ML20237E957

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Start-Up Test Rept Vynp Cycle 20
ML20237E957
Person / Time
Site: Vermont Yankee Entergy icon.png
Issue date: 08/27/1998
From:
VERMONT YANKEE NUCLEAR POWER CORP.
To:
Shared Package
ML20237E956 List:
References
NUDOCS 9809010337
Download: ML20237E957 (17)
v • d • e


Text

- _ _ _ .

Start-up Test Report Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station Cycle #20

Introduction:

Vermont Yankee Cycle #20 initial start-up commenced on June 1,1998 following a 75 day outage for refueling and maintenance activities.

'The core loading for Cycle #20 consists of:

Number Description Cycle Initially Loaded 16 GE9B-P8DWB335-10GZ-80M-150-T re-inserte.d from Cycle 17 -l 88 GE98-P8DWB33 5-10GZ-80M-150-T re-inserted from Cycle 18 32 GE9B P8DWB335-11GZ-80M 150-T re inserted from Cycle 18 120 GE98-P8DWB354-12GZ-80M 150-T re-inserted from Cycle 19 72 GE13-P9HTB380-12GZ-100T-146-T non-Irradiated Cycle 20  ;

40 GE13-P9HTB379-13GZ-100T-146-T non-Irradiated Cycle 20 An as-loaded Cycle #20 core map is included as Figure #1. Details of the Cycle

  1. 20 core loading are contained in the GE-Nuclear document, J11-03297CMR, 4

. Cycle Management Report for Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station, Cycle 20, April 1998.

The final as-loaded core loading was verified by Vermont Yankee personnel on May 2,1998 in accordance with Vermont Yankee procedure OP-1411. Three 4 separate criteria were checked:

1. Proper bundle seating was checked, corrected as necessary and verified.
2. Proper bundle orientation, channel. fastener integrity and upper tie plate cleanliness were checked and verified.
3. Proper core loading was verified by check!ng 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 re-verified to

. agree with the licensed core loading of Figure #1.

Strongest rod out subcritical check was performed satisfactorily also on May 2, 1998, after the independent review of the core verification was completed.

This was performed in accordance with OP-1411 as well.

Control rod friction testing was performed in accordance with OP-4111 for twelve control rods during the refueling outage. The twelve rods friction tested were control rods that had the control rod drives replaced during the outage.

Friction testing was complete on May 2,1998 after core verification and the strongest rod out subcritical check were performed satisfactorily.

Control rod coupling verification was performed satisfactorily for all 89 control rods during - follow-up testing after core verification was completed. The 9909010337 990827 PDR ADOCK O 21

verification was completed May 30,1998. Control rod coupling is verified each time a rod is withdrawn to position 48 as well.

Control rod scram time testing was performed in accordance with OP-4424 satisfactorily during the Reactor Hydrostatic Test. All 89 rods were tested satisfactory and data analysis completed on May 29,1998.

An in-sequence critical was performed on June 1,1998. The core shutdown margin was calculated based on data collected from the in-sequence critical and verified to be satisfactory. The Vermont Yankee Technical Specification for shutdown margin was met.

Beginning of Cycle start-up commenced on June 1,1998. Steady-state full power conditions were reached on June 19,1998. A reactor SCRAM on June 9, j 1998 was caused by high water level due to a foreign object in one of the Feed Regulating Valve.

Process Computer Data Checks:

Process computer data shuffling checks were completed on June 3,1998. These checks included various manual and computer checks of the new data constants.

In-Sequence Critical:

The in-sequence critical test was performed on June 1,1998 as part of the reactor startup. Control rod sequence 20-A-2(1) was used to perform the in-sequence critical test. Criticality was achieved on the 9th rod in group 2 (18-31) at notch position 20. The moderator temperature was 142.6 F.

The actual critical rod pattern and the prediction agreed within +/ 1% AK. Figure

  1. 2 shows the actual, predicted and the +/- 1% AK critical rod patterns.

