B15414, Startup Test Rept for Cycle 13

Startup Test Rept for Cycle 13

ML20094D505
Person / Time
Site:	Millstone
Issue date:	10/31/1995
From:	NORTHEAST NUCLEAR ENERGY CO.
To:
Shared Package
ML20094D503	List: B15414, Startup Test Rept for Cycle 13 ML20094D501
References
B15414, NUDOCS 9511060036
Download: ML20094D505 (17)

Text

-_ ._ ._ . .- ._. . . _ . _ _ _ - . . . _ . . . _ _ _ _ _ . . _ _ . . _ . _ _ . . . _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ . ... _.. ..

M*

Docket No. 50-336 B15414 1

I l

l l

1 l

Attachment 1 Millstone Nuclear Power Station, Unit No. 2 startup Test Report for Cycle 13 l

l l

October 1995 9511060036 951031 PDR ADOCK 05000336 P PDR

j Page1

\

Table of Contents

1.

SUMMARY

2

2. INTRODUCTION 3 l

3. LOW POWER PHYSICS TESTING RESULTS 3 I 3.1 Unrodded Critical Boron Concentration 4 3.2 Moderator Temperature Coefficient 4 3.3 Control Element Assembly Rod Worth Parameters 5 3.4 Rodded Critical Boron Concentration 6 3.5 Control Rod Drop Time Measurements 7

4. POWER ASCENSION TESTING RESULTS 7 4.1 Power Peaking, Linear Heat Rate and Incore Tilt Measurements 7 4.2 Critical Boron Measurements 8 4.3 Flux Symmetry Measurements 9 4.4 Moderator Temperature Coefficient 9 4.5 Reactor Coolant System Flow 10 4.6 Core Power Distributions 10 4.7 Reactor Coolant System Radiochemistry 11

5. REFERENCES 11

6. FIGURES 12 l

l l

1 October 1995

.. - . _ _. _ - - . . - ~ - . - . . . . . . - - - . . - - - - . - . . . . - --

l ,- ,-

! Page 2 i .

l

1.

SUMMARY

The refueling outage preceding the Cycle 13 startup was approximately 304 days, starting on October 1,1994 and ending on July 31,1995.

l l The results of the Millstone 2, Cycle 13 low power physics testing and power ascension testing programs were in good agreement with the core design l predictions and all measured parameters were within the acceptance criteria of the tests. One item is noteworthy of mention:

The measured rod worth for the " reference" CEA group was 8.52% less than the predicted value. While this measurement is within the i 10% acceptance criteria, the low measurement is believed to have been caused by a signal bias from the excore detectors into the reactivity calculation. This theory was further confirmed upon reviewing the difference between the measured critical boron concentrations for the unrodded and rodded conditions. The measured difference was within 1 ppm boron of the predicted difference. The fact that the reference group rod worth value is used to calculate the rod worth parameters for the remaining CEA groups causes the measured rod worths to be less than the predicted values.

Two plant shutdowns and several downpowers during the power ascension testing program caused delays in the completion of these tests:

. On August 3,1995, the reactor was shutdown from a power level of about 10% power due to a problem with a control rod power supply.

. On August 8,1995, plant power was decreased from 80% to about 60% due to a problem with a pump sealin the secondary plant. At about 60%

power, the reactor was manually tripped due to a secondary plant pipe rupture. j e On August 21,1995, plant power was decreased from 100% to about 90%

due to a problem with a valve leaking in the secondary plant.

. On August 22,1995, plant power was decreased from 100% to about 90%

due to a problem with pump vibration in the secondary plant.

