ML20245J078
| ML20245J078 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Sequoyah  |
| Issue date: | 07/12/1989 |
| From: | Bianco V, Serhal M, John Thomas TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20245J068 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8908170488 | |
| Download: ML20245J078 (103) | |
Text
,
ENCLOSURE 1 TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION CHANGE 89-24
- BEST ESTIMATE EVALUATION OF ICE CONDENSER BASKET WEIGHTS FOR SEQUOYAH UNIT 1 CYCLE 4~
(2EVISION 3)
(B87 890713 001) l 88 890G10 p [k [hjCh 05000327 PDC
SHEET I 0F.1.1 TvA 10697 (DNE oA 6-86) DME CALCI]LATIONS l Title DEST EST! MATE LVALUA110N OF ICE CONDLNSLR BA5KLI WEIGH 15 IOR jPlant/ Unit j' 5[000YAH UNIT 1. CYCIE 4 l SEQUOYAH UNIT 1 lPreparingOrganization l KEY NOUN 5 (Consult RIMS Descriptors List) l_ 5052 I ICE CONDENSER. TFCH SPEC. WElGHT l Branch /Projectidentifiers lEach tine these calculations are issued, preparers must ensure that the l l original (RO)RIMSaccessionnumberisfilledin.
l SQN SQS2-0080 lRev (for RIMS' use) rims ACCESS 100' number l ~. l l l l_ l R0 1890500F0046 l B25 890421 814 lApplicableDesignDocument(s) l l l l l R1 1890607F0001 i 887 890522 009 l N/A l l l l l R1 169 0 & #10 00 # 6 l 8 87 890807 Col
- l5ARSection(s) l UNID System (s) j l l l 6.2.5 l 61 lR3l l 6 87 8TO7/3 Oct l Revision 0 l R1 l R2 l Safety-related? Ye_s (X) l R3 No ( l lECNNo.(orIndicateNotApplicable)l l l l Statement of Probla
, l N/A l NA l N/A l IV/A l l Prepared l l l l0etennine an es'.imate of the ice condenser lJ. Thomas lJ. Thanas lJ. Thomas-l lice basket weights at various time periods l Checked l l l lfor unit 1, cycle 4 lW.M. Justice IM. Serhal IW Justiceldofg 3 5
l l Reviewed l l l [ l lW.M. Justice IM. Serhat IW. Justice}o l Approved '
lJ.J.WilderforV.A.Bianco l
lJ. Wilder l-[fk)%l IV. Bianco IV. Bianco IMAl% .c)
Icate l l 14/21/89 I i 15/22/89 16-5-89 l7/st/8*1l lUSEf0RMlListallpagesadded l l l l lTVA10534lbythisrevision 13.a 13.b llFMORE lListallpagesdeleted 12.a. 3.c l l l l l l5 PACE lbythisrevision lNA 176-81 l l l REQUIRED lListallpageschanged l 1, 2, 4, l1, 21 ll, 2, 4, l l lby this revision 15. 15. 17 14-97 15. 15 l l ABSTRACT lhese calculations contain an unverified assumption (s) that must be verified later.
l Yes ( ) No (X) lA best estinate analysis predicting the amount of ice renuining in the ice condenser has been performed based on lobserved sublimation rates detennined from historical plant data. The information contained herein is to support la possible relaxation of the tine requirements for ice weighing surveillance and to provide input to a licensin (sutrnitial requesting the change.
1 lThepredictedweightsaredeterminedusinganextrapolationprocessbasedonanaverageicesublimationratefound
.'for each individual bay and each group-row region. The sublimation rates are based on evaluations of data taken lthroughout the operatior.al life of the plant.
l Based on the numerical analysis, it is predicted that an overall average of nore than 1237 pounds of ice will ex '
lin each basket 18.5 nonths (S62 days) following the blest ice weighing surveillance (Aug/ Sept 1988). This will r.
lsult in more than 2,405,000 pounds of ice in the condenser. The results also indicate that all areas of the cond lser jregion. will exhibit nore than the minimum value assumed in the safety analysis With the exception of one group This region (grp3-rowl) is predicted to contain an average basket weight of about 1026 pounds, approxi.
lmately 5 percent less than the 1080 analytical limit.
l l0verall, it is felt that the ice condenser will not be adversely be affected by the 5 percent underweight o l area and will remain capable of perfonning its intended safety function. )
l l Total nunber of paces (RO) = 81. R1 e 82. R2 = 99. R3 = 101 l()MicrofilmandstorecalculationsinRIMSServiceCenter Microfilm and destroy. ()
l(X)Microfilmandreturncalculationsto:
cc: HIMS, El SLE 26P-K John Thanus Address: 05C-A21. Sequoyah 0970F
3 .s m e u u s u a n t!. h, 1" " l'@ O ' U ' U"9 gggr 3 cronent.O 34 7/n/a9 og ;
/
l yy BEST ESTIMATE WEIGHTS EVALUATION FOR SEQUOYAH, UNIT 1,'
OP. ICE CONDENSER BASKET '
CYCLE 4 "T, "
DESCRIPTION OF REVISION ,
. a,$ ,
'- 1 0 In'itial Issue 4[21/
~
1 l Revision incorrectlytoon correct pagesequations 15 and 17. entered into document '5/22/
This change is typographical only-and does not impact any computations.
A correction incorrectly onispage also 17.
made to a'date entered
,- 2 Revision 2
{ determining the at power sublimation rates. The incorporates 6/07/ a 1
change is with respect to the number of at power '
days between'the initial and final ice weighings. '
This parameter is used in the denominator of the sublimation rate determination.
analyses have shown;that incorporatinReview of past number of days between ice weighings,g the total opposed to only the' modes 1, number 2, or 3 of days when the plant experienced-(revisions O and 1), provides adequate predictions of sublimation rates.
j This revision also incorporates nonpower sublimation rates for the time periods that the }
current cycle has experienced shutdown conditions or is expected to be in shutdown conditions. The- ,
computations take credit 8 days in September 1989 for a shutdown period of 4
blockage inspection. for ice condenser flow periods, To justify credit for these i
using the same methodology as the at powernonpower subli sublimation determination. Tno historical data. ;
used to determine the nonpower sublimation rates '
is taken from depicted the 1985-1988 in Table 5. time frame and is ' ;
The unverified assumption documented in sections 3.0 and 4.0 has been removed per the references l contained section 2.18 i 1
o TV A 8 05 34 (EN t>t s.4.yg g
seN Ms2.-coso ,w g 3 ett4 @E O f- F ' /' / ^ 1 '
ami.2T t 4 o p_
cucggo u4 7//& /8'l B.EST ESTIMATE EVALUATION OF ICE CONDENSER BASKET REVISION LOG Tide WEIGHTS FOR SEQUOYAH, UNIT 1, CYCLE 4 ..
" *[ "
o, DESCRIPTION OF REVISION A ppt ed m ._
3 Revision to address design input errors found during review by TVA's quality assurance group. .
The discrepancy is with respect to the number of days computed between ice weighing surveillance .
noted in Table 2 of the calcluation. The corrected values are listed below:
beginning ending number of date date days
~ 09/19/81 01/25/82- 127 01/25/82 09/13/82 ! 230 12/16/82 12/31/83 380 03/30/84 04/22/85 387 09/07/85 06/15/88 1010 - -
These values have been evaluated for any impact on the results of the analysis. .From this evaluation, it has been determined that the results will not appreciably decrease the-predicted weight of the ice weight per baskets.
Futhermore, no other bays or group-row combinations will drop below the 1080 analytical limit. Therefore, this revision will not incorporate any new computations. However, the changes noted above are desireable and will be made in the next revision of the calculation'that will require recomputation of the predicted weights.
This revision also incorporates two errors located in text of the report. Table 2 contains an incorrect year in the "ending date" column; 12/31/82 will be changed to 12/31/83. This change i
is typographical in nature and has no impact on the results. Also, page 15 contains a reference source for the reactor mode changes. The reference noted in the text (2.19) will be corrected to 2.18. This change is also typographical.
TV A 10534 (Eed DE5-4 78)
[ _ . _ _ _ _ . _ . _ _ - - - - - . _ . - - - - - - - - - - - _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
. g'asef .3h <,,:-
-W
.. NEP-3.1 Attachment 6 Page 1 of '1'
.- CALCULATION DESIGN VERIFICATION (INDEPENDENT REVIEW) FORM. .
_' _.$ b ' ~.s' A s z. 0 08 0 2-Calculation No. Revision 1
Method of design verification (independent review) used (check method used): '
- 1. Design Review I
- 2. Alternate Calculation
- 3. Qualification Test '
Justification (explain below):
Method 1:
- In the design review method, justify the technical adequacy of.the calculation and explain how the adequacy wad verified (calculation is l similar to another, based on accepted ha'ndbook methods, appropriate
. sensitivity studies included for confidence, etc.).
Method '/: .
In the alternate calculation method, identify the pages where the i
alternate calculation has been included in the calculation package '
and explain why'this method is adequate.
~
( Muthod 3:
In the qualification test method, identify the.QA documented source (s) where testing adequately demonstrates the adequacy of .this
~
calculation and explain.
/
1/.%J ? Of ~;%ss [ifte sie.-.4nd WAS $C,450s m cc 7'ca aJeoeaerAn- A easen : w y: .~.
,,,e7 em + ,ie. ' sosm.., a. n e '% r.
2~a ciu %s v _, : ,~ M 1 ' ' . ,Gis em~ s c WAs
~
sr>,Mr a 1r m s ~' ;" . r_k ,,-
fritwm n~w- e ,:
A.w. Im_e r s a~u,w , m <_, ,.,,,
.c r 7 7w .v. . ,., . 5, z
/* NU 55ud? l /C L* Hf & C.n*,
1
)t t > ds 75,96 .p'. ' _A, /s,/3 lt:. *7 / J_ _s ;r , . .
, */ a.,it. 4*'s u r- Ika. Z.. w _at, .%.< a .7w o %- 'kow -Aw. s wJ ,w ..
{;D?r.5 " ' s.o,e mc s i
- 2. -Dn.s ~~ , .r.
rL s ss w 2 4 _ c.s n ., a.p.v m- x*hea.y it %~~ tief" A.s --
. 2 .- p .r
- ~,1 s's % gs,. ?_ g .-a_ sf re.s_ ,t w s.s 2g;,L s , 3.- _
kNL r- nf '- W. _
s'
/V .&c-osign Verifier W / / 4' D4te '
ndependent Reviewer)
_9
. . . . . . . . . . . . . ..... .. . . . . . ... .. . . . . . . . . . . . . = . . . . _ , . . .
y $Q:.-scyv snGG T W 1'd T s jg/g'q i
(
NEP-3.1 -
Attachment 6 Page l'of 1 CALCULATION DESIGN. VERIFICATION (INDEPENDENT' REVIEW) FORM
~ .._
4 SQN SQS2-3080 . .
Calculation No.
..,4 Revision j e i
... ..,...1
~
Method of design vbhification (independent review)-used (check 1~.2C . f method used):
- 1. Desian Review X 2.
3.
Alteinate Calculation
, Qualification Test Justification (explain below): - '
Method 1: In the design review method, justify the technical adequacy of the calculation and explain-how the ,
adequacy was verified (calculation is similar to ,
f^
another, based on accepted handbook methods, - -
appropriate sensitivity studies included for f confidence, etc.).
Method 2: In the alternate calculation method, . identify'the pages where the calculationthe alternate package calculation and explain has been why included this' method in is adequate.
Method 3: In the qualification test method, identify the QA documented source (s) where testing adequately demonstrates the adequacy of this calculation and explain.
Justification: This calculation was cerformed to succort a cossible relaxation requirements ror unit or tecnnical specification-weicninc j 1.
The calculation utilites clant L surveillance cata anc simole statistical tecnnicues.
i P.ecetitive mannematical coerations were cerrormed usina alcorttnias tLOTUS 1-2-3) or0 crammed into a conouter.
Tnis errors. netned minimites One notential for cenoutational Enis calculation is or the same methodolcav as tne crevicus' ice suc11:ation calculations (rererences _.2 anc 2.3). Attacnrena 10 or NEP 3.1 is not aco!!carle as
.c s t or One cuesticnu ao not relate to this tvne or anatyct=.
./
i, /
, .tE J') ,Yw/$ .V. ?/ .** *3 Design Veritier cate (Independe,nt /
Reviewer) l P
MEi:T 1 C o;; 'I '1 NEP-3.1 Attachment.6 Page 1 of 1 CALCULATION DESIGN VERIFICATION (INDEPENDENT REVIEW) FORM ^
_ S QN SR61-CONO 3 Calculation No. Revision Method of design verification (independent review) used (check method used):
- 1. Design Review X
- 2. Alternate Calculation
- 3. Qualification Test Justification (explain below):
Method 1:
In the design review method, justify the"technica[ adequacy of the calculation and explain how the adequacy w'as verified (calculation is similar to another, based on accepted handbook methods, appropriate sensitivity studies included for confidence, etc.). ,
Method 7:
In the alternate calculation method, identify the pages where the alternate calculation has been included in the calculation package and orplain why this method is adoquate.
Mothod 3:
In the qualification test method, identify the QA documented sourco(s) whoro testinC adoquately demonstrates the adequacy of this calculation and explain.
h /* Nlh Y $n Yf/
Anose-u $ hW WhW h w e s-r m As w ru.a. n, ,ve,,rsoz.
$AV3 .
Y.*/e " //72 '&ry3 s Aer/Au "Ar- eue>2-fs/ bd.; , ~1%
r* / r As s ./A fsre / sn/$ 3 /r// **We-d A A Tr'~') <&%/ fh/Al6 l-Luvu -.+ A 71*ss/ AA* feR P A r.-d errt/
(2 cr Ler/ Lob ) ./MM ~ 14/// t *f fA 5l' ~f07A" ^lfl**4A'M ^> ~~ AAYf.
_ j e. RAV 2 Y s./A _*~ 6"C d t t AA7en lT'c r i.<Jers u Y b b d. &F /E A / 'YA/AL Y3/ *;
- V. %/ ?".s >** l YLifn '
i,/> s sau,fs r/>
>'/en o A W / w se- .2'~e r os/ersear n ritrx9/ *'rJAuM A Yifdll5R ll
_' Kar- VAwr w La' e as rewsce,is n ,-.
%did- n47" rue s.sw,rea As nr nA/ Ane.Ycie. Zws ' Mame r A Msnwssrr__
Ch"Ls'efnr r*n fc 12 HJd' $/ft&- AAu] / ,d JAas m .su A>Arad . w e./A t Au ,
' 6 3 Al i<4-17E~ ifrarfi>m-s> JS &a" AA At vrir. C//cs- As.s/n' de -/~) Aw
/%n ro xxvr A s t es se re-s se r i.iess,<r s<.M M" se ter /M FAS. S/fA!/ L'AtM I/Jf
_ A+.-r> Afss/? -Asd / s,sirus/te,z3 % or yac fes a y,,ve_h t/4s /%).d &
hr _ fan / 2 1/AL v e.*3. &J" krs.71 -7%A ><'Adre sf./ 7e.f W f/6W'f* /. f */ #A, _
f* ser , //e & e>rt t A/FAW/- 7/Q re r:saair - se s .4 x. m s,< e s-.4 a 1.
arry rnne en,,a.es /~< "Ar- /<paz. "'Asrs.
R r e'ngxuej7cxeg>
.L'a<..e.> n w inr:'e nc>w u AM Sunsruve:n r7 J
S dfA $fL.* HYAL i V' T/ V a.//> As g2 z/evist c47s-v'sr @e~3r 1/Airiro sS i
n ss 7 <r>;i,q ne Att./ i ,/s, rais eau nsws /s em ,o . Y X// s fe'l's *i<N [
,e,,, s',n ,,,
.s w m c t/s w n . ce se r a r _ 9 l-(s / AF 7n a 6~ sign Verifier ofegendentaeviewer)
' [ at6
( 9 l
L_-_--------_----------- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - _ - - - - .- -- -a
97
}-7 {
' " tiG T ht c/ _.W M/r/s
. +
. NEp-3A Attachment 6 '
Page 1 of 1 CALCULATION DESIGN VERIFICATION (INDEPENDENT REVIEW) FORM d
>C>o _ '".,C S z cOBo R\
Calculation No. Revision Method of design ver,ification (independent review) used (check method used): "
1.
Design Review
/
- 2. Alternate Calculation
- 3. Qualification Test ..
Justification (explain below):
Method 1: In the design review method, justify the technical adequacy of the calculation and explain how the adequacy wasiverified (calculation is
.similar to another, based on accepted handbook methods, appropriate sensitivity studies included for confidence, etc.). E l
Method 7: In the alternate calculation method, identify the pages where the r alternate calculation has been included in the calculation packago l and explain why this method is adequate. , i Method 3: In the qualification test method,' identify the QA documented source (s) where testing adequately demonstrates the adequacy of this calculation and explain. '
%;r;vn 1 ~ t - E ; , e.,/ru la 1,'o n ; .1 m :n e, n ., .) k ,.e J- ;, s a c / .
1%.- rvrt. I & - , . Ic % !:o,,.r <- _ ,fu f 7 L ,, , . /, 'e n J 1. , w.c,f a
)
cem &n 1,: . >...r s., .C ,~ ._-v' , r r- r- l f, m , 4 e u .a f A c :_m Lic ..
{ e /
u.'> r m.f e>reL n .. V ; > L e e, n . ,' J. s 1; !.-- e / _, o ,. . w. , . , ' ' - . .
C4, rkn ,e L. n , , . sl:,. . .I ' ,
. sea. ,o. 4., s ' - ~ ~ '
,, .,, . , 's ; ~ .
tj l' ) i r # * :' J.,
.' ] .- _: _ a
- r . e. L. i > e
- h ,'r.,-l e,. _. , . -lu , ~
u/
~
\
l
\
l i
- r
,- /"l // _. .- f/ /.n s Design Verifier Date
. (Independent Reviewer) 4h 9_
3
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - - - - ~
- f
- s u ti *i l'.
_vF k CALCULATI0tl CLASSIFICATI0tl & CATEGORIZATI0tl CALCULATION INFORMATION:
PLANT / UNIT _ SON b ! ONs7 i IDENTIFIER sau 5G o oedo RIMS N0. _
ISSUE DATE '
' TITLE- ca s T e sri- Ave evALUA7,oW oF 't.C E c o N M N GE.4 tue c.u r s cAo SEavoV AH}. ontv i cvCLE 4- '
REVISION LEVEL 3 _
AFFECTED SYSTEM (S)
PLANT FEATURE:
SYSTEM / COMPONENT DESCRIPTIO lN SAFETY SYSTEM SYSTEM NO. 61
.. - 'T- t!' CO N O 2 NbSA.
]lPLANTENVIRONMENT 'I .
(EQ, ETC.)
k llNONSAFETYSYSTEM '
SYSTEM NO. '
llAPPENDIXR llCIVILSTRUCTURES l l INSTRUMENTATION (1.97,APM,ETC.)
lx] LICENSING \
Te c 4 sAsc w/* c. 5-
, l l OTHER ___
CALCULATION CATEGORIZATIONlo.o t FillAL CLASSIFICATION .
l SSENTIAL ll FILE _0NLY ll DESIRABLE ll SUPERCEDED SUMMITTED j r[1 w id h
_ DATE 7//t /B9 "
REVIEWED M I $ _ DATE Of APPROVED _
f zaw DATE
/E[B9
- -l S' HIE E T S' 0F. 'I T '
- t. .
CALCULAT!Ctr CLAGS!; ICATICri ~
IDENTIFIER: _5 ct n - sa 32 oogy p g g ,-
l P"ELIT11 NARY' CFASSIFICATICN: > . .
@ E= ces..
-- '.' A'- #
y.v.--e , , , , , , ,
O o~ee raA"='. e ~ ~ "
Q SU.*ERCEDED .
CALCULAT:CM e..co, -
CLASS:FICAT:en" JUS!!F! CAT!CN:-
---* . s . . :..o. : _THe s n o:cQ s .,,, g y, .
_50APoLTS h
' P06 68 6L E A.G L h k A*7/ 0N
- O t= THE ' Tort 4E
-kQ QtisAu? M eN Y.5 __
T-O k ' T. CR ' TOG s G-Sto N b Y
_ ANO Yo .AvAVElL L ANCF]
PLeve O E l'N OU T' 'i' O
~& ._
k - L.1 c G.S SIN 6
$ v6Mo 77a t fLL*G J 26ToNL. THC a-
-- r L t4A N 0-C'.
NY (
6 ~7 //L/84 _
ere ,
J.e -~~
e.. e.e. :
p n e--ce ,p , *y !
nve
~ ' p -n *o - v~ e ~ -
CLASS:7 CA!:cn - :. ... ...,.S ee
- .~.....e..e..
I h
_m.
APoonUEn. - .
pgoew . .. , ,u CL SSI.chhh!!ON EEE ~CCEMTS-nECu:sta.
m m
e 3 -
- e m-
l
.i TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY
'SQNSQS2-0080 Rev. 2 SHEET 4 OF f7 BEST. ESTIMATE EVALUATION OF'TCE' PREPARED /DATE AT t/r/r i CONDENSER BASKET WEIGHTS FOR CHECKED /DATE % o zh/*
SEQUOYAH, UNIT 1, CYCLE 4 SEQUOYAH -/ UNIT 1.
j
~~
TABLE OF CONTENTS 7:' ,
l I. CALCULATION COVER SHEET 1 .
II. REVISION LOG 2 III. INDEPENDENT REVIEW FORM 3
IV. CALCULATION CLASSIFICATION SHEET 4 )
- j
~
1.0 INTRODUCTION
/ PURPOSE ; 7
2.0 REFERENCES
'9
)
- 3.0 ASSUMPTIONS 11 4.0 DOCUMENTATION OF ASSUMPTIONS 12
)
5.0 DESIGN INPUT 13 6.O METHODOLOGY 14.
7.0 COMPUTATIONS / ANALYSIS -18 8.0 RESULTS 88
9.0 CONCLUSION
S / RECOMMENDATIONS 94 ATTACHMENT A EXCERPT FROM ICE VERSION SQ1.0 95 I
e
.M->
I
\
(
TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY j 1
SQNSQS2-0080 Rev. 2 SHEET 7 OF 47 j BEST ESTIMATE EVALUATION OF ICE' PREPARED /DATE L7 ua/n CONDENSER BASKET WEIGHTS FOR CHECKED /DATE b#dc/,w SEQUOYAH, UNIT 1, CYCLE 4 SEQUOYAH 4- UNIT 1
~~--------------_---_--------------------------------------
1.0 INTRODUCTION
/ PURPOSE The intention of this calculation is to predict the weight of the ice condenser ice baskets at various time periods for the ;
current unit 1 fuel cycle (cycle 4). This is performed to - i support a possible relaxation of the time requirements for ice weighing of surveillance requirement 4.6.5.1 [2.1]. -
Due to the containment design of Sequoyah, the ice condenser system is relied upon to mitigate the consequences of a loss of coolant accident (LOCA). The requirements of each component of the ice condenser ensures that the overall system will be able to provide sufficient pressure suppression capability to limit the containment peak pressure transient during LOCA conditions.
The amount of ice in the condenser is requirdd to contain sufficient heat removal capability to condense the reactor coolant system volume released during a LOCA. However, the mass of ice continually diminishes throughout the life of the plant. This is primarily a result of sublimation, i.e. mass transfer of ice. Ice sublimation occurs when conditions of low pressure and high heat transfer exist in the system and is, in .
general, a relatively slow process. However, over extended periods of time, a large amount of ice can be removed from the ice bed. So much so, that the ice condenser system can be rendered inoperable per the technical specifications if not properly maintained.
In order to ensure operability of the ice condenser, technical specification surveillance requirement 4.6.5.1.b.2 requires that at least 144 ice baskets be weighed at least once per twelve months. This sample includes one basket from six rows (radial rows 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, and 9) of each of the twenty-four bays. If any basket is found to contain less than 1200 pounds of ice, an additional 20 baskets must be weighed. The rows are !
then subdivided into three groups (Group 1 - bays 1 through 8, Group 2 - bays 9 through 16, Group 3 - bays 17 through 24).
The minimum average weight of the sample baskets in the radial rows of each group must not be less than 1200 pounds per basket at a 95 % level of confidence. In addition, these b'asket weights shall be used to determine that the overall ice weight is not less than 2,333,100 pounds.
The rate of sublimation is dependent on several factors, the most contributing being increased heat loss to the environment.
i l
Because containment temperatures increase during power production, sublimation is most prevalent at this time.
Therefore, this analysis determines sublimation rates based on historical ice weight data taken over the operational life of the plant. The estimated sublimation rates will be applied to l the most recent ice weighing data (September 1988) and, per an l
. TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY SQNSQS2-0080 Rev. 2 ,
SHEET 8 OF 97 BEST ESTIMATE EVALUATION OF ICE PREPARED /DATE l-7 U3/a s CONDENSER BASKET WEIGHTS.FOR CHECKED /DATE tw//Afr/#9 '
SEQUOYAH, UNIT-1, CYCLE 4 SEQUOYAH f- UNIT 1-extrapolation process, predict futuristic weights in the ice' condenser..
It is not the intention of this calculation to predict ice weights based on bounding conditions and/or extreme -
conservatism, but to make a realistic assessment of the historical data.at Sequoyah and to draw conclusions based on -
previous analysis methodology and engineering judgment.
4 em
- 8
- e i
1 1
1 l
I
.)
O L._______.______ . - - _ - . - _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __. - _ _ . . - _
TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY SQNSQS2-008'O - Rev.-2 , SHEET 9 OF 97-BESF ESTIMATE EVALUATION OF ICES PREPARED /DATE J-7 Oa/s,
- CONDENSER' BASKET WEIGHTS FOR- CHECKED /DATE hv 4/rXf5 i SEQUOYAH, UNIT 1, CYCLE 4 SEQUOYAH 4- UNIT 1 1
- 2. 0~ REFERENCES 2.1 "Sequoyah Nuclear Plant Technical Specifications", r Revision 109, 03/09/89, Attachment A to License No. DPR-
- 77. -
2.2 Reference reEoved per Revision 2 2.3 Reference removed per Revision 2
~
- 2. 4' "TVA Nuclear Performance Plan (Sequoydh)", Volume II Revision 4, December 1988. .,
2.5 " Design Criteria For Ice Condenser System", SQ-DC-V-27.1 Revision 1, 07/22/87, Rims # B45 870722'258..