Cold Shutdown Margin Testing: ,

The cold shutdown margin calculation was performed using data collected during i the in-sequence critical and information provided in the GE Nuclear document, ,

J11-03297CMR, Cycle Management Report for Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power  !

Station,' Cycle 20, April 1998. Duke Engineering & Services (formerly Yankee Atomic Electric Company) provided a calculation for the R-value from their core l monitoring code in memo RP-VY-89-066. Per Vermont Yankee Technical Specifications (3.3.A.1) the minimum shutdown margin required is 0.38% Ak/k.

The actual shutdown margin was shown to be 1.08% Ak/k, as determined in accordance with OP-4430.

Control Rod Scram Timing:

Single rod scram timing of all 89 control rods was completed on May 29,1998.

All insertion times were within the Ilmits defined in the Vermont Yankee Technical Specifications. Results of the testing are presented in Table #1.

In accordance with Vermont Yankee Technical Specification Section 4.3.C.2.,

scram time information available for scrams occurring since the transmittal of the previous startup test report is included in Table #2.

Thermal Hydraulic Limits and Power Distribution:

The core maximum fraction of limiting critical power ratio (MFLCPR), the core maximum fraction of limiting power density (CMFLPD), the maximum average planar linear heat generation rate ratio to its limit (MAPRAT) and the ratio of CMFLPD tolthe fraction of rated power (FRP) were all checked daily during the start-up using the plant process computer. All checks of core thermal limits were within the limits specified in the Vermont Yankee Technical Specifications.

The plant process computer power distribution was updated five times Uune 4, 1 1998 @~63% CTP, June 5 @~60% CTP, June 6,1998 @~95% CTP, June 8,1998

@~93%, and June 17,1998 @~100% CTP) using the traversing in-core probe (TIP) system during the ascent to full power. The results of these updates are presented in Table 3.

The local power range monitors (LPRMs) were manually calibrated twice Gune 4, 1998 and again on June 22,1998 at steady state) in conjunction with the TIP system. The LPRM high and low trip alarm set points were verified correct prior )

to start-up on May 20,1998. The TIPS and LPRMs were both functionally tested j and found to operate satisfactorily. A total of 22 APRM gain adjustments were done as required during the start-up from June 1,1998 toJune 19,1998.

The process computer power distribution performed on June 22,1998 was used for the basis of the comparison with the off-line calculation performed using the Duke Engineering & Services nodal code SIMULATE-3. For that power distribution, the SIMULATE-3 core average axial power distribution was compared to that calculated by the plant process computer. Comparisons are shown in Table #4. A comparison was also performed between SIMULATE-3 and the process computer peak radial power. These values show good agreement ,

and are presented in Table #5. l At approximately 25,50,75 and 100 percent power levels the process computer heat balance was compared with an off-line computer calculation. The values of core thermal power from each method were found to be in excellent agreement (within 5 Megawatts thermal).

A core flow calibration was completed on June 16,1998 to ensure that the core ,

l flow calculation by the process computer is accurate over the entire operating range.

TIP Reproducibility and TIP Symmetry:

TIP systeni reproducibility was checked in conjunction with the power distribution update performed on June 22,1998. All tiiree TIP system traces were reproducible to within 2.8%. A check of tip axial alignment was completed

! on June 22,1998 and found to be acceptable.