October 1995

Page 3

2. INTRODUCTION The Millstone 2 Cycle 13 fuelloading was completed on April 27,1995. The attached core map (Figure 6.1) shows the final core loading. The subsequent operation / testing milestones were completed as follows:

Initial Criticality July 31,1995 Low Power Physics Testing Complete August 2,1995 Turbine On-Line August 4,1995 65% Power TestingComplete August 6,1995 96% Power Testing Complete August 20,1995 100% Power Testing Complete August 29,1995 The Millstone 2 Cycle 13 core is comprised of 217 Siemens Power Corporation manufactured fuel assemblies. The design of the 84 new fuel assemblies is slightly changed from the fuel design previously supplied by Siemens and was evaluated in accordance with 100FR50.59. The new fuel assembly design changes were:

. Decreasing the thickness of the fuel rod cladding

. Increasing the diameter of the fuel pellet

. Decreasing the pellet-to-clad gap

. The high thermal performance spacer grid (used for debris protection) is replaced by a standard spacer grid and a longer fuel rod lower end plug

. Increasing the fuel rod fill gas pressure

. Increasing the uranium loading in each fuel assembly

. Increasing the exposure capability of the fuel assembly

3. LOW POWER PHYSICS TESTING RESULTS Low Power Physics Testing was conducted at a power level of approximately 2 x 10 2 % power.

i October 1995

Page 4 4

3.1 Unrodded Critical Boron Concentration The Critical Boron Concentration measured with CEA Group 7 at 143 steps withdrawn and an RCS temperature of 533.2 F was 1406 ppm.

Adjusted to the prediction conditions of Group 7 at 140 steps withdrawn and an RCS temperature of 532*F yields an adjusted, measured CBC of 1464 ppm.

Adjusted, measured unrodded CBC = 1464 ppm Predicted unrodded CBC = 1452unm Difforence = 12 ppm Acceptance Criteria is i 50 ppm of the predicted CBC.

Acceptance Criteria met? Yes 3.2 Moderator Temperature Coefficient The Moderator Temperature CoefIicient (MTC) measurements were performed at a boron concentration of 1466 ppm, an average RCS l temperature of 529.0 F, and CEA Group 7 at 143 steps.

The measured MTC at these conditions was +0.213 x 10 d Ap/ F.

Adjusted to the prediction conditions for an RCS boron concentration of ,

1452 ppm and an RCS temperature of 532 F yields an adjusted, I measured MTC of +0.188 x 10 4 Ap/ F.

Adjusted, measured MTC = +0.188 x 10 4 Ap/ F Predicted MTC = +0.213 x 10 4 Ao/ F Difference = -0.025 x 10 4 Ap/ F Acceptance Criteria is i 0.2 x 10 4 Ap/ F of the predicted MTC.

Acceptance Criteria met? Yes October 1995

.. ._. - . - _ -~ . - . . . . - - - . --

Page 5 Additionally, per the Millstone 2 Technical Specifications, the MTC must be less positive than +0.7 x 10 4 Ap/ F for power levels less than 70% power.

Technical Specification limit met? Yes 3.3 Control Element Assernbly Rod Worth Pararneters Control Element Assembly (CEA) Rod Worth Parameters were measured using the " rod swap" method. Figure G.2 shows the CEA group configuration.

CEA Group "A" was used as the " reference" group and its reactivity worth was measured using the " boron exchange" method (dilution results are shown below). The reactivity worth of the remaining CEA groups was measured by establishing a critical condition with the " test" group fully inserted and the " reference" group partially withdrawn.

The results of the CEA worth measurements were:

Group Measured Prediction Difference  % Difference A 1.020 %Ap 1.115 %Ap -0.095 %Ap -8.52%

B 0.421 %Ap 0.432 %Ap 0.011 %Ap -2.55%

1 0.679 %Ap 0.74G %Ap -0.0G7 %Ap -8.98%

2 0.090 %Ap 0.739 %Ap -0.049 %Ap -G.63%

3 0.447 %Ap 0.53G %Ap -0.089 %Ap -16.60 %

4 0.664 %Ap 0.731 %Ap -0.007 %Ap -9.17%

5 0.312 %Ap 0.323 %Ap -0.011 %Ap -3.41%

6 0.375 %Ap 0.400 %Ap -0.025 %Ap -0.25%

7 0.692 %Ap 0.784 %Ap -0.092 %Ap -11.73 %

Total 5.300 %Ap 5.80G %Ap -0.50G %Ap -8.72%

The Acceptance Criteria are:

1. The measured " reference" group worth is within t 10% of the predicted worth.

2. The measured worth of the individual CEA groups is within i 0.1%Ap p_r i 15% of the predicted worth, whichever is larger.

