ML20002A471
| ML20002A471 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Yankee Rowe |
| Issue date: | 05/11/1978 |
| From: | Johnson W YANKEE ATOMIC ELECTRIC CO. |
| To: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| WYR-78-42, NUDOCS 8011170296 | |
| Download: ML20002A471 (28) | |
Text
o g
V V
g Tolzphona bl7 366-90\\t twx II T
710 3 e 0.o73 3 YMKEE ATOMIC ELECTRIC COMPAM N U 00 Y '*~'
k 20 Turnpike Road Westborough, Massachusetts 01581 Ya[uxes ma May 11, 1978 d
.J]
United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission
[j Washington, D. C.
20555
_. Ej
-,z.-
Attention: Office of Nuclear Reactor _ Regulation O
Reference:
(a) License No. DPR-3 (Docket No. 50-29)
(b) Proposed Change No. 155, Supplement No. 1 dated December 14, 1977, WYR 77-127 (c) NRC letter to YAEC dated March 16, 1978 (d) YAEC letter to NRC dated April 6, 1978
Dear Sir:
Subject:
Additional Information Package No. 2, Incore Detector System Technical Specification Changes The additional information promised in Reference (d) is provided in Attachtent I.
Af ter discussion with your Staff, additional inforcation to supplement Question 2 of Reference (c) will be submitted on or before June 15, 1978.
Any further questions regarding the enclosure should be directed to Mr. Richard J. Cacciapouti at our Engineering Office, 20 Turnpike Road, Westboro, Massachusetts, 01581, (617) 366-9011, Extension 2807.
Very truly yours, YANKSE ATOMIC ELECTRIC COMPANY W.
. Johnson Vi e President COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS) y,739005^
).s s.
'~
COUNTY OF WORCESTER
)
Then personally appeared before me, W. P. Johnson, who being duly sworn did state that he is Vice President of Yankee Atocic Electric Company, that he is duly authorized to execute and file the foregoing request in the name and on the behalf of Yankee Atomic Electric Company and that the state-cents therein are true to the best of his knowledge and belief.
8011170]k 5%
Robert H. Groce Notary Public h
My Commission Expires September 14, 1984 4
0 0
Attachment I
~ Additional Information Concerning Reduction of Incore Neutron Detector Chambers at Yankee Rowe A-1 In response to question 1 of Reference (c), it has always been Yankee's practice to verify core loading by means of visual inspection. This method is considered an absolute check of the actual loading pattern over and above the strict administrative and procedural controls in effect during fuel handling operations.
To substitute this method for.an analytical technique would be extremely complex and would represent an undue hardship to Yankee.
Even with the relatively small size of the Yankee Rowe core (76 assemblies), the number of possible loading arrangements is enormous. To then analyze the effects of each one of these possible misicadings becomes extremely costly and would require much development tLae and manpower.
In lieu of this analysis Yankee proposes the following inspeccion program. Af ter the core has been loaded, the plant Reactor Engineering staff would do a visual inspection of the core and videotape this inspection. This videotape would then be reviewed and a core loading map would be reconstructed from the tape. This map would be compared to the design loading map to verify proper assembly location. Even in the remote case where a fuel uis-Ioading went undetected during fuel handling operations, Yankee believes that this final check will provide the safeguards to ensure that any error is detected and corrected.
A-2 To provide a meaningful statistical base for verifying that a minimum of twelve neutren detector thimbles would be capable of yielding a proper power distribution, two more state points were run for Core 13. The base cases were the Core 13 flux maps produced at 408 MWD /MTU and at 6530 MWD /MTU which used all 17 available thimbles. Using the INCORE program, a series of power distributions were also produced for a reduced compliment of 12 detectors.
The case numbers and location of the 12 thimbles is consist ~+ with the data presented at 2800 MWD /MTU (Reference d).
Tables 1 and 2 present the maximum LHGR for the six hottest rods in the INCORE analyses at 408 MWD /MTU and 6530 MW/MTU, respectively, for both the base case (17 thimbles) and for the cases with the reduced number of thimbles (12 thimbles). As in the 2800 MWD /MTU case, this analysis shows that in most instances, the reduced number of thimbles produced a higher measured LHGR. Since in most cases the peak LHGR increased over the base case, it is again -
concluded that it would not be necessary to place an additional uncertainty on the measured peak LHGR for Yankee Rowe with a reduced compliment of thimbles.
fs g
U C)
. The measured and calculated (PDQ) reaction rates were compared for the base case and the ten cases with a reduced number.of thimbles. The comparisons for all cases at 408 MWD /FHU and for all cases at 6530 MWD /MTV are given in the attached core maps.