- 2.6 TVA, ICE Version SQ1.0, A Supplement to SI-106,' June 30, 1987, Rims #'L36 870630 808.
2.7 SI 106 Data Package, Performed by M. R. Robinson, Unit 1, 1/30/82.
2.8 SI 106 Data Package, Performed by J. P. Campbell, Unit 1, 1/24/82.
2.9 SI 106 Data Package, Performed by J. P. Campbell, Unit 1, 9/13/82.
2.10 SI 106 Data Package, Performed by W. D. Wright, Unit 1, 12/2/82.
2.11 SI 106 Data Package, Performed by J. D. Elsea, Unit 1, 3/6/84.
2.12 SI 106 Data Package, Performed by J. D. Elsea, . Unit 1, !
3/30/84.
2.13 SI 106 Data Package, Performed by J. D. Elsea, Unit 1, 4/22/85.
2.14 SI 106 Data Package, Performed by M. R. Robinson, Unit 1, 8/11/88.
2.15 Reference removed per Revision 2 2.16 SI 106 Data Package, Performed by J. D. Elsea', Unit 1, 8/28/85 ]
2.17 SI 106 Data Package, Performed by J. D. Elsea, Unit 1, 6/16/88 i
l
. .~
j
TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY i
, SQNSQS2-0080 Rev. 2 SHEET sc OF T7 BEST ESTIMATE EVALUATION OF ICE PREPARED /DATE l T // s /4g CONDENSER BASKET WEIGHTS FOR CHECKED /DATE A>J i/r/pf {
SEQUOYAH, UNIT 1, CYCLE 4 SEQUOYAH -/- UNI
T 1 ---
2.18 " Tennessee Valley Authority, Division of Nuclear Powei , j
-Monthly Operating Report, Sequoyah Nuclear Plant" (packages as listed below)
Date RIMS /MEDS #
i October 1981 L53 811117 985 "
November 1981 L53 811215 913 i
' December 1981 L53 820115 877 January 1982 L53 820219 908 3 February 1982 L53 820310.814
^
March 1982 L53 820409 806 )
April 1982 l L53 820514 865 j May 1982 -
L53 820611 861
. June 1982 L53 8207164 930 l July 1982 )
L53 820816' 907 )
August 1982 L53 820915 910 ,
September 1982 j L53 821015 891 j
' January 1983 L53 830216 970 February 1983 L53 830316 885 March 1983 L53 830415 828 )
April 1983 L53 830519 808 )
May 1983 L53 830617 940 June 1983 L53 830719 878 July 1983 )
August 1983 L53 830818 850 i September 1983 L53 830922 845 L53 831025 950 October 1983 L53 831129 998 November 1983 L53 831219 928 December 1983 L53 840124 873 !
March 1984 L53 840419 829 April 1984 L53 840521 972 May 1984 L53 840621 901 June 1984 L53 840727 875
~
July 1984 S53 840817 931 August 1984 S53 840920 918
- September 1984 S53 8410.24 852 October 1984 S53 841130 832 November 1984 S53 841226 936 ,
January 1985 S53 850222 826 February 1985 S53 850314 909 j
March 1985 S53 850412 831 April 1985 S53 850509 917 October 1988 S57.881129 810 November 1988 S57 890106 851 December 1988 S57 890207 850 January 1989 S57 890309 850 February 1989 S57 890328 850 2.19 " LOTUS 1-2-3 Reference Manual, Release 2.10", LOTUS Development Corporation, 1986.
l l
l ________-_-.__a
i
.I TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY
... SQNSQS2-0080 Rev. 2 SHEET 11 OF - 9 7 BEST ESTIMATE EVALUATION OF ICE PREPARED /DATE J-7 Ua/sf CONDENSER BASKET WEIGHTS FOR. CHECKED /DATE'ud 4Mi, SEQUOYAH, UNIT 1, CYCLE 4 SEQUOYAH J- UNIT 1 3.0 ASSUMPTIONS j 3.1 The sublimation rates calculated from plant historical ,
data is applicable to,the current ice condenser weights .. ;
and configuration. '"'
3.2 The sublimation rates will be determined from plant ice -
weighing ~ time differential of approximately six months or-more.
i 1
l l
l l
l s
i
TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORZTY SQNSQS2-0080 'Rev. 2 SHEETt 8L OF 97 BEST ESTIMATE EVALUATION OF' ICE PREPARED /DATE k7 t/3/s, CONDENSER BASKET WEIGHTS FOR CHECKED /DATE'o dtAc@ ,
SEQUOYAH, UNIT 1, CYCLE 4 ' !
SEQUOYAH -/ UNIT 1 4.0 DOCUMENTATION OF ASSUMPTIONS
- 1
)
4.1- Assumption 3.1 7, j The ice condenser data used to determine the at power i sublimation rate was taken during the period when the
- plant was actively producing power. The amount of ice lost is based on differences in weighings prior to and following plant power operations. SQNP Unit 1 began commercimi operation on July-1, until it was shut down on August 22,1981 and produced power 1985 because of j equipment qualification concerns [2.4].
]
Ice condenser weight data "during this p9riod can be used to determine ice loss during power operation because temperatures of the~ heat sources providing the driving ; ')
force for sublimation are greater than during idle plant periods. {
I idle plant conditions generally' produces lower sublimationIt rates than when the plant.is at power. However,.it should be noted that improper maintenance operations on the ice .
condenser can increase sublimation rates'above'that expected for an idle or power producing plant.
The functional requirements of the glycol cooling system and ice condenser air handling units have not changed appreciably from the original design (see reference-2.5).
Therefore, the assumption that the sublimation rates-during previous power operation is valid.
power operation are applicable to current 1
Plant of the histori' nonpower cal sublimation data is alsorate.
used for.the determination !
A representative rate can be found sublimation rate utilizing the same methodology as the power !
shutdown conditionsfor the time period when the plant was in (August 1985 through November 1988).
4.2 Assumption 3.2 Sublimation of ice in the ice condenser is a slowly occurring process.
! However, the performance of ' 1 I
maintenance melting of ice) operations such as defrosting (i.e. the I results in rapid losses of ice. Also, ingress and ogress result in increased sublimation by the 'l introduction Therefore, of dry air into the ice condenser.
i sampling period will be minimized.a statistical evaluation based on a longer Furthermore, ice is generally added during maintenance periods which invalidates sublimation calculations for these periods.
e .;
TENNESSEE VALLZY AUTHORITY j
__ SQNSQS2-0080 Rev. 2 . ' SHEET 83 OF 97
- BEST ESTIMATE EVALUATION OF ICE ' PREPARED /DATEL7 th/we ,
CONDENSER BASKET WEIGHTS FOR CHECKED /DATE bd th-/f3 l SEQUOYAH, UNIT 1, CYCLE 4 SEQUOYAH p UNIT 1 1
8 5.0 ' DESIGN INPUT
- All de ign input data is taken from the. ice weight surveillance data-(SI-106) as listed in references 2.7 through 2.17 and the '
monthly operating reports noted in reference 2.18. ~~
Table 1: Design Input Sources (SI-106)
Reference # Sign-o{f Date Weighing Commenb Date completed l =
~
2.7 01/30/82 09/19/81 Package revises data for 9/19/82,
-no ice addition 2.8 01/24/82 01/25/82 surveillance only,-
no ice addition 2.9 09/13/82 09/14/82 . initial weighing prior to ice addition 2.10 12/02/82 12/15/82 following ice addition 2.11 03/06/84 03/04/84 data computed for December 1983 2.12 03/30/84 03/30/84 following ice addition 2.13 04/22/85 04/20/85 initial weighing prior to-ice l addition 2.14 09/16/88 09/16/88 following ice '
addition 2.16 08/28/85 09/05/85 begin extended outage 2.17 06/15/88 06/24/88~ following extended outage First date listed on cover sheet of SI-106 data package
TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY j SQNSQS2 0080 Rev. 2 . SHEET 14 OF 17 BEST ESTIMATE EVALUATION OF ICE PREPARED /DATE LT Uy , f I CONDENSER BASKET WEIGHTS FOR CHECKED /DATE bed A/c4M SEQUOYAH, UNIT 1, CYCLE 4 SEQUOYAH UNIT'l
_________-__-____________________________________________7'_ ________
6.0 METHODOLOGY 1
._ )
The methodology used in the prediction of current ice weights-is based on a simple linear extrapolation process in which a rate of sublimation is applied to the amount of ice that was last observed in the condenser. Since best estimate -
predictions are desired, the rate of sublimation must be determined in a fashion that approximates actual ice loss in ;
the condenser. 1 It has been demonstrated that while the plant is in shutdown conditions, sublimation rates tend to be much smaller than those at power. This is due to the relatively small heat loads found in containment which invoke little driving force for mass loss. For this reason, it is appropriate to use data that reflects the ice loss in containment while the plant is at power as well as when the plant is in shutdown conditions. Asa l stated in section 4.1, only performances of SI-106 that wer,e ,
taken between July 1, 1981 and August 22, 1985 have been considered for at power sublimation rate determination.
Historical records show that this is the only period that unit 1 has operated at power. During this time frame, seven ice surveillance occurred that are of interest (determined per assumptions 3.1 and 3.2). These packages provide the bases of four distinct periods by which the at power sublimation rate can be determined. The dates of these are displayed in Table 2.
J The nonpower sublimation rate will be found utilizing data at I which time the plant has been in shutdown conditions. The data i used for this determination is taken from performances of SI-106 between March 1985 and June 1988. The dates of these l packages are also displayed in Table 2.
By considering the amount of ice found at these times and the length of time occurring between the dates, a rate of sublimation can readily be found. Containment temperatures and heat sinks are expected to be relatively constant throughout times of either power operation or nonpower operation.
The equation for determination of sublimation for each specific time frame is given by:
Sub. Rate = (W1 - W2)
- 100 / (W1 * # of days) where, W1 and W2 are the initial and final, ice weights at a 95 percent level of confidence
TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITV I
SQHSQS2-0080 Rev. 3 SHEET IS OF 17 BEST ESTIMATE EVALUATION OF ICE PREPARED /DATE FT 7// z/ei CONDENSER BASKET WEIGHTS FOR CHECKED /DATE o.// p/n> A 4 SEQUOYAH, UNIT 1, CYCLE 4 SEQUOYAH /-- UNIT 1 Further details of the 95 percent level of confidence
' determination are located in Attachment A.
Once the sublimation rate has been determined for each of the four time intervals, an at power sublimation rate will be ~
determined by finding the arithmetic mean of the values. The -
mean value will satisfactorily depict the rate occurring during the current fuel cycle. l Note that the units of sublimation are given in '
percent / day and that the magnitude is a function of the initial weight for that specific time frame.
When this value is applied to the current ice observation, the result will be skewed.due to the difference in initial weight values. Because sublimation will increase or decrease with changes *
.in ice volume,'this methodology will adequately -
portray actual mass loss. .
i The nonpower sublimation rate is determined in the same manner 4 as the at power rate with the exception that only one set of data is available for analysis. For this reason, an average j value is not implemented.
j ro compute the predicted weights, the sublimation rates are '
then extrapolated to the latest ice weights as observed at the beginning of the current fuel cycle [2.14). The nonpower and power sublimation rates are applied corresponding to the appropriate plant mode changes that have occurred to date or are expected to occur for cycle 4 of unit 1 operation. Mode changes 2.18.
are provided in the documentation provided in reference ,
i The 8 day outage scheduled for September 1989 has also been incorporated sublimation period. into the calculation of the nonpower The total number of days applied co the nonpower sublimation rate is 72.5 days. I The predicted ice weight is given by -
I Begin. Pwr _ Initial Weight Initial
- Nonpower
- Time 100 Weight Weight Sub. Rate (lbs) (lbs) (Ibs) (% / day) (day)
(%) i Predicted _ Begin. Pwr Begin. Pwr At power Weight Weight Time 100 Weight Sub. Rate '
(1bs) (1bs) (lbs) (% / day) (day) (%)
l l
1
l l
TEENESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY
_. SQNSQS2-0080 Rev. 2 SHEET s6 'OF' 4 7 BEST ESTIMATE EVALUATION OF ICE . PREPARED /DATE LT Us/??
CONDENSER BALKET WEIGHTS FOR CHECKED /DATE %d 4Mm9 SEQUOYAH, UNIT 1, CYCLE 4 SEQUOYAH e- UNIT 1.
Technical specification bases require that not only. sufficient LOCA heat. removal capacity be provided, but also that the ice-be evenly distributed throughout the containment. To evaluate the distribution of ice, the analysis is performed for two different cases. The first case predicts the' weights of the - -
fuel cycle for each individual bay in the condenser while the second predicts the.. weights for each group-row combination.- ~
This will provide sufficient detail to assess the effect of the developed sublimation rates.
~
e 4
- e 2
l l
l 1
I 1
l l
l u
i J
[
i TENNESSEE VALLEY AUT110RITY SQNSQS'2-0080 Rev. 3 S H E E T__ l'7 OF 'I ~l DEST ESTIMATE EVALUATION OF ICE .
CONDENSER BASKET WEIGHTS FOR _ PREPARED /DATEt-7 7// t/59 CHECKED /DATE 4 7/nes
_ i- _ _ i. __ _ _______________________ _ _ __
~._.
- e Tabic 2:
Time Intervals of Sublimation Rate Determination Beginning Ending.
,. Date Number of Date Days 09/19/81 -
1/25/82 126 ,
01/25/82 9/13/82 231 12/16/82 12/31/83 350 03/30/84 04/22/85 380 09/07/85 06/15/88 1041 l
4 1
l l I l
! i i
l l !
1 i t _ _ __ _ _ _ _ ______-_----________-____A
TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY SQNSQS2-0080 Rev. 2 . SHEET l8 OF 97 BEST ESTIMATE EVALUATION OF ICE PREPARED /DATE AJ (#/s o CONDENSER BASKET WEIGHTS FOR CHECKED /DATE b4N/m SEQUOYAH, UNIT 1, CYCLE 4 )
SEQUOYAH f- UNIT 1 )
7.0 {
COMPUTATIONS / ANALYSIS .
i I
As stated in section 6.0, the sublimation rate is given by the equation, Sub. Rate = (W1 - W2)
- 100 / (W1
- number of days) where, W1'an'd W2 are the initial and final ice weights at a 95 percent level of confidence and the predicted weights are given by the equation, -
W begin "
Winit ~ Winit
- nonpwr rate * (# of days) *- 100 Wpred "p rbegin pwr - Wbegin pwr
- at pwr rate * (# of days) 100 r
where, W \
initi survelskanceis the weight as of the Aug/ Sept ice j Due to the detail of analysis required, many small calculations' of the same type must be performed. Subsequently, an algorithm was developed using the LOTUS 1-2-3 spreadsheet for computational expediency and error reduction. The following description further details the calculational procedure.
To obtain the ice weights at a 95 % level of confidence, the !
spreadsheet was set up in accordance with reference 2.6 (statistical methodology provided in Attachment A). The equations used within the algorithm are as follows:
l average weight = OAVG(B l ..B g )
- of baskets = GCOUNT(By..B) N standard deviation =
OSQRT(0 COUNT (B y . . Bg) / ( 0 COUNT ( B y..B -1))*0STD(By ., . BN )
N 2-score = OINDEX(C1..CN,0,0 COUNT (B y..B g_2))
95% confidence level = AVG WT. - (2-SCORE
- STD. DEV.)
SQRT(# OF BASKETS) where, B y ..B g =
range defining ice data C3..Cg =
range defining 2 score table 95 % conf. =
all inputs are cell addresses Individual data points were obtained from the data sheets included in references 2.7 through 2.17 and were entered into the spreadsheet. Not all data points contained in the ice .
J
7 TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY SQNSQS2-0080 Rev. 2 SHEET #9 OF 47 BEST ESTIMATE EVALUATION OF ICE PREPARED /DATE W #3hi CONDENSER BASKET WEIGHTS FOR SEQUOYAH, UNIT 1, CYCLE 4 CHECKED /DATE bdzh/B9 ,-
SEQUOYAH -f UNIT 1-weighings were included in the group-row analysis. These pointsfrom taken _are not3,applicable rows to the rows of interest, i.e. data 5,
or 7 has been omitted.
The sublimation rates were also determined by LOTUS 1-2-3. The -
spreadsheet equations used were derived using cell addresses as in the 95 percent confidence calculation.
~
sublimation rate = (W1 - W2)
- 100/ (W1 * # of days)
"Wi" is defined as being the 95 percent ' confidence weight of the initial time frame, and W2 is the 95 percent confidence weight of the final time frame. These values also ccrrespond to the appropriate bay or group-row range of the time interval.
Once computed, the sublimation rates were ave' raged on an individual bay and group-row bases. Note that some time frames experience an sublimation increase in ice weight and thus show a negative rate. This phenomenon can occur due to mass movement region of the of condenser ice in whichand ice then sublimates into theback is transferred air atinto one~
baskets of another region. However, mass movement by this mode is an extremely slow process and should not account for the entire negative sublimation rates computed.
to the negative rates is an anomaly of the statisticalAlso contributing methodology employed in the 95 percent confidence computation.
Small sample statistics allow the 95 percent confidence value to vary largely as a function of standard deviation. The random selection of baskets and the small number of samples taken increase.can project the sample region as having a weight In order to appropriately model the true sublimation, all negative sublimation rates were set to zero prior to averaging.
mass increases. This will offset the appearance of ice After averaging, weight data taken during Aug./ Sept.the1988, sublimation rates the most wereice recent applied to the i surveillance. The 95 percent confidence weights were determined for this data _ exactly as in the previous cases. ;
Table 3 contains sublimation ratesthe LOTUS 1-2-3 output of the at power for the individual bay analysis while Table 4 contains the output of the at power sublimation rates for the group-row analysis. The results of the computations of the !
I analysis are containedrates nonpower sublimation for both in Table 5. the bay and group-row These tables contain the salient input data for all the time frames of interest. This j information is also summarized in Tables 6 and 8 for both the bay and group-row computations respectively.
I j
~
TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY l
__ SQNSQS2-0080 Rev. 2 , SHEET'to- OF- 97 I BEST ESTIMATE EVALUATION OF ICE ' PREPARED /DATE L7 t/3/# 9 CONDENSER BASKET WEIGHTS FOR CHECKED /DATE 1d 2/_da SEQUOYAH, UNIT 1, CYCLE 4 SEQUOYAH -/- UNIT 1 Also computied for the ' group-row analysis is the maximum-time that all-group-row regions, with the exception of group 3-row 1, will exhibit at least 10E0 pounds of ice and the weights of the remaining. regions.of: ice existing at'this time. Group 3-row 1 has been excluded f rtra rihis sensitivity because the low ":
)
initial weight and the reir419ely high sublimation rates .
computed will ultimately Le below 1080 pounds for any '
surveillance requirement extencion. These. values are computed I using the same equations noted previously with simple algebraic-manipulations. The results of-the predicted weights are provided in Table 7 and 9.for the bay and group-row analyses e respectively. l It should be noted that the algorithm used in LOTUS 1-2-3'.is not intended as a developed, problem solving program but a computational tool used to perform many.small computations that
~
have already been defined. Consequently, quality assured ,
documentation of the algorithm is not warranted.
9 1
i
' i!
1 l
l' :
1
. I l
I
TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY SQNSQS2-0080 Rev. 2-SHEET 2.i 'OF 'h DEST' ESTIMATE EVALUATION OF ICE CONDENSER BASKET WEIGHTS FOR PREPARED /DATE f ~r 'usM Y___,,
SEQUOYAH, UNIT 1, CYCLE 4 CHECKED /DATE O.99 / /r/sv
---------- --------- ..---------------?SEQUOYAH ------------------ 4- UNIT 1
,- Table-3:
Evaluation Based of Historical on Individual At Power Sublimation Rates Bay Comparisons 'i 9/19/81~ 1/25/82 1/25/82 9/13/82 12/16/82 12/31/83 BAY 1 BAY 1 BAY 1 3/30/84 '4/22/85 -8/31/88 BAY 1' BAY 1 BAY 1 BAY,1 2' SCORE BA5KET WE!CNT 1220 BAY 1 1179 1179 BAY 1 1068 1243:
1352 815 .1489 1355 1119 . .1119 1097 144tf '6.314 !
1340 1004 1012 1340 1131 1010 1240 1131 1034 1278 2.92 1296 1163 1294 1405 1104 1104 1487 2.353 994 1399 1196 1284 1259 1330 1384 1533 1259 1191 1260 2.132 1239 1149 1111 1117 1275 1275 1249 1552 2.015 1441 1007 1376. 1267~ 1267 1150 1021 -1299.
1147' 1.943 1356. 1183 1190 1132' 1255 1255 1270 1.895~
1356 ~ 1188 - '1191 1144 1261 1261 .1.86 -
1271 1204
, 1360 1331 1303- 1171 1331 1292 1.833 1380 1147~4 1177 1148
_1287 1287 1407 ~ 1.812 1420 1251 1145 1019 1279 1279 1258 , 1.796 1388 1280 1284 1355 1355 1178 1.782 1308 .
1432 1220 1285 1159 1355 1355 1.771 1335 1448 1351 1306 '1226 1249 1551 1431 .1.761 1325 1297 1309 1254 1347 1347 1.753 1365 1448 1415 1412 1307 1193 1415 1457 1. 74 6 1400 1427 1351 1417 1286 1427 1266 1.74-
'1500 1443 1463 1380 1289 1443 1428 1.734 1436 1383 1332 1349 1443 1443 1.729 1493 1255 1504 1266 1461 1389 1504 1423 1.745 1295 1197 1522 1329 1435 1435 1283 1.721 1383 1311 1185 1392 1441 1311 1433 1.717 1456 1356 1360 '1378 1439 1439 1450 1.714 1444 1390 1399-1455 1455 1382 1.711 1509 14 76 1487 1408 1464 1337 1487 1625 1.70S 1461 1389 1.7:6 1.703 1.701 1.699 1.615 1.6.5 AVG WEIOHf 1.f *.5 1371.73 1327.46 1327.46 1310.92 1326.83 1.d45 STO. DEV. 74.9536 1241.81 1304.58 113.6085 113.6085 157.0042 1244.76 1425.17 1.645
- Cf BASKETS 80.3677 150.2630 26 26 2+ SCORE 26 26 6 126.4133 130.3816 128.0335 1.645 1.708 26 26 1.708 1.703 1.708 25 6 1.615 ~
95% CCNF. WT. 2.015 1.708 1346.62 1209.41 1.703 1.711, 2.015 1289.41 1258.33 120.72 1,e.5 1191.47 1262.23 1200.14 1319.84 1.5;5 508. %/ CAY 0.03372 0.01043 0.01569 1.6 5 0.01294 1.645 ,
d
. i a
i 1
I I
- _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ ._____-_________._--_______________-___--__-w
r TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY SQNSQS2-0080 Rev. 2 SHEET ~ 2. 2- OF 4 '?
, BEST ESTIMATE EVALUATION OF ICE PREPARED /DATEl7 (h / r Y --
CONDENSER DASKET WEIGHTS FOR CHECKED /DATE ,J, # ur/n ;
SEQUOYAH, UNIT 1, CYCLE 4 SEQUOYAH J- UNIT 1 j Table 3_: Evaluation of' Historical At Power Sublimation Rates
~~ Based on Individual Bay Comparisons (continued) !
1.645-
.1.645 9/19/81 1/25/82 1/25/82- 9/13/82 12/16/82 12/31/83 3/30/84 4/22/84 8/31/88 'i.645 {
BAY 2 BAY 2 BAY 2 BAY 2 BAY 2' BAY 2 BAY 2 BAY 2 BAY 2 1.645 BASKET WEIGHT- 1440 1429 -- 1429 1309 1323 1214 1417 1238 1476 1.645 1448 1469 1469 1352 1311 1341 1420 1296 1394 1.645 l 1457 1380 1380 1418 1391 1397 1291 1264 1446 1231 1489 1489 1519 1219 1442 1328 1038 1514 1408 1269 1269 1296 1463 1456 1384 1417 -1438:
4 1436 1363 1363 1482 1380 1439 1438 999 1314 1460 1173 1306
~
1341 1326 1342 1456 1416 ; 1307 1408 1303 1409 f 1468 1274
- 1459 1480 1319 1456 . .
1399 1335 1442 1492 ]
1410 1414 1480 j 1263 1314 1470 1393'
- 1239 1416 1385 1349 .
l 1444 1120 1409 1468 1322 1408 1420 1360 1232 1202 1279 1389 9 1428 1073 1378 1464 1010 1359-1426 1212 1164 1472 1397 1377 1386 1348 1399 1339' I l
AVC WEIGHT 1423.08 1399.83 1399.83 1396.00 1347.83 1307.96 1379.67 1323.81 1430.33 STD. DfV.
69.7578 80.5641 80.5641 92.2106 83.3461 115.6797 58.2633 115.5262 69.6324 0 CF BA$rEis 26 6 6 6 6 26 6 27 6 Z SCORE 1.708 2.015 2.015 2.015 2.015 1.703 2.015 1.706 2.015 i 95% CONF. W1. 1399.71 1333.56 1333.56 1320.15 1779.27 1269.21 1331.74 1235.89 1373.05 4
508. %/ DAY 0.03751 0.00435 0.00225 0.00906 ,
i.
TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY
.. SQNSQS2-0080 Rev. 2 . SHEET 2 3 OF 97 BEST ESTIMATE EVALUATION OF ICE PREPARED /DATE t.7 t/2/ n .