3. The sum of the measured CEA worths is within i 10% of the sum of the predicted CEA worths.

Acceptance Criteria met for " reference" CEA group? Yes October 1995

l PageG

~

Acceptance Criteria met for individual CEA groups? Yes,i 15% of the predicted worth for CEA Group 3 is i 0.080%Ap (which is less than i 0.1%Ap)

Acceptance Criteria met for sum of CEA group worths? Yes The measured rod worth (dilution) for the " reference" CEA group was 8.52% less than the predicted value. The " reference" CEA group worth was also measured as it was withdrawn (boration), resulting in a measured value of 1.003 %Ap (which is -10.07% less than the predicted value). While the average of these two measurements is within the i 10% acceptance criteria, the low measurements are believed to have been caused by performing the rod worth tests with a signal bias from the excore detectors into the reactivity calculation. This theory was further confirmed upon reviewing the difference between the measured critical boron concentrations for the unrodded and rodded conditions.

The measured difTerence was within 1 ppm boron of the predicted r difference. The fact that the reference group rod worth value is used to calculate the rod worth parameters for the remaining CEA groups causes all of the measured rod worths to be less than the predicted values.

3.4 Rodded Critical Boron Concentration The Critical Baron Concentration measured with CEA Group A at 6 steps withdrawn and an RCS temperature of 532 F was 1854 ppm.

Adjusted to the prediction conditions of Group A at 0 steps withdrawn and an RCS temperature of 532*F yields an adjusted, measured CBC of 1353 ppm.

Adjusted, measured rodded CBC = 1353 ppm Predicted rodded CBC = 1340 onm Difference = 13 ppm Acceptance Criteria is i 50 ppm of the predicted CBC.

Acceptance Criteria met? Yes October 1995

Page 7 l

l 3.5 Control Rod Drop Time Measurements i

Control rod drop times were determined by measuring the time between the opening of the first reactor trip circuit breaker and the time when the 100% insertion position was reached (" dropped rod" limit switch). The Millstone 2 Technical Specifications require that all CEAs drop in s 2.75 seconds to the 90% inserted position, with RCS conditions at ;t 515'F and full flow (all reactor coolant pumps operating).

Control rod drop time testing was done at an RCS temperature of 534*F with all 4 reactor coolant pumps operating. The average control rod drop time was 2.48 seconds to 100% insertion, with the fastest and slowest drop times being 2.37 seconds and 2.64 seconds, respectively.

Technical Specification limits met? Yes

4. POWER ASCENSION TESTING RESULTS 4.1 Power Peaking, Linear Heat Rate and Incore Tilt Measurements The following core power distribution parameters were measured during ,

the power ascension to ensure compliance with the Technical  !

Specifications:

1

. Total Unrodded Integrated Radial Peaking Factor (F,T) is the ratio of the peak fuel rod power to the average fuel rod power in an unrodded core. This value includes the effect of Azimuthal Power Tilt.

. Linear Heat Rate is the amount of power being produced per linear length of fuel rod.

. Azimuthal Power Tilt is the maximum difference between the power generated in any core quadrant (ul,per or lower) and the average power of all quadrants in that half (upper or lower) of the core divided by the the average power of all quadrants in that half (upper or lower) i of the core.

October 1995

.' l Page 8 The measurements of these parameters were:

Power Level F,T Peak Linear Heat Rate Incore Tilt 65% 1.088 9.05 KW/ft 0.014 ,

96% 1.638 12.92 KW/ft 0.012 100% 1.019 13.10 KW/ft 0.013 These measurements were obtained with all control rods fully withdrawn.