The results show that on the average, the difference between measured and calculation reaction rates is relatively stable.
Thus, it appears that a reduced compliment of thimbles does'not have a marked effect on the INCORE synthesis procedure.
Core 13 and all " odd numbered" cores are loaded with 36 fresh assemblies. Due to the size and design of Yankee Rowe, Cores 15, 17, 19 etc. should be similar to Core 13.
The analysis presented for Core 13 ia applicable to all " odd numbered" cores.
Consequently, it is concluded that a reduced compliment of incore detector thimbles on " odd numbered" cores should not require additional uncertainties on the LHCR.
All "even numbered" cores are loaded with fresh assemblies and should be similar to Core 12.
To verity the supposition that no additional uncertainty be placed on the LHGR, a series of calculations will also be run on Core 12.
This data will be submitted on or about June 15, 1978.
Table l' Yankee Rowe Core XIII 408 MWD /lfrU
!!aximum Linea r lleat Cencration Rate Comparison Between 17 and 12 Available Thimbles Assemb.'.y Containing Pin With Maximum LilGR
% Difference Maximum Case C-8 B-7 D-9 C-3 B-4 11 - 8 LHGR I
Base +
8.990*
8.891 8.890 8.737 8.643 8.618 g
Case 1 8.869*
8.732 8.774 8.757 8.663 8.637
-1.35 Case 2 8.861 8.908*
8.766 8.754 8.660 8.634
-0.91 Case 3 9.211*
8.952 9.112 8.742 8.648 8.622 2.46 Case 4 9.163*
8.999 9.054 8.788 8.693 8.668 1.92 Case 5 9.059 9.018 8.951 8.727 9.117*
8.664 1.41 Case 6 9.211*
8.952 9.112 8.742 3.648 8.600 2.46 g
Case 7 9.170*
8.913 9.071 8.742 8.649 8.623 2.00 Case 8 8.970 8.872 8.871 8.757 9.149*
8.638 1.77 Case 9 9.062*
8.900 8.954 8.691 8.597 8.764
.80 Case 10 9.022*
8.923 8.922 8.768 8.674 8.705
.36 RMS Error 1.45 1.03 1.58 0.30 2.55 0.69 1.68 I
- Maximum value
+ Base contains 17 t.himbles all other cases contain 12 thimbles
~
Tabic 2' Ynnkee Itowe Core XIII 6530 MWD /MTU Haximum Linear IIcat Generation Rate Comparison Between 17 and 12 Available Thimbica I
Annembly Containing Pin With Maximum I.lIGR
% Difference Maximum Cane C-8 J-4 C-3 11-3 11-8
'D-9 LilGR Base
- 9.418*
9.407 9.406 9.379 9.373 9.362 g,
Case 1, 9.346 9.391*
9.390 9.363 9.357 9.292
.29 Case 2 9.348 9.400*
9.398 9.371 9.365
.9.292
.19 Cane 3 9.490*
9.394 9.392 9.365 9.359 9.434
.76 Case 4 9.573*
9.501 9.499 9.472 9.466 9.514 1.65 Case 5 9.437 9.439 9.606*
9.286 9.332 9.378 2.00 Case 6 9.525*
9.428 9.426 9.399 9.397 9.468 1.14 g'
t Case 7 9.467 9.376 9.612*
9.352 9.346 9.411 2.06 Case 8 9.415 9.477 9.645*
9.324 9.379 9.358.,
2.41 Case 9 9.441 9.286 9.368 9.341 9.690*
9.383 2.89 Cane 10 9.492*-
9.346 9.479 9.452 9.437 9.435
.79 IUfS Error 0.82 0.60 1.33 0.57 1.15 U.81 1,67
- Maximum value + Base contsins 17 thimbles all other cases contain 12 thimbles 1 J.
o o
n BA9E CA9E C0'IP ARI90'l 0F MEASURED AM9 THEODETICAL SIG' FAT,9 I
I!1 CORE Riiti YR-13-004 l
496.0 'GC.. GROUP C AT A5.0 I':C9rs
)
408. 'nTD/'!T1!