The total TIP uncertainty was calculated using TIP set 1614. Since the rod pattern was symmetric, the actual plant TIP readings were used in the calculation. The resulting total TIP uncertainty for this case was 1.89%. The results of the TIP uncertainty test as shown in Figure #3 are well below the 8.7% acceptance criteria.

e TABLE #1 '

Vermont Yankee Beginning of Cycle #20 Control Rod Scram Testing Results BOC #20 Single Rod Scrams - May 28,1998 through May 29,1998 Maximum 92.01% insertion time (seconds) = 2.789 Tech. Spec. Limit for slowest 90% insertion time (seconds) = 7.000 l Averacle time for % insertion ll 4.51% lj 25.34% ll 46.18% ll 87.84% ll ll Measured time (sec) ll0.278 'I0.796 ll1.328 112.440 ll l Tech. Spec. limit (sec) l 0.358 l 0.912 l 1.468 l 2.686 l 4 il Slowest 2x2 arrav for % insertion ll 4.51% 0 25.34% ll 46.18% ll 87.84% ll

!l Measured time (sec) ll0.285 ll 0.819 l)1.384 12.531 ll l Tech. Spec. limit (sec) l 0.379 l 0.967 l 1.556 l 2.8.48 l l

i l

TABLE #2 1

Vermont Yankee Control Rod Scram Testing Results Cycle #19 Full Scram - April 24,1997 SCRAM #176 -- 81 rods Maximum 92.01% insertion time (seconds) = 2.679 Tech. Spec. Limit for slowest 90% insertion time (seconds) = 7.000 l Averacle time for % insertion ll 4.51% ll 25.34% ll 46.18% [ 87.84%

1 Measured time (sec)-- 81 rods 40.280 110.775 I!1.280 l 2.362 ll l Measured time (sec) -- all rods l 0.280 l0.778 l 1.284 l 2.368 l l Tech. Spec. limit (sec) l 0.358 l 0.912 l 1.468 l 2.686 l ll Slowest 2x2 array for % insertion ll 4.51% k 25.34% Q 46.18% Q 87.84% il i Measured time (sec) ll0.285 0 0.796 ll1.308 ll 2.407 ll l Tech. Spec. limit (sec) l 0.379 l 0.967 l 1.556 l 2.848 l I I

Single Rod Scram- April 25,1997  !

  1. 177 -- 1 rod i Maximum 92.01% insertion time (seconds) = 2.679 l Tech. Spec. Limit for slowest 90% insertion time (seconds) = 7.000 I i ll Averacle time for % insertion ll 4.51% ll 25.34% ll 46.18% ll 87.84% )

l ll Measured time (sec) 10.277 ll0.775 ll 1.282 ll2.368 ll l Tech. Spec. limit (sec) l 0.358 l 0.912 l 1.468 l 2.686 l ll Slowest 2x2 arrav for % insertion ll 4.51% 125.34% ll 46.18% ll 87.84% l Il Measured time (sec) ll0.285 ll0.796 ll 1.308 12.407 l l Tech. Spec. limit (sec) l 0.379 l 0.967 l 1.556 l 2.848 l l

l t

f

' TABLE #2 - continued Vermont Yankee I Control Rod Scram Testing Results Cycle #19 i

Single Rod Scram - April 30,1997

  1. 178 -- 12 rods Maximum 92.01% insertion time (seconds) = 2.679 Tech. Spec. Limit for sic. west 90% insertion time (seconds) = 7.000 lj Averacle time for % insertion ll 4.51% ll 25.34% ll 46.18% ll 87.84% ll ll Measured time (sec)-- 12 rods ll 0.284 W 0.796 li 1.310 112.399 ll l Measured time (sec) -- all rods l 0.274 l 0.778 l 1.287 l 2.376 l l Tech. Spec. limit (sec) l 0.358 l 0.912 l 1.468 l 2.686 l ll Slowest 2x2 arrav for % insertion ll 4.51% 125.34% ll 46.18% ll 87.84% l ll Measured time (sec) ll 0.288 110.796 ll 1.315 f 2.428 ;l l Tech. Spec. limit (sec) l0.379 l 0.967 l 1.556 l 2.848 l Single Rod Scram-June 11,1997 j
  1. 179 -- 1 rod j l

l Maximum 92.01% insertion time (seconds) = 2.679 Tech. Spec. Limit for slowest 90% insertion time (seconds) = 7.000