The corresponding Technical Specification limits for all power levels for these parameters are:

. F,T s 1.09 (Note -larger values of FrT are permissible at less than 100% power)

. Peak Linear Heat Rate s 15.1 KW/ft

. Azimuthal Power Tilt s 0.02 Technical Specification limits met? Yes 4.2 Critical Boron Measurements ,

Critical Boron Concentration (CBC) measurements were performed at 96% power and 100% power at equilibrium xenon conditions.

The CBC measured at 96% power with CEA Group 7 at 155 steps withdrawn and an RCS temperature of 570.2*F was 1017 ppm. The l cycle average exposure at the time of this measurement was 195 MWD /MTU.

Adjusted to the prediction conditions of 96% power with CEA Group 7 at 155 steps withdrawn and an RCS temperature of 573.7'F yields an adjusted, measured CBC of 1020 ppm.

Adjusted, measured 96% power CBC = 1020 ppm Predicted 90% nower CBC = 1022 nom Difference = -2 ppm Acceptance Criteria is i 50 ppm of the predicted CBC l l

Acceptance Criteria met? Yes i

i October 1995 a - _- _ _ _ _ - . . -.

Page 9 The CBC measured at 100% power with CEA Group 7 completely withdrawn and an RCS temperature of 571.5'F was 990 ppm. The cycle average exposure at the time of this measurement was 473 MWD /MTU.

Adjusted to the prediction conditions of 100% power at an All Rods Out ,

(ARO) condition and an RCS temperature of 572 F yields an adjusted, measured CBC of 991 ppm.

Adjusted, measured 100% power CBC = 991 ppm Predicted 100% nower CBC =

399 Dom Difference = -8 ppm Acceptance Criteria is i 50 ppm of the predicted CSC Acceptance Criteria met? Yes 4.3 Flux Symmetry Measurements The core neutron Dux symmetry was measured at approximately 30%

power using the fixed incore detector monitoring system. The measured i deviation between the highest and lowest values in operable symmetric incore detector locations ranged from 0.52% to 7.0G%.

Acceptance Criteria is i 10% (deviation between the highest and lowest values in symmetric incore locations).

Acceptance Criteria met? Yes 4.4 Moderator Temperature Coefficient The Moderator Temperature Coefficient (MTC) measurements were performed at a power level of 96%, an RCS boron concentration of 1017 ppm, an average RCS temperature of 566.7 F, and CEA Group 7 at 155 steps.

The measured MTC at these conditions was -0.592 x 10 d Ap/ F.

Adjusted to the prediction conditions for an RCS boron concentration of 1022 ppm and an RCS temperature of 573.7*F yields an adjusted, measured MTC of 0.063 x 10 4 Ap/ F.

October 1995

~

Page 10 l

Adjusted, measured MTC = -0.663 x 10 4 Ap/ F Predicted MTC = -0.600 x 10 4 Ao/ F Difference = 0.063 x 10 4 Ap/ F Acceptance Criteria is i 0.3 x 10 4 Ap/ F of the predicted MTC.

1 Acceptance Criteria met? Yes 4.5 Reactor Coolant Systern Flow  !

l The RCS flow rate was measured using the secondary calorimetric method,in which the RCS flow rate is inferred by performing a heat  !

balance around the steam generators and RCS to determine reactor  !

power, and measuring the differential temperature across the reactor core i to determine the enthalpy rise. l The measured RCS flow rate at 100% power was 386,043 GPM.

When 13,000 GPM is subtracted from the measured Dow rate to account for measurement uncertainties, the Minimum Guaranteed Safety Analysis RCS Flow Rate is 373,043 GPM. This value is used to satisfy the Technical Specification surveillance requirement.

The measurement uncertainty value of 13,000 GPM is 4% of the Design Flow Rate value of 324,800 GPM.

The Millstone 2 Technical Specifications require the RCS flow rate to be greater than 360,000 GPM.

Technical Specification limit met? Yes 4.6 Core Power Distributions The core power distribution measurements were inferred from the signals obtained by the fixed incore detector monitoring system. These measurements were performed at 65% power and 100% power at an All Rods Out (ARO) condition to determine if the measured and predicted core power distributions are consistent.