4
'1EASURED SICHAT,
.649 THEORCTICAI, SIGNAT,
.724 i
PERCE'C DIFFERr.*1CE
-3.395 i
I 1.004 1.044
-3.822 8
1.086 1.116
-2.687 i
j 1.114 1.089 i
1.116 1.072 l
.176 1.580 i
.746 1.048 1.039
.727 1.076 1.057 2.607 2.037
-1.689 1.044 1.076 1.669 1.099 1.093 1.099 1.087 1.072 1.116
~
1.032 2.439
-1.589 i
1.124 1.100 1.116 1.111
.704
-1.026 i'
.739 1.046
.729 1.044 1.795
.240 l
.731
.724
.954 AF%Acrn 43s01,117g nIrFrpENCE RE*'fr.C'1 'tEASURED AND T CORETIC AL 1.732 PERCE':T pes D M NAL
o o
CASE 1 CO?tPARISO'l 0F '4EA90 RED Atin T'4EORETICAL SIGt!ALS It! CORE Rifti YR-13-004 496.0 ?ttr!. GROUP C AT 85.0 l'IC9ER 409. VfD/'tTil MEASURED SIGtTAL THEORETIC AL 91G'7AL PFDCi"IT DIFFERE?!CE
.927
.962
-3.633 i
1.003 1.029
-2.496 1.029 1.006 1.029
.998
.020 1.780 1.014 060
.992
.975 2.238
-1.446 1.011 992 1.869 1
1.014.
1.015
.98R.
1.029 2.640
-1.396
)
1.03R 1.016 1.029 1.025 001
.831
.966
.962
.437 l
AVERAGEO ABSOL11TE DIFFEPJ.' ICE RETWEE" '1EA9tIRCD AND T9EORETICAL 1.645 PERCE*!T
O O
~*
CASE 2 C0'tPARie0M OF !iEASURED AND 7tlE0ftETIC A1. 91'NALS 1"C~)RE Ril'I YR-13-004 496.0 'P.T.
GROUP C AT 85.0 INCITES 408. ?PID/'!TU
'EA9URED SIGMAL Tugar,r ICAL 91G!!AL PERCEC DIFFER'.NCE
.924
.959
-3.693
.999 1.026
-2.561 1.025 1.002 1.026
.985
.047 1.711 1.010
.956
.989
.972 2.169
-1.562 1.007 980 1.800 1.010 1.010 1.011
.999
.985 1.026 1.162
?.571
-1.462 1.034 1.012 1.026 1.021
.833
.998 i
l AV'AAGED ARSOL'ITE 01'FERE' C'.
l 9tT' Er." 'it A9URED A'n MEORCICAL 1
R T"
3 e R idlGIN41.
l
o o
CASE
'8 CO'1PARISO'1 Or fiEASURED A*iD T9EnRETICAL SIGNALS I'ICORE Rip yR_13 004 496.0 'Utr. GR0flP C AT RS.O I'ICITE9 408. itWD/MTU
'iEA9URED SIGt!AL THEORFTICAL SIGt!AL PERCE*!T DIFFERENCE 452
.9R9
-3.734
. Summ 1.030 1.057
-2 597
- 1. 0 %
!.032 1.057 1.015
.084 1.673 1.041
.986 1.019 1.002 2.131
-1.508 1.037 1.019 1.762 1.041 1.041 1.041 1.029 1.015 1.057 1.125 2.533
-1.469 3
.935
.700
,687 1.899 AWMAGE9 ABSOLUTE DIFFERE!!CE BET'JEF'; 'iEASITRED AND ""9EnRETIC AL 1.797 1
N de I me
~
O O
CASE 4 CO'!PARISON OF MEASURED AND THEORETICAL SIGMALS I'ICORE RUN YP.-13-004 496.0 $f.Tr. CROUP C AT 85.0 INCHE9 408. trJD/MTU
- tEASURED SIGtIAL
.730 THEORETICAL SIGtiAL
.744 PERCEriT DIFFEREf1CE
-2.632 1.047 1.081
-3,063 1.133 1.155
-1.918 1.163 1.155
>613
.778 1.085
. 7 5' 1.095 3.417
.913 1.146 1.146 1.125 1.155 1.830
.812 1.148 1.151
.244
.770 1.092
.751 1.081 2.594 1.032
.762
.749 1.751 AVERAGE 0 A9 SOLUTE nIrrggrycp B ET' T.E S.' ' TEA 9URED AND T'lEORETICAL 1.735 DERCENT
9 9