! Averacle time for % insertion ll 4.51% ll 25.34% ll 46.18% ll 87.84% ll ll Measured time (sec) ll 0.278 1 0.778 I!1.287 ll 2.375 l l Tech. Spec. limit (sec) l 0.3 58 l 0.912 l 1.468 l 2.686 l

! Slowest 2x2 arrav for % insertion ll 4.51% 125.34% ll 46.18% ll 87.84% ll l Measured time (sec) 00.288 110.796  !!1.315 ll2.428 ll l Tech. Spec. limit (sec) l 0.379 l 0.967 l 1.556 l 2.848 l l

r i

, i TABLE #2 - continued Vermont Yankee Control Rod Scram Testing Results Cycle #19 Single Rod Scram -July 17,1997

  1. 180 -- 2 rods Maximum 92.01% insertion time (seconds) = 2.679 Tech. Spec. Limit for slowest 90% insertion time (seconds) = 7.000 J li Averacle time for % insertion 0 4.51% O 25.34% ll 46.18% ll 87.84% ll 1: Measured time (sec) -- 2 rods 110.273 110.762 ll1.265 ll2.305 ll l Measured time (sec) -- all rods l 0.278 l 0.778 l 1.286 l 2.373 l l l l Tech. Spec. limit (sec) l 0.358 l 0.912 l 1.468 l 2.686 l ll Slowest 2x2 array for % insertion Il 4.51% ll 25.34% ll 46.18% ll 87.84% ll l Measured time (sec) 110.288 ll 0.796 ll 1.315 ll 2.428 ll j' l Tech. Spec. limit (sec) l 0.379 l 0.967 l 1.556 l 2.848 l Single Rod Scram- September 12,1997
  1. 181 ' 3 rods Maximum 92.01% insertion time (seconds) = 2.679 Tech. Spec. Limit for slowest 90% insertion time (seconds) = 7.000 ,

ll Averacle time for % insertion - ll 4.51% h 25.34% ll 46.18% ll 87.84% 11 i Measured time (sec) -- 3 rods ll 0.278 ll 0.783 01.305 ll2.374 ll '

l Measured time (sec) -- all rods l 0.278 l 0.778 l 1.287 l 2.374 l l Tech. Spec. limit (sec) l 0.358 l 0.912 l 1.468 l 2.686 l ll Slowest 2x2 array for % insertion 4 4.51% ll 25.34% ll 46.18% ll 87.84% l; ll Measured time (sec) ll 0.288 ll0.796 ll 1.315 ll2.428 l Tech. Spec. limit (sec) l 0.379 l 0.967 l 1.5 56 l 2.848 l

TABLE -#2 - continued Vermont Yankee Control Rod Scram Testing Results Cycle #19 Single Rod Scram - October 21,1997

  1. 182 -- S rods Maximum 92.01% insertion time (seconds) = 2.679 Tech. Spec. Limit for slowest 90% insertion time (seconds) = 7.000 ll Averacle time for % insertion { 4.51% li 25.34% ll 46.18% ll 87.84% ll Il Measured time (sec)-- 5 rods 10.273 0 0.794 111.323 Il2.434 ll l Measured time (sec) -- all rods l 0.278 l 0.777 l 1.285 l 2.371 l l Tech. Spec. limit (sec) l 0.358 I 0.912 l 1.468 l 2.686 l ll Slowest 2x2 array for % insertion O 4.51% ll 25.34% !! 46.18% ll 87.84%