The core power distribution map for 65% power, cycle average exposure of 24 MWD /MTU, non-equilibrium xenon conditions is shown in Figure 6.3.

October 1995

Page 11 This map shows that there is good agreement between the measured and predicted values.

The core power distribution map for 100%, cycle average exposure of 440 MWD /MTU, equilibrium xenon conditions is shown in Figure 0.4. This map also shows that there is good agreement between the measured and predicted values.

The Acceptance Criteria for these measurements are:

1. The difference between the measured and predicted Relative Power Densities (RPDs) for core locations with eu operable incore detector is less than 0.1.

2. The Root Mean Square (RMS) of all of the differences between the measured and predicted RPDs is less than 5%.

Acceptance Criteria met? Yes, for both 65% and 100% power 4.7 Reactor Coolant System Radiochemistry RCS radiochemistry analysis during the power ascension testing program and during subsequent power operation indicate low activity levels with Iodine-131 values of about 8 x 10-4 Ci/ml. These low RCS activity levels are indicative of defect free fuel cladding.

5. REFERENCES 5.1 In Service Test T95-14, " Low Power Physics Tests - Cycle 13" 5.2 In-Service Test T95-16, " Power Ascension Tests Cycle 13" 5.3 EMF-94-201(P), " Millstone Unit 2, Cycle 13, Startup and Operations Report" October 1995

Page 12

6. FIGUR_FJ l

6.1 Cycle 13 Core Loading Map l l

6.2 CEA Group Configuration 6.3 65% Core Power Distribution Map 6.4 100% Core Power Distribution Map I

i l

l l

l l

October 1995

NORTH Paga 13 i .

Y8 Y10 Y12 Y14 N33 N28 N19 N32 x5 x8 x7 x9 e x11 xi3 xi5 xte xir N20 R1 P64 R10 N11 R15 P45 R8 N27 79 89 W4 W5 W6 W7 W9 W11 W13 W15 W16 W17 W18 N55 R20 P5 R39 P33 R81 P36 R80 P4 R23 N57 i

167 115 98 135 124

_v3 v4 v5 v6 v7 w v11 v13 vis vie vi7 vi8 v19

)

l N58 P9 P21 R65 N65 R49 N52 RSS N61 R74 P26 P14 N54 93 110 114 160 161 95 T2 T3 T4 T5 T8 T7 Tg T11 T13 T15 T16 T17 T18 T19 T20 N22 R24 P18 R70 P63 R59 PS2 R31 P44 R62 P40 R69 P17 R19 N25 155 157 120 122 82 83 84 85 86 87 89 811 813 815 816 817 818 819 820 R7 P3 R75 P65 P19 P57 R43 N43 R46 P61 P27 P47 R68 P2 R4 1 107 82 88 125 e i R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 R9 R11 R13 R15 R16 R17 R18 R19 R20 j P66 R77 N62 R63 P58 P42 N3 R27 N6 P38 P71 R58 N68 R38 P54 "'

154 103 116 77 109 118 123 N36 N29 N2 N3 N4 N5 N6 N7 NO N13 N15 N19 PG0 N11 N16 N17 N18 R16 P29 R56 P37 R47 N7 R35 P10 R34 N2 R42 P68 RS2 P32 R9 85 106 113 134 165 M Tj3 14 L2 L3 L4 L5 L8 L7 L9 L11 L13 L15 L16 L17 L18 L19 L20 N26 R82 N48 R32 N44 R28 P12 N46 P13 R26 N42 R30 N51 R84 N16 i 3 J2 J3 96 J4 J5 J6 J7 87 J9 100 J11 J13 90 J15 J18 J17 J18 W

Ji9 J20

$4  ;

R11 P31 R50 P48 R44 N4 R36 P11 R33 N5 R45 P51 R54 P30 R14 "h G2 80 G3 127 G4 05 G6 G7 158 09 G11 G13 159 G15 G16 G17 164 G18 G19 91 G20

]3)

