FVY-83-100, Startup Test Rept Vermont Yankee Cycle 10

Startup Test Rept Vermont Yankee Cycle 10

ML20078C754
Person / Time
Site:	Vermont Yankee File:NorthStar Vermont Yankee icon.png
Issue date:	09/15/1983
From:	Murphy W VERMONT YANKEE NUCLEAR POWER CORP.
To:	Murley T NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I)
References
FVY-83-100, NUDOCS 8309280135
Download: ML20078C754 (16)

Text

/

STARTUP TEST REPORT VERMONT YANKEE CYCLE 10

==

Introduction:==

Vermont Yankee Cycle 10 initial startup commenced on June 17,1983 following a 15 week outage for annual refueling and maintenance related activities. No fuel sipping transpired.

The core loading for Cycle 10 consisted of:

60 P8x8R P8DPB289 Reinserts from cycle 7 80 P8x8R P8DPB289 Reinserts from cycle 8 120 P8x8R P8DPB289 Reinserts from cycle 9 108 P8x8R P8DPB289 Non irradiated assemblies An as loaded cycle IJ core map is included as Figure I. Details of the cycle 10 core loading are contained in the Yankee Atomic Electric Company document YAEC-1342,

" Vermont Yankee Cycle 10 Core Performance Analysis, January 1983.

Shutdown margin testing was performed satisfactorily on May 28, 1983. An in-sequence critical was performed satisfactorily May 28, 1983. Startup commenced June 17,1983 and steady state full power conditions were reached June 27,1983.

Control rod coupling verification was performed satisfactorily for all 89 control rods on May 22, 23, and 24, 1983. Control rod scram testing was performed satisfactorily for all 89 rods on June 4,5,1983.

The final as loaded core loading was verified correct by Vermont Yankee and Yankee Atomic Electric personnel on May 24,1983.

Core Verification:

The final core loading was verified cc: rect on May 24, 1983. Three separate criteria were checked:

1.

Proper bundle orientation' was verified by checking channel fastener orientation and assuring that fastener orientation agreed with that shown in Figure II.

2.

Proper bundle seating was verified by following Vermont Yankee Procedure VYOP 1411.

3.

Proper core loading was verified by checking the serial number of each bundle through the use of a video camera. This verification was recorded on video tape and was later independently reviewed and reverified to agree with the licensed core loading of Figure 1.

k Qq>

8309280135 830915

\\

PDR ADOCK 05000271 P

PDR

m Process Computer Data Checks:

Process computer data shuffling checks were completed June 3,1983. These checks included various manual and computer checks of the new data constants.

A check for consistency of the data was also performed by Yankee Atomic Electric Company and found to be satisfactory.

Situtdown Margin Testing A suberitical shutdown margin test was performed on May 28,1983 by withdrawing the analytically determined strongest rod to the full out position and then withdrawing a diagonally adjacent margin rod for which a rod worth curve has been calculated. A shutdown margin of at least 1.2972% AK/K was demonstrated. The reactor remained suberitical through the test, thereby satisfying the Tech. Spec. requirement to demonstrate a shutdown margin of 0.68% AK/K for cycle 10.

In-Sequence Critical Sequence 10-A-1 was used to perform the in-sequence critical test.

On May 28,1983 control rods were withdrawn in-sequence until criticality was attained. Criticality was achieved on the 9th rod in group 2 (18-31) at notch position 12. The moderator temperature was 103*F.

The actual critical rod pattern and the YAEC prediction agreed within i1% AK/K. Figure III shows the actual, predicted and i1% AK/K critical rod patterns.

Rod Scram Testing isil 80 control rods were scram tested satisfactorily on June 5,1983. All insertion times were within the limits defined in the Vermont Yankee Technical Specifications. Results of the testing are presented in Tnble IA.

In accordance with Technical Specifications Section 4.3.C.2, scram time information available for scrams occurring since the transmittal of the previous startup test report is also included in Table IB. All insertion times were within the limits defined in the Vermont Yankee Technical Specifications.