ll Measured time (sec) ll 0.288 ll 0.796 ll 1.314 L 2.432 ~

l Tech. Spec. Ilmit (sec) l 0.379 l 0.967 l 1.556 l 2.848 1

Single Rod Scram- November 7,1997

  1. 183 -- 37 rods Maximum 92.01% insertion time (seconds) = 2.620 Tech. Spec. Limit for slowest 90% insertion time (seconds) = 7.000 ll Averacle time for % insertion 114.51% ll 25.34% ll 4C ,8% 187.84% ll 4 ll Measured time (sec) - 37 rods ll 0.290 ll 0.813 ll 1.333 Il2.428 0 l Measured time (sec)-- all rods l 0.282 l 0.789 l 1.301 l 2.390 l l Tech. Spec. limit (sec) l 0.358 l 0.912 l 1.468 l 2.686 l l ll Slowest 2x2 array for % insertion [ 4.51% il 25.34% ll 46.18% ll 87.84% ll ll Measured time (sec) ll 0.291 ll 0.819 W 1.343 ll 2.437 ll l Tech. Spec. limit (sec) l 0.379 l 0.967 l 1.556 l 2.848 l

TABLE #2 - continued Vermont Yankee Control Rod Scram Testing Results Cycle #19 Single Rod Scram - November 10,1997

  1. 184 -- 1 rod Maximum 92.01% insertion time (seconds) = 2.620 Tech. Spec. Limit for slowest 90% insertion time (seconds) = 7.000 l Averacle time for % insertion ll 4.51% ll 25.34% ll 46.18% ll 87.84% ll ll Measureo ..me (sec) -- 1 rod ll 0.264 ll 0.746 ll1.227 ll2.269 ll l Measured time (sec) - all rods l 0.282 l 0.789 l 1.301 l 2.390 l l Tech. Spec. limit (sec) l 0.358 l 0.912 l 1.468 l 2.686 l l

l ll Slowest 2x2 arrav for % insertion ll 4.51% ll 25.34% ll 46.18% ll 87.84% ll ll Measured time (sec) ll 0.291 Il 0.819 ll1.343 ll 2.437 ll l Tech. Spec. limit (sec) l 0.379 l 0.967 l 1.556 l 2.848 l Full Scram- November 25,1997

  1. 185 -- 72 rods Maximum 92.01% insertion time (seconds) = 2.628 Tech. Spec. Limit for slowest 90% insertion time (seconds) = 7.000 Averacle time for % insertion 0 4.51% ll 25.34% ll 46.18% ll 87.84% li Measured time (sec) - 72 rods 10.288 110.799 01.317 02.440 ll M'easured time (sec) -- all rods l 0.288 l 0.801 l 1.319 l 2.436 l Tech. Spec. limit (sec) l 0.358 l 0.912 l 1.468 l 2.686 l l ll Slowest 2x2 arrav for % insertion Il 4.51% 1125.34% ll 46.18% 187.84% )
l Measured time (sec) 1 0.296 ll 0.816 41.344 I!2.476 )

l Tech. Spec. limit (sec) 10.379 l 0.967 l 1.556 l 2.848 l

TABLE #2 - continued Vermont Yankee Control Rod Scrtm Testing Results Cycle #19 Full Scram - March 20,1997

  1. 186 - 62 rods Maximum 92.01% insertion time (seconds) = 2.699 Tech. Spec. Limit for slowest 90% insertion time (seconds) = 7.000 L Averacle time for % insertion ll 4.51% l 25.34% ll 46.18% !I 87.84% ll L Measured time (sec)- 62 rods ll 0.296 !!0.834 ll1.369 ll 2.527 ll l Measured time (sec) -- all rods ) 0.293 l 0.825 l 1.356 l 2.494, l l Tech. Spec. limit (sec) l0.358 l 0.912 l 1.468 l 2.686 l ll Slowest 2x2 arrav for % insertion ll 4.51% ll 25.34% ll 46.18% ll 87.84% ll il Measured time (sec) ll 0.302 l0.846 ll1.390 lj 2.547 0 l Tech. Spec. limit (sec) l 0.379 l 0.967 l 1.556 l 2.848 l W .