CASE 5 CO'iPARISON OF !!EASURED A'M THEORETIC AI. SIGNALS INCORE RUN YR-13-G94 496.0 *nJT. CR0llP C AT 85.0 INCHES 409. 'WD/5fiU MEASUR9 SIGNAL
.732 THEORETICAL SIGMAL
.75R PERCENT DIFFERENCE
-3.429 1.052 1.094
-3.954 1.135 1.123 1.088
.778 1.144 1.084
.762 1.128 1.109 2.111 1.773
-2.155 1.146 1.128 1.635 1.150 1.123 2.404 1.152 1.165
-1.059 4
.770 1.091
.760 1.094 1.303
.245
.762
.758
.465 A"ERACED A3SOLtiTP DIFFERENCC BET'4EE'1 *tE A9f?RO A'm '"!!Enn"lrICAL 1.704 PERCENT t
o o
1 CASE 6 CO'fPARISO'I 0F '(EASTRED AfiD THEORETICAi, 9IC'!ALS t
I'! CORE RUN YR-13-004 496.0 m1T. GROUP C AT 85.0 I'ICHES 408. '!UD/'iTU i
'tEASURED SIGNAL
.727 THEOD.ETICAL SIGNAL
.750 PF.RCE'!T nIFFERENCE
-3.035 1.044 1.081
-3.463 1.120 1.156
-2.324 1.158 1.132 1
1.156 1.119
.197 1.959
.775 1 142 1.081
.753 1.115 1.095 2.090 2.418
-1.322 i
i 1.142 1.142 l
1.126 1.156 1.409
-1.222 e
i
.76R.
.751 2.175
.760
.750 l
1.331 l
AVERMEO A9 SOLUTE DIFFFRF.'!C' BET'F.r.N '!E ASltRED AND '"f2EORETICAL 1.4R7 PERCE*C
O O
c,,,.,
C0'tPAR190M OF '!EASURED A'!D THEORETICAL SIGNALS INCORE RU!i YP.-11-004 j
496.0 ifttr. GROUP C AT 85.0 I,'icitEs 40R. ifUD/'fr'l MEASUD.ED SIG!IAL I
.707
.729 PERCEil? DIFFEP,ENCr
-2.882 4
1.015 1.050 l
-3.311 i
1.04R l
1.123
-2 170
{
r
\\
1.108 1.047 1.082 1.064 2.348
-1.612 i
1 106 1.082 2.204 1.105 1.110 1.111 1.093 1.078 1.123 1.111 2.9R3
-1.066 1.113 1.119
.500
.743
.730 1.R75
.736
.728 1.033 AVEDACED AR90LitTF DIFrERE'!Ce, REWEEt! '!EASIIRED A'!D T'iEORETIC AL 1.025 DERCENT 4
4
O O
c,,,,,
CO'!PARISn*! 0F *iEAS1TRED A'ID T'4EORETICAL SIGM AL9 INCORE RIPI YR-13-004 496.0 Intr. CRot!P C At R5.0 INCt!ES 40R. ifUD/5tT!T i
A
'iEAS11R'O SIGMAT.
THEORETICAL SIC'IAL PERCENT DIFFERENCE 1.013 1.053
-3.739 1
.749 1.106 1.045
.733 1.085 1.066 2.233 1.895
-2.04R l
1.103 1.108 1 100 1.096 1.081 1.126
.663 2.527
-1.504 1.129 1.110 1.126 1.111 4
.336
.940 1
.742 1.051 l
.731 1.053 1.424
.126 l
.734
.730
.586 I
Avr. RACE 9 ABSOLtITP, DIrreREMCE 3ETute.M "EAqtiqEn AND T:fr.ORETICAL 1.502 "ERCENT G
s
o o
CASE 4 CO'fPARISON OF 'fEASITRED AND T9EORF.TICAL 9IGNAL9 INCORE RIPl YR-13-004 496.0 ttirr. GROUP C AT 85.0 INCHES i
409. tn1D/'.T'T
'tCASffRED SICNAL
.727 THEORETICAL SIGNAL
.754 PERCr*'T DIFFERE'!CE
-3.572 1.043 1.087
-3.998 1.129 1.162
-2.865 1.158 1.131 1.162 1.116
.359 1.394
.775 1.141
.757 1.120 2.419 1.850 I
1.141 1.141 1.132 1.116
.846 2.251 i
.767 1.087
.755 1.087 i
1.609
.056
.759
.754
.769 A'fERACED A990LitTP. DI Fr'Rr.'!CE 9ET'JEF'I *iEASURED AN") 79CORETICAL 1.812 PERCE'!'