All scrum time information was evaluated to ensure that proper drive performance is being maintained.

No degradation of drive performance is l

noticeable.

Thermal Ilvdraulic Limits and Power Distribution Core Maximum Fraction of Critical Power (CMFCP), Core Maximum Fraction of Limitir.g Power Density (CMFLPD), Maximum Average Planar Linear lleat Generation Rate ratio to its limit (MAPRAT) and the ratio of CMFLPD to the Fraction of Rated power (CMFLPD/FRP) were all checked daily during the start'ap using the process computer. All checks of core thermal limits were within the limits specified in Technical Specifications.

The results of the Backup Core Limits Evaluation (BUCLE) program were compared to results of the process computer for the same core conditions. The results were essentially identical as can be seen in Table II.

~,.

The process computer power distribution was updated nine (9) times using the TIP system during the ascent to full power. The result of these updates are presented in Table III.

The LPRM's were calibrated three (3) times in conjunction with TIP sets 768, 773 and 776. The initial checkout of I.PRM high and low trip alarm setpoints was done at 0% power on 6/7/83. The TIP's and LPRM's were both functionally tested and found to operate satisfactorily.

The process computer power distribution update performed June 29, 1983 (TIP 777) was used as a basis for comparison with an offline calculation performed using the Yankee Atomic Electric Company nodal code SIMULATE. For the power distribution of June 29, 1983 the SIMULATE core average axial power distribution was compared to that calculated by the plant process computer; comparisons are shown in Table IV. A comparison was also performed between SIMULATE and process computer peak radial power; comparisons are shown in Table V.

~

TIP Reproducibility and TIP Symmetry TIP system reproducibility was checked in conjunction with the power distribution update performed August 2,1983. All three TIP system traces were reproducible to within 2.3%

The A-1 sequence used as the initial control rod sequence varied significantly from an eighth core symmetric pattern with octant symmetric cod locations at notch postion 32 and 38. Due to this lack of eighth core symmetry, calculation of a total TIP uncertainty was calculated using synthetic traces from a SIMULATE case at the same conditions as calibration 777, but with control rods at core locations 26-35 and 34-27, as well as their symmetric counterparts, set to position

34. These synthetic traces were pointwise adjusted by SIMULATE using the ratio of the actual TIP 777 traces to the synthetic SIMULATE TIP 777 traces. By using the pointwise adjustment ratios it is possible to estimate what the actual TIP traces for symmetric pattern would be.

The resulting total TIP uncertainty for this case was 2.12 percent.

The results of the TIP uncertainty test as shown in Table VI are well below the.7% acceptance criteria.

k.

Figure I VERMONT YANKEE Cycle 10 Core Loading LJ lLJ j LJ ILJ lWl LJ 3

1 G994 G9 2 978 3979 39313995 42 LJ W IW LJ ILJ LJ i LJ 'LJ J,9,7 08512069ZO5?i 205g37:fl086' g7_5 en LJ l LJ LJ tLJ Y l LJ LY ILY LJ l LY W i LJ e LJ 'LJ 933197U "199I 3 ) 9'_9'z11.2 gylgl4 21,28g(3 [106 P22,037,1 G,9L5 1

LJ 8 LJ l LJ LJ l LY LJ l LY W ILJ LY IW LY LJ W ILJ l LJ g i 3g P19 92612065 20934757 29301 4761Z11312114 47632931 4758209 3661292 9 192 Id LY ILJ

'Y I LJ Y I LJ LY l LY LJ 8 LY U I LY LJ ILY 5J~l LJ 36

'J I

H0071207147651P243 47692061 34

~II; U~ IJ i U

~LJ t IV~

4773P263~4777l4778 P2644774 20621477QP24414766 ZO78H008

~ ' '

~

U~ l LY LJ sU LY tS[ LY ' b LJ IU W I LJ

~

G9821212 #23117038 P22j4781 P219f.785 P2111P21 78619220 47821 P22 T039lP232l 2128G983