1 l-

TABLE #3 Vermont Yankee Cycle #20 Startup Power Distribution Measurements Date Time Core Core Flow CMFLPD MFLCPR MAPRAT Power (%) ' (%)

June 4,1998 23:55 64.4% 513% 0.604 0.695 0.612 June 5,1998 5:05 61.6% 58.4% 0.560 0.658 0.594 June 6,1998 17:11 94.3% 85.6% 0.886 0.806 0.937 June 8,1998 9:26 92.8% 85.2% 0.864 0.843 0.940 June 17,1998 15:29 97.9% 99.5% 0.853 0.862 0.922 The Tech. Spec. limit for the three thermal limits shown above is less than or equal to 1.000

l l

TABLE #4 Vermont Yankee Cycle #20 Startup Core Average Axial Power Distribution Comparisons Comparison of Plant Process Computer and SIMUL. ATE-3 Node Plant Process SIMULATE-3 Computer 25 0.100 0.106 24 0.227 0.225 23 0.556 0.581 22 0.732 0.728 21 0.871 0.850 20 0.992 0.962 19 1.096 1.073 18 1.196 1.174 17 1.224 1.213 16 1.280 1.272 15 1.271 1.265 14 1.243 1.246 13 1.267 1.273 12 1.271 1.274 11 1.234 1.244 10 1.176 1.195 9 1.151 1.155 8 1.142 1.145 7 1.126 1.148 6 1.185 1.189 5 1.218 1.207 4 1.185 1.174 3 1.079 1.064 2 0.805 0.808 1 0.376 0.225

)

________------___________--------_---------_---------_--------------------_----------------------_----------------_j

m .

TABLE #5 Vermont Yankee Peak Radial Power Distribution Comparisons Comparison of 10 Highest Relative Radial Powers Core Location Process Computer SIMULATE-3 29 22 1.46 1.398 23-16 1.45 1.399 25-16 1.39 1.363 29-20 1.39 1.355 27-20 1.37 1.332 25-18 1.37 1.332 27-18 1.32 1.343 31-20 1.31 1.278 25-14 1.28 1.280 33-22 1.28 1.225 Average Radial Power Comparison Ring 1 Ring 2 I Ring 3 Ring 4 Ring 5 Ring 6 Process 0.950 1.246 1.276 1.069 1.063 0.714 Computer

. SIMULATE-3 0.980 1.245 1.268 1.095 1.049 0.714

I I

l 1:ID O B3 #l AaJmoul Aeunaa 3Apa#20 DoJaloeplu6

... moa o,, a o,,.. . ....

. m, a.. , , ., , , ,.a .u. A,,,, .m A, n,,

'E

.n.... mm a,,,,A,... a ... .... a,,,,a,,m.m A,,n... mm a.n.

  • 0 avon A,. . . a,e . .... ani a,.mmi.r a... a.mm. .. a.m a.m a,,.m... mm ES A..u a.. . .. . . .. . . .,n ..,n .... a,m.... m.,, m... a,, , , . .n . a,, , , ... a,.. ..u . . .

E9

.... a,,,, .. . . ..,, .. , , .. . . .... mm a,... .... avn. mo aV. n .....mm.... . . . . . . . .

Et a.. . . a.m a.m a.ni ..a no a.... ..n ..a av.u m.i, min mmmo a.m.m mur m m EZ Af .t.2 hd,.f A,, , , Af n,f o 4,V.t. m.n 4 Afv.t, ..f , AfA.f. A,,.. A,,,, Af,,, d m.FT AfV,.f Afi, , , AIV..l AfR,l, A,,,d Af A ,.4 A( f.f AfV.1 A,,fi A,... 4fM,f. Af .... m.t , aft.t Af1.Z. Afd... a,.. . AfV... AIV... Af,.H A,,. 4 Al1. . . Af7. . . m.f. Afd,- AIM. . . A!d ,2. ATA ,,, AfV ..f 28

..n .. . . .,m.. . . . ,.u .. . . m. , , a,,u .. . . ..n .... a,. . . .n o a,,,,A,, , , .. . . .. . . ,.u .. . a,, , ,, m m . . . .