,t 1
o o
CASR 10 CO'tPARISO'l 0F SfEM'IRr.D AND T'IEORETICAL SI4fALS It! CORE RU?! YR-13-004 i
446.0 'liTT. CROUP G AT 85.0 I'ic'1E9 408. 'tuD/'4Til i
r
'tEASIfREO '
.724 THr.nRETICAL i 1
.749 Pr#CE*1T 91FFL
-3.133 1.040 1.079
-3.611 1.125 1.154
-2 473 1.154 1.154
.044
.773 1.137
.751 1.112 2.R33 2.261 1.137 1.123 1.254 1.164 1.140 1 194 1.149
.925
.908
.765=
1.094
.750 1.074 2.019
.460
.757
.748 1.176 i
l AVERAGr.D ARSOLitTE DIrFe.RECE RETWEr.N 'tr.ASl'REn A?ID T'lE9Rr.TICAL 1.754 PERCENT t
I i
9 9
BASE CASE CO*4 PARIS 0*l 0F MEASURED AND THEORETICAL SIGNALS INCORE RUN YR-13-011 600.0 ?fJT. GROUP C AT 85.0 INCHES 6530. mm/t4TU MEASURED SIGNAL
.718 THEORETICAL SIGNAL
.744 PERCENT DIFFERE*1CE
-3.473 1.022 1.054
-2.975 1.100 1.109
.587 1 104 1.105 1.108 1.068
.364 3.468
.734 1.103 1 076
.746 1.070 1.069
.412 3.081
.703 1.112 1.070 3 914 1.026 1.111 1.101 1.052 1.068 1.108
-2.479 4.046
.623 l
1.101 1.093 1.109 1.105
.635
-1.110
.715 1.036
.724 1.054
-1.220
-1.704
.736
.744
-1.066 AVERACE') OSOLUTE DIFFERr.NCE RE*b'EEN 'tEASURED AND THr,oggttcAL 1,917 pggcgt:7 t
n.
-,r,,--
=.
o o
CASE 1 CotiPARISON OF MEASURED AND THEORETICAL SIGNALS INCORE RUN YR-13-n11 600.0 MVr. CROUP C AT 85.0 INCHE9 6530. M1TD/MTU
'!EASURED SIGNAL THEOPETICAL SIGNAL PERCENT DIFFERENCE
.939
.973
-3.537 1.011 1.024
-1.262 1.014 1.015 1.024
.987
.941 2.869 1.013
.988
.989
.987 2.484
.120 1.022 489 3.332 1.020 1.011
.987 1.024 3.443
-1.14R 1.011 1.004 1.024
- 1. 0'i l
-1.211
-1.683
.951
.973
-2.273 AVERACEO ABSOLUTE DIFFERENCE BETkT.EN MEASURED AND THEORETICAL 7.029 PERCENT 4
o o
CASE 2 COMPARISON OF MEASURED AND THEORETICAL SIGNALS 1
INCORE RIPI YR-13-011 1
1 600.0 Farr. GROUP C A7 85.0 It!C9ES 6530. tGD/MTU MEASURED SIGNAL THEORETICAL SIGNAL PERCENT DIFFERENCE
.940
.973
-3.477 1.011 1.024
-1.200 1.015 1.C16 1.024
.987
.880 2.933 1.0
- 4
.989
.989 4R7 2.548
.1R2 1.022
.989 3.396
.943 1.021 1.012
.972
.997 1.024
-2.984 3.507
-1.137 1.012 1.005 1.024 1.021
-1.149
-1.622 f
AVERACE9 ABSOLUTE DIFFERENCE BETWEFN MEASURE 9 AND THEORETICAL 2.085 PERCEMT e
I
1 o
o CASE 3 CO'iPARISON OF MEASURED AND THEORETICAL SIGNALS INCORE RUN YR-13-011 600.0 M7r. GR0ffP C AT 85.0 INCHES 6530. NID/'tTU i
MEASURED SIGNAL THEORETICAL SIGNAli PERCE'iT DIVFERENCE
.968 1.003
-3.478 1.042 1.055
-1.202 1.046 1.047 1.055 1.017
.881 2.931 1.045 1.019 1.019 1.017 2.546
.181 1.053 1.019 3.395 472 1.052 1.043 1.002 1.017 1.055