'O l 'O

'Y I 'J 'E I 'J Y I 'J

'J ILJ

'J I 'Y

'O IU l3 ILY

'J l LJ I

32 JPglD@g8.9) f.1U L9dP23.2 99.f102, g4.Z 1DO PJ2YU91 P.2'.D' 1919P.29.1 UtQ D1dP,241 1

I LJ!LY 30 LJ 'LJ I LV LJ I LY LJ l LY LJ I LY W ILJ LY I LJ LY I ILJ LY l LJ l LJ 8

l 8

1 G99,,8 ZD1314797g8914801 PM4805 Z918L809 G950 G95g481d29194806 P20g802ZO90 ' 708 ZQ74 Gl9j 28 W f LJ LY I LJ LY l LJ LY LJ W lu LY ILY LJ I LJ LJ ' LY ILJ

'LY U ' LY LJ lu I

6003 2129 461312097 4817lP227 482IZ934 P 55IZ121 482),,148L6.Z,,1dP_Z51 D 18Z;P120. 4J1J ZDS4111 {13Q #CQ4 J l 26 LJ l LJ LJ LY L3,LY LJ, LY LJ l LY LJ ILJ LY I LJ LY l LJ LY ILJ LY lW LJ e W 60191Z081 294214829 23514833 P215l4837 TU34l4841 P267;P2 8427035 4838 P21 341P236 4830 2943 Z08216020 1 24 LO ' 'J 'Y l LJ LY l W WlW Y LJ LJ ILJ LJ l LY W 8 LJ lLY W l LY LJ lLJ i asi2922 4845m suiP.219 z.1o.iet2 i8tv2e e46 tG9t? P_25214854G94> horaz6o' 485o zi'ak.845 19231G95-22 LJ ' LJ-LY I W LY I LJ LJ g W LY l LJ LJ ILJ LJ l LY LJ l LJ W ILY LJ l LY LJ l W 1 1 3956 Z924 48472135 48511P261 Z103G94 855lP253 G9481G949 P2544856 G945'2104 P262 4852 21364848 29251 G95-20 W ' L3 LJ l LY - LJ l LY LJ FLY l LY LJ ILJ LY I LJ LY IW LY lLJ LV ' LJ LJ l W. "02fZ083 L9thi er g2p3815 f22n839, gL614863 i u212 u_79 18 tug 32 684pP218 g36,iP238 (83f2y,61 Z_083ic22 13 LJ l W LY l LJ LY l LJ LY LJ LJ l LJ LY lLY LJ lW LJ e LY LJ lLY LJ l LY LJ tLJ C051Z131 4815l2D9 8191P229 4823293 25712123 48271482 Z121e P258 29371482 23014820 21001481fg1321H006 16 L5 lW I LY LJ l LY W l LY l LY l WIJ LY l LJ LY I LJ LY ILJ LY l LJ T L 1 H001tIO75 4799 209114803 P20914807 292d 4811 G952lG953 4812fl921 4808W210 l 4804 2092 48032076 IH002 14 LJ I LJ LY I LJ W i LJ LY IW LJ ILJ LJ I LY W I LJ LJ 8LY LJ I LJ I f P2491Z11 7911P197 294dp2ki 4795P205 70441704gP20d4796 P242 Z94g198 4792 211dP250 12 LJ LJ LJ i W LJ i LY % rLY u lLJ LY ILJ LY I LJ LJ ILJ W LJ 10 'O-P,22jlk,,]8,3 P22,111.787 P2131P214 4_7881P222 4784f226 TO,, gip 234 Z128,lG985, @8'l212 P,23]lylg l 'd 'Y I LJ 'Y l'd 'Y lU 'Y ' 'Y 'J l'Y 'J I 'Y dY 'J l 'O H0091ZO7 7671P245 47711Z06 775P255 477914780 26614776 20641477 246t4768 ZO80iH010 ~" 'J I 'J 'J l'Y J i 'Y 'J l 'J V I '3 L# I LJ 'J ' 'J ~ 08 l P193 292812067 g Z0951475_929321r.763 Z11512116 476412933 47601Z.096ZO68.l2929 lP194 LJ ILJ LJ l W LY I LJ LY ILY LJ ' LY LJ l LJ LJ l W.. 06 f 39361G972 P20112,107 475112119 475514756 Z120l4752 Z10_8 tP202 G973iG937 04 W LJ lU LJ l LJ 'J l LJ I LJ e 3976:20871Z071 Z0591Z060 2072120881 G977 og W I LJ LJ lLJ LJ l W l 3996iG932 G980 G181 G9331G997 1 01 03 05 07 09 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 41 43 g LPRM LOCATION (C0tel0N LOCATION FOR ALL TIP MACHINES) 43 Q IJRM LOCATION (LETTER INDICATES 39 TIP MACHINE) @ IRN LOCATION 31 A SRM LOCATION $ Sot: ACE LOCATION 23 19 15 11 2 t 3 2 6 to 1 13 22 25 mnu