CONDENSER BASKET WEIGHTS FOR CHECKED /DATE u,.4 ur/g5 SEQUOYAH, UNIT 1, CYCLE 4 SEQUOYAH C UNIT 1 Table 3:
Evaluation of' Historical At Power Sublimation Rates
-Based on Individual Bay Comparisons (continued) 9/19/81 1/25/82 1/25/82 9/13/82 12/16/82 12/31/83 3/30/84 4/22/84 8/31/88 BAY 3 BAY 3 BAY 3 BAY 3 BAY 3 BAY 3 BAY 3 BAY 3 BAY 3 ,
BASKET VEIGHT 1419 1267 - 1267 1197' 1406 1110 1443 1338 1507.5 1377 1487 1487 1159 1559 1176 1337 1425 1538' 1429 1490 1490 1396 1232 1375 1291 1420 1390 1384 1399 1399 1496 1268 1487 1437 1541 1561 1475 1436 1436 1563 1293 1580 1431 1401' 1563 1301 1485 1485 1313 1440 1043 1482 1334 1444 1457 1517 1330 1442 1430 1529 1528 1376 1248 '
1407 1384 a 1354 1365 ,
1413 1424 1420 1304 1445 1425 1275 1382 1250 1425 .
1378 1176 1456 1336 1468 1430 1443 1418 1339 1103 j
1402 1301 1457 1420 1501 1517 1515 1512 AVG WEIGHT 1397.50 1427.33 1427.33 1401.96 1387.86 1354.96 1403.50 1409.83 1500.53 STD. DEV. 58.9500 86.4339 86.4839 99.6327 126.9323 139.6929 73.0472 75.5339 09.8916 0 0F BASKETS 6 6 6 26 7 26 6 6 6 Z SCORE 2.015 2.015 2.015 1.708 1.943 1.708 2.015 2.015 2.015 95% CONF. Wi. 1349.01 1356.19 1356.19 1368.59 1294.64 1308.17 1343.41 1347.70 1443.29 ;
$UB. %/CAV 0.00423 0.00396 0.00299 0.00084
TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY
..SQNSQS2-0080 Rev. 2 ,
SHEET 2. '* OF 47 .
BEST ESTIHATE EVALUATION OF ICE PREPARED /DATE f.7 (/3/#9 CHECKED /DATE ' m// e /r/w t CONDENSER BASKET WEIGHTS FOR ~
SEQUOYAH, UNIT 1, CYCLE 4 SEQUOYAH -f UNIT 1 ;
4
_- 'l Table 3:' Evaluation of Historical'At Power Sublimation Rates
- Based on Individual Bay Comparisons (continued) 9/19/81 1/25/82 1/25/82 9/13/82 12/16/82 12/31/83 3/30/84 4/22/84 8/31/88 .
BAY 4 BAY 4 BAY 4 BAY 4 BAY 4 BAY 4 BAY 4 BAY 4 BAY 4 BASKET WEIGNT 1518 1397 1397 1351 1372 1283 1551 1334 1527 -
1678 1435 1435 1336 1404 1403 1430 1457 1464 1464 1431 1431 1438 1406 1493 1601 1484 1636 1496 1490 1490 1403 1478 1596 1465 1556 1265 1528 1543 1543 1488 1524 1328 1451 1469 1432 1523 1508 1508 1382 1485 1290 1359 1317- 1483 1364 1373 3397 1463
. 1527 ,
1353 7 1408 1453 1323 -
1378 1403 1503 1211 1243 1363 I
1483 , ,
1543 .
1273 1378 1476 1521 1551 i
1 AVG WEIGHT 1501.17 1467.33 1467.33 1399.67 1/.28.75 1408.42 1476.17 1436.17 -14o7.83 j 510. DEV. 26.1719 55.1459 55.1459 56.5992 58.8139 103.5472 86.9492 92.5190 122.0253
- OF BASKE15 6 6 6 6 8 . 26 ;_ , 6 6 6 j 2 5002E 2.015 2.015 2.015 2.015 1.895 1;708 2.01's 2.015 ,2.015 1 95% CONF. WT. 1479.64 1421.97 '1421.97 1353.11 1389.35 1373.74 1404.6.. 1360.06 1357.45 SUB. ?./ DAY 0.03093 0.02096 0.00321 0.00335 l
j
~ i l
i
TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY i
SQNSQS2-0080 Rev. 2 --
SHEET 7.C O F. 17' i DEST ESTIMATE EVALUATION OF. ICE PREPARED / DATES-7 4/3/f 9" l CONDENSER BASKET WEIGHTS FOR- CHECKED /DATE ud 4 &&v SEQUOYAH, UNIT 1, CYCLE 4 SEQUOYAH /- UNIT 1-1 4
Table 3: ' Evaluation of Historical'At Power Sublimation Rates'
~~ Based on Individual Bay Comparisons (continued) !
9/19/81 1/25/82 1/25/82 9/13/82 12/16/82~ 12/31/83 3/30/84 4/22/84 8/31/88 BAY 5 BAY 5 BAY 5 BAY 5 BAY 5 BAY 5 BAY 5 BAY 5 BAY 5 - !
8ASKET WElGHT 1472 1466 - '1466 1229 1252 1146 1297 1333 1374 I 1386 1508 1508 1374 1602 1205 1412 1350 1292 1380 1482 1482- 1225 1329 1380 1490 1530 1543 1528 1297 1297 1484 1357 1484 1509 1503 1259 1461 1391 .1391 1446 1295 1527 1419 1467 1388 1604 1397 1397 1563 1406 1176 1497 1339 1497 1437 1294
~
1492 1437 1537 '1 1304 j 1385
- 1456 -
1486 1271 1299
.1379 1453 -
-( 1211
{k 1352 1439 1488 1178 1268 1413 1468 1554-l AVC ut1CHT 1471.83 1423.50 1423.50 1386.83 1396.25 1368.85 1437.33 1420.33 l
STD. DEV. 1392.17 <
85.4878 77.6267 77.6267 138.0165 113.6282 122.4767 80.1765 89.6965 111.2248
- OF BASKETS
, 6 6' 6 6 8 ,$; 26 ' ' 6 6 6 l Z' store 2.015 2.015 2.015 i
2.015 1.895 '1.708 2.015 2.015 95% CONF. WT.
2.015 )
1401.51 1359.64 1359.64 1273.30 1320.12 1327.82 1371.38 1346.55 1300.67 !
$UB. %/ DAY 0.02371 0.02749 0.00167 0.00476 l
1 l
i TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY (
r SQNSQS2-0080 Rev. 2- .
SHEET 2.6 OF 17 .
BEST ESTIMATE EVALUATION OF ICE PREPARED /DATE l T U1/2+ !
CONDENSER BASKET WEIGHTS FOR CHECKED /DATE md 4/.r/sr :
SEQUOYAH, UNIT 1, CYCLE 4 SEQUOYAH y'- UNIT 1 f.
f
. t' Table _3:
Evaluation of Historical At Power Sublimation Rates
. Based on Individual Bay Comparisons (continued) 9/19/81 1/25/82 1/25/82 9/13/82 12/16/82 12/31/83 3/30/84 4/22/84 8/31/88' BAY 6 BAY 6 BAY 6 BAY 6 BAY 6 BAY 6 BAY 6 BAY 6- BAY 6' ~
BA$KET WEICHT 1404 1390 - - 1390 1335 1405 1328 1430 1210 1505 1474 1437 1437 1465 1413 1313 1367 1352 1323 1452 1410 1410 1401 1440- 1393 .1298 1447' 1433 1472 1473 1473. '1301 1440 1483 1407 1469 1354 1479 1423 1423 1431 1372 1349 1433 1250 .1386 .
1434 1412 1412 1492 1371 1383 1267 1361 1467 1497" 1473 1425 1495 1448 1447 147]i 1280 1418 1340 1463 1420 .
1463 1320 ,
1513 1425 1373 1510' 1443 1320 1493 1405 1214 1435 -
1228~ 1483 1393- 1345
, 1508 1471 d.I 1436 1282 1323 -1400 1423 1505 1453 1473 1518 1208 1476 1185 l
AVG VE!CNT 1452.50 1424.17 i
1424.17 1404.17 1429.13 1414.73 1367.00 1375.69 1411.33 s 5TD. DEv. 29.1187 28.5196 28.5196 74.2601 48.7953 ,
82.1246 70.2652 95.9924 69.3878 ;
- OF BASKE15 6 6 6 6 8 -; ' 26 6 26 6 j 8 SCORE 2.015 2.015 2.015 2.015 1.895 1.708 2.015 1.708 2.015 '
95% tour, vi. 1428.55 1400.71 1400.71 1343.08 1396.43 1387.22 1309.'20 1343.54 1354.25 1 SUB. %/ DAY 0.01547 0.01781 0.00183 0.00690 ,
5
1 TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY [
SQNSQS2-0080 Rev. 2 SHEET tI OF 17 BEST ESTIMATE EVALUATION OF ICE' PREPARED /DATE JJ 4/3/ f 4 !
CONDENSER BASKET WEIGHTS FOR CHECKED /DATE 60 4 /r/a SEQUOYAH,-UNIT 1, CYCLE 4 SEQUOYAH 4- UNIT 1 Table 3: Evaluation of Historical At Power Sublimation Rates
. _, Based on Individual Bay Comparisons (continued) 9/19/81 1/25/82 1/25/82 9/13/82 12/16/82 12/31/83 3/30/84 4/22/84 8/31/88 .~
BAY 7 BAY 7 BAY 7 BAY 7 BAY 7 BAY 7 BAY 7 . BAY 7 BAY 7 BASKET WEIGHT 1324 1379 1379 1067 1476 981 1305 1374 1137.5 1452 1256 "1256 1149 1205 1076 1463 1441 1206 1552 1479 1479 1257 1241 1215 1435 1461 1449 1444 1339 1339 1443 1452 1392 1456' 1517 1446 1569 1459 1459 1465~ 1264 1492 1515 1337 1311 1492 1476 - 1476 1503 1279 1406 1413 1374 1421-1519 1457 1348 1386 1536 , 1501 1436
- 1463 ,
1242 1342 1357 1420 1282 ~~ 1255 1475- '1433- 1403. ,
1476 1448 151'9 1341 1487 1261 1339 1345
)
1385 1468 1386 1548 1471 1457 1374 1514 1498 1295.
~
1509 .1412 1509 1442 1409 1471 1479 1443 1315 1514 1401 1505 4 '* j 1416 1192 1456 l 1459 1321 1401- )
1440 1438 1416 1428 1514 1513 g 1474 1540 1512 l
j
. j l
i i
i AVG WElGHf 1472.17 13?8.00 1393.00 1417.15 1359.38 1372.85 1431.17 .1417.33 1396.71 STD. DEV. 83.6531 89.8577 89.8577 117.8364 122.5735 132.3782 70.5986 I 67.2448 105.3334 O OF BASKETS 6 6 6 26 8 26. 6
. 6 26 8 SCORE 2.015 2.015 2.015 1.703 1.895 i
-1.708' 2.015 2.015 1.7CS l 05% CONF. WT. 1399.24 1324.05 1324.03 1377.68 1277.25 N2S.50 1373.09 1362.02 1361.43 SUB. %/ DAY 0.04263 0.01752 0.01146 0.00212 i
_ _ _ _ _ . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ . . _ . _ _ . _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ ..__ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . . _ _ _ _ _ . _ ..._____.____J
I l
TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY
~ SQNSQS2-0080 Rev. 2 SHEET 2. s OF M f BEST ESTIMATE EVALUATION OF-ICE , PREPARED /DATEb7 4/3/r f CONDENSER' BASKET WEIGHTS FOR CHECKED /DATE M ik/69 -
SEQUOYAH, UNIT ~1, CYCLE 4 SEQUOYAH i UNIT 1 1
l Table 3: Evaluation of Historical At Power Sublimation' Rates 1
~ Based on* Individual. Bay Comparisons (continued) l '
)
9/19/81 1/25/82 1/25/82 9/13/82 12/16/82 12/31/83 3/30/84 4/22/84'- 8/31/88 -"
BAY 8 BAY 8 BAY 8 BAY 8 BAY 8 BAY 8 BAY 8. BAY 8 . BAY 8 BA$ RET WEIGNT 1408 1461 _,..1461 1039 - 1164 1079 1411 1355 1403" ,
1448 1472 1472 1476 1357 1243 1442 1414 1519-1468 1456 1456 1485 1449 850 1394 1422 .1391' 1468 '1413 1413 1446- ~1477 1000 1379 1367 1442 1472 1419 1419' 1034 1440 1463 1397 1476 1390' !
s 1216 1387 1387 1184 1063 881 1253 1344 1419 1356 .1144 1144 1393 1308 1D48 1337 1456 1411 1411 1436 - -1447 1425 1325
. 1428 1419 1419 1356 1465 1357 : 1387 1 1344 1482 1482 1436 1417 1089 -
1446. I 1416 1466 1466 1436 1422 1103 1369 1300 1271 1271 1456 1458 1273 1397 1384 1443 1443 1486 1510 '1383 ' ' 1419-1448 1457 1457 1436 1328 -1468 1146 1344 1458 1458 1476 1473 1049 1353 1400 1475 1475 1486 1478 1029 1523 1480 1334 1334 1496 1076 1342 '1336 1484 1470 -1470 1436 1360 1423 1385 1488 1466 1466 1466 1463 1439 1417 1492 1471 1471 1496 1489 932 1449 1368 1511 1511 1486 1511- 1064 1426' '
1384 1341 1341 1506 1283 1400 1286 1424 1419 1419 1444 1334 1453- 1317 1416 14C5 1405 1416 1396 993 1384 1456 1440 -1440 1436 1432 1103 1384..
1502 1492 1492 1486 1462 1221 1396 1358 1364 1036 1121 i
i AVG VEIGHT 1417.31 1422.42 1422.42 1412.65 1387.00 1199.63 1379.33 '1396.33 1386.33
$10. CEV. 67.2689 78.0765 78.0765 127.4927 122.9793 194.0269 65.4482 50.2500 73.4357 ;
-0 CF BAstETS 26 26 26 26 .t. 30 _ ,
26 6 6 26 2 SCCRE 1. 708 1.708 1.708 1.708 1.708 '.1. 699 2.015 2.015 1.703 05% C0kF. W . 1394.77 1396.27 1396.27 1369.95' 1345.81 1139.45 1325.49 1355.00 1361.79 SUB. t/ DAY 0.00085 0.00816 0.04381 0.00586 l
TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY-
~ SQNSQS2-0000 Rev. 2-. . SHEET ' 2.9 OF 97 BEST. ESTIMATE EVALUATION OF' ICE PREPARED /DATE #7 6/3/ef CONDENSER BASKET WEIGHTS FOR CHECKED /DATE'od dc/#7 SEQUOYAH,, UNIT.1, CYCLE 4 .SEQUOYAH /- UNIT 1 l Table 3: '
Evaluation of' Historical At Power Sublimation Rates
~ Based on Individual Bay Comparisons (continued) I 9/19/81 1/25/82 1/25/82 9/13/82 12/16/82 12/31/83 3/30/84' 4/22/84 '8/31/88 BAY 9 BAY 9 BAY 9 BAY 9 BAY 9- BAY 9 BAY 9 BAY 9 BAY 9 ,
BASKET WEICHT 1544 1314 --.~1314 1311 1246 1435 1195 1372 1263 1500 1407 1407 1222 1368 1254 1232 1128' 1396' 1480 1477 1477 1402 1428 1387 1381 1389 -1426 1288 1499 1499 1403 1461 1410 1447 1338 1423 1419 1550 1550 1290 1359 1259 1390 1415 -1014 1448' 1614 1614 1428 1503 1520 1223 1476
.1467.
1246 1484 1384-1386 1165- 1405
.: 1366 1463 1499 1388 1505 1203 1352 1135- 1481
~
1396 1145 1370 1390 1529 1385 1425 '1333' 1666 1426 1445 1393 1465 1373 1394 *
^
1257 1304 1479 1250 1382 1398 1392 1536 1420 1436 1097 1229 .j, 1542 929 1418-1247 972 1518, Li 1378 1118 1229 1460 1169 1430.
1457 1317 1504 1592 1477 1532 I
AtfG WEICHT 1446.50 1476.83 1476.83 1342.67 1394.17 1377.50 1373.81 1307.19 1397.50 STO. DEV. 88.7373 105.8781 105.8781 80.9683 90.9185 103.9745 100.3291 175.0981 128,1456
- CF BASKETS 6 6 6 6 6 }; - 6a- 26 26 26 R SCORE 2.015 2.015 2.015 2.015 2.015 2.015 1.708 1.708 1.708 95% CONF. WT. 1373.50 1389.74 1389.74 8276.06 1319.38 1291.97 1340.20 1248.54 1354.58
$UB. 7./ DAY 0.00938 0.03541 0.00594 0.01800 l
. -]
TENNESSEE. VALLEY AUTHORITY L
SQNSQS2-0080 Rev.'2 OF ' 17 SHEET 3o BEST. ESTIMATE EVALUATION OF. ICE PREPARED /DATE $ T (/3/41 CONDENSER BASKET WEIGHTS FOR- CHECKED /DATE 'eM 'e /r/69 SEQUOYAH, UNIT 1, CYCLE 4 SEQUOYAH
..--------- / UNIT 1 ---------
Table'3: Evaluation of-Historical At. Power Sublimation Rates
H Based on Individual Bay Comparisons (continued) i I
9/19/81 1/25/82' 1/25/82 9/13/82 12/16/82 12/31/83 p..
)
3/30/84 4/22/84' 8/31/88 ~
BAY 10 BAY 10 BAY 10 BAY 10 BAY 10 BAY 10 BAY 10 BAY 10 BAY 10 BASKEY WEIGMT 1278 1357 -..1357 1284' 1570 1246 1255 .1181' 1408 1412 1435 1435 1379 1447 1604 1292 1225 1278' 1464 1548. 1548 1236
)
1481 1460 1550 1319 1480 .]
1504- 1506 1506 1508 1344 1406 1396 1250 1300 1528 1417 1417 1529 1312 1507 1230 1320' 1392
. 1480 1578 1578 1344 1491 1258 1473 1559 1402 1470
' 1402-1516 -
1266
. 1520 1526 1392 "
1270 1504 1386 .
1500 -
1225 '
1540 ~
1420 1540 1515 1476 1125 1488 1382-1524 1501 1480 ,
1163 1520 1103 1532 1311 1490 ,
1413 1274 1538 1468 1484 1354
)
1494 ;
1500 '
1559 1220 1412 1283 1570 4
AtfC WEIGHT 1465.54 1473.50 '
1473.50 1380.00 1440.83 1413.50 1366.00 STO. DEV. 1359.71 1376.67 B4.6306 84.5855 E4.5855 118.1812 96.7748 141.0585 123.4508 139.5357 . 75.0324
- OF B'ASKETS 26 6 i 6 6 6 S. . 6- 6 28 6 l 8 SCORE 1.708 2.015 2.015 2.015 2.015 ".2.015 2.015 1.703 95% CONF. wi. 1437,19 2.015 1403.92 1403.92 1282.78 1361.22 1297.46 1260.33 1314.81 1314.94-SUB. %/ DAY 0.01837 0.03735 0.01338 0.01137 i
I
TENNESSEE VALLEY' AUTHORITY '!
- SQNSQS2-0080 Rev. 2 . SHEET 3i OF ' 91 BEST ESTIMATE. EVALUATION OF ICE -PREPARED /DATEJ7 4/_3/tf CONDENSER BASKET WEIGHTS FOR CHECKED /DATE 'tJM t /r/ff 1 SEQUOYAH, . UNIT 1, CYCLE 4 SEQUOYAH '-/- UNIT 1 ]
_________________________________________________________________ j Table 3: Evaluation of' Historical At Power' Sublimation Rates I
' ~ Based on Individual Bay. Comparisons (continued) 9/19/81 1/25/82 1/25/82' 9/13/82 12/16/82 '12/31/83 3/30/84- 4/22/84 8/31/88 BAY 11 BAT 11 BAY 11 BAY 11 BAY 11 BAY 11- BAY 11 BAY 11 BAY 11 i BASKET WE!GMT 1496 1363 . .-1363 1282' 1383 1205 1312 1262 1525' 1466 1440 1440 1491 1499 1297 1611 1270' 1370 1506 1511 1511 1483 1449 1393 1460 1357 1435 1502 1525 1525 1505 1459 1473 1398 1389 1358 1526 1494 1494 1455 1496 1457. 1346 1308 1288
, 1476 1557 1557 1488 1492 1432 1563 1342 1467.
'1322 1376 l 1340 1465 i 1373 ; 1408 1453
- 1432 1402 -1443 4 1376 1514
~ '
1423 1535 j 1503 1536 1446 1402 1463' 1437 1486 1492 ,
1533 1533 1458 1562 1493. 1079 ,:)
1512 1369 1376 1487 1434 1577 1443 999 1553 1310 1510 1415 1474 i
1 AVG WE!0Hi 1495.33 1481.67 1481.67 1450.67 1463.00 1429.08 1415.00 ' 1379.00 1407.17 STD. DEV. 21.6025 69.8331 69.8331 84.2441 44.3576 79.0088 88.9989 135.6526 85.1338' O 0F BASKETS 6 6 6 6 6 t 267 6 27 6 :
2 SCORE 2.015 2.015 2.015 2.015 2.015 [1.708 2.015 1.706 2.015 !
95% c0wF. ut. 1477.56 1424.22 1424.22 1381.37 1426.51 1402.61 1341.79 1354.46 1337.13 SUB. %/ DAY 0.02865 0.01303 0.00479 -0.00249 i l
I i
e
1 TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY
__ SQNSQS2-0080 Rev. 2 SHEET 31 OF'97 JBEST. ESTIMATE EVALUATION OF' ICE PREPARED /DATE LT (/3/tf CONDENSER BASKET WEIGHTS FOR CHECKED /DATE u.~f 4A-495
-SEQUOYAH, UNIT 1, CYCLE 4 _ SEQUOYAH - /- UNIT 1 Table 3:
Evaluation of* Historical At Power Sublimation Rates
~ Based on Individual Bay Comparisons (continued) 9/19/81 1/25/82 1/25/82 9/13/82 12/16/82 12/31/83- 3/30/84 *"'
4/22/84 8/31/88 BAY 12 BAY 12 BAY 12 BAY 12 BAY 12 BAY 12 BAY 12 BAY 12 BAY 12 BASKET WElGHT 1404 1441 __ 1441 1468 1436- 1349 1239 1085 1280 1503 1467 1467 1445 1523 1375 1455 1217 1226.5' 1414 1459 1459 1449 1456 1438 1428 1517 1370 1433 1545 1545 1445 1295 1513 1323 1332
)
1336 1361 1463 1463 1444- 1376 1281 -1229 1201 1428 1479 1375 1375 1444 1350 1378 1335 1171 1455 l 1488 1062 1476 1339 ,
1351 ..# 1377 1337 1416 1 1423 1517 ,
l 1470 1352 1498 1469 !
1285 1324 1393 1402 1453 1457 1191 1492
~
1222 1252 1388 1332 1438 1374 g 1310
1447 1304 1234 1445 1395 1452 1400 1462 1
^
i AVG WEICHT 1432.33 1458.33 1458.33 1449.17 1406.00 1382.87 1334.33 '1349.15 1349.25 i STD. DEV. 51.7674 54.5038 54.5038 9.4110 81.7875 88.5335 93.4289 125.9189 87.0102 ,
- OF BASKETS 6 6 6 6 6 '
- . . 23 . , 6 26 6 3 5CCRE 2.015 2.015 2.015 2.015 2.015 '.1.717 2.015 1.703 2.015 1
95% CONF. WT. 1389.75 1413.50 1413.50 1441.42 1338.72- 1351.15 1257.93 1306.98 1277.67 508. %/ DAY 0.01356 0.00855 0.00265 0.01025 l
TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY
.. -SQNSQS2-0080 Rev. 2' SHMT 23' 'OF 'i l _
BEST' ESTIMATE EVALUATION OF. ICE PREPARED /DATE L7 U 3/#t CONDENSER BASKET WEIGHTS FOR CHECKED /DATE & # ch hv SEQUOYAH, UNIT 1, CYCLE 4 SEQUOYAH /- UNIT 1 Table 3: Evaluation of Historical At Power Sublimation Rates
~/ Based on Individual Bay Comparisons (continued)-
~
9/19/81 1/25/82 1/25/82 9/13/82 12/16/82 12/31/83 3/30/84 4/22/84- 8/31/88 *i BAY 13 BAY 13 BAY 13 BAY 13 BAY 13 BAY 13 BAY 13 BAY 13 BAY 13' BASKET WEIGHT 1479 1425 ,,1425 1390 1530 1233 1301 949 1533 1450 1461 1461 1480 1368 1473 1337 1207 1284.
1431 1513 1513 1355 1305 1462 1428 1393 1469 1485 1539 1539 1426 1469 1383 1422 1275 1317 1389 1469 1469 1525' 1443 1260 1249 1344 1428~
1408 1451 1451 1495 1420 1439 1475 1222 4 1428 1947
'~
1172 1077 1325 1652 4 1222 1407 1487 1355 1462 1295 1417-1 1481 1265 ,
1407 j
1464 1537 1447 1464 1524 l
AVG WEIGHT 1440.33 1476.33 1476.33 1445.17 1422.50 1375.00 1368.67 ' 1330.65 1409.83 SfD. DEv. 38.3441 42.0412 42.0412 65.7432 3
78.6403 104.6155 S6.6872 162.7059 '93.5765
- OF BASKETS 6 6 6 6 6 ,
67 6 26 6 l Z SCCRE 2.015 2.015 2.015 2.015 2.015 2.015 2.015 1.708 2.015 95% tent. ut, 1408.79 1441.75 1 r.41. 75 1391.08 1357.81 1238.94 1297.36 1276.15 1332.26 tub. %/ DAY 0.01857 0.01521 0.01449 0.00430 i
i.
