.


NRC: Bulletin 76-03: Relay Malfunctions - GE Type STD Relays:
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/gen-comm/bulletins/1976/bl76003.html

Information Notice No. 83-83: Use of Portable Radio Transmitters Inside Nuclear Power Plants:
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/gen-comm/info-notices/1983/in83083.html

Information Notice No. 86-15: Loss Of Offsite Power Caused By Problems In Fiber Optics Systems:
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/gen-comm/info-notices/1986/in86015.html

Information Notice No. 97-82: Inadvertent Control Room Halon Actuation Due To A Camera Flash:
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/gen-comm/info-notices/1997/in97082.html
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top