Figure II l [ f V ),

?d l

? t (

a..

) l o J t, 31 Y+. l ~ I i , h~' t s 3 e / 7 f ~N Jl -j 1 Contral_ e i E. Red g ~ '/ ~ g# t N* Channel Fas:ener ll \\ l., O,f I-i \\ / s. I -i-48 R I ? l I + [\\ d 5 ti r ti ng ---- '? ~~ t '3 A sail j i, ! l e/ .e I u i ' [j /Vi U 1;. l ( J 4 I' i J p l 6 e e 9 -eg _.-_..._,,__._.._m-

Figure III CRITICAL ROD CONFIGURATION COMPARISDN Vermont Yankee Beginning of Cycle 10 48 48 48 48 48 48 l l l l 35 48l 31 48 ,48 12 48 l 27 l l 48 48l 48! 23 48 48 48 48 48 48 II II I i l ,9 1 48l l l 48l 15 48 48 l l l 11 48l l 48 07 48 24 48 48 03 -1%A k/k Predicted Critical Pattern h 02 06 10 14 18 22 26 30 34 38 42 02 05 10 14 18 22 26 30 34 38 42 t. 4 4'3 48 48 48 48 39 48 48 48 48 35 6 4 48) 48 4R 48 48 31 48 12 48 4 6 4 27 48 48 48 48 48 48 23 48 48 48 48 48 48 [ 6 4 6 '9 48 48 48 48 15 48 48 48 4 4 11 48! 48l 48 l 48 l48 07 48 48 48 6 03 +1%dk/k Actual Critical Pattern i e I l

V TABLE IA CONTROL ROD SCRAM TESTING RESULTS VERMONT YANKEE BEGINNING OF CYCLE 10 Scrim #119 June 5,1983 MTn Time for % Insertion 4.51 % 25.34 % 46.18 % 87.84 % Mrisured time (sec) 0.334' O.857 1.393 2.517 Tach. Spec. Limit (sec) 0.358 0.912 1.468 2.686 M;ximum 87.84% insertion time = 2.776 sec. Tsch. Spec. limit for slowest 87.84% insertion time = 7 sec. Sitwest 2x2 Array for % Insertion 4.51 % 25.34 % 46.18 87.84 % M :sured time (sec) 0.371 0.909 1.456 2.596 Tech. Spec. limit (sec) 0.379 0.967 1.556 2.848 l l l l