P62 R40 N66 R60 P72 P39 N8 R25 N1 P43 P56 R61 N64 R79 P67 104 130 137 78 111 163 121 F2 F3 F4 F5 F6 F7 F9 F11 F13 F15 F16 F17 F18 F19 F20 R2 P8 R66 P50 P22 P60 R48 N41 R41 P59 P20 P53 R73 P6 R5 e 105 76 83 126 E2 E3 E4 E5 E6 E7 E9 E11 E13 E15 E18 E17 E18 E19 E20 N15 R17 P24 R71 P70 R64 P49 R29 P41 R57 P55 R72 P23 R22 N12 128 156 117 166 D3 D4 D6 D6 D7 09 D11 D13 D15 016 D17 D18 D19 N56 P16 P25 R76 N63 R53 N50 R51 N67 R67 P28 P15 N60 92 108 112 133 119 94 C4 05 C6 C7 CS C11 C13 C15 C16 C17 C18 N59 R21 P1 R78 P35 R83 P34 R37 P7 R18 N53 129 132 97 136 162 B6 B6 B7 89 B11 913 B15 Bie B17 N17 R8 P46 R13 N21 R12 P69 R3 N10 81 0 86 A8 A10 A12 A14 N30 N9 N18 N35 E91 N20 Core Locata R9 Fuw AuenwyiD 84 CEA10 e Neuim source Cycle 13 Core Loading Map FIGURE 6.1

l Page 14

- I NORTH Channel "Y" Uncompensated lon Chamber O l 2 w 6 55 4 56 Q 7-41

_4 A 48 A-47 7-65 D 1 31 1-32 h 7-68 A

Q 2-23 2-24 Q

A-46 ^ 42 D 6-16 6-17 h.

5-5 4-57 -

654 2-22 Q Q 2-25 B-8 B-9 344 1-30 D h 1-33 3-69 7-40 5-4 741 5-2 7-38 3 58 3-63 1-29 Q Q 1-26 B-7 B4 l4-53 2-21

~

5-3 D 2-18 4-50 -

6 14 Q 6-15 Q A-45 A-42 h 2-20 2-19

'~

l P 7-59 7-62 Q 1-28 1-27 Q

'. P A-42 h~ 452 7-39 4 51 D 3-61 3-60 V

Channel "X" Uncompensated lon Chamber CEA Group Configuration FIGURE 6.2

Paga 15

NORTH r

ya Y10 Yl2 y14 0.269 0.263 0 006 X5 X8 X7 X9 X11 X13 X15 X16 X1 0.806 0.767 0.392

-0004 4 030 0 001 E W5 W{

W7 W9 W11 W13 W15 Wj6 W17 W18 0.3 51 1.245 1.245 0 f 07 0.021 0 029

( v3 V4  % V6 V7 W V1 V13 V1 V16 V17 V18 V1 0.961 0.917 0.351 4 028 0 013 0 012 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7 T9 T11 T13 Tt5 T1 T17 Tia T19 T20 0.392 1.062 1.117 0 009 -0036 0 026 82 83 64 85 88 S7 80 S1 S13 815 816 S17 818 819 Sg 1.245 0.846 1.075 0 032 4 023 0 011 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 R9 R11 R13 R15 R16 R17 R18 Rt9 R20 0 911 1.031 p1 0.917 1.052 P21

-0006 4 022 N2 N3 N4 NS 'N6 N7 N9 N1 N13 N15 N16 N18 N19 N20 N1Q 1.152 Inop 1.062 y1 M21 0002 0.000 L2 L3 LA L5 La L7 L9 L11 L13 L15 L16 L17 L19 L20 Lig 0.961 0.84S Inop 0961 K1 K21 4 011 4 031 4 006 J2 J3 J4 J5 J6 J7 J9 J11 J13 J15 J16 J17 J18 J19 J20 0.906 I"0P H1 H21 4030 G2 G3 G4 G5 G6 G7 0 11 013 G15 G16 0 17 01 G19 0 20 0.906 0.917