1 l
j TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY ,
1 SQNSQS2-0080 Rev. 2 SHEET 34 OF 97 !
BEST ESTIMATE EVALUATION OF ICE PREPARED /DATElT U.3/ # f -
CONDENSER BASKET WEIGHTS FOR CHECKED /DATE w7 l/r/99 SEQUOYAH, UNIT 1, CYCLE 4 SEQUOYAH -[- UNIT 1 l Table 3:
Evaluation of' Historical At Power Sublimation Rates l
-Based on Individual Bay Comparisons (continued) l 9/19/81 1/25/82 1/25/82 9/13/82 12/16/82 12/31/83 3/30/84 4/22/84 8/31/88 BAY 14 BAY 14 SAY 14 BAY 14 BAY 14 BAY 14 BAY 14 BAY 14 BAY 14 ,
BASKET WEIGHf 1412 1437 ~1437 1470 1383 1427 1339 1146 1269 1470 1497 1497 1450 1421 1360 1448 1304 1449 1488 1520 1520 1445 1348 1435 1375 1436 1480 1410 1415 1415 1464 1505 1522 1404 1254 1477 1416 1455 1455 1404 1409 1355 1243 1349 1363 1306 1301 1301 1505 1271 1447 1286 1326 1469 1501 1355 1506
~
1427 1212 1322 1452 1275 1462 1405 ~ 1363 1476
~
1439 1470 1323 1507 1364 ,1368 l 1401 1414 1462' 1404 1512 1396 1491 1422 1346 1437 1497 1396 -
1436 1436 1445 .
1486 1427 1444 1479 1507 1129 1262 1392 1614 j 1332 1402 1312 l 1284 1440 1359' 1416
)
1362 1437 '
1446 1472 1401 1450 1423 1298 1195 1454 1526 {
I 1
I AVG LEICHf 1417.00 1437.59 1437.50 1456.33 1389.50 1415.23 1349.17 1335.15 1424.96 STD. DEV. 63.6333 77.1990 77.*103 33.2305 78.1275 77.9463 75.9037 91.0159 07.e399 8 0F BASKEis 6 6 6 6 6
- 26 ; .
6 26 26 2 SCORE 2.015 2.015 2.015 2.015 2.015 1.1.703 2.015 1.'!S 1.703 55% CONF. Wf. 1364.65 1374.00 1374.00 1429.00 1325.23 1389.12 12S6.73 1354.67 13 2.26 SLS. %/0AY 0.00544 0.01733 0.01377 0.01339
.I TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY SQNSQS2-0080 Rev. 2 SHEET V 'OF 47 BEST ESTIMATE EVALUATION OF ICE- PREPARED /DATE L7 U3/ef CONDENSER BASKET WEIGHTS FOR' CHECKED / DATE i >,.,/ t h/e f SEQUOYAH, UNIT 1, CYCLE 4 SEQUOYAH 6- UNIT 1 I
1 Table 3: '
Evaluation of'Historica1'At Power Sublimation Rates j
-Based on Individual Bay Comparisons-(continued) 9/19/81 1/25/82. 1/25/82 9/13/82 12/16/82- 12/31/83 3/30/84 4/22/84 8/31/83 BAY 15 BAY 15 BAY 15 BAY 15 BAY 15 BAY 15 BAY 15 BAY 15 BAY 15
~
BASKEi WE!GMT 1392 1513 - - 1513- 1535 1292 1376- 1343 1127 1292 !
1359 1339 1339 1418 1280 1225- 1196 1097 1387 ' j 1364 1385 1385 1310 1462 1237 1371 1367 1382 1 1487 1457 1457 1470 1474 '1436 1442 1245 1351 j 1435- 1424 1424 1482 1325 1280 1421 1040* 1497
. 1456 1550 1550 l1485 1504 1507 1225. 1143 1395 1227 1148 1325 1165 I
- 1376 1173- I 1411 1013 1389 1313 :
1286 1432 - ,.
1368 1252 1435 1344
-1416 1432 1429 1390 1444 1269 '
1457 1380 1261 1607 ]
1242 1290 1368 1423 1465 1432 1449 1328 1166 1393 1475 1514 1530 1514 i
AtfG WEIGHT 1415.50 1444.67 1444.67 1450.00 1389.50 1343.50 1366.04 1293.50 1334.00
$10. DEV. 52.0183 78.8281 78.8281 73.0999 101.1568 114.6835 97.0903 142.7550 67.0164 ,
- OF BA5KE1S 6 6 6 6 6 6 26
- 1. . 26 6 l Z SCORE 2.015 2.015 2.015 2.015 2.015 $2.015 1.708 1.70S 2.015-l 95% CCNF. WT. 1372.71 1379.82 1379.82 1385.75 1306.29 1249.16 1333.52 1245.68 1328.87 SUB. %/ DAY 0.00411 0.00186 0.01250 0.01733 1
I TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY SQNSQS2-0080 Rev. 2 . SHEET 3' 'OF 97 BEST ESTIMATE EVALUATION OF ICE PREPARED /DATEjJ~(f/3/69 CONDENSER BASKET WEIGHTS FOR- CHECKED /DATE va //rNs -
SEQUOYAH, UNIT 1,- CYCLE 4 SEQUOYAH A- UNIT 1 Table.3: Evaluation of' Historical At Power Sublimation Rates
.. Eased on Individual Bay Comparisons (continued) 9/19/81 1/25/82 1/25/82 9/13/82 12/16/82' 12/31/83 3/30/84- 4/22/84 8/31/88
BAY 16 BAY 16 BAY 16 BAY 16 BAY 16 BAY 16 BAY 16 BAY 16 BAY 16 ,
BASKET VElCNT 1490 1445- ' -- 4 445 1326' 1459 1450 1439 1334 1421 1426 1439 1439 1466 1492- 1511 1246 1255 1465 1414 1445 1445 1480 1321 1414 1260 1460 1411 1464 1505 1505 1J26 1518 1242 - 1343 1305 '1378 1460 1491 1491 1566 1306 1222 1530 1312 "1448 1494 1495 1495 1536 1543 1483 1252' 1133 1484
=1184 1390
'1392 1471 1457 1416 1442 , 1387 1497 1301, 1184 ,1339 1158 -1418' 1405 1457 -
1434 1451 1442' 1217.5 1452 1415 1490 1426 1385- 1392 1270 1090 1387 1368 1444 1400~
1502 1404 ']
1482 1402 1586 1399-1656 1441 l
AVG WEIGHf 1461.33 1470.00 1470.00 1450.00 1439.83- i 1387.00 1345.00 1336.46 1391.98- '
- STD. DEV. 34.3317 30.0067 30.0067 102.7229 101.8576 124.5311 117.2519 130.9770 22.7312 0 CF BASKEIS 6 6 6 6 6 1 6c. 6 26 26 ;
2 SCCRE 2.015 2.015 2.015 2.015 2.015 i.'2.015 2.015 1.708 1.708 95% CCNF. Wi. 1433.09 1445.32 1445.32 1365.50 1356.04 1284.56 1248.55- 1342.59 1364.25 '!
SUB. %/ CAY 0.00677 0.02391 0.01506 -0.01982 i
i e
TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY
.. SQNSQS2-0080 Rev. 2 SHEET 37 OF 97 BEST ESTIMATE EVALUATION OF ICE' PREPARED /DATE l T U3/M ,
CONDENSER BASKET WEIGHTS FOR . CHECKED /DATE 'M ur#9 SEQUOYAH, UNIT 1, CYCLE 4 SEQUOYAH d- UNIT 1 Table 3: Evaluation of Historical At Power Sublimation Rates
.-Based on Individual. Bay Comparisons (continued)'
?
9/19/81 1/25/82 1/25/82 9/13/82 12/16/82 12/31/83 3/30/84 4/22/84 8/31/88 C 8AY 17 BAY 17 BAY 17 BAY 17 BAY 17 BAY 17 BAY 17. BAY 17 BAY 17 . .I BA$KET WEIGHT .1306 1383 .1383 '1345 1225 1012 1349 1369 1362 1360 1435' 1435 1438 1406 1064 1342 1383 1360 f
i 1458 1367- 1367 ~1408 1367 1383 1340 1365 1288 .)
1448 1367' 1367 1408 1214~ ~1026' 1309 1271 1298 l 1414 1313 1313 1346 1503~ 1108- 1550 1239 1313 l 1494 1495 1495 1153 1396 1393 1348~ 1417 1458 l 1408 '1306 1383 998 1458 - 1164 1323 1387
, 1448 1126 ,., . 1357 - 1344
^
1380 1223 1184 1298 1321 1243 1330 i
- 1294 1454 1413 1310 1342.'
. 1417 1286 1420 ~ 1250' 1458 - 1281 1427 1374-1388 1234. 1433 1343 1448- 1199 1395 1217 1456 1313 1440 1388 1460 1413 1392 1381
, 1265 1438 1384 1370-1428 1137 1426 1289 1460 1167 1374 1363 1458 1433 - 1232 1385 1468 1396 1401 1393 i
, 1462 1113 1434 1309
, 1488 1133 1430 1264 1490 1328 1496 1383
{
, 1468 1382 1003 1 1027 AVG WE!CHT 1413.33 1393.33 1373.33 1412.04 1351.83 1242.73 1377.27* 1340.67 1325.04 51D. DEV. 69.3820. 63.2761 63.2761 75.6743 112.2950 142.0000 75.45S9 69.5749 85.5773 0 0F BASKET 5 6 6 6 '26 6 . e, . 30 :. . 26 6 26 Z*SCCRE 2.015 2.015 2.015 1.708 2.015 '$ 1.699 1.703 2.015 1.708 i 05% CCNF. ut. 1356.26 1341.23 1341.23 1386.69 1259.46 1198.fi9 1351.99 1233.43 1206.37 {
S08. %/ DAY 0.00876 0.01466 0.01379 0.01334 l
l l
l
~
__._..__m.___ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . - - - ---------U
TENMESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY
, SQNSQS2-0080 Rev. 2' SHEET 38 OF 't ?
BEST ESTIMATE EVALUATION OF ICE, PREPARED /DATE 17 U.3/ n CONDENSER BASKET WEIGHTS FOR CHECKED /DATE 'wa-#e/hh1 SEQUOYAH, UNIT 1, CYCLE 4 SEQUOYAH #- UNIT q
, ________________________________________________________________1 _
-. i.
Table 3:
Evaluation of Historical At Power Sublimation Rates
... Based on Individual Bay Comparisons (continued) 9/19/81 1/25/82 1/25/82 9/13/82 12/16/82 12/31/83 3/30/84 4/22/84 8/31/88 * ""
BAY 18 . BAY 18 BAY 18 BAY 18 BAY 18 BAY 18 BAY 18 BAY 18 BAY 18 BA2KET WE!GHf 1446 1367 _ ,1367 1261 1343 964 1345 1 332 1387*
13 66 1445, 1445 1359 1481 1091 1451 1387 1327 1487 1459 1459 1389 1414 -1473 1373 11,00 1259 1459 1359 1359 1355 1376 1112 1291- 1328 1262.
1480 1443 '1443 1406 1244 1323 ' 1441 1307- 1330 1330 1357 1357 1296 '1435
-9 1382 1380 '1519 1375 1192 1475 1252 1387 1338. 1288 1468
- 1376 1238 1264 1275 .1314 1318 " 1301 1473 1229 1191 1341 1191 1345' 1323 1428 1463 1224 1518 1229 1109 1306 1204 '3' 1343 1446 1781 1368 .1178 1122 1294.
1081 1249 1428 1370 1493 1038 1067 AtfG VEIGHT 1428.00 1405.00 1405.00 1344.33 1382.17 1260.97 1396.83 '1374.33 1314.04 510. CEV. 64.6808 43.6292 48.6292 55.5110 82.7464 158.0661 70.5079 76.8939 69.010; O OF BASKE1$ 6 6 6 6 6 ,
29 : , 6 6 26
! 0 5 CORE 2.015 2.015 2.015 2.015 2.015 $1.701 2.015 2.015 .1.70S j 95% CONF. W1 1374.79 1365.00 1365.00 1298.67 1314.10 1211.04 1338.83 1311.08 1290.92
~
SUB. %/ DAY 0.00565 0.02104 0.02241 0.00546
l TENT!ESSEE' VALLEY AUTHORITY
, SQNSQS2-0080 Rev.'2 .
SHEET 3*1 _OF - 4 'l BEST ESTIMATE EVALUATION OF ICE. ' PREPARED /DATEL7- #3/87 CONDENSER BASKET WEIGHTS FOR CHECKED /DATE 'u, td ur/ss SEQUOYAH, UNIT 1, CYCLE 4 SEQUOYAH A- UNIT 1 2 -----------------------------------------------------------------
Evaluation of Historical At Power Sublimation Rates Table3:
Based on Individual Bay Comparisons (continued) 9/19/81 1/25/82 1/25/82 9/13/82 12/16/82 12/31/83 3/30/84 4/22/84 8/31/88-
- GAY 19 BAY 19 BAY 19 BAY 19 BAY 19 ' BAY 19 BAY 19 - BAY 19 - BAY 19 BASKET b'ElGHT. 1447 1307 1307 1395 1229 1084 1501' 1476 1382 -
1414 1377 1377 1419 1386- 1046 1422 1453. 1464 1490 1521 1521 1380 1418 1145 1423 1404- -1302' 1474 1423 1423 1 1392 1482 1136 1521 1359 1388-1402 1523 1523. 1492 1433 1473 '1508, 1454 '1253 1402 -1501 1501 1489 1265 1360 1341 1487
! '1226
- '1240
, 1398..j 1468 i 1267 ,
l 1353 1453 -
1508 1312 1246
- 1373 1448 1271 1280 1333
.1403 1440 1204 1533 1503 1139 AVG bElcHf 1433.17 1442.00 1442.00 1427 83 1368.83 1320.07 1:52.67 1429.20 1379.33 STD. OEv. 38.0758 88.4240 83.4240 50.1734 99.9708 133.0752 63.7959 -7.2620- 40.3143 8 0F GASrE15 6 6 6 6 6
- 27f 6 5 6 Z' SCORE 2.015 2.015 2. 01', 2.015 2.015 )1.706 2.015 2.132' 2.015 95% CONF. wi. 1406.84 1369.26 1369.26 13S6.56 1236.60 1274.74 1315.25 1334.14 13:5.04 500. %/0Av 0.02120 0.0054/ 0.00263 0.00210
. TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY l , SQNSQS2-0080. Rev. 2 . SHEET 4o OF 97 i.
BEST ESTIMATE EVALUATION OF ICE PREPARED /DATEl7 t/3/Ff CONDENSER BASKET WEIGHTS FOR CHECKED /DATEua./ //f /s o SEQUOYAH, UNIT 1, CYCLE 4' SEQUOYAH 4- UNIT 1 Table 3: Evaluation of Historical At Power Sublimation Rates m.
Based on Individual' Bay Comparisons (continued) 9/19/81 1/25/82 1/25/82 9/13/82 12/16/82 12/31/83 3/30/84 4/22/84 8/31/88 '
BAY 20 BAY 20 BAY 20 BAY 20 BAY 20 BAY 20 BAY 20 BAY 20 SAY 20 8A5KET WE1GMT 1311 1357 ,, ,.1357 1271- 1250 1126 1550 1419 12$5 1442 1509 1509 1264 1500 1079 1550 1227 1294-1437 1437 1437 1412 1411 1094 1412 1382 1368 1467 1345 1345 1432 1288 1268 ~ 1521 1452 1377 1444 1525 1525 1238 1480 1399- 1281 1387' 1437 1506 1559 1559 1429 1558-
~
. 1147 1524 1403 1425-1158 1265
~
1468 1502 .
1238 12/3 ,
1383
~
~
1513 1203 4 1236
, 1283 1453 1118 1160 1373 1493 1033 1114 1443 1469 f
1516
)
1043 l
1131 j
. 'h I
AVG WEICHI 1434.50 1455.33 1455.33 1341.00 1414.50 1275.57 1473.00 1362.14 1359.33 STD. OEV. 65.6864 90.1769 90.1769 92.1978 122.6927 162.5909 107.0962 83.3555
- OF BA5KETS 71.9513 6 6 6 6 6 *
,, 28 ; . 6 7 b i 2 sc0Rt 2.015 2.015 2.015 2.015 2.015 % 1.703 2.015 1.943 2.015 95% CONF. wi. 1380.47 1381.15 1331.15 1265.15 1313.57 1223.24 1384.90 1300.93 13:3.14 i
SU8. %/ DAY 0.00039 0.03636 0.01965 0.01596 l
I i
i
.D
TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY SQNSQS2-0080 Rev. 2 I SHEET '+ l OF 'I 7 BEST ESTIMATE EVALUATION OF ICE CONDENSER BASKET WEIGHTS FOR PREPARED /DATEE7 U3/M f SEQUOYAH, UNIT 1, CYCLE 4 CHECKED /DATE'>--J t t&4i 4- UNIT 1
SEQUOYAH ------------------
. Table 3:
Evaluation Based of Historical on Individual At Power Sublimation Rates Bay Comparisons k (continued) {
9/19/81 1/25/82 1/25/82 9/13/82 12/16/82 12/31/83 BAY 21 BAY 21 3/30/84 4/22/84 8/31/88
- BAY 21 BAY 21 BAY 21 }
BASKET W11CHT BAY 21 BAY 21 BAY 21 1488 1471 1471 BAY 21 {
1388 1285 1026 1508 1541 1436 1225 1385 1541 1332 1441 1124 1446 1431 1513 1407 1432 1431 1285 1252 1080 1462 1318 1313 1313 1260 1450 1465 1470 1134 1466 1451 1270 1410 1316 1451 1467 1321 1482 1370 1521 1512 1512 1494 1500 1452 1477 1530 1364 1504 1355 1019 1165 1435 i
1548'.
989 4
1204 1328 -
1528 995 117/.
883 1009 1194 1421 13B3
- 876 1028 1418 959 1049 j
1302 1439 959 1052 i
AVG WEICHT !
1457.83 1453.17 1453.17 1398.17 1374.33 STD. DEv. 73.7249 1191.10 1402.50 79.5447 79.5447 1333.33 1406.33 0 0F BASKETS 76.6692 99.9273 211.0882 6 6 85.9855 116.9268 67.2151 6 6 6 Z SCCRE 2.015 2.015 , 30 6 6 2.015 2.015 2.015 6
95% CCNT. wt. 1397.19 1.699 2.015 2.015 1387.73 13S7.73 2.015 1335.10 1292.13 1125.62 1331.77 12S7.15 1351.04 SUB. %/ DAY 0.00537 0.01642 0.036B2 0.00832
TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY
. SQNSQS2-0080 Rev. 2 SHEET .12 OF 97 BEST ESTIMATE EVALUATION OF ICE, - PREPARED /DATE FT U3/F9 ;
CONDENSER BASKET WEIGHTS FOR CHECKED /DATE d t/rdr SEQUOYAH, UNIT 1, CYCLE 4 SEQUOYAH t-- UNIT 1 9
Table 3: Evaluation of Historical At Power Sublimation Rates
.. Based on Individual Bay Comparisons (continued) 9/19/81 1/25/82 1/25/82 9/13/82 12/16/82 12/31/83 - 3/30/84 4/22/84 8/31/88
- BAY 22 BAY 22 BAY 22 BAY 22 BAY 22 BAY 22 BAY 22 BAY 22 BAY 22 BAstET WEIGHT 1392 1341 ,1341 1409- 1319 976 1472 1306 1458 ~
'1528 1417 1417 1317 1592 ,1087 1394 1485 1555-1460 1541 1541 1357 1370 1224 1372 1483 1374 1402 1549 1549 1505 1439 1150 1533- 1346 1493
'1520 1446 1446 1463 1495 1483 1495 1499 1343 1532 1533 1533' 1465 1484 1515 1546 1445 4
1249
.. 1283
, 1358 g l
1544 1275 ,
1315 1393 1423 1518 1356 1345 1416 1361 1358
^
1458 1533 1245 1297 1513 1523 1263 1219 .I 1483 !
1403 -
1500-
- j 1286 J 114!.
AtfG LEICHT 1472.33 1471.17 1471.17 1419.33 1449.83 1348.36 1468.67 1423.30 1444.67 510. CEV. 64.0052 83.9867 83.9067 71.8266 96.9813 141.2316 71.7542 90.6019 77.4820 ;
- OF BA$KE15 6 6 6 6 6 .. 33 !. . 6 j 5 6 2 5 CORE 2.015 2. 015 2.015 2.015 2.015 i1.645 2.015 2.132 2.015 l 95% CCNF. Uf. 1419.68 1402.08 1402.08 1360.25 1370.05 1307.91 1409.64 1337.41 1330.93 l SUB. %/ DAY 0.00984 0.01292 0.01296 0.01348.
I i
I
. TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY
. . . SQNSQS2-0080 Rev. 2 SHEET 43 OF T7-
.BEST ESTIMATE EVALUATION OF ICE, PREPARED /DATEl7 U3/59 CONDENSER BASKET WEIGHTS FOR CHECKED /DATE %f ur/g9 SEQUOYAH, UNIT-1, CYCLE 4 SEQUOYAH 4- UNIT 1 Table 3: Evaluation of Historical At Power Sublimation Rates
._ Based on Individual Bay Comparisons (continued) 9/19/81 1/25/82 1/25/82 9/13/82 12/16/82 12/31/83 3/30/84. 4/22/84 8/31/88 -
BAY 23 BAY 23 BAY 23 BAY 23 BAY 23 ' BAY 23 . BAY 23 BAY 23 BAY 23
$ASKET WE]GHT 1496 1479 , ,1479 1262 1306 1110 1541 1464 1486 1348 1347. 1347 1459 1516 1074 1447 1311 1394 1488 1445 1445 1474 1472 1108 1410 1357 1339 1430 1449 1449 1350- 1456 1575 1547 1502 '1416 1470 1503 1503 1346 1326 1475- 1314 1398 1506 1412 1507 1507 1490 1531 1074 1414 1461 1418-1218 1231
-1295 1514 1448 .
1372
- 1286 1323
~
1407 ~
1486 1151 1218 1325 1355 1426 1204 1246
- 1513 1035 1131 1441 1523 1032 1011
~
i
-1 AVG WEIGHT 1440.67 1455.00 1455.00 1396.83 1434.50 1273.64 1445.50 1404.75 1426.50 STD. DEV." 56.0095 l 58.9644 58.9644 91.0569 96.0286 161.2698 88.2831 99.5501 61.2462 O OF BASKE15 6 6 6 6 6 -
28 .
}
6 8 6 -1 2 SCORE 2.015 2.015 2.015 2.015 2.015 21.703 2.015 1.395 2.015 952 CONT. Wi. 1394.59 1406.49 1406.49 1321.93 1355 50 l
1221.74 1372.88 1333.05 1376.12 !
SUB. %/ DAY 0.00677 0.02603 0.02819 0.00668 i
l l
'l l
1
___j
TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY SQNSQS2-0080 Rev. 2 SHEET 44 OF 'I 7 BEST' ESTIMATE EVALUATION OF ICE- PREPARED /DATEJ;r th/M CONDENSER BASKET WEIGHTS FOR CHECKED /DATE. 4 '4-4y SEQUOYAH, UNIT 1, CYCLE 4 SEQUOYAH L- UNIT 1 Table 3: Evaluation of. Historical At Power Sublimation Rates
_ Based on Individual Bay Comparisons (continued) 9/19/81 1/25/82 1/25/82 9/13/82 12/16/82 12/31/83 3/30/84 4/22/84 8/31/88 .
BAY 24 BAY 24 BAY 24 EAY 24 EAY 24 SAY 24 BAY 24 BAY 24 CAY 24 BASKET WEIGHT 1368 1297 1297 1496 1537 1114 1420 1374 1429, 1454 1343 1343 1536 1286 1275 1354 1217 1327 1496 1415 1415 1540 1287 1113 1241 1284 1429 1520 1375 1375 1176 1409 1189 1371 1012 1450 1476 1331 1331 1193 1371 1443 1456 1108 1319 1444 1243 1243 1382 1309 1457 1247 1023 1409
- 1480 1488 1137 1230 1554 1500 1510 1159 1365 1462 1390 1540 1393 1462 1326 1342 1382 1431 1190 1427 1450 1366 1115 1290 1465 1392 1476 1149 1405 1284 1468 1420 1235 138 1328 1380 1490 1348 1205 1404 1380 1374 1428 1350 1492 1372 1390 1135 1330 1495.
1226 1400 1216 1410 1sS1 1356 1312 1143 1230 1442 .
1396 1356 1255 1290 1503 1356 1273 1278 1305 746 1400 1321 1313 1215 1315 - .
1354 1225 1323 1305 1422 l 1252 1342 997 1280 1461 l 1340 1370 1092 1240 1350 1340 1348 1278 940 1377 12B4 1282 1290 930 1272 811
]
9 73 l 1848 1077 i 847 I
i AVG WEIGHT 1392.92 1334.00 1334.00 l 1384.15 1366.50 1198.77 1353.17 1249.54 1378.04 STD. DEV. 75.2175 59.9700 59.9700 104.6283 96.9572 161.6630 96.2111 1!.0.E901 150.9862
- OF BALKE15 26 6 6 26 6 31; 6 26 26 2 5CCRE 1.708
~
2.015 2.015 1.703 2.015 2.015 1.703
}1.645 1.708 95% CONT. Wi. 1367.73 1284.67 1234.67 1349.11 1286.74 1151.01 1274.02 1202.35 1327.46 .
I SUB. %/ cat 0.04c20 0.02171 0.03014 0.01431 l
P60 TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY
,. SQNSQS2-0080 Rev. 2 SHEET '+ 6 OF 4 '?
BEST ESTIMATE EVALUATION OF ICE PREPARED /DATEl-T usNf CONDENSER BASKET WEIGHTS FOR CHECKED /DATE W MS/s SEQUOYAH, UNIT 1, CYCLE'4 SEQUOYAH 4- UNIT 1 Table 4: Evaluation of Historical At Power Sublimation Rates
.. Based Group-Row Comparisons 9/19/E1 1/25/E2 1/25/82 9/13/82 12/16/82 12/31/83 3/30/84 4/22/85 8/31/B8 , 2-500RE GRI-R1 . f.R1-R1 + 4R1-R1 - GR1-R1' GRI-R1 GR1-R1 GR1 R1 GRl-R1 GR1-R1.