?' TABIE IB CONTROL ROD SCRAM TESTING RESULTS VERMONT YANKEE CYCLE 9 Scram #109 December 26, 1981 Mean Time for % Insertion 4.51% 25.34% 46.18% 87.84% Measured time (sec) 0.288 0.817 1.372 2.489 Tech. Spec. Limit (sec) 0.358 0.912 1.468 2.686 Maximum 87.84% insertion time = 3.152 sec. Tech.' Spec. limit for slowest 87.84% insertion time - 7 sec. Slowest 2x2 Array for % Insertion 4.51% 25.34% 46.18% 87.84% Measured time (sec) 0.322 0.912 1.520 2.677 Tech. Spec. Limit (sec) 0.379 0.967 1.556 2.848 Scram #110 January 26, 1982 Mean Time for % Insertion 4.51% 25.34% 46.18% 87.84% Measured Time (sec) 0.303 0.839 1.393 2.537 Tech. Spec. Limit (sec) 0.358 0.912 1.468 2.686 Maximum 87.84% insertion time = 3.544 sec. Tech. Spec. Limit for slcwest 87.84% insertion time = i sec. Sicuest Ix2 Array for % Insertion 4.51% 25.34% 46.18% 87.84% Measured Time (sec) 0.323 0.939 1.555 2.779 Tech. Spec. Limit (sec) 0.379 0.967 1.556 2.848 Scram #111 March 30, 1982 Mean Time for % Insertion 4.51% 25.34% 46.18% 87.84% Measured Time (sec) 0.278 0.798 1.344 2.455 Tech. Spec. Limit (sec) 0.358 0.912 1.468 2.686 Maximum 87.84% insertion' time = 2.804 sec. Tech. Spec. Limit for slowest 87.84% insertion time = 7 sec. Slowest 2x2 Array for % Insertion 4.51% 25.34% 46.18% 87.84% Measured time (sec) 0.284 0.861 1.477 2.643 Tech. Spec. Limit (sec) 0.379 0.967 1.356 2.848 Scram #112 April 24, 1982 l Mean Time for % Insertion 4.51% 25.34% 46.18% 87.84% Measured Time (sec) 0.302 0.818 1.353 2.486 Tech. Spec. Limit (sec) 0.358 0.912 1.468 2.686 i Maximum 87.84% insertion time = 3.040 sec. l Tech. Spec. Limit for slowest 87.84% insertion time = 7 sec. Slowest 2::2 Array for % Insertion 4.51% 25.34% 46.18% 87.84% l Measured Time (sec) 0.317 0.893 1.491 2.683 l Tech. Spec. Limit (sec) 0.379 0.967 1.556 2.848

V.- TABLE IB (cont'd) CONTROL ROD SCRAM TESTING RESULTS VERMONT YANKEE CYCLE 9 Scram #113 June 8,1902 Mern Time for % Insertion 4.51 % 25.34 % 46.18 % 87.84 % Matsured time (sec) 0.279 0.790 1.308 2.435 Tech. Spec. Limit (sec) 0.358 0.912 1.468 2.686 Maximum 87.84% insertion time = 3.040 sec. Tech. Spec. limit for slowest 87.84% insertion time = 7 sec. Slowest 2x2 Array for % Insertion 4.51 % 25.34 % 46.18 % 87.84 % - M sured time (sec) 0.299 0.827 1.389 2.557 . Tcch. Spec. limit (sec) 0.379 0.967 1.556 2.848 Scram #114 August 15,1982 Mern Time for % Insertion 4.51 % 25.34 % 46.18 % 87.84 % Ms:sured time (sec) 0.258 0.756 1.262 2.371 Tech. Spec. Limit (sec) 0.358 0.912 1.468 2.686 Maximum 87.84% insertion time = 3.040 sec. Tcch. Spec. limit for slowest 87.84% insertion time = 7 sec. Slowest 2x2 Array for % Insertion 4.51 % 25.34 % 46.18 % 87.84 % Measured time (sec) 0.272 0.789 1.341 2.525 Tech. Spec. limit (sec) 0.379 0.967 1.556 2.848 Scram #115 August 27,1982 Mern Time for % Insertion 4.51 % 25.34 % 46.18 % 87.84 % l l Measured time (sec) 0.263 0.765 1.274 2.392 l Tech. Spec. Limit (sec) 0.358 0.912 1.468 2.686 Maximum 87.84% insertion time = 3.040 sec. Tech. Spec. limit for slowest 87.84% insertion time :: 7 sec. Siswest 2x2 Array for % Insertion 4.51 % 25.34 % 46.18% 87.84 % Measured time (sec) 0.287 0.809 1.363 2.544 Tech. Spec. limit (sec) 0.379 0.967 1.556 2.848 l Scr m #116 October 14,1982 Mean Time for % Insertion 4.51 % 25.34 % 46.18% 87.84 % Measured time (sec) 0.263 0.769 1.276 2.390 Tech. Spec. Limit (sec) 0.358 0.912 1.468 2.686 l Mrximum 87.84% insertion time = 2.848 sec. l Tcch. Spec. limit for slowest 87.84% insertion time = 7 sec. Slowest 2x2 Array for % Insertion 4.51 % 25.34 % 46.18% 87.84 % Measured time (sec) 0.287 0.809 1.348 2.527 Tech. Spec. limit (sec) 0.379 0.967 1.556 2.848 l