-2.985 3.5n6
-1.138 1.035 1.052
-1.623
.677
.689
-1.733 l
l AVERAGED ARSOLUTE DIrvERENCE l-BETWCEN tiEASURED AND N E0RETICAL 2.133 PERCENT
o o
CASE 4 CO>fPARISON OF MEASURED AND THEORETICAL SIGMAL9 INCORE RUN YR-13-011 600.0 MWT. GROUP C AT 85.0 INCHES 6530. 'fuD/MTU MEASURED SIGMAL
.752 THEORETICAL SIGNAL
.769 PERCEMT P*FFERENCE
-2.225 1.070 1.088
-1.721 1.152 1.145
.597 1.155 1.145
.924
.774 1.126
.771 1.104
.349 2.005 1.074 1.152 1.087 1.145
-1.214
.662 1.144 1.142
.168
.748 1.084
.748 1.088
.057
.433
.770
.764
.213 AVERAGE 9 ABSOLUTE DIFFERr.NCE B ETWE C's' MEASURED AND THEORETICAL
.RAI PERCENT
O O
CASE S CO'iPARIS0!! OF MEASITRED A'ID THEORETICAL SIGNALS INCORE RlM YR-13-011 600.0 ?CTI. GROUP G AT 85.0 INCRES 6530. 'ND/4TU
'tEASifRED SIG5fAL
.746 THEORETICAL SIGMAL
.775 PERCENT DIFFERENCE
-3.854 1.061 1.099
-3.358 1.146 I
1.113 2.955
.766 1.144 1.116 4
.774 1.115 1.114
-1.423 2.622
.204 1.154 1.115 3.524 1.153 1.113 3.635 1.135 1.152
-1.500
.742 1.074
.754 1.098
-1.710
-2.191 1
.763
.775
-1.557 AVERAGED ABSOLUTE DIFFEREMCE 9ET'JEE'T ME ASITRED A"D TMEORETICAL 2.378 PERCE?'*
s e
-r
o
. CASE 6 o
CO'fDARIS0?! 0F 'iEASURED AND TMFDRETICAL SIGNALS INCORE RIN YR-13-011 600.0 ?fuT. GROUP C AT 85.0 INCHFS 6530. ' IUD /'tTU 7
?teASURED SIGMAL
.747 THEOP.ETICAL SIF.NAL
.770 PERCEtt" DIFFERENCE
-3.072, 1.062 1.090
.-2.571 1.144 1.147
.274 1.147 1.143 1.147 1.105
.n59 3.393
.768 1.146 1.119
.772 1.108 1.106
.520 3.510 1.122 1.066 1.144 1.0R9 1.147
-2.074
.209
.743
.749
.810
.765
.770
.655 AVEPX E9 AB90LiiTC. DIFFERE??CE Br.tUge,y ggAqvqgn Ann 7qgnge.TICAL 1.564 PERCE'IT POOR 0FdGIML.
0 CASE 7 r
CO?1PARISON OF MEASURED ann THCORETICAL SIG'1ALS INCORE RUN YR-13-011 600.0 MIC. GR0tiP C AT 85.0 INCHES 6530. w,rn/m n
'fEASUREn SIG'!AL
.724 THEORETICAL SIG!IAL
.744 PERCENT DIFFER 9 ICE
-3.431 1.030 1.061
-2.932 1.109 1.116
.643 1.111 1.0R3 1.078 1.076 3.074
.645 1.121 1.073 3.979 1.033 1.119 1.109 1.059 1.075 1.115
-2.536 4.091
.579 1.101, 1.113
-1.067
.720
.720
-1.277
.741
.749
-1.123 AVERAGE 0 AM0LitTE 9IFFERENCE BETW.E" 'fEAStR ED AND T9EOP.ETICAL 2.115 PERCENT PDDR GMGINAL
o o
CAn a C0" PARIS 0?! 0F MEASTIREn A'in THEORETICAI. SIG'!ALS I'! CORE RIPI YR-13-011 600.0 ?!tT". gps 0UP C AT R5.0 I'ICHr.S 6530. Mild /'!TU i
MEASURED SIG'!AL I
THEORETICAL SIGNAL PERCENT DIFFER 91CE
/
1.035 1.062
-2.576
.743 1.116 1.08S
.752 1.079 1.077