29 a m.... a..A. a..a a.mm.n a.. . . .. . . .. .. m.n ... ... .,m .... mm .. , , a,m eno a.. . . . . . . .. m a n m 2#

AI .t ,, ad. . . A,,d AfR. . . AfV, . . m,,, AfV.,f Afi,.. AfVI Af1. . . AfV. d, AfV. d. AI,... AfV, . . A,,. AfV.d Af,... AfV... AfR... Af, ,.l A,,,, A( .f ..

.... ....a.m.... a,. . . .. . . ... . a,, , , .. . . .n, .. . . m.n .. . . a,,,,A,... .. . . ... .,... . . . . a. no a........

20

.. . . ., , , A,.. .n, A,.n m.u .. . . m. . . a,, , , mm em.... mn, mu, .,.n mou mm . ... a. m a, m a.,,, ....

L8 am, mm.,n ..a .. . . ... ..n mm A,, , , .. . . a... . a.. . . ..,,V.,, mmmm . n. . ... n, a ms 19

.... a.m,no a..u .... .. . . .... m.n m.u ...t a,, , , ... , m.n ... a,.n, . ... a. n, . ..

L*

f a.. . . .. . . .... a.... . . ... .. . . .... ... a,.. .n. .... Af.... A,.... . . . . . . . . . , , , . . . . i L2  !

1

.. . . a.. . . ... , a,. . . ., , , .,n m,n .. . . .. . . .m ... a,,,, a.,,, a,,,, a,.n . ,u A,.. ..

10 aVM .,i d a,.n m,H ..n anm.. . . .,n ann i aV .f aM m ..4 A, ,u m .n a. a m 8

..n em..u ., , , .m .,m A,m a. .. . . ... . .. a. ... m .u A, m ...

9 a n,, a, m . . . . . , - . . . . .n A,,,, a n,,

........aa,m........

Z l l l L t E S i 6 li lE tS LZ 16 2L 2E 25 22 26 EL EE ES EZ E6 ti tE '

l l

1 l

i l

l l i

~

[.

9 FIGURE #2 Vermont Yankee l BOC #20 Critical Rod Position Actual Critical Rod Pattern Predicted Critical Rod Pattern 43 0 0 0 43 0 0 0 39 0 0 0 39 0 0 0 35 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 35 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 31 0 0 20 0 0 0 31 0 0 0 0 0 27 0 0 0- 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 27 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 23 0 0 0 0 0 23 0 0 0 0 0 19 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 19 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 0 0 0 8 0 0 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 2 6 10 14 18 22 26 30 34 38 42 2 6 10 14 18 22 26 30 34 38 42 Denotes control rod at position 48 Denotes control rod at position 48

+1% Ak Rod Pattern -1% Ak Rod Pattern 43 0 12 0 43 0 0 0 39' 0 0 0 39 0 0 0 0 35 0 0 12 0 0 0 12 0 0 35 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

. 31 0 O O O O 31 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 27 0 12 0 0 0 18 0 0 0 12 0 27 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 23 0' 0 0 0 0 23 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 19 0 12 0 0 0 12 0 0 0 12 0 19 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 0 0 0 0 0 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 0 0- 12 0 0 0 12 0 0 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 36 3 0 12 0 3 0 0 0 2 6 10 14 18 22 26 30 34 38 42 2 6 10 14 18 22 26 30 34 38 42 Denotes control rod at position 48 Denotes control rod at position 48 I i

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

. . 1 i

FIGURE #3 Vermont Yankee Cycle #20 Startup Total TIP Uncertainty 43

39 28 i

35 31 18 18 27 23 28 18 28 19 15 18 18 11 7 28 3

2 6 10 14 18 22 26 30 34 38 42 TIP #: 1614 Date: 22-JUN 98 CTP: 99.9% WT: 95.0%

Uncertainty: 1.89%

u_ __-- - _ - - - - - - -

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML20237E957&oldid=3114293"