r l TABLE IB CONTROL ROD SCRAM TESTING RESULTS VERMONT YANKEE CYCLE 9 Scr:m #117 January 8,1983 Men Time for % Insertion 4.51 % 25.34 % 46.18 % 87.84 % M:asured time (sec) 0.285 0.802 1.323 2.449 Tech. Spec. Limit (sec) 0.358 0.912 1.468 2.686 M ximum 87.84% insertion time = 2.848 sec. Tcch. Spec. limit for slowest 87.84% insertion time = 7 sec. Slawest 2x2 Array for % Insertion 4.51 % 25.34 % 46.18 % 87.84 % Mrisured time'(sec) 0.304 0.847 1.400 2.600 Tech. Spec. limit (sec) 0.379 0.967 1.556 2.848 Scram #118 March 5,1983 Mten Time for % Insertion ~ 4.51 % 25.34 % 46.18 % 87.84 % Me:sured time (sec) 0.285 0.816 1.354 2.509 Tech. Spec. Limit (sec) 0.358 0.912 1.468 2.686 Maximum 87.84% insertion time = 2.888 sec. Tech. Spec. limit for slowest 87.84% insertion time = 7 sec. Slowest 2x2 Array for % Insertion 4.51 % 25.34 % 46.18 % 87.84 % M sured time (sec) 0.307 0.860 1.433 2.651 Tcch. Spec. limit (sec) 0.379 0.967 1.556 2.848

+. q _x. - ,,a.a o ~_ - ., a-- s c 'x. TABLE II s r '.\\COMPARISONOFEUCLEANDPROCESSCOMPUTER i r o ~ n b THERMAL. LIMITS CALCULATION n ;t:s 2 .1.n, ; ~ V s. x..- ..q% _. T,% A. g -i, 7 '. s ,3 7 g. ' fM b. 'O Parameter Bucle Process Computer s s v.- 0.857 0.857 g, CMFCP* a 3 3 \\ \\ Location 31-22 31-22 1 t CMPLPD* .0.623 0.623 Loca.t t,on 35-22-5 35-22-5 I I<, af s,-, 7 u 91 ifAPEAT* 0.586 0.585 L Location 35-24-5 35-24-5 4

k s

d s

• Tech. Spec. Limit = 1.000' d

.i

g, I

%l' m~ ' '- ,y s W & _' _y ,,'f i +g 3 s t ',, 9 'l .N p , s. t j%. + -

% 5 hti, 7, ( ' )

R'r ".l ( 't - i %.. ) r. f { % f.. %. (y ~ a. a. , y ". Q fs ,f .e \\ ,g_ y., ,, ~_ .w% tU: n. . s. y -y

~.%

q a t y ,b.

(.

% 'l } t' - ~. s P i' L- 's

c. 5 -

• <j

4. '

5* ~ ~? s. k .I .s ,O. a e v. "g'

M yf ~

i.. .7

m e-

.* a \\ ,t* -+ _ y, s 't (p < s,-e( c, i ' s.,1 4 E .l ',o s' .A 3%'

• 4.