BA5KET bt!GHT 1255 1311 1311 1283 '1260 1197 1522 1333 1440 6.314 1231 1269 1269 - 1309 1323 1173. 1384 1334- 1476 2.92 1331 1267 1267 1197 1232 1010 1791 1338 1507.5 2.353 1518 1397 1397 1351 1293 '1110 1551 1231i 1527 2.132
. 1386 1297 1297 1225 1372 1176 1509 1417- 1374 2.015 1404 - 1410 1410' 1301 1406 1328 1298' 1185 1505- 1.943 1324 1256 1256 1067 "' 1364 1211 1463 1337 1137.5 1.895 1216 1144 1144 1039 1252 1176 1442 1422 1146 1.86 1034- 1357 1178 ~ 1.833 1275 1295 1328 $ 1.812.'
1405 1214 .; 1.796 1440 561 3.782 1372 1192 1.771 1205 850 1.761 1264 881 1.753 1279 1089 1.746 1063 1049 1.74 1076 932 1.734 993 ~% 1.729 1036 1.725 1.721 1.717 1.714.
1.711 1.703 1.706 1.703 1.701
, 1.i99 1.545
. ,iai ~-
l.545
. ~45 Av5 41GHT 1329.38 1233 e8 1293.4 i2?B.10 1292.11 1105.20 1432.!D 1125.50 1389.13 1.645 510. DEV 102.2964 e4 2233 84.2291 119.5087 104.2316 335.509B' 99.5633 60.6208 100.0171- 't.64!
- OF BA 3ITS 8 8 8 10 18 20 8 8 8 1 sai
?-i;04f 1.e35 1.c35 1.e95 1.833 1.74 1.729 1.d35 1.695 1.895 1 i4t.
35*. CO'J . VI . 1250.84 1237.44 1237.44 1138.83 1249.36 1052.81 13C5.79 1271.49 1281.92 1.E45
..E45 5LB. Y./::M D.01473 0 03450 0.04495 0.01817 1.545
TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY
.. 'SQNSQS2-0080 Rev. 2 . SHEET W OF 17 BEST: ESTIMATE EVALUATION OF ICE PREPARED /DATE J-7 m /r4 CONDENSER BASKET. WEIGHTS FOR CHECKED /DATE W v//.e SEQUOYAH, UNIT 1, CYCLE 4 SEQUOYAH /-- UNIT 1 Table 41 Evaluation.of Historical At Power Sublimation Rates Based Group-Row Comparisons (continued) 9/19/81- 1/25/82 1/25/82 9/13/82 12/16/82 12/31/83 3/30/84 4/22/85 8/31/88 g 1.9 GRI-R2 GRI-R2 GRI R2 .GRI-R2 GRI-R2 GRI-R2 - GR1-R2 GRI-R2 GR1-R2 1.@
BA5KET WE!GHT 1295 1104 1104 994 1278 815 1489 1355 1552 - 1.9 1341 1363 1363 1271 1311 1007 1380 1350 1514 1.6 1384 1399 1399 1266 1268 !!BS 1392 1210 1563 1.9 1478 1431 1431 1352 1397' 1214 1438 1457 1464 1.9 1380- 1391 1391 1159 1329 1120 1443 1425 1292 1.0 1474 .1423 1423 1250 1371 1043 1430 1296 1386 1.@
1844 1339 1339- 1336~ 1241 1103 1490 1208- 1311 1.%
1344 1271 1271 1164 '1290 1267 1229 _ 1374 1357 1.@
1300 1334' 1334 1335 1283 1243 1435 1367 1374 1.0 1344 1341 1341- 1149 1146; 1411 1471 1.@
1368 1242 1211 1353 1.@
1341 1349 '-
1.0 1184 1228 -
. 1.9
'1076 1.@
i 1412 1.3 1079 1.9
~1000 1.%
1048 1 . 62 1103 1 . 64 1029 1. 6d 1064 -[. 1,64 1103 1 . 64
'1121 1 . 66 1 . 66 l
i 1.@
1.%
1.6z
- 1. Ez 1 . 66 1 . 64
. 1. 6d AVG WilGHT 1377.45 1339.60 1339.60 1239.08- 1295.56 1129.96 1417.50 1338.00 1421.55 STD. MV. 63.5317 95.6117 95.6117 .100.5530 69.G529 127.9817 63.8144 86.1307 95.5064
- OF EA5rETS 11 10 10 13 9 . 23. 10 9 11 Z-500Rt 1.812 1.833 1.833 1.782 1.86 ~/1.717. 1.833 1.86 1.812 95% CONF. VI. 1342.74 1284.18 1284.18 1189.38 1250.37 '1084.14 1380.51 1284.00 1309.37 508. %/ DAY 0.03462 0.03196 0.03799 0.01828 l
' TENNESSEE VALLEY" AUTHORITY P69 -
_. , 'SQNSQS2-0080":Rev. 2 ,
' SHEETt7 _OF 97 L 'BEST ESTIMATE EVALUATION OF ICE- PREPARED /DATE LT M/s t L CONDENSER BASKET WEIGHTS FOR CHECKED /DATE L1 ude, SEQUOYAH, UNIT 1, CYCLEL4 ~SEQUOYAH/-- UNIT i
' Table 4:- Evaluation of Historical At Power Sublimation Rates-
~ ...Ba ed Group-Row Comparisons'(continued) l 9/19/81 1/25/82 1/25/82- 9/13/82 12/16/821 12/31/83- ' 3/30/84 4/22/85 ~8/31/88 GRI-R 4 '-
GRI-R4 GRI-R4 GR1-R4 GR1-R4 GR1-R4 GRI-R4 GR1 R4_ GRI-R4 8ASKET.WElGHT 1352 1259 1259 1191 '1340 1183 1190 1010 1299,'
1376 !331 1331 1308 .1391 1306 .1309 1352 1438
.1420 P55 1355 1428 1406 1351. 1328- 1374 1390 1448 6115 1415' 1418 1404 1326 1337 1021 1265-1383 1443 1443' 1396 1406 1319' 1359 1286 1259 1440 1439 1439 1376 1413 .1322 1297 1329. 1323 1408 1429-- 1429 1378- '1457 1330- 1407~ 1306 1206 1456 1436 1436 1402 1449 1425- 1305 1334 1421 1399 1435 1435 1438 1422 1336- 1253- 1317- 1255 1416 1397- 1397 1374 1396 -1373.1^ 1339 - 1261 1428 1390 1390 1431 - 1378 1314 1295 1475 1379 1379 1420 1363- 1340 1315 1464' 1461 1461~ .1442 1294- ,-1401 1461 1413 1413 1428 1299 1523 1452 1411 1411 1393 1352 1426 1452 1443 1443 1436 1383 1448 1470 1470 1436 '1393 1419 1419 1423 1348
- 386 1409 .
1342 4
AVG WElGHT 1428.12 1406.94 1406.94 1393.82 1408.40 1347.32 1309.44 1276.83 1338.47 STD. DEV. 34.8459 51.1209 51.1209 62.4272 32.2876 52.8001 61.9518 124.1391 89.2283
- CF BASKEis 17 18 18 17 10 22 9 1 12 15 2 SCORE 1.746 1.74 1.74 1.746 1.833 "1.721' 1.86 1.79G 1.761 95% CONF. WI. 1413.36 1385.98 1385.98 1367.39 1389.08 i327.94' 1271.03 '1212.47 1297.90 SUB. %/CAV 0.01538 0.00581 0.01269 0.01212
L TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY
.. SQNSQS2-0080 Rev. 2 SHEET 48 OF 47 BEST ESTIMATE EVALUATION OF ICE' PREPARED /DATEL7 U3/ef CONDENSER BASKET WEIGHTS FOR CHECKED /DATE W d.r/85 SEQUOYAH, UNIT 1, CYCLE 4 SEQUOYAH 4- UNIT 1.
Table 4: Evaluation of Historical At Power-Sublimation Rates
. Based Group-Row Comparisons (continued) l 9/19/81 1/25/82 1/25/82 9/13/82 12/16/82 12/31/83 3/30/84 4/22/85 8/31/88 '
GRI-R6 GR1-R6 GRI-R6 - GRI-R6 GR1-R6 GR1-R6 GR1-R6 GR1-R6 GR1-R6 EA5 KIT VEIGHT 1220 '1179 1179 1097 1441 1188 1191 1405' 1533-1296 1275 1275 1249 1463 1463 1284 1447 1314 1356 1287 1287 1335 1517 1408 1461 1441 1444 1432 1355 1355 1493 1485 1442 1399 1144 1432' 1500 1427 1427 1482 1437 1416 1420 '1249 13'8 8
1444 1504 1504 1496 1497 1360 1437 1349 1433 1457 1455 1455 1407 ~ 1476 1430 1451 1441 1449 1460 1489 1489 1420 1477 1412 1342 1386 1365. ;
1468 1485 1485 1456 1458 1430 1430 1401 1403 1480 1490 1490 1501 1478 1463 1413 1469 1385 1468 1482 ~1482 1488- 1432 1483 1397 1467 , 1509 1426 1437 1437 1484 1476 1414- 1505 1419 1459 1459 1492 1437 1409 1416 1496 1472 1472 1465 1456 1389 1403 1472 1419 1419 1475 1439 1399- 1391 1472 1457 1457 1471 1473 1425 1390 ,
1492 1466 1466 1479 1463 1420 1387 1468 1405 1405 1474 1508 1435 1397 1456 1485 1436 1471 1385 1448 1356 1448 13,17 '
1484 1456 1443 1396 1416 1496 1425 1423 1358 AVG VEIGHT 1437.73 1419.06 1419.06 1434.41 1469.18 1426.38 1390.45 1395.63 1412.52 STD. OEV. 67.5265 89.2086 89.2086 98.2095 26.2138 80.9004 80.4420
[62.8717~ 54.5322
- OF EASKETS 22 18 18 22 !! 24 11 19 21 !
Z-SCORE 1.721 1.74 1.74 1.721 1.812- 1.714 1.812 1.734 1.725 )
95% CONF. VI. 1412.95 1382.47 1382.47 1398.37 1454.86 1404.38 1346.26 1363.63 1392.00
$US, %/CAV 0.01712 -0,00340
-0.00498 0.00991
TENNESSEE VALLEY' AUTHORITY
, SQNSQS2-0080 Rev. 2 SHEET 49 _OF 9 'T BEST ESTIMATE EVALUATION OF ICE, PREPARED /DATEJ7 dh/ff
. CONDENSER BASKET WEIGHTS FOR' CHECKED /DATE u / vrNf SEQUOYAH, UNIT 1, CYCLE 4 SEQUOYAH(-- UNIT 1
~
Table'4: Evaluation of Historical At Power Sublimation Rates
, Based Group-Row Comparisons (continued) 9/19/81 1/25/82 1/25/82 9/13/82 12/16/82 12/31/83 3/30/84 4/22/85 8/31/88 GR1-R8 GRI-R8 GR1 R8 GRl-R8 GR1-R8 GR1-R8 GR1-R8 GR1-R8 GR1-R8 BA5KET VElGHT 1325 1131 !!31 1147 1399 1204 1111 1530 1487 1386 1255 1255 1407 1380 1383 1177 1469 1394 1429 1347 1347 1625 1440 1439 1417 1461 1561 1528 1469 1469 1519 1478 1279 1482 14'84 1483 1528 1490 1490 1529 1492 1528 1465- 1420 1543 1879- 1508- 1508 1468 1440 1512 1419 1264 -1467 1552 1466 1466 1382 -- 1501 1527 1433 1384 1446 1492 1412 1412 1446 1440 1543 1456 1148 1463 1479 1479 1465 1511 1537 ' 1394 1456 1519-1466 1466 1519 1488 1442 1548 1475 1475 1476 1448 1476 1456
~
1511 1511 1509 1436 151'3 1892 1492 1496 1406 1449-1506 1401
-1486 1463 1453 ,
I AUG WEIGHT 1464.88 1423.15 1423.15 1465.33 1453.44 1440.44 1372.67 1412.18 1486.65 STD. DEV. 78.8931 113.7459 113.7459 104.3392 45.5031 .'93.5015' 133.4101 112.4171 48.0969 l # Or EASKETS 8 13 13 15 9
^
16 9 11 13 Z-5 CORE 1.895 1.782 1.782 1.761 1.,86 1.753 1.86 1.812 1.782 95% CONF. WI. 1412.02 1366.94 136G.94 1417.89 1425.23 1399.46 1289.95 1351.31 1463.07
$UB. %/ DAY 0.02534 -0.01614 0.00517 -0.01252 I-
l
\
TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY l i
-SQNSQS2-0080- Rev. 2 SHEET co OF ' 4 'l BEST-ESTIMATE EVALUATION OF ICE PREPARED /DATE PT #3/M g
-CONDENSER BASKET WEIGHTS FOR CHECKED /DATE 'm4 udh SEQUOYAH, UNIT 1, CYCLE 4 SEQUOYAH /- UNIT'l' Table 4: Evaluation of Historical At Power Sublimation Rates
,, Based' Group-Row Comparisons-(continued) 4 9/19/81 1/25/82 1/25/82 9/13/82 12/16/82 12/31/83 3/30/84 4/22/85 8/31/88 l
GR1-R9 GR1-R9 GR1-R9 GRI R9' GRI-R9 GR1-R9 GR1+R9 GRI-R9 - GRI-R9 BASKET WEIGHT 1239 1261 1261 1270 1243 1149- 1150 1503 1240; '. j 1202 1380 -.1380 1423 _ 1219 1266 1389 1556 1446 1377 1487 1487 -1296 1559 1303 1291 1541 1538 '
1523 1543 1543 1563 1524 1073 1431' 1038- 1636 1604 1508 1508 1443 :1602 1580 1601 1117 1497 1434- 1473 1473 1403 1495 1418 1497 999- 1354
. 1569 1476 1476 1563 1452 1596 1367 1345 1512 1502 1387 1387 1401 1417 1551- 1515 1473 '1337 1536 ~ 1462 1527 1379- 1517 1444 1554..; 1344 1475 1476 .$
1342 ,
1540 1357 1364
. l
,I AVG WEIGHT 1431.25 1439.38 1439.38 1434.20 1441.44 1410.69 1402.22 1343.30' '1445.00 j 510. OEV. 148.6643 31.2406 91.2406 101.0927 131.9442 156.3678- 132.2798-215.9707 127.7799 I a 0F BA5KE15 8 8 8 10 9 16 9 10 8' Z-SCCRI 1.895' 1.895 1.895 1.833 1.86 . '.'cl . 7 53 1.86 1.833 1.895 l 95% C0f6. VI. 1331.65 1378.25 1378.25 1375.60 1359.64 1342.16 1320.21 1218.11' 1359.39
$UB. :/ DAY -0.02777 0.00083 0.00367 0.02035
'f TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY .
SQNSQS2-0080 Rev. 2 -
SHEET 5'l OF 47
-BEST. ESTIMATE EVALUATION OF ICE PREPARED /DATE /-7 ' (/>/gf {
CONDENSER BASKET WEIGHTS FOR CHECKED /DATE M 46//r SEQUOYAH, UNIT 1,' CYCLE 4 SEQUOYAH A- UNIT 1 Table '4: Evaluation of Historical At Power Sublimation Rates )
. Based Group-Row Comparisons-(continued)
'9/19/81 1/25/82 1/25/82 9/13/82 12/16/82 12/31/83 3/30/84 4/22/85 8/31/88 ,
"A2-R1 GR2-R1 GR2-R1 GR2-R1 GR2-R1 GR2-R1 GR2-R1 GR2-R1 GR2-R1 1 6ASKET WE!GHT 1419 1314 1314 1222 1359 1259 1195 1135 1203 1274 1357 " '1357 1236 1312' 1246 1223 1181 1408 1476 -1363 1363 1282 1383 1205 1257 1319 1525 .'
1433 1441 1441 1445 1295 1322 1230 1334 1226.5 1450 1425 1425 1390 1368 1191' 1312 1133 1533 1412 1437 1437 1464 1383 1260 1229 1184 1269 1359 1339 1339 1310 1325 1427 1337 1385 1292 1414 1445 1445 1326 1321 1332 1339 1163 1217.5 1280 1343 1103 1090- '
1450; 1261 929 1252 .972
. 1169 q 1127.. ' . ;
1146 949 j 1085 l 1079 1040 -
4 1148 1013 1349 .,
1355 1344 947 1062 999 i
~
AVG WEIGHT 1404.63 1290.13 1390.13 1334.38 1343.25 1297.20 1270.73 1140.38 1307.11 510. OEV. 62.6234 52.4471 52.4471 90.9064 34.1290 86.6420 52.9398 137.5840 151.1892
- OF BASKETS B 8 8 8 8 , 10 11 26 9
, Z-SCORE 1.895 1.895 1.895 1.895 1.895 1.835 1.812- 1.708 1.86 95% C0f#. WI. 1362.67 1354.99 1354.99 1273.47 1320.38 '1246.98 1241.80 '1094.30 1213,37
$UB. %/ DAY 0.00447 0.02604 0.01588 0.03126 l
- j
P60 TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY SQNSQS2-0080 .Rev. 2 SHEET f2. OF 97
- BEST ESTIMATE EVALUATION.OF ICE PREPARED /DATE 17 u Vs ?-
CONDENSER BASKET WEIGHTS FOR CHECKED /DATE ~~# 'urus
' SEQUOYAH, UNIT 1, CYCLE 4 SEQUOYAH -- UNIT 1 6.
Table' 4:. Evaluation'of Historical At Power Sublimation' Rates
. Based Group-Row Comparisons (continued) 9/19/81 1/25/82 1/25/82 9/13/82 12/16/82 12/31/83 3/30/84 4/22/85. 8/31/88- .,7 GR2 R2 GR2-R2 GR2-R2 GR2-R2 GR2-R2 GR2-R2. GR2-R2 GR2-R2. GR2-R2 BASKET WIIGHT 1288 1402 1407 1290 1246 1254 1232 1128- 1253 1278 1435 - *~1435 1284 1344 '1258 1246 1165. 1014-1502 1494 1494 1488 1496 1376 1250: 1145- 1300 1414 1467 1467 1468 1436 1281 1247 1370, 1225 1389 1451 1451 1355. 1305 1222 1292 1250 1370 1410 1415 1415 1404 1348 1233 1346 1465 1317 1392 1424 '1424 1485 1280 1355 1239-' 1255 1614' 1460 1439- 1439 1326 1306 1284 1249 1305 1387 1225'- 1286 1312 1387-1242j 1196 1184 1227- 1158
, 1242 1266 8 1166 1270 ,
1246 1225 1125-1270 1097 1118 -
1097 1504 120? .',
1217 1369 i 1143 4
'1165 1173 1326 1212 1275 1222 .
1172 1077 1201 1171 1310 AUG WElGHT 1391.63 1441.50 1441.50 1387 50 1345.13 1273.00 1247,43 1217.26 1335.73 510. DEV. 76.b597 25.6456 28.6456 85.7038 B3.0137 .53.3021' 42.2770 84.9264 156.3120
- OF BA5KETS 8 6 8 8 8 10 14 35 9 Z SCORE 1.895 1.895 1.895 1.895 1.895' 1.833 1.771 1 645 1.86 95% COW. VI. 1340.13 1422.31 1422.31 1330.08 1289.51 1242.10 1227.42 1193.64 1238.86
$UB. 7./ CAT -0.04867 0.02807 0.01050 0.00724 e
i
r ,1 j
TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY l- .
SQNSQS2-0080 Rev.'2 SHEET' D _OF 'l 7
'BEST ESTIMATE EVALUATION OF-ICE PREPARED /DATE t-7 (N 81 1
CONDENSER' BASKET WEIGHTS.FOR CHECKED /DATE 42.g ur-/pr SEQUOYAH, UNIT 1, CYCLE 4' SEQUOYAH 4- UNIT 1-Table 4:- Evaluation of Historical At' Power Sublimation Rates Based Gro'1p-Row Comparisons (continued) 9/19/81 1/25/82' 1/25/82 9/13/82 12/16/82 12/31/83 3/30/84 4/22/85 8/31/88 ,
GR2-R4 GR2-R4 GR2-R 4 GR2-R4 GR2-R4 'GR2-R4 GR2-R4 GR2-R4 GR2-R4 BASKET WE!GHT 1448 1477 1477 1311 1461 1410 1386 1389 1476 1392 1417 1417 1344 1447 1406 1352 1320- 1481 1506 1440 1440 1455 1492 1373 1392 1373 1479 1404 1459 1459 1445 1492 1376 1255 1270 1229 1 1431 1461 1461 1426 1456 1458 1398 1342 1229 1470 1497 1497 1470 1420 1375. .1323 1586 1278 1435 1457 1457 1418- ', 1421 1378 1301 1313 1288 1484 1445 1445 1466 -1462- 138& '. 1375 1363, 12801 1383' 1325 -1325- 1284 1447 1368 1339 1363 1405 1369 1415 --1322 1436 1343 1311 1323 1376 1352 1346 1414 1332 1312 1355 1298 1328 1382 1422 1301 J
AVG VEIGHT 1446.25 1456.03 1456.63 1416.88 1456.38 ,1401.79 1348.92 1360.88 1333.59 510. CEV. 39.0046 24.0591 24.0591 58.6574 27.3962 !28.5608' 42.0961 69.4387 79.8186
.j
- OT BA5KETS 8 8 8 8 8 14 '12 17 17 1.895
)
2-SCORE 1.895 1.695 1.895 1.895' 1.771 1.796 1.746 1.746 i 95% CONF. VI. 1420.12 1440.51 1440.51 1377.58 1438.02 1388.27 1327.09 1331.48 1299.79
$UB. %/ CAY -0.01139 0.01891 0.00989 -0.00087 3
I l
l
' TENNESSEE VALLEY-AUTHORITY
_ SQNSQS2-0080 Rev. 2 .
SHEET f4 OF 97 BEST . ESTIMATE EVALUATION OF . ICE PREPARED /DATE 1.7' U3M f CONDENSER BASKET WEIGHTS FOR. CHECKED /DATE s,-4 44%
SEQUOYAH, UNIT 1, CYCLE 4 SEQUOYAH.4- UNIT 1-
~~-
Table 4: Evaluation of-Historical At Power Sublimation Rates
~ ~. Based Group-Row Comparisons (continued) 9/19/81 1/25/82 1/25/82 9/13/82 12/16/82 12/31/83 3/30/84 4/22/85 8/31/88 GR2-R6 'GR2-R6 GR2-R 6 - GR2-R6 GR2-R6 GR2-R6 'GR2-Rb GR2-R6 GR2-R6 BA5KET VEIGHT 1480 1499 1499 1403 1503 1435- 1366 1372 1396-1464 '1506 1506 1379 1481 1460 1426' 1484 1384 1470 1511 1511 1505' 1499 '1453 1436' 1505 . 1370 1500 1863 1463 1444 1523 1486. 1460, 15'29 1393
+ 1488 1513. 1513 1180 1530 1493 1396 1445 1398 1520- 1520 1520 1505 1505^ 1488 1460 1389 1418 1484 1513 1513 1470 1474 1470 1455 1514 1430 1526 1505 1505 1480 1518 1422 1457 1392 1438 l 1479 1473 1404 1434 1467 1485 1501 1411 1402 1428
~
1488 1491 1435 1526 f1428 1456 1486 1444 1386 1449 1490 1436 1465 1420 1469 1511 1439' " 1382 1462 1444 1462 1492 1445 1656 1437 1432 1395 1470 1465 ,
1452 1448 l 1377 1471 1474. 1418 1413 1457 1469 1415 l 1457 1400 !
1462 1399 ,
1462 l 1464 J390 i 1432 1497 1472 AVG.WE!GHT 1486.92 1503.75 1503.75 1458.25 1504.13 1472.93 1429.93 1455.00 1426.77 STD. DEV. 19,7799 17,6372 17.6372 46.2779 19.5991 .55'0091" 28.2256 57.1647 30.7094
^
- Of BASKET 5 13 8 8 8 8 !
14 14 32 26 Z SCORE 1.782 1.895 1.895 1.895 1.895 1.771 1.771 1.645 1.708 95% CCNF. WT. 1477.15 1491.93 1491.93 1427 24 1490.99 1461.09 1416.57 1438.38 1416.48 SUB. %/0AY -0.00794 0.01877 0.00573 -0.00405
___ _______ _ _ _ __m_____ _______m__m_______ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ . _ _ _ . __1.____-_____m. _ _ _ _ _ . . _ _ _
r_-__-_. . _ - - _ - .
TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY
... SQNSQS2-0080 Rev. 2 SHEET ff OF-97'
' BEST ESTIMATE ' EVALUATION- OF ICE, PREPARED /DATE k7" 4/3/89 CONDENSER BASKET WEIGHTS FOR ' CHECKED /DATE u.-4 e 4-/n '
SEQUOYAH, UNIT 1,-CYCLE 4 SEQUOYAH J- UNIT 1 Table 4: Evaluation of Historical At-Power Sublimation Rates
.. Based Group-Row Comparisons (continued) 9/19/81 1/25/82' 1/25/82 9/13/82 12/16/82 12/31/83. 3/30/84 -4/22/85 8/31/88 GR2-R8 GR2-R8 GR2-R8.- GR2 R8 'GR2-R8 GR2-R8 GR2-R8 GR2-R8 GR2-R8 BA5KET WElGHT 1500 1550 1550 1428 1368 1520 1390 1536 1423 1528 1548 1548 1508 1491 1507' 1457 1536 1666
-1520 1525 1525 1491 1459 ' 1457 1473 1497 1532 1540 1545 1545 1444 1376 1510' 1411 1452 1480 1490 1539 1539 1525 1469 1476 1428- 1515- 1435 1496 1455 1455 1450 1409- 1445- 1475 1501 1455 1503 1550 1550 1535 ~ 1504 1462 1448 1482 1469-
+ -
1479 1495 1495 1566 1459 1427 ; 1421 1562. 1477 1416 1479 1389 1367 1497 1487 1507' '1449 1436. 1392-1494 1222 1530 1393' ,
1517 1487
'1570 AVG VEIGHT 1495.73 1525.88 1525.88 1493.38 1441.68 1455.64 1442.82 1489.36 1482.60 .;
STO. DEV. 32.2648 34.1611 34.1611 49.0188 51.3710 .83.0039" 41.4821 59.6820 75.4942
- OF BASKETS 11 8 8 8 8 11 11 14 ' '10
'2 SCCRE 1.812 1.895 1.895 1.895 1.895- 1.812 1.812 1.771 1.833 ,
95% C0fd. VT. 1478.10 1502.99 1502.99 1460.53 1407.46 1410.29 1420.15 1461.11 1438.84 l 508, 7./0Av -0.01336 0.01223 -0.00057 -0.00759 i
J
.m .
TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY
.. SQNSQS2-0080 Rev. 2 SHEET (4 OF 97 BEST ESTIMATE EVALUATION OF ICE. PREPARED /DATE L T WVFf ,,
CONDENSER BASKET WEIGHTS FOR CHECKED /DATE l.>-# 4&/s S SEQUOYAH, UNIT 1, CYCLE 4 SEQUOYAH '-- UNIT 1-Table 4:- Evaluation of Historical At Power Sublimation Rates
~ .. Based Group-Row Comparisons (continued) 9/19/81 1/25/82 1/25/82- 9/13/82 12/16/82 '12/31/83 3/30/84 4/22/85 8/31/88 GR2-R9 GR2-R9 GR2-R9- - GR2-R9 GR2-R9 GR2-R9 GR2-R9 GR2-R9 GR2-R9 BA5KET VE!GHT 1544 1614 1614 1402 1428 1387 1388 1416 1499 1220 1578 1578 1529 1570 1604 1592 1382 1402
.1466 1557- 1557 1483 1449 1432 1550 1559 1358 1361 1375 1375 1449 1350 1512 1563 1490 1336
. 1408 1467 1467 1495 1443 1351 1335 1245 1428-1306 1301 -1301 1445 1271 1310 1428 1254.. 1129 1364 1385 1385- 1482 ~1292 1439 1243 1275 1351 1426 1491 1491 1536 1543 1262 1225 1332 1402 3
1195 1286 1577-1237 1260 <
1483 ,
i J
AVG WElGHT 1386.88 1471.00 1471.00 1477.63 1418.25 1382.91 1387.00 1392.11 1363.13 51D. DIV. 98.9277 110.3384 110.3384 44.7212 108.5775
~'
125.9718 140.3432 127.6170 107.8470 r Dr BA5KEis 8 8 8 8 8 11 10 9 8 l SCCRE 1.835 1.895 1.895 11895 1.895 1.812 1.833 1.86 1.895 95% CONr. WT. 1320.60 1397.08 1337.08 1447.66 1345.50 1314.09 1305.65 1312.99 1290.87 5118. /CAV -0.04596 -0.01568 0.00667 -0.00148 i
I
~
1
- i
T2NNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY SQNSQS2-00PG Rev. 2 SHEET S1- OF 11 BEST -ESTIMATE EVAIDATION OF ICE PREPARED /DATE l-7 U3/41 CONDENSER BASKEP WEIGHTS FOR CHECKED /DATEi>J 44/ir SEQUOYAH, UNIT 1, CYCLE 4 .SEQUOYAH /- UNIT 1.
Table 4: Evaluation of Historical At Power Subl'imation Rates
- . Based Group-Row Comparisons ~(continued) 9/19/81 1/25/82 1/25/82 9/13/82 12/16/82 12/31/83 3/30/84 4/22/85 8/31/88 GR3-R1 GR3-R1 GR3-R1 GR3-R1 GR3-R1 GR3-R1 GR3-R1 GR3-R1- GR3-R1 '
l BASKET 1/EIGHT 1306 1313 1313 1153 1225 1012 1440 1369 1288-1366 1359 1359 1261 1244 1026 1345 -1332 1289-1402 1307 1307 1380 1229 1126 1501 1387 1264 1311 1357 1357 1238 1288' 1286 '1550 1403 1252
. 1318 1313 1313 1332 1252 1234 .1462 1260 1341 1402 1341 1341- 1317 1370 1137 1472 1231 1306 1348 1347 1347 - 1262 ~ 1306 1113 1547 1012 1382
. 1368 1297 1297 1176 1286 1003 - 1371 1346 1437 964 1385 1100 1374 1192 , 148,6 1109 1404 1122 746 1038 1084 1145 1226 1271 1079 1147 '
1118 1033 1043 1026 1080 1019 989 995
~
883 876 959 959 976 1224
,k 1249"'
1275 1356 1416 1245 l 1263
TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY SQNSQS2-0080 'Rev. 2 SHEET s2 OF 47 BEST" ESTIMATE EVALUATION OF ICE PREPARED /DATE i-7 UJ/ 5'/
CONDENSER BASKET WEIGHTS FOR. CHECKED /DATE 4-/ 4/r/tv SEQUOYAH, UNIT 1, CYCLE 4 SEQUOYAH 4- UNIT 1 Table 4: Evaluation'of Historical At Power-Sublimation Rates..
.. .._. Based Group-Row Comparisons (continued)
. \
1286 1074 .
1074
.. 1204 1035 1032 1113 1137
, 1115 997 811
.y AVG WEIGHT 1352.63 1329.25 1329.25 1264.88 1275.00 1103.45 1461.00 1292.50 1304.92 5T0. DEV. 38.5781 24.4116 24.4116 77.1241 48.3765 125.4708 74.6764 128,1372 181.4132
~ ~ '
i OF BASKEf 5 8 8 8 8- 8 51 . 8 8 13 Z-5 CORE -1.895 1.895 1.895 1.895 1.895 1.645 1.895 1.895 1.782 95% CONF. WT. 1326.78 1312.89 1312.89 1213.20 1242.59 1074.55 1410.97 1206.65 1215.26 5U8. %/0AY 0.00830 0.03287 0.03864- 0.03811 l
1 i
i I
I l
1 I
n i
to
y TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY y SQNSQS2-0080' Rev. 2 SHEET 51 SF O (
BEST ESTIMATE' EVALUATION OF ICE' PREPARED /DATE l 7 6/3/Ji
- CONDENSER-BASKET WEIGHTS FOR - CHECKED /DATE i>d eM/89 -
SEQUOYAH, UNIT 1, CYCLE 4 ~SEQUOYAH f- UNIT 1 Table 4: EvaluatLt of Historical At Power Sublimation Rates
- '.. Based Group-Row Comparisons.(continued) 9/19/81 1/25/82 1/25/82 .9/13/82 12/16/82 12/31/83 ~ 3/30/84 4/22/85 8/31/88 GR3-R2 . GR3-R2 GR3-R2 GR3 R2 GR3-R2.. GR3-R2- GR3-R2 GR3-R2 GR3-R2:
BA5KET VEIGHT 1360 1373 1373- 1265 1214- 1064 1550 1419 1388 1464- 1327 i 1446 1367 1367' 1296 1343 1108 L1451 1414 1377 1377 1392 1265 11223 1521' 1374 1330 1 1442 :1345 1345- 1271 1250 1281 1550. If83 ~1387 /
. 1446 1431 1431 1285- 1285 1199 1370 1387 1314 .;
. 1392 1417 1417 1357- 1319 1167 1533 1476 1345 !
I 1430 1445 1445- 1350 - 1326 1133 '1541 1410- 1294 1226 1343 1343 - 1193 1287 1097 1486 1499 1464.
,1091 ' 1255 1112 1355 1252 1445 1275 1416 1191 1315 }
1191 ,
1204 -
1081 1067' 1046 1136 ,,
1240 _l 1
_1267 1312 1246 1280 1204 1139 1126 1094 1 1158 1238 l, 1203 1236
)
1160 1114 l
Ie 1131'
- 1124 1134 1165 j 1204 1174
TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY.
SQNSQS2-0080- Rev. 2 SHEET SO OF 91 BEST ESTIMATE EVALUATION OF ICE: PREPARED /DATEJ'T (/3/sf CONDENSER BASKET, WEIGHTS FOR CHECKED /DATEes,V udsf SEQUOYAH, UNIT ~1, CYCLE 4 SEQUOYAH J- UNIT 1
' Table'4: Evaluation of Historical At Power SubliInation Ra'tes Based Group-Row Comparisons (continued) 1009 1028 1049-
~
. . - 1052 1087 1150 1283 1315 1345 1361 1297 1219 J. 1144 1110
, 1108
~ '
1218 ,
1286 1151 1218 1246 j 1131 1011 1114 -
1189 .
1159
'1149 1135 1143 1092
, 973 j 1
847 l.
AVG VEIGH1 1394.50 1387.25 1387.25 1301.13 1286.13 1161.77 1500.25 1426.50 1356.54 STD, DEV. 74.4408 38.9056 38.9056 63.1991 42.8634 92.1871 62.9143 47.2833 60.7553
- 0F BASKlT5 8 8 8 8 8 71 8 8 13 ;
Z SCORE 1.895 1.895 1.895 1.895 1.895 1.045 1.895 1.895 1.782 I 95% CONF. VI. 1344.63 1361.18 1361,18 1258.78 1257.41 ,1143.78 1458.10 1394.82 1326.51 SUB. %/ DAY -0.00977 0.03257 0.02582 0.01142
==
)
~ TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY SQNSQS2-0080 Rev. 2 SHEET 61 OF 97 BEST ESTIHATE EVALUATION OF ICE PREPARED /DATEl7 d'h/ sq CONDENSER BASKET WEIGHTS FOR CHECKED /DATE W 4/r/sr
-SEQUOYAH, UNIT.1, CYCLE 4 SEQUOYAH 4 UNIT 1
. Table'4: Evaluation of. Historical At Power-Sublimation Rates Based Group-Row Comparisons'(continued) I
~
9/19/81 1/25/82 1/25/82 9/13/82 12/16/82 12/31/83 3/30/84 4/22/85 8/31/88 GR3-R4 GR3-R4 GR3-R.4 GR3-R4 GR3-R4 GR3-R4 GR3-R4 GR3-R4 GR3-R4 -
BA5KET VElGHT- 1448 1383 1383 1345 1406 1328 1310 1227, 1387-1487 1445 1445 1408 1414 1338 1380 1225 1286 1447 1423 1423 1388 1386 1373 1341 1306 1304 1437 1437 1437 1428 1411 1268 1281 1311 1428
- , 1488 1471 1471 1359 1441 1302 1270 1217 1249' 1460 1446 1446 1395 1439 1358 1372 1290, 1253-1412 1449 1449 1264 -
1456- 1323 1414 1239 1377
- 1342 1415 1415 1388 1409 1278 1241' 1307 1316
.: 1409 1359 1343 1346 1394 1366 1429
~
1319 1492 J
i 9
AVG VEIGH1 1440.13 1433.63 1433.63 1372.36 1420.25 1321.00 1326.13 1275.67 1352.23 ,
l STD. DIV. 46.9390 26.5918 26.5918 44.8492 22.9518 36.7112-- 60.5249 50.0275 73.1405 l
- OF BA5KE15 8 8 8 11 8 8 8 9- 13 I 2 5 CORE 1.895 1.695 1.895 1.812 1.895 1.695 1.895 1.86 1.782 95% CONF. VI. 1408.68 1415.81 1415.81 1347.86 1404.87 1296.40 1285.57 1244.65 1316.08 508. %/ CAY -0.00402 0.02078 0.02206 0.00838 l
i 9
m___________._______- _ _ _ _ _ . - _ _.__ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ , . _ _ _ , _ - _ _ _ - . - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ._ _ m . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ . . - _ , _ _ _ _ _ , _ _ _ _ _ _ . . _ . _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ . - _ _ _ .
TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY SQNSQS2-0080 Rev. 2 SHEET 62~ GF 47 BEST ESTIMATE EVALUATION OF ICE . PREPARED /DATEl-7 dh/F f CONDENSER BASKET WEIGHTS FOR CHECKED /DATE ed.,/Fr/s, SEQUOYAH, UNIT 1, CYCLE 4 S E Q U O Y A H /- - U N I T 1 Table 4: Evaluation of Historical At Power Sublimation Rates Based Group-Row Comparisons (continued) 9/19/81 1/25/82' 1/25/82 9/13/82 12/16/82 12/31/83 3/30/84 4/22/85 8/31/88 GR3-R6 GR3-R6 GR3-R6 GR3 R6 GR3-R6- GR3-R6 GR3-R6 GR3-R6 GR3-R6 ~
8ASKET VEIGHT 1494 1495 1495 '1408 1503 1413 1342 1382 1362 1459 1443 1443 1448 1481 1433 1383 1407 1298 1490 1523 1523 1417- 1482 1468 1427- 1485 1344 1506 1509 1509 1456 1480 1468 1384 1357 1374
, 1466 1451 1451 1458 1477 1473 1434- -1284 1381 1520 1533 1533- 1488 1592 1428- 1441- 1405 1385 1488 1479 1479 1406 - 1516 1473 1422 1330 1383
. 1496 1375 1375. 1492 1537 1453 1412 1305 1387 1480 a. 1412 1448 1364 1417 1375 1392 1465 1468 1394 1519 1376 1380 1463 1453 1447 1396 1454 ~ .1343
^
1459 1443 1247 13}D '
1252 1536 1482 1388 1510 1528 -1368 1420 1418 1432 1273 1483 1458 1370 1513 '1418 1282 1483 1409 1448 1326 s {
^'
1407 1264 1441 1495 1443 1422 i 1348 1313 4 AVG VEIGHT 1447.62 1476.00 1476.00 1431.28 1508.50 1447.00 1391.42 1395.00 1380.82 STD. DEV. 14.5425 51.8680 51.8680 69.2649 39.8820 '46.3737 * $5.7333 73.4466 47.9887
- OF BA5Klis 13 8 8 18 8 24 12 11 22 1 Z-SCORE 1.782 1.895 1.895 1.74 1.895 1.714 1.796 1.812 1.721 95% CorJ. WT. 1410.77 1441.25 1441.25 1402.87 1481.78 1430.78 1362.52 1354.87 1363.21 i 5U8. %/0M -0.01714 0.01153 0.00983 0.00148
- TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY
,. SONSQS2-0080 Rev. 2 SHEET s3 OF 17 BEST ESTIMATE EVALUATION OF ICE PREPARED /DATEl-T 4/3/a9 CONDENSER BASKET WEIGHTS FOR CHECKED /DATE u.-s 4h/s ,
SEQUOYAH, UNIT 1, CYCLE 4 SEQUOYAH 4- UNIT 1 Table 4: Evaluation of Historical At Power Sublimation Rates Based Group-Row Comparisons (continued) 9/19/81 1/25/82 1/25/82 9/13/82 12/16/82 12/31/83 3/30/84 4/22/85 8/31/88 GR3-R8 GR3-R8 GR3-R8 GR3-R8 GR3-R8 GR3-R8 GR3-R8 GR3-RB GR3-R8 BASKET VEIGHT 1458 1435 1435 1346 1367 1306 1309 1452 1458 1480 1459 1459 1389 1435 1396 1357 1502 1294 1474 1521 1521 1489 1418 1382 1395 1365 1250 1467 1525 1525 1429 1500 1446 1374 1483 1217
- 1521 1512 1512 1467 1470 1468 1496 1373 1309 1528 1541 1541 14b? 1495 1440 1473 1453 1264 1470 1507 1501 1465 - 1531 1502 1508 1494 1229 1390 1331 1331 1474 1371 1469 1521 1108 1224 1400 -
1321 1439 1436 1281 1340 1515 1495 1487 1544 1410 ,
1425 1403 1354 1450 1475 1555 1513 1506 1431 1462 1290 1465 1442 ,
1461 l 1272 ',
l l
l l
AVG WE!GHT 1452.80 1478.88 1478.28 1425.78 1448.38 1438.E9 1427.33 1403.75 1371.11 510. DEV. 59.1379 69.5258 69.5258 60.1597 60.7617 fl.0302" 70.8729 130.2456 113.4739 8 0F EA5KETS 10 8 8 9 8 16 12 8 19 Z-SCORE 1.833 1.895 1.895 1.86 1.895 1.753 1.796 1.895 1.734 95% CCNF. VI. 1418.52 1432.29 1432.29 1388.48 1407.67 - 1407.56 1390.59 1316.49 1325.96 5UB. %/ DAY -0.00771 0.01324 0.00002 0.01402 4
. TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY P60 SQNSQS2-0080 Rev. 2 - SHEET 44 OF 44 BEST ESTIMATE EVALUATION.0F ICE PREPARED /DATE J-7 U3/3 7 CONDENSER BASKET WEIGHTS FOR CHECKED /DATE u-4 ur/ey SEQUOYAH, UNIT 1, CYCLE 4 SEQUOYAH L- UNIT 1 Table 4: Evaluation of. Historical At Power Sublimation Rate's'-
Based Group-Row Comparisons (continued) 9/19/81 1/25/82 1/25/82 '9/13/82 12/16/82 12/31/83 3/30/84 ,4/22/85 8/31/88 ,,
GR3-R9 GR3-R9 GR3-R9 GR3-R9 GR3-R9 GR3-R9 GR3-R9 GR3-R9 GR3-R9 BASKET WElGHT 1414 1367 1367 1321 1396 1164 1184 1271 998, 1330 1357 ~~'1357 1355 1376. 1382 1291 - 1398 1259 1402 1501- 1501 1419 1433 1238 1423 1328 1475 1444 1559 1559 1432 1558 1368 1524 1404 1229 l 1508= 1541 1541 1505 1321 1360 1513 1365 1178 1532 1549 1549 1490 1484 1503 1546 1504 1302 1496 1503 1503 1225 1472 1399- 1314 1461' 1294 1476 1243 1243 1309 1516' 1420 1514 1500 1530 1023 1493 1500 1339 Si 1372' 1450 1523 1503 1457 , 1350 1077 I I
i
?.
4 1
l l
4 AVG VE!GHT 1450.25 1452.50 1452.50 1392.43 1418.63 1384.93 1401.88 1352.00 1336.15 STO. DEV. - 66.4568 115.7028 115.7028 99.1629 85.0478 140.3745 128.8936 153.7026 150.4055
- OF BA5KETS 8 8 8 7 .8 , 14 8 9 13.
2 5 CORE 1.835 1.895 1.895 1.943 1.895 #
,', 1. 7 71" 1.895 1.86 1.782 95% CCf6. VI. 1405.73 1374.98 1374.98 1319.60 13E1.64 1318.49 1315.52 1256.70 1261.82 !
SUB. %/ DAY 0.01736 0.01743 0.00906 0.01177 l l
O me
l TENNESSEE. VALLEY AdTHORITY-SQNSQS2-0080 Rev. 2 . SHEET 4S OF- 9 7 ~
BEST ESTIMATE EVALUATION OF ICE PREPARED /DATE A7 u3/.9f CONDENSER BASKET WEIGHTS FOR CHECKED /DATE b.-/ 6/vf SEQUOYAH, UNIT 1, CYCLE 4 SEQUOYAH J- UNIT 1 Table 5: Evaluation of Historical Nonpower Sublimation Rate's Based on Bay and Group-Row Comparisons a
.i NONPOWER OPERATION SUBL. RATES BAY SAY ANALYSIS GRP ROW ANALYSIS 9/7/85 6/15/88 9/7/85 6/15/88 BAT 1 BAY 1 GR1 ROW 1 GR1 ROW 1 Z-SCORE 1328.0 575.0 1340.0 5 75.0 6.314-1329.0 1087.0 1285.0 1079.0 2.92
, 1340.0 1253.5 1338.0 1242.0 2.353 1265.0 1272.0 1367.0 1392.0 2.132 1308.0 1241.0 1265.0 1245.0 '2.015
. 1380.0 1269.0 1271.0 1352.0 1.943 1259.0 g. 1161.0 1221.0 1.895 '
1245.0 1350.0 780.0 1.86 ,
~
1250.0 1418.0 1.833
~
1077.0 1479.0 1.812 l 1146.0 1.796 1196.0 1.782 '
1193.0 1.771 1197.0 1.761 1217.0 1.753 1235.0 1.746 1297.0 1.74' .
1318.0 1.734 .
1254.0 1.729 1261.0 1.725 1350.5 1.721 1315.0 1.717-1304.0 1.714 1339.0 1.711 i 1337.0 1.708 1346.0 1.706 1.703 -
AtfG WEICHT 1325.0 1224.4 1327.4 1110.8 1.701 STD. DEV. 37.852 150.483 D8.256 288.380 1.699 j W OF BASKETS 6.0 26.0 10.0 8.0 1.645 Z SCORE l 2.015 1.708 1.833 1.895 1.645 95% CONF. W1 )
1293.9 1174.0 1276.2 917.5- 1.645 -i 1
y 1.645 SUB. %/0AY 0.00890 0.02700 1.645 7
i e
TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY
, SQNSQS2-0080 Rev. 2 SHEET 64 OF 44 BEST ESTIMATE EVALUATION OF ICE. PREPARED /DATE l-7 8/3/49 CONDENSER BASKET WEIGHTS FOR CHECKED /DATE u # de'/B9 SEQUOYAH, UNIT 1, CYCLE 4 SEQUOYAH 1- UNIT 1 Table 5: Evaluation of Historical Nonpower Sublimation Rates {
Based on Bay and Group-Row Comparisons (continued) l 9/7/85 6/15/88 9/7/85 6/15/88 1.645 BAY 2 BAY 2 GR1* ROW 2 GRI. ROW 2 1.645 -
1403.0 1382.0 1328.0 1087.0 1.645 l
1322.0 1377.0 1380.0 1269.0 1.645 *
]
1278.0 1377.0 1381.0 1204.5 1.645 j
1341.0 1204.5 1482.0 1235.0 1.645 1285.0 1355.0 1345.0 1269.0 1.645 1380.0 1374.0 1258.0 1219.0 1.645 I 1345.0 1242.0 1187.0 1.645 l
1235.0 1184.0 1332.0 1.645 1339.0 1345.0 1377.0 1.645 j
, 1352.0 1357.0 1281.5 1.645 1295.0 ', 1256.0 1.645 1 1269.0 1208.0 1.645 1316.0
, )
1224.0 1.645 j 1309.0 1.645 "
l 1350.0 1.645 1079.0 1.645 1 1219.0 1.645 > . l, 1194.5 1.645 1241.5 f 1.645 l 1290.0 1.645 1229.0 1.645 1187.0 1.645 1283.0 1.645 1245.0 1200.0 884.0 1199.5 AVG WElGHT 1334.8 1264.1 1330.2 1242.2 510. DEv. 50.205 107.428 84.084 70.742
- OF BASKETS 6.0 27.0 10.0 13.0 .
3*SC09E 2.015 1.706 1.833 1.782 95% CONF. WT. 1293.5 1228.8 1281.5 1207.3 SUS. %/ DAY 0.00480 0.00556 e
m
i TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY :
4-SQNSQS2-0080 Rev. 2 SHEET (7 OF 'I 7 - i BEST ESTIMATE EVALUATION OF~ ICE. PREPARED /DATE LT U g/d f CONDENSER BASKET WEIGHTS FOR CHECKED /DATE W ur-rs, ,
SEQUOYAH, UNIT 1, CYCLE 4 J- UNIT 1 SEQUOYAH
~~
Table 5: Evaluation of Historical Nonpower Sublimation Rates Based on Bay and Group-Row Comparisons (continued) 9/7/85 6/15/88 9/7/85 6/15/88 BAY 3 8AY 3 GR1 RDW4 GR1 ROW 4 1468.0 1477.0 1308.0 1753.5 -
1381.0 1242.0 , 1278.0- 1194.5 1275.0 1332.0 1275.0 1203.5 1400.0 1203.5 1325.0 1242.5 1471.0 1453.'J 1284.0 1288.5 1338.0 1383.5 1345.0 1313.5
, 1349.0 1208.5 3 1254.0- 1292.5 j 1303.0 1288.5 AVG WE GMT 1388.8 1348.5 g ., 1302.3 1253.9 570. DEV. 75.825 110.722 32.703 44.295 .
- OF BASKETS 6.0 6.0 9.0 9.0 3 SCORE 2.015 2.015 1.860 1.860 95% CONF. WT. 1326.5 1257.4 1282.1 1226.5
$UB. %/ DAY 0.00500 0.00416 -
4
_____-m_____.____ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ -
l TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY i
SQNSQS2-0080 Rev. 2 SHEET '68 OF T '7 BEST ESTIMATE EVALUATION OF ICE. PREPARED /DATE1T' sh/t f CONDENSER BASKET. WEIGHTS FOR- CHECKED /DATE ud irr/n )
SEQUOYAH, UNIT 1, CYCLE 4- SEQUOYAH - UNIT 1 Table.5: Evaluation of Historical Nonpower Sublimation' Rate's Based on-Bay.and Group-Row Comparisons (continued) j j
9/7/85 6/15/88 9/7/85 6/15/88 -l BAY 4 BAY 4 CR1 ROW 6 CR1 ROW 6- *C~
1479.0 1392.0 1329.0 1272.0~
1482.0 1391.5 . . . . 1403.0 1245.0 1325.0 1550.5 1400.0 - 1196.0 1427.D 1521.0 1427.0 1197.0 1524.0 1377.0. 1417.0 1297.0 1571.0 1241.5 1396.0 1350.5
, -1425.0 1337.0 1450.0 1382.0 1440.0 1355.0 1396.0 1339.0 4; 1388.0- 1316.0 1241.5 ,
1283.0 1383.5 -
1392.0 1416.5 1407.5 g-1413.5 g,.'
1380.0 1362.0 1360.0 '
1391.5 .
1391.0 1310.5 AUD WEIGHT 1468.0 1412.3 1406.5 1334.1 SV9. DEV. 85.079 111.515 32.420 66.105
- OF BASKETS 6.0 6.0 11.0 24.0 2* SCORE ' 2.015 2.015' 1.812 1.7s4 95% CONF. WT. 1398.0 1320.5 1388.7 1311.0 SUB. %/ DAY 0.00533 0.00??8 s
s$
E__________.__.-__ _ _ _ _ . . _ _ _ _ . _ _ . _ _ _ . . _ _ _ . - _ _ . _ . _ _ _ _ _ . _
l.