-0 028 0 011 F2 F3 F4 F5 F6 F7 F9 F1 F13 F15 F16 F17 F18 F20 F1Q7 1.245 0.846 1.245 0 024 -0 031 0 042 E2 E3 E4 E5 E6 E7 E9 E11 E13 E15 E16 EIT E18 E19 E2gg, 0.392 0 007

.362 1.130 0.902 d.947 0 351 1.125 0 917 0.961 0 011 0 005 4 015 4 014 C4 C5 C6 1.253 1.132 1.282 $36a 1.245 1.119 1.245 0.351 0 008 0 013 0 037 0 017 B5 0 391 0.807 814 0 392 0 804 0.806 4 001 0 003 0 008 A8 A10 A12 A14 0.326 Kev 0.342 4 01s A10 Cor. Locaiion Root Mean Square of differences $ cD'0"E one.nce for all core locations = 1.60% 4 ois

% . %,.u. me . o i.cior toc.uon 65% Power Distribution Map All Rods Out, Non-Equilibrium Xenon, 24 MWD /MTU FIGURE 6.3

. _ . _ . . . . .~. _ _ _ . . _ . . . - _ _ . - . . - . -

e

- e Paga16 NORTH ya Y10 Y12 y14 0.278 0.264 0 014 X5 X8 X7 X9 X11 X13 X15 X16 X17 0.792 0.7 42 0 394 0.781 0.7 67 0.383 0.011 -0024 0 011 W4 W5 W6 W7 W9 W11 W13 W15 W16 W17 W18 0.365 1.232 1.239 0.34E 1.206 1.20E O 017 0 026 0 031 V3 V4 V5 V6 V7 V9 V11 V13 V15 V16 V17 V18 V19 0.944 0 934 0.369 0.972 0.927 0.348

-0 028 0 007 0.021 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7 Tg T11 T13 Tt5 T16 T17 Tia T19 T20 0.400 1.042 1.141 0.383 1.08E 1.13:

0017 4 044 0 Old 82 S3 S4 S5 86 S7 89 S1 S13 815 816 S17 818 819 S2{

1.206 0.884 1.015 0 035 4 033 0.032

)

R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 R9 R11 R13 R15 R16 R17 R18 R19 R20 0 914 1.0 64I p1 0.921 1.09'i p21

-0 01:. 4 031 N2 N3 N4 NS N6 N7 NO N1 N13 N15 N16 Nij.07E yg 1.20 bop 1.086 M21 4 014 0010 L2 L3 L4 L5 L8 L7 L9 L11 L13 L15 L18 L17 L1 L19 L20 K1 0.972 0 88d W 0.972 K21 l -0 015 4 04C -0.011 J2 J3 J4 J5 J6 J7 J9 J11 J13 J15 J16 J17 J18 J19 J20 H1 0.95E D H21 0.04C G2 G3 G4 05 G6 G7 G9 G11 G13 G15 G16 G17 G18 G19 G20 0.920 0.93' l 0.955 0.921 4 035 0 00d F2 F3 F4 F5 F0 F7 F9 F11 F13 F15 F16 F17 F18 Figy F23 1.20t 0.884 1.206 0 03: 403E 0 041 l E2 E3 E4 E5 E6 E7 E9 E11 E13 E15 E16 E17 E18 E19 E2b98 0.383 0 015 D3 D4 D6 D6 07 D9 D11 D13 D15 016 D17 D18 019 0.370 1.1 22 0 912 0 957 l 0 34a 1.114 0 927 0.973 0 022 4 00E -0 015 -0 015 1.22t .12S .2 45 .37 d I 1.20E 1.107 1.20E O 341 l 0.02C 0022 0 04 0 02t 86 0.392 0806 0.601 0.383 0.780 0.781 0 009 0026 0 02t A8 A10 A12 A14 0.34C Kev 0.345

.o aos A10 t%re Location Root Mean Square of differancaa

• S E cY?a'$"E t for all core locations = 2.01% Da= =

inop = Inoperable hicore Detector Location 100% Power Distribution Map All Rods Out, Equilibrium Xenon, 446 MWD /MTU FIGURE 6.4