4 [ x.- x u t 'l r r- .-n . [, .,_,.,,_,,,.r. ~ wu,r,,_._,,,_,,%,_.m_ m.y.,,~. ,,__y.,_

r TABLE III POWER DISTRIBUTION MEASUREMENTS - CYCLE 10 STARTUP JUNE 17,1983 - JUNE 27,1983 D te Power % Core Flow % CMFLPD* CMFCP* M A PR AT* 6/21/83 23.4 34.5 0.274 0.361 0.255 6/22/83 23.1 34.1 0.276 0.359 0.256 6/22/83 46.7 37.1 0.471 0.660 0.457 6/23/83 67.9 50.4 0.587 0.837 0.552 .6/23/83 74.1 53.2 0.639 0.882 0.622 6/23/83 72.6 53.2 0.636 0.871 0.619 6/25/83 72.6 50.3 0.659 0.892 0.642 6/25/83 80.7 57.2 0.730 0.922 0.711 6/29/83 100.1 46.81 0.865 0.898 0.847 6' Tech. Spec. Limit = 1.000 f i I l l~ l l 1

I ' TABLE IV COMPARISON Of SIMULATE AND DIRECT FROM TRACES AVERAGE, AXIAL DISTRIBUTION ' Direct From Node Traces SIMULATE . 24 .457 .306 23 .629 .503 22 .768 .663 21 .847- .787 20 .938 .883 19 1.008 .957 18 1.031 1.014 17 1.053 1.056 16 1.098 1.079 15 1.077 1.080 14 1.063 1.092 13 1.115 1.116 12 1.150 1.147 - 11 1.155 1.180 10 1.189 1.210 9 1.225 1.229 8 1.205 1.226 7 1.180 1.226 6 1.194 1.222 5 1.159 1.191 4 1.097 1.155 3 1.011 1.090 2 .830 .958 t 1 .521 .631 i l I. l-i r' 1 l' l l. W tl P g=W,,, e-e --tryp-e y we-g t1$T-Mt-+p ++Stei 4 s -+wp, M ry

TABLE V COMPARISON OF 10 HIGHEST RELATIVE RADIAL POWERS Location' Simulate Plant 21-14 1.317 1.362 17-16: 1.242 1.275 ' 17-14 1.219 1.231 15-18 1.251 1.285 15-16 1.251 1.231 13-22 1.340 1.406 13-18 1.190 1.249 13-14 1.314 1.321 11-22 1.227 1.241 09-22 1.228 1.245 4 I t 3 s 4 'l i 4 4 -v-e e,---- --m,---, ~ - - - - - - -n-

j TABLE VI TOTAL TIP UNCERTAINTY Case Rod Pattern Power (%) Core Flow (%) Uncertainty (%) Simulate 34 99.82 97.35 2.12 TIP 777 18 34

A, 4 g VERMONT YANKEE NUCLEAR POWER CORPORATION 2.C.2.1 FVY 83-100 RD 5, Box 169, Ferry Road, Brattleboro, VT 05301 REPLY TO y ENGINEERING OFFICE 1671 WORCESTER ROAD FRAMINGHAM, MASSACHUSET TS 01701 TELEPHONE 617-872-6100 September 15, 1983 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Inspection and Enforcement Region I 631 Park Avenue King of Prussia, PA 19406 Attention: Dr. Thomas E. Murley Regional Administrator

References:

a) License No. DPR-28 (Docket No. 50-271) b) Vermont Yankee Technical Specification Section 6.7.A.1

Subject:

Cycle X Startup Test Report Enclosed you will find the Cycle X Startup Test Report for Vermont Yankee which is submitted to you in accordance with the requirements of Reference (b). We trust that you will find this information satisfactory; however, should you desire additional information,, please contact us. Very truly yourt, VERMONT YANKEE NUCLEAR POWER CORPORATION [ h Warren P. urphy Vice President and Manager of Operations WPM /dm cc: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Inspection & Enforcement Jasisington, D.C. 20555 Attn: Document Control Desk (36 copies enclosed) hk}}