TENNESSEE. VALLEY AUTHORITY SQNSQS2-0080 Rev. 2 .
SHEET 6f OF_ 4 "I BEST ESTIMATE EVALUATION OF ICE PREPARED /DATE l-7 t/3/Bf CONDENSER. BASKET WEIGHTS FOR CHECKED /DATE 'u ,/de/#9 -
SEQUOYAH, UNIT 1, CYCLE 4 . SEQUOYAH 4- UNIT 1 I e, _________________________________________________________________
- Table 5:' Evaluation of Historical NonpoweriSub1'imation: Rate'- s Based on Bay and Group-Row Comparisons (continued) 9/7/85 6/15/88 9/7/85 6/15/88 BAY $ BAY 5 CR1 ROW 8 GR1 ROW 8 1345.0 1208.5 1380.0 1304.0 1367.0 1528.0. -
1341.0 1377.0 1417.0 1245.0 1468.0 1345.0 1507.0 .1504.5 1524.0 1295.0.
1284.0 1416.5 1507.0 1350.0 1487.0 1281.5 1472.0 1229.0
, 1478.0 1199.5 1531.0 -1453.0 ,
1479.0 1550.5
.. 1429.0 -1504.5
- q. 1414.5 1434.0 ,
1457.0
' ~
1391.0 1432.0' 1421.0 AVG VE!CMT 1401.2 1364.0 1460.9 1384.8
$10. DEV. 85.871 137.506 61.240 94.723 j O OF BASKETS 6.0 6.0 10.0 16.0 3 3* SCORE 2.015 2.015 1.833 1.753 .
95% CCNF. WT. 1330.5 1250.9 1425.4 1343.3 5U8. %/ DAY 0.00575 0.00553
.h-i l
l g
E
1
[. -
TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTEORITY SQNSQS2-0080 Rev. 2 -
SHEET 70 OF 97 BEST ESTIMATE EVALUATION OF ICE PREPARED /DATE LT sh/A f CONDENSER BASKET WEIGHTS FOR CHECKED /DATE'u d l&An SEQUOYAH, UNIT 1, CYCLE 4 SEQUOYAH -/- UNIT 1
- Table 5: Evaluation of' Historical Nonpower Sublimation Rates Based on Bay and Group-Row Comparisons (continued) 9/7/85 6/15/88 9/7/85 6/15/88 BAf 6 . BAY 6 CR1 Row 9 CR1 ROW 9
- 1265.0 1256.0 1265.0 1077.0 1335.0 .1407.5 ... 1322.0 884.0 1396.0 1313.5 1471.0 1477.0 1453.0 1414.5 1571.0 1521.0' 1271.0 1352.0 1487.0 1528.0 J 1258.0 1359.0 1497.0 1359.0 s 1425.0 1498.0 1363.0 1462.0 1509.0 1220.0 1345.0 1382.0 -
. 1399.0
'1486.0 ,
1472.0 4
1386.0
.1450.0- ' '
.1473.0 1161.0 1242.0 1403.0
- 1460.0 1478.0
.j 1497.0 1184.0
- 1349.0 1440.0 1476.0 1531.0 -
1498.0 )
AVG WElckT 1392.4 I 1350.4 1444.7 1303.6 SVD. DEv. !
102.509 59.529 99.638 229.498 j O OF BASKETS 27.0 6.0 9.0 8.0
- 3 SCORE 1.706 2.015 1.860 1.895 95% CONF. Wi. 1358.8 1301.4 1382.9 1149.9 SUB. %/ DAY 0.00405 0.01619 1
~'
1 e
4
TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY
.,- SQNSQS2-0080 Rev. 2' . SHEET '71 ' O F '1 7 BEST ESTIMATE EVALUATION OF ICE PREPARED /DATE l T (/3/s t CONDENSER BASKET WEIGHTS FOR CHECKED /DATE 'udi/r/sr
.SEQUOYAH, UNIT 1, CYCLE 4' SEQUOYAH 4 UNIT 1 Table 5: Evaluation of Historical Nonpower Sublimation Rates Based on Bay and Group-Row Comparisons-(continued) 9/7/85 6/15/88 9/7/85 6/15/88 BAY 7 BAY 7 CR2 ROW 1 GR2 ROW 1
.U 1254.0 1434.0 1269.0 878.0 1396.0 1363.0 ~1318.0 1126.0 1350.0 1221.0 1409.0 981.0 1345.0 1288.5 1475.0 1073.0 1479.0 1208.0 1317.0 1240.0 1509.0 1413.5 1251.0 1204.0
, -1516.0 1127.0
- 262.0 1157.0 AVG WEIGHT 1388.8 1321.3 1352.1 1098.3 570. DEV. 94.054 96.865 g ._ 102.012 119.056 O OF BASKETS 6.0 6.0 8.0 8.0 4
Z SCORE 2.015 2.015 -
1.895 1.895 -
L951 cowF. WT. 1311.5' 1241.7 1283.8 1018.5 SUS. %/0AY 0.00511 0.01985 a
]
l l
i i
1 i
l
TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY
.. SQNSQS2-0080 Rev. 2 . SHEET /2. OF 9 ~I BEST ESTIMATE EVALUATION OF ICE PREPARED /DATE L 7 (/J/M i' CONDENSER BASKET WEIGHTS FOR CHECKED /DATE 'u ydrh,
- SEQUOYAH, UNIT 1, CYCLE 4 SEQUOYAH.-/- UNIT 1
~ Table 5: Evaluation of Historical Nonpower Sublimation Rate's' '
Based on Bay and Group-Row Comparisons (continued) i I 9/7/85 6/15/88 9/7/85 6/15/88 BAY 8' BAY 8 GR2 ROW 2 GR2 ROW 2 ;
1357.0 1292.5 1450.0 1214.0 1418.0 1351.0 , , ,
1481.0 1285.0 1303.0 1380.0 1380.0 1296.0 1388.0 1444.0- 1457.0 1371.5 1429.0 1457.0 1306.0 1328.5
'1382.0 1220.0 1336.0 1396.0 1326.0 1570.0 1324.0 1362.0 1342.0 1334.0 1404.0 1259.0
. 1327.0 1352.0 1360.0 z 1334.0 1450.0 1220.0 ..
1359.0 1392.0 1425.0 1391.0 1 1336.0 1391.0 p')
g.
1420.0 1432.0 780.0 1224.0 . 1 1282.0 1310.5 1389.0 1 1420.5 i I
AUG WEICHT 1379.5 1343.3 1415.3 1309.5 SID. DEV. 45.540 131.239- 89.479 56.703
- CF BASKEis 6.0 26.0 8.0 12.0 2 SCORE 2.015 1.708 1.895 1.796 ,,
l 95% CONF. WT. 1342.0 1299.3 1355.3 1280.1 1
508. %/ DAY 0.00306 0.00533
'l i
TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY SQNSQS2-00Mr Rev. 2 SHEET 73 OF 97 BEST ESTIMATE EVALUA7 ION OF-ICE PREPARED /DATEl r %/e f -
CONDENSER BASKET WEIGHTS FOR CHECKED /DATE u V (& &r SEQUOYAH, UNIT 1, CYCLE 4 SEQUOYAH J- UNIT 1
. Table 5: Evaluation of' Histo.ricalNonpower Sublimation Rates Based on Bay and Group-Row Comparisons (continued) 9/7/85 6/15/88 9/7/85 6/15/88 BAY 9 BAY 9 CR2 ROW 4 CR2-ROW 4 *'
1269.0 1110.5 1364.0 1110.5 1364.0 1325.0' . _ . 1314.0 1268.0
- 1427.0 1388.0 1320.0 i %.0 1450.0 1423.0 1349.0 12v5.0 1567.0 1422.0 1315.0 1279.0 1385.0 878.0 1380.0 1272.5 1321.0 12 M.0 1242.5 1381.0 1356.0 1287.5 1404.0 1377.0
. 1292.0 1221.0 1348.0 .
1312.0 1371.0 - 1293.0 ,
1380.0 ~ 1235.0 1403.0- '
- 1380.0 1365.0 1376.5 1424.0. -
1214.0 1375.0 1410.0 1508.0 ,
I 1318.0 1426.0 1503.0 1538.0 l
AVO WEIGHT 1410.3 1357.1 1330.5 1267.5
$70. DEV. 99.156 130.261 41.966 61.032
- OF BA$KETS 6.0 26.0 8.0 13.0 1 SCORE 2.015 1.708 1.895 1.782 -
95% CONF. VI. 1328.8 1313.4 1302.4 1237.3
$UB. %/ DAY 0.00111 0.00480 I
l I
TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY m SQNSQS2-0080 Rev. 2 SHEET iy .OF 97 BEST ESTIMATE EVALUATION OF ICE PREPARED /DATE L7 UJ/sf
- CONDENSER BASKET WEIGHTS FOR CHECKED /DATE uMh49 -
SEQUOYAH, UNIT 1, CYCLE 4 SEQUOYAH f- UNIT 1 Table 5: Evaluation of Historical Nonpower Sublimation Rates Based on Bay and Group-Row Comparisons (continued) 9/7/85 6/15/88 9/7/85 6/15/88
^
BAY 10 BAY 10 CR2 ROW 6 GR2 ROW 6 1546.0 1267.5 1427.0 1388.0 148i.0 1282.0 -
1400.0. 1380.5 i
1 1400.0 1386.0 1396.0 1371.0 1578.0 1450.0 1470.0 1403.0 1318.0 1472.0 1454.0 1376.5-1314.0 1284.0 1447.0 1410.0
, 1354.0 1395.0 1426.0 1411.0 1456.0 1328.5 1458.0 1368.0 1465.0 -1378.0 .
1394.0 4 1405.0 1295.0. 1401.0 4 1377.0 1427.0
~
1423.0 1445.0 14S4.0 1418.0 '
1475.0 1399.0 1368.0 1379.0 f
1468.0 p .!
1408.0 g _-
1126.0 1369.0 1399.0 1352.0 1470.0 1381.0 1474.0 1427.5 -
1285.0 1414.0 1339.5 1364.0 i 1398.0 1332.0 1461.0 1346.0 1323.0 1384.0 1 1389.0 >
1419.0 j 1438.0
- 1399.0 1417.0 [I 1377.0 I 1362.0 1386.0 1411.0 l
1368.0 !
l e
TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY SQNSQS2-0080 Rev. 2 SHEET 7 5" OF 'l 7 BEST ESTIMATE EVALUATION OF ICE PREPARED /DATEl 7 t/3/27 CONDEhuER BASKET WEIGHTS FOR CHECKED /DATE L-/de/r9 SEQUOYAH, UNIT 1, CYCLE 4 SEQUOYAH
- UNIT 1 Table S: Evaluation of Historical Nonpower Sublimation Rate's Based on Bay and Group-Row Comparisons (continued) 1399.0 1423.0 1340.0 AVO WEICHT 1439.5 1387.2 1430.6 1388.6 510. CEV. 113.419 88.287 30.303 30.352
- of SAstris 6.0 26.0 8.0 41.0 Z SCORE 2.015 1.708 1.895 1.645 951 CONF. VT. 1346.2 1357.6 1410.3 1380.8 SUB. 1/ DAY 0.00081 0.00201 -
9/7/85 6/15/88 9/7/85 6/15/88 BAY 11 BAY 11 CR2-ROWS CR2 ROWS 1396.0 1308.0 1567.0 1422.0 1409.0 1328.5 1546.0 1472.0 1320.0 1390.0 1546.0 1465.0 1531.0 1327.0 1457.0 1475.0 1380.0 1218.0 1516.0 1474.0 1546.0 1279.0 1521.0 1461.0 1304.0 1522.0 1327.0 1368.0 1455.0 1422.0 ,
1421.0 1421.0 1272.5 1416.0 1330.0 1496.5 1378.0 1369.0 1411.0 1216.0 1405.0 1205.0 1420.0 1171.0 1355.0 1285.0 1401.0 1388.0 -
1465.0 1413.0 1296.0 1338,0 1399.0 1300.0 1427.0 1538.0 1493.0 981.0 1365.0 !
1445.0 1476.0 AVO WEICH1 1430.3 1356.3 1516.3 1384.5 I
-+
TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY SQNSQS2-0080 Rev. 2 SHEET 16 OF 97 BEST ESTIMATE EVALUATION OF ICE PREPARED /DATEl-7 t/3/s r CONDENSER BASKET WEIGHTS FOR CHECKED /DATE W vr/g9 SEQUOYAH, UNIT 1, CYCLE 4 SEQUOYAH /-- UNIT 1 Table 5: Evaluation of Historical ~Nonpower Sublimation Rate's Based on Bay and Group-Row Comparisons (continued)
STD. DEV. 89.279- 102.166 40.819 101.784
- OF BASKEis 6,0 26.0 8.0 21.0 -
8 SCORE 2.015 1.708 1.895 1.725 95% CONF. WT. 1356.9 1322.0~ . .. 1488.9 1346.2
- SUB. %/ DAY 0.00247 0.00921 s
9/7/85 6/15/88 9/7/85 6/15/88 BAY 12 BAY 12 GR2 ROW 9 ' GR2 ROW 9
, 1470.0 1344.0 1385.0 1292.0 1375.0 1418.0 g 1578.0 1394.0 1349.0 1450.0 1531.0 1218.0 1 1475.0 1422.0 -
1375.0 1318.0
- 1457.0 1329.0- 1505.0 1405.0
~ '
1457.0 1399.0 1427.0 1220.0 f
1411.0 1295.0 '789.0 1408.0 1499.0 1020.0 .
1285.0 -
1369.0 1388.0 1311.0' 1352.0 1395.0 1416.0 1073.0 1421.0 1326.0 1 1380.5 I i
1419.0 1318.0 [
1411.0 .. !
1379.0 j 1328.0 l 1242.5 ]
1371.5
\
AtfG VE]CNT 1430.5 1360.3
] 1449.4 1207.0 STD. DEV. 54.162 76.708 94.696 i 208.293 l
0 CF BA$KETS 6.0 26.0 8.0 8.0 3 SCORE 2.015 1.708 1.895 ~ 1.895 95% CcNF. vi. 1385.9 1334.6 1385.9 i
1067.4 I i
SUD. %/ CAY 0.00356 0.02207 !
s
E= ______m.2-_.__ - _ _ _ _ ___m- ___m ___ _ _ . - - m _ _ _ _ - _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Q TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY )
._ SQNSQS'2-0080 Rev'. 2 SHEET ~7 '? OF Fl BEST' ESTIMATE EVALUATION OF ICE PREPARED /DATE J 7 (/3/F'1 ~
CONDENSER BASKET WEIGHTS FOR CHECKED /DATE2-ud 4/r/ef SEQUOYAH, UNIT 1, CYCLE 4 SEQUOYAH UNIT 1 Table 5: Evaluation of Historical.Nonpower Sublimation' Rate's Based on Bay and Group-Row Comparisons (continued) 9/7/85 6/15/88 ' 9/7/85 : 6/15/88 BAY 13 BAY 13 CR3 ROW 1 ' CR3 ROW 1' 1306.0 1240.0 1267.0 1090.0 1317.0 1427.5 .,
1467.0 1142.0 -
1315.0 1287.5 1425.0 1235.0 1454.0 1328.5 1358.0 1243.0' 1516.0 1496.5 1227.0 1128.0 1505.0 1405.0 1480.0 1103.0 -
1233.0. 1225.0 1302.0- 1234.0 1254.5
. 1115.5 637.0 s
AVG WEIGHT 1402.2 1364.2 -
-1344.9 1127.9 STD. DEV. 100.318 95.664 102.872 174.592
~ '
8 0F BASKETS 6.0 6.0 8.0 11.0 2 SCORE 2.015 2.015 1.895 1.812
' 95% CONF. WT. 1319.6 1285.5 1276.0 1032.5
$US. %/ DAY 0.00249 0.01833 i
?
j 1
1 4
m
__ _ _ . _ _ . . _._-,.___m_--_-._____m .__,_____.m_ _ . _ _ _ , _ _ _
TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY SQNSQS2-0080 Rev. 2 SHEET 7$ OF 'i 7 BEST ESTIMATE EVALUATION OF ICE PREPARED /DATE J 7 dL,/s1 CONDENSER BASKET WEIGHTS FOR CHECKED /DATE'w a dd/ef SEQUOYAH, UNIT 1, CYCLE 4 SEQUOYAH J- UNIT 1 Table 5: Evaluation of Historical Nonpower Sublimation Rates Based on Bay and Group-Row Comparisons (continued) 9/7/85 6/15/88 9/7/85 6/15/88
~
BAY 14 BAY 14 CR3 Row 2 GR3 ROW 2 1521.0 1204.0 1461.0 1292.0 1336.0 1377.0 . . . 1354.0 1316.0 -
1427.0 1369.0 1517.0 1298.0 1380.0 1220.0 1409.0 1298.0 1447.0 1396.0 1323.0 1286.0 1251.0 1414.0 1485.0 1254.0 1395.0 1291.0 1221.0 1348.0 1339.0
. 1304.0 1269.0 1355.0 1235.0
~ '
1416.0 1351.0 1013.5 1167.0 1279.5 ,
1107.5 AUG VE!CHT 1393.7 1330.0 1395.6 1274.7 57D. DEV. 93.846 92.863 96.120 93.073
- of BASKETS 6.0 6.0 8.0 19.0 j 8 SCORE 2.015 2.015 1.895 1.734 i 95% CONF. VT. 1316.5 1253.6 1331.2 1237.7 SUS. %/ DAY 0.00459 0.00675 I
l i
1
TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY
_ SQNSQS2-0080 Rev. 2 SHEET H OF-i7
, BEST ESTIMATE EVALUATION OF ICE PREPARED /DATEL7 #3/vf -
CONDENSER BASKET WEIGHTS FOR CHECKED /DATE'*.~./ DMn SEQUOYAH, UNIT 1, CYCLE 4 SEQUOYAH 4- UNIT 1 a
Table 5: Evaluation of Historical Nonpower Sublimation Rate's' Based on Bay and Group-Row Comparisons (continued) 9/7/85 6/15/88 9/7/85 - 6/15/58 BAY 15 BAY 15 GR3 ROW 4 GR3 ROW 4 '
1516.0 1221.0 1266.0 1217.0 1246.0 '1364.0 , 1430.0' -1400.0 '
1295.0 1352.0 1302.0 1221.0 1395.0 1216.0 1278.0 1186.0-1570.0 789.0 1342.0 1196.0 1522.0' 1324.0 1291.0 1246.0
~
1332.0 1257.0 1258.0 1352.0 1248.0 1264.0 1205.0 1213.0
, 1334.0 1145.0 1346.0 . 1230.0 1294.0 1218.0 a
1171.0 1299.0 1259.0 '1302.0- ~
1323.0 1304.0 1333.0 1289.0 1285.0 1186.0 1127.0 1251.0 p' 1352.0 g 1433.0 '
1384.0 1255.0 1416.0 1120.0 1388.0 1334.0 1389.0 1460.0
- 1413.0 AVG WilGHT 1424.0 1298.6 1301.8 1249.2 STO. DEV. 133.079 130.584 59.663 74.019
- OF BASKETS 6.0 26.0 8.0 21.0 Z SCORE 2.015 1.708 1.895 1.725 -
95% CONF. Wi. 1314.5 1254.8 1261,8 1221.3 SUB. %/ DAY 0.00436 0.00308 l
k_ _ _ - - - _ - _ _ - _ _ _ _ - - _ - - - . _ _-_.m ___m m.____mm--.--__m m _ . . _ .
TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY SQNSQS2-0080 Rev. 2 - SHEET So OF + ~7 BEST ESTIMATE EVALUATION OF ICE PREPARED /DATE 1.7 6/3/a1 CONDENSER BASKET WEIGHTS FOR. CHECKED /DATE b/ 4/rfo SEQUOYAH,. UNIT 1, CYCLE 4 SEQUOYAH /-- UNIT 1 -
4 Table 5: Evaluation of Historical'Nonpower Sublimation Rates Based on Bay.'and Group-Row Comparisons (continued) 9/7/85- 6/15/88 9/7/85 6/15/88 _
BAY 16 BAY 16 CR3 ROW 6 CR3 ROW 6 I 1342.0 1220.0 1312.0 1291.0 1456.0 1342.0 .. 1399.0 1331.0
- 1356.0 1419.'O 1462.0 1334.0 -
1262.0 -1456.0 1396.0 1316.0 1455.0 1338.0- 1499.0 1380.0 1499.0 '020.0 1457.0 1353.0
, 1351.0 1403.0 1371.0 1438.0 1408.0 1346.0 1386.0 1340.0
. 1311.0 1336.0 1399.0 4 1322.0 1312.0 1380.0- ,
. 1371.0 - 1360.0 1417.0 1396.0 '
1417.0 1395.0 1157.0. 1450.0 1293.0 1465.0 -
1347.0 1492.0 1377.0 1414.0 1368.0 1380.0 1235.0 1416.0 1327.0 1423.0 .
1362.0- 1372.0 1352.0 1378.5 1300.0 1382.0 1381.0 1276.5 1242.5 1210.5-1165.5 AVG WEIGHT 1395.0 1334.5 1417.0 1355.8 .
STD. DEV. 89.617 93.483 56.589 71.392 0 0F BA$KE15 6.0 26.0 8.0 29.0 3 SCORE 2.015 1.708 1.895 1.701 95% CONF. WT. 1321.3 1303.1 1379.1 1333.3 l SUB. %/ DAY 0.00132 0.00319 d,
1 TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY
_ SQNSQS2-0080 Rev. 2 SHEET 8' OF 97 i BEST ESTIMATE EVALUATION OF ICE PREPARED /DATEp7 M / 41 t CONDENSER BASKET WEIGHTS FOR CHECKED /DATE -,d ur/c5 SEQUOYAH, UNIT 1, CYCLE 4 SEQUOYAHt'-- UNIT l i l
Table S: Evaluation of Historical Nonpower Sublimation Rate's Based on Bay and Group-Row Comparisons (conti nued) 9/7/85 6/15/88 9/7/85 6/15/88 BAY 17 BAY 17 CR3 ROWS CR3 ROW 8 1267.0 1292.0 1346.0 1195.0 1312.0 .1217.0 1470.0 1245.0 .
1266.0 1284.0 1412.0 1177.0 1346.0 1291.0 1523.0 1343.0 1461.0 1310.0 1546.0 1250.0 1304.0 1195.0 1481.0 1253.0 871.0 1409.0 1234.0 1090.0 1452.0 1276.0 1316.0 1395._0 1400.0 1363.0 l:
1314.0 _, 1419.0 {l 1331.0 1414.0 ,
1255.0 1455.0 !
1245.0 1368.0 -
1298.0 1383.0 1221.0 1486.0 1320.0 1473.0 . ,
1334.0 1428.0 1329.0 1445.0 -
1177.0 1383.5 1319.0 1398.5 1324.0 1404.5 1316.0 1251.5 ;
1338.0 1C86.0 I 1380.0 1343.0 AVG WEIGHf 1326.0 1273.5 1454.9 1338.6 STO. DEV. 72.644 105.710 65.094 105.975
- OF BASKETS 6.0 26.0 8.0 24.0 8 SCORE 2.015 1.708 1.895 1.714 ,
95% CONF. WT. 1266.2 1238.1 1411.3 1301.5 5UB. %/ DAY 0.00214 0.00747
_..______._.m- _ . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ .
TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY SQNSQS2-0080 Rev. 2 SHEET 8 2. OF 9 '?
BEST ESTIMATE EVALUATION OF ICE PREPARED /DATE l--T 6/3/81 CONDENSER BASKET WEIGHTS FOR CHECKED /DATE2-u-4 M /ar SEQUOYAH, UNIT 1, CYCLE 4 SEQUOYAH UNIT 1 Table 5: Evaluation of' Historical Nonpower Sublimation Rates Based on Bay and Group-Row Comparisons (continued) 9/7/85 6/15/88 9/7/85 6/15/83 BAY 18 BAY 18 GR3 RO'.t9 CR3 Row?
1467.0 1298.0 1304.0 871.0 '
1354.0 1186.0 -
1227.0 940.0 1227.0 1353.0 13S4.0 1256.0 1430.0 1196.0 1267.0 1123.0 1309.0 1250.0 1375.0 1496.0 1470.0 1246.0 1442.0 1526.0
- 1258.0 1463.0 1391.0 1264.0 1204.0 1376.0 1359.0 1371.0 1374.0 -'
1253.0 1142.0 1213.0 1297.0 1346.0 1352.0 1234.0 940.0 1235.0 1145.0 1283.0 1340.0 1370.0 1276.0 J
1278.0 1410.0 AVG WElGHT 1391.2 1269.2 1333.3 1247.4 -
579. DEv. 91.506 97.122 97.262 247.357
- OF BA$tETS 6.0 27.0 8.0 8.0 ;
8 SCORE 3.015 1.706 1.895 1.895 I 95% CONF. VT. 1315.9 1237.3 1268.1 1081.6 l l
$UB. %/ CAY 0.00573 0.01412
\
4
TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY SQNSQS2-0080 Rev. 2 SHEET 23 OF 'I 7 BEST ESTIMATE EVALUATION OF ICE PREPARED /DATE l 7 U3/e 9 -
CONDENSER BASKET WEIGHTS FOR CHECKED /DATE L~/ ch7A SEQUOYAH, UNIT 1, CYCLE 4 SEQUOYAH 4- UNIT 1 Table 5: Evaluation of' Historical Nonpower Sublimation Rates Based on Bay and Group-Row Comparisons (continued) 9/7/85 6/15/88 BAY 19 BAY 19 1412.0 1286.0 1384.0 1230.0 - -
1425.0 1336.0 1302.0 1243.0 1517.0 1395.0 1462.0 1256.0 AVC WEIGHT 1417.0 1291.0 570. DEV. 72.702 63.429
~
- OF IrASKETS 6.0 6.0 2 SCORE 2.015 #
2.015 95% CcWF. WT. 1357.2 1238.8 SUB. %/ DAY 0.00838 J
i
\.,
4
3 l
4 TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY SQNSQS2-0080 Rev. 2 SHEET 84 OF 4 7 i BEST ESTIMATE EVALUATION OF ICE PREPARED /DATE !.-7 Wh9 CONDENSER BASKET WEIGHTS FOR CHECKED /DATE W vr/R SEQUOYAH, UNIT 1, CYCLE 4 SEQUOYAH 4- UNIT I I
1 Table 5: Evaluation of Historical Nonpower Sublimation Rates y Based on Bay and Group-Row Comparisons (continued) '
9/7/85 6/15/88 BAY 20 BAY 20 ~
1267.0 1254.0 1396.0 1322.0 _
1523.0 1345.0 1358.0 1363.0 1409.0 1123.0 1278.0 1291.0
, 1380.0 1414.0 1419.0 -
1348.0 1360.0 -
1425.0 1414.0 1339.0
, f 1396.0 1460.0 1455.0 1128.0 i
1304.0 1218.0 1395.0 1426.0 1368.0 1269.0 1454.0 1383.0 AlfG VE!GHT 1371.8 1348.2 l sTD. OEV. 94.660 90.659
{
- OF BASKEis 6.0 26.0 3 SCORE 2.015 1.708 ' l 95% CONT. WT. 1294.0 1317.8
$UB. 1/0AY 0.00177 l
l l
m
{ .
TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY SQNSQS2-0080 Rev. 2 SHEET 85 OF 41 BEST ESTIMATE EVALUATION OF, ICE PREPARED /DATE l-7 (/3/s1 CONDENSER BASKET WEIGHTS FOR CHECKED /DATE'v / c4s'n SEQUOYAH, UNIT 1, CYCLE 4-SEQUOYAH /- UNIT 1 Table 5: Evaluation of Historical Nonpower. Sublimation Rates.
Based on Bay and Group-Row Comparisons (continued) .
j 9/7/85 '6/15/88:
BAY 21 ' BAY-21 1342.0 1299.0 1499.0 5450.0 -
1227.0 it.86.0 -
1323.0 1302.0
~1546.0 1465.0 1375.0 1498.0 1496.0 1304.0 1492.0 1467.0 1289.0 4- ~
1414.0 '
~
1447.0 < .
1103.0 1355.0 1 1125.0 1343.0 1380.0 1420.0
,' 1486.0 1235.0 )
1251.0 '
1336.0 1416.0 1446.0 1473.0 AVG WICHT 1385.3 1378.4 57D. DEV. 118.045 107.002
- OF BASKETS 6.0 26.0 2* SCORE 2.015 1.708 95% CONF. WT. 1288.2 1342.6 j
$UB. %/ DAY 0.00405 I
I l
I 4
4 a
_ _ - _ . - - - - - . - - - - - - - - - - - - _ . - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - . _ - - . - - - - . - - - - - - - - - - - - ------_---a---.----.
- - - - - - - _ - - . - -----..---__-_---a--__------__-.,--___--_- -
TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY SQNSQS2-0080 Rev. 2 SHEET B6 OF '! 7 BEST ESTIMATE EVALUATION OF ICE PREPARED /DATE $ 7 (/3/39 CONDENSER BASKET WEIGHTS FOR CHECKED /DATE Lef uds, SEQUOYAH, UNIT 1, CYCLE 4
- -------------------------------------------- SEQUOYAH 4- UNIT 1 Table 5: Evaluation of Historical Nonpower Sublimation Rates Based on Bay and Group-Row Comparisons (continued) 9/7/85 6/15/88 '
BAY 22 BAY 22 1457.0 1225.0 ~
1481.0 1423.0 1485.0 1433.0 1291.0 1526.0 1480.0 1416.0 1442.0 1428.0 AVG VEIGHT 1439.3 1408.5 STD. DEV. 74.562 98.717
- OF BA5KETS 6.0 6.0 2 SCORE 2.015 ~'
2.015 95% CONF. WT. 1378.0 1327.3 a SUB. %/ DAY 0.00353 9/7/85 6/15/88 i BAY 23 BAY 23 1 1257.0 1391.0 1409.0 1351.0 1403.0 1255.0 .
)
1463.0 1445.0 f
1233.0 1234.0 1395.0 1372.0 AVC WEICHT I 1360.0 1341.3 57D. Dtv. 92.544 fl.512 8 0F BASKETS 6.0 6.0 2 SCORE 2.015 2.015 95% CONF. Wi. 1283.9 1274.3 3U8. 1/ DAY 0.00072 6
~
TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY
~~
SQNSQS2-0080~ Rev. 2 SHEET 87 OF_._9 7 BEST ESTIMATE EVALUATION.OF ICE PREPARED /DATE l-7 4/3 /F t CONDENSER BASKET WEIGHTS FOR CHECKED /DATE 'u./ 4/Ns, SEQUOYAH, UNIT 1, CYCLE 4 SEQUOYAH /-- UNIT.1 Table 5: Evaluation of Historical Nonpower Sublimation Rates Based on Bay and Group-Row Comparisons-(continued) 9/7/85 6/15/88- * ^~
BAY 24 BAY 24 1221.0 1013.5
- 1408.0 1378.5 1452.0 1472.5 1248.0 1383.5 1302.0 1254.5 1204.0 1167.0 1382.0 1432.5 ~
1398.5 1276.5 ,
1354.5 s
1404.5 1242.5 ~ "
1286.5' 1115.5 1279.5 1120.0 1210.5 1224.5 1251.5 1376.0 637.0 1107.5 1165.5 .)
1118.5 1086.0 AUC WEIGHT 1305.8 1236.1 S7D. DEV. 102.693 173.515
- OF BASKEll 6.0 26.0 8 $ CORE 2.015 1.708 95% CONF. WT. 1221.4 1178.0 SUB. %/ DAY 0.00341 i l
l i
e
)
TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY SQNSQS2-0080 Rev. 2 SHEET 84 OF i7 BEST ESTIMATE EVALUATION OF ICE PREPARED /DATE LT 6/3/ M i CONDENSER BASKET WEIGHTS FOR CHECKED /DATE'ad 4/.r//v i SEQUOYAH, UNIT 1, CYCLE 4 SEQUOYAH 4- UNIT 1 statistically skews the 95 % confidence weight, trius, causiniJa l low initial weight. l T
ab 1
o
)
i l
l
.. )
4 4
--__.-u _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY SQNSQS2 0080 Rev. 2 SHEET a r> OF ?
BEST ESTIMATE EVALUATION OF ICE PREPARED /DATE .1-7 U 3/# 1.
CONDENSER BASKET WEIGHTS FOR CHECKED /DATE bf 4/f/#9 SEQUOYAH, UNIT 1, CYCLE 4 SEQUOYAH (--- UNIT 1 Table 6: Summary of Sublimation Rates Per the Individual Ba Analysis
$UBLIMAfl0W RAf[$, BAY BAY (% / DAY)
SAY 9/19/81 1/25/82 12/16/82 3/30/84 9/7/85 TO TO TO TO TO 1/25/82 9/13/82 12/31/83 4/22/85 6/15/88 1 0.0337 0.0104 0.0157 0.0129 0.0089 2 0.0375 0.0044 0.0022 0.0091 0.0048 3 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 - 0.0050 4 0.0309 0.0210 0.0032 0.0084 0.0053 5 0.0237 0.0275 0.0000 0.0048 0.0058 6 0.0155 0.0178 0.0019 0.0000 0.0041 1 7 0.0426 0.0000 0.0000 0.0021 0.0051 8 0.0000 0.0082 0.0438 0.0000 0.0031 9 0.0000 0.0354 0.0059 0.0180 0.0011 to 0.0184 0.0374 0.0134 0.0000 0.0000 11 0.0287 0.0130 0.0048 0.0000 0.0025 12 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0036 '
13 0.0000 0.0152 0.0145 0.0043 0.0025 14 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0046 15 0.0000 0.0000 0.0125 0.0173 0.0044 16 0.0000 0.0239 0.0151 0.0000 0.0013 17 0.00S8 0.0000 0.0138 0.0133 0.0021 18 0.0057 0.0210 0.0224 0.0055 0.0057 19 0.0212 C.:J00 0.0026 0.0021 0.0084 20 0.0000 0.0364 0.0196 0.0160 0.0000 21 0.0054 0.0164 0.0368 0.0088 0.0000 22 0.0098 0.0129 0.0130 0.0135 0.0035 23 0.0000 0.0260 0.0282 0.0067 0.0007 24 0.0482 0.0000 0.0301 0.0148 0.0034 i
h e
j
TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY -
L SQNSQS2-0080 Rev. 2- -
SHEET 9i OF 97 BEST ESTIMATE EVALUATION OF ICE PREPAREJ/DATEl-T U2 /M f CONDENSER BASKET WEIGHTS FOR CHECKED /DATELA.a /&/M SEQUOYAH, UNIT 1, CYCLE 4 SEQUOYAH /- UNIT 1 1
Table 7 : Predicted Ice Weights at various Time Intervals for Unit 1, Cycle 4 (Individual Bay Analysis)
~
i l
BAY BEGINING NON PVR PWR SUBL. DAYS TO WE!CHT AT WEIGHT AT WEIGHT SUBL. RATE 1080 LBS 17.5 MONTHS 18.5 MONTHS RATE (531 CAYS) (546 CAYS) l.
(LBS) (% / DAY) (% / DAY) (DAYS) (LBS) (LSS) 1 1319.8 0.0089 0.0182 1041.9 1201.9 1198.3 2 1373.1 0.0048 0.0133 1657.5 1284.9 1282.2 3 1443.1 0.0050 0.0000 ERR 1437.9 1437.9 4 1367.5 0.0053 0.0159 1378.2 -- 1263.1 1259.8
. 5 1300.7 0.0058 0.0140 1260.3 1212.2 1209.4 6 1354.3 0.0041 0.0088 2349.5 1295.9 1294.1 7 1361.4 0.0051 0.0112 1893.8 1286.8
- 1284.5 L 8 1361.8 0.0031 0.0130 1651.6 1277.8 1275.2 I 9 1354.6 0.0011 0.0148 1434.5 1261.4 1258.4
, 10 1314.9 0.0000 0.0173 1106.6 1210.8 1207.4 11 1337.1 0.0025 0.0116 1715.5 1263.7 1261.3 12 1277.7 0.0036 0.0000 ERR 1274.4 1274.4 13 1332.9 0.0025 0.0085 2286.8 1278.6 1276.9 ,
14 1372.3 0.0046 0.0000 ERR 1367.7 1367.7 15 1328.9 0.0044 0.0075 2549.4 1279.4 1277.9 16 1364.3 0.0013 0.0097 2203.4 1302.1 1300.1 17 1296.4 0.0021 0.0090 1918.0 1241.1 1239.4 18 1290.9 0.0057 0.0136 1244.9 1205.2 1202.5 19 1305.0 0.0084 0.0065 2654.4 1258.6 1257.3 20 1300.1 0.0000 0.0180 1013.7 1192.9 1189.4 21 1351.0 0.0000 0.0169 1262.7 1246.6 1243.2 22 1380.9 0.0035 0.0123 1827.8 1299.7 1297.2 '
23 1376.1 0.0007 0.0152 1483.2 1279.4 1276.3 24 1327.5 0.0034 0.0233 864.4 1182.8 1178.2 )
]
AVERACE 1266.9 1264.5 TOTAL 2.463E+06 2.45CE+06 l
1 j
7 TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY SQNSQS2-0080 Rev. 2 SHEET q ~2. .O F 4 "I BEST ESTIMATE EVALUATION OF ICE PREPARED /DATE FT U3/a1 CONDENSER BASKET WEIGHTS FOR CHECKED /DATE% W 42d M SEQUOYAH, UNIT 1, CYCLE 4 SEQUOYAH /- UNIT 1 Table 8: Summary of Sublimation Rates Per the Group-Row Analysis
$UBLIPA110W PATES. CRP ROW (% / DAY) 9/19/81 1/25/82 12/16/82 3/30/84 9/07/85 l 10 to TO 10 TO 1/25/82 9/13/82 12/31/83 4/22/85 6/15/88 CROUP 1 POW 1 0.0147 0.0345 0.0449 0.0182 0.0270 CROUP 1 ROW 2 0.0346 0.0320 0.0380 0.0183 0.0056 CROUP 1 R M 0.0154 0.0058 0.0127 0.0121 -0.0042 CROUP 1 ROW 6 0.0171 0.0000 0.0099 0.0300 0.0054 GROUP 1 ROWS 0.0253 0.0000 0.0052 0.0000 0.0055 CROUP 1 ROW 9 0.0000 0.0008 0.0037 0.0204 0.0162
~
CROUP 2 ROW 1 0.0045 0.0260 0.0159 0.0313 0.0199 CROUP 2 ROW 2 0.0000 0.0281 0.0105 0.0072 0.0053 CROUP 2 RDW4 0.0000 0.0189 0.0099 0.0000 0.0048 l CROUP 2 ROW 6 0.0000 0.0188 0.0057 0.0000 0.0020 l CROUP 2 ROWS 0.0000 0.0122 0.0000 0.0000 0.0092
'P2 ROW 9 0.0000 0.0000 0.0067 0.0000 0.0221
'*hJJP3 ROW 1 0.0083 0.0329 0.0386 0.0381 0.0183 CROUP 3 ROU2 0.0000 0.0326 0.0258 0.0114 0.0067 CLOUP3 ROW 4 0.0000 0.0208 0.0221 0.00S4 0.0031 CROUP 3 ROW 6 0.0000 0.0115 0.0098 0.0015 0.0032 CROUP 3 ROWS 0.0000 0.0132 0.0000 0.0140 0.0075 CROUP 3 ROW 9 0.0174 0.0174 0.0091 0.0118 0.0141
'\
+
TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY SQNSQS2-0080 Rev. 2 SHEET 93 _O F 97 BEST ESTIMATE EVALUATION OF ICE PREPARED /DATE l-7 U3/n CONDENSER BASKET WEIGHTS FOR CHECKED /DATE he.vf /,/i/B7f l
SEQUOYAH, UNIT 1, CYCLE 4 SEQUOYAH /- UNIT 1 Table 9: Predicted Ice Weights at Various Tirne Intervals for Unit 1, Cycle 4 (Group-Row Analysis)
FREDICTED WEIGHTS BECINIWC NON PWR PWR SUBL. DAYS TO WEIGHT AT VEIGHT AT WE!GHT AT WEICHT SUBL; R AT.E . 1080 LBS 17.5 MONTHS 18.5 HONTHS 571.7 DAYS -
RATE (531 DAYS) (562 DAYS)
(LBS) (% / DAY) (% / DAY) (DAYS) (LBS) 4LBS) (LBS)
~
CROUP 1 ROW 1 1281.9 0.0270 0.0281 573.4 1095.0 1084.0 1080.6 CROUP 1 ROW 2 1369.4 0.0056 0.0307 750.2 -1171.8 1158.8 1154.8 CROUP 1 ROW 4 1297.9 0.0042 0.0115 1510.4 1225.7 1221.1 1219.7 GROUP 1 ROW 6 1392.0 0.0054 0.0068 3343.8 1343.6 1!40.7 1339.8 CROUP 1 ROW 8 1463.1 0.0055 0.0076 3466.7 1406.3 1402.8 1401.7 CROUP 1 ROW 9 1359.4 0.0162 0.0062 3228.4 1305.2 1302.6 1301.8 CROUP 2 ROW 1 1213.4 0.0199 0.0194 571.7 1089.5 1082.3 1080.0 CROUP 2 ROW 2 1238.9 0.0053 0.0115 1162.5 1169.3 1164.9 1163.5 CROUP 2 RDW4 1299.8 0.0048 0.0072 2381.0 1252.5 1249.6 1248.7 CROUP 2 ROW 6 1416.5 0.0020 0.0061 3932.6 1374.7 1372.0 1371.2
'JP2 ROWS 1438.8 0.0092 0.0031 8065.7 1409.2 1407.8 1407.4 P2 ROW 9 1290.9 0.0221 0.0017 9050.5 1260.5 1259.8 1259.6 CROUP 3 ROW 1 1215.3 0.0183 0.0295 409.5 1037.0 1026.1 1022.6 .
GROUP 3 ROW 2 1326.5 0.0067 0.0175 1114.4 1214.4 1207.3 1205.0 CROUP 3 ROW 4 1316.1 0.0031 0.0128 1459.2 1236.1 1230.8 1229.2 CROUP 3 ROW 6 1363.2 0.0032 0.0057 3678.8 1324.4 1322.0 1321.3 CROUP 3 ROWS 1326.0 0.0075 0.0068 2726.6 1277.5 1274.7 1273.9 CROUP 3 ROW 9 1261.8 0.0141 0.0139 1045.2 1169.3 1163.9 1162.2 AVERACE 1242.3 1237.3 1248.7 .
TOTAL 2.415E+06 2.405E+06 2.42BE+06 4
w-__.-____-__ ._
TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY SQNSQS2-0080 Rev. 2 SHEET 14 OF 97 {
BEST ESTIMATE EVALUATION OF ICE PREPARED /DATE L7 8/3 h 4 i CONDENSER BASKET WEIGHTS FOR CHECKED /DATE'p -4 hs/#f SEQUOYAH, UNIT 1, CYCLE 4 SEQUOYAH ' UNIT 1 9.O CONCLUSIONS / RECOMMENDATIONS The results in general agree with historical surveillance.
Low weights predicted in bays 1 and 24 are common due to their location near the ice condenser end walls. Also as predicted by the calculation, rows 1 and 2 generally exhibit much higher ,
sublimation rates than other rows. This is due to their close proximity to the ice condenser inlet doors. Both areas are subject to large heat losses to the envir?nment. However, the abnormally low weights predicted for row 1 and 2 are largely
~
due to the small initial weights found in September 1988.
The results of this analysis show that 18.5 months after the latest ice surveillance, sufficient ice will exist in the ice condenser system to mitigate the effects of a LOCA. This is based on the total ice inventory predicted and the even distribution throughout the containment. Eighteen and one half' months following the latest ice weighing, an average of approximately 1237 pounds is shown to exist in each basket of
(
the system. This value is the minimum average from the two
{
calculated cases and is well above the analytical limit of 1080 j pounds. The total weight (2,405,000 pounds) is also well above the analytical limit of 2,100,000 pounds.
\'J 1
The group-row results are limiting for overall weight )
i considerations as well as containment distribution indications.
Since only one group-row region is projected to be below 1080 l pounds, the distribution of ice must be acceptable for the l remaining regions. The restrictive area (group 3-row 1) is ;
only 58 pounds (5 percent) below the analytical limit but will not significantly effect the safety requirements of the ice condenser system.
The.above arguments support the relaxation of the ice surveillance weighing intervals. It is also recommended that the interval for unit 1, cycle 4, not be extended past 18.5 ,
nonths from the September 1988 ice surveillance.
\.
e
_ - ____._ ___.__ .__ ___ m__
TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY
_ SQNSQS2-0080 Rev. 2 SHEET 95 OF 97 BEST ESTIMATE EVALUATION OF ICE PREPARED /DATE 17 t/3/B9 l CONDENSER BASKET WEIGHTS FOR CHECKED /DATE us '4)f/sv i SEQUOYAH, UNIT 1, CYCLE 4 SEQUOYAH /- UNIT 1 ATTACHMENT A l
1 EXCERPT FROM ICE VERSION SQ1.0 J
1 i
v.) ,
i jl 1
l I
I l
Wi>
m
y _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ .- _ _ _ _ _ _ _
9
(
'~ TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY-
- SQNSQS2-0080 Rev . ' 0*' 2- 96 ? . *I 7 BEST ESTIMATE EVALUATION OF ICE SHEET W OF X CONDENSER BASKET WEIGHTS FOR ).7 e/r/t' PREPARED /DATE w v/zo/es SEQUOYAH, UNIT 1 pe/g7 CHECKED /DATE W,o / A . /td (
. ___ __ . _, CYCLE 4..___ _.
. _ _ . _ SEQUOYAH -/- UNIT 1 S.
.:CE .*Q1.0 71tt0R7 "
Plog 4 *2 ~.
, e a
t
_ _ . et I os - -
g - 9
} =
1 t
-l The lov limit population tean is then given by the following
. saton.
expre
. _ ge I
lov
- I - ( - -- 3 .a. ) where, SQRT(#) 2 e 2. score o descritea !
i in the nort sooticas I
%J
- 4 3.1 2.secre for N < 30 *v. * '
T. distribution tables ter alpha = 0.05 and s ng'the yFcr a sample ette' following is an excerpt frem thle table. e R.1.
P degrees et treedom. The y al phs = 0.0 5 1
- .... .... y al phe = 0.05 i 1 6 314 . . ... - -
2 2 920 16 1 7t6 3 2 353 17 1 7t0 4 2.132 to 1.735
- 5. _ , 2.015 19 1.729 6 1 943 to 1.725 7 1.895 21 1 721 6 1.860 22 1.7t7 g 23 1.714 1.833 -
to 1.812 24 1.711 11 1 756 . 25 1.708 12 1.7c2 26 1.706 13 1.771 27 1.703 14 1.761 28 1 701 15 1 753 29 1.699 int 1.645 4.3.2 Z.eoore for N >= 30 For a sample site of 30 c. tore,
( .
61; hap 0.C5.
The .soote in these esees equels 1.645.the standard 00 2e1 dist
.. o . s e..m s ,- a
.4 . .. ,,. .
g-AM-3 ..S
- W. 7 .
. a
..:..d M.ML i= % =. 2 d%.tenx.
. ' ..,. ~d s M )^'i #,W '/ F ' '
g%
.sid .: 5.'. :.'i.E' *$ .,$.$.N. ?lkEh$$
...,gg,,3[*4m,W.
- ~ - '
}
d i
TENNESSEE. VALLEY AUTHORITY '
SQNSQS2-0080 Rev. &** i q 'y 7 97 BEST ESTIMATE EVALUATION OF ICE SHEET w' ' OF .Ar' ;
9 vf/4 CHECKED /DATE 's $/u CONDENSER BASKET SEQUOYAH, UNIT 1 WEIGHTS FOR f T #5/39 PREPARED /DATE_0-er /ei i
_________________, CYCLE 4 v /.. /ot "
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __________ _ _ _ _ _ _ ________e _ _ _ S EQ U
. l Alta r41.c
' ;xtcar
- ~
. nez 4 '1 .
, _t seasy k The follovirig eettiene descrite the ~ statistical methods used by ICE The program aseu=ce that the ice tasket weights approximate k normal distribution .
4.13asple Head' .
s i
~~ t
, ~
l The sample sean~ 1e c,alcEt'ed u'eirf the~followina'attation.
- N
.I e SUN (.I )
let a where, I e indiv3 duel basket weights
~ **--- - 1 -
- ~'
(. . N
..... . N s total number of baskete weighed , , ,
j '
I 31 4.2 Jample Standard teviation The sample standard dev1Atton. 3, in then computed using the foll evir.g equation.
n, _g --
3 e :CRT ( .3"H . (I . . I) .
1st i
_). *
. N.1 4.3 Confideno 25terval . .
Forthisprob[e's, .
the confidence interval can be described se follows .
The probability that ( x >s X
) = 0 95 low Where, x e true population cean .
I low a esiculated low limit mean For a $$$ curve.
distratitlen confidence interval (alpha *0.05). We have the foll ovir.g, ene.talled
- 4 7%'uhesu as cW',ed ~ '
- u. 3. 8 . , .
, . . , ,, .. ,.. ,, ,:.m..
.=......... . u ,..'.
v . ,'&,.,.3.~ n i h; $ N 'E '1
. . . . . . . . . . . . . ..a.u:1.,~.:.1 t ; ~
- .. ~-
~-
- .+ -
.j. .m
,+;.w:($s%$$f{bk
. ny. $a$$$h,.aa.4;;;sy.. 'g~~y .. '
.f
- M ' :... ,. /.J.;'.r Im w _ _ - _ - _ _ - - - - - - _ - _ - - - - - - - -
T--
4 I
ENCLOSURE 2 Updated Information Regarding the Results of Westinghouse Electric Corporation's Preliminary Containment Pressure Analyses .
for Sequoyah Nuclear Plant s -j 1
o e
i i
i l
I l
l
I '
l Enclosure 2 Westinghouse Electric Corporation has developed new loss of coolant
, accident mass and energy release rates based on a model that uses some of the decay heat to heat up water that will spill to the sump, reducing the amount of steam released to the containment and thus having to be removed in the ice bed. The methodology for the new mass and energy releases is described in " Westinghouse LOCA Mass and Energy Release Model for Containment Design - March 1979 Version," WCAP 10325-F-A, May 5, 1983 (Proprietary). TVA has preliminary containment pressure analyses for SQN based on these new mass an,d,~ energy release rates. The results based on the ,
current ice bed weight of 2.1 million pounds show a peak containment l pressure of about 10.1 psig occurring after ice bed meltout. Ice bed )
meltout is delayed from approximately 3000 seconds to 4200 seconds, and the peak containment pressure after ice bed meltout is reduced by almost .
, 1 psi. Results from a sensitivity study with an initial ice bed weight of 1.87 million pounds showed a peak containment pressure of 11.15 psig with an ice bed meltout containment pressure of.11.15 psig with an ice bed meltout time of 3,095 seconds (approximately equal to that in the current :
Final Safety Analysis Report,[FSAR] analysis). The 11.15 psig compares favorable with the 11.1-psig containment peak pressure from the present 1 FSAR mass and energy release model. This ice weight gives an average )
basket weight of 962 pounds with a containment response very close to the - I current design basis analysis. The projected weight of )
group 3-row 1 baskets is 64 pounds greater than this value. This improved analytical technique shows that the current ice bed loading adequately protects the health and safety of the public. TVA is planning i to submit a permanent change to this TS later this year based on these new mass and energy releases with the resulting containment analysis.
O d