.626 3.452 1.014 1.038 1.125 1.115 1.061 1.077 1.117
-2.178 4.473
.214 1.114 1.107 1.117 1.115
.328
.704
.723 1.047
.730 1.062
.915
-1.400
.745
.750
.760 AVE'tAcr.0 ABSOLIITE DIFFERE' ICE RE'WE9! ?fEASURED AND T'IEORETICAL
- 1. 553 PERCET 0
i
-~
r O
o CAS u CO'iPARISON OF t4EASURED A'ID THEORETICAL SIGt! ALS INCORE RUN YR-13-011 600.0 'r,Tr. r;ROUP G AT 85.0 INCHES 6530. ' tun /'tTU
'tEASUREn SIGNAL
.744 T'1EORETICAL SIGNAL
-3.277 1.065 1.096
-2.773 1.147 1.152
.485 1.150 1.151 1.152 1.110 1
.162 3.678 l
.770 1.149
.776 1.113
.731 3.201 l
1.064 1.159 1.094 1.11n
-2.231 4.257 7
.745 1.079
.753 1.096
-1.020
-1.504 f
l l
.767
.774
.965 AVERAGE 0 A34GL!TTE DIFFEREt!CE BETf 7EE'i tie ASURE9 A'ID TMEORETICAL 2.027 PERCE'IT i
9 9
CASE 10 CO'fPARISO*! OF MEASIIRED AND THEO9ETICAL 91CtiALS I'ICORE RTPi YR-13-011 600.0 "ITC. GROUP G AT R5.0 I*:CRE9 i
6530. MtID/*ftli
" East! RED SIGNAL
.750 THEORETICAL SIGNAL
.769 PrycE*:T nIvFERENCE
-2.441-
.: M 1.067 1.08R
-1.937 1.149 1.145
.376 1.153 1.145
.701
.772 1.152
.771 1.195
.124 4.1R4 1.071 1.0R7
-1.436 1.149 1.141 1.145 1.142
.427
.052
.747 1.081
.74R 1.08R
.164
.653
.760
.769
.009 i
AVED. ACE 9 ABSOL'ITE DIFFERE' CE BETMEE'; 'iEASifRED A"O T'IEORETIC AL 1.042 PERCCNT
m M
U Q
f/72/7g REGULATORY INFORMATION'DISTRI*'JTION SYSTEM (RIDS)
DISTRIBUTION FOR INCOMING MATERIAL 50-029 REC:
ORG: JOHNSON W P DOCDATE: 05/11/78
- NRC YANKEE ATOMIC ELEC.
DATE RCVD: 05/19/78
!DOCTYPE: LETTER NOTARIZED: YES COPIES RECEIVED
! SUDJECT:
LTR 3 ENCL 40 FORWARDING ADDL INFO AS PROMISED IN APPLICANT"S LTR DTD 04/06/78 CONCERNING.
- REDUCTION OF INCORE NEUTRON DETECTOR CHAMBERS AT-SUBJECT FACILITY...W/ATT l CHARTS AND SUPPORTING INFO... NOTARIZED 05/11/78.
PLANT NAME: YANKEE ROWE REVIEWER INITIAL:
XJM DISTRIBUTOR INITIAL: g
- DISTRIBUTION.0F THIS MATERIAL-IS AS FOLLOWS ******************
GENERAL DISTRIBUTION FOR AFTER ISSUANCE OF OPERATING LICENSE.
(DISTRIBUTION CODE-AOO1)
FOR ACTION:
BR CHIEF ZIEMANN**W/7 ENCL
. INTERNAL:
FILE)W/ ENCL NRC PDR**W/ ENCL
. u t**W/2 ENCL OELD**LTR ONLY HANAUER**W/ ENCL CHECK **W/ ENCL EISENHUT**W/ ENCL SHAO**W/ ENCL.
BAER**W/ ENCL BUTLER **W/ ENCL EEB**W/ ENCL J COLLINS **W/ ENCL J.
MCGOUGH**W/ ENCL EXTERNAL:
LPDR'S GREENFIELD. MA**W/ ENCL TIC **W/ ENCL NSIC**W/ ENCL ACRS ' CAT B**W/16 ENCL
~
1 DISTRIBUTION:
LTR 40 ENCL 39 CONTROL NBR:
781390054 3IZE: 1P^26P
. w**********************************
THE END i
4