L-2012-382, Extended Power Uprate Cycle 24 Startup Report

Extended Power Uprate Cycle 24 Startup Report

ML12305A007
Person / Time
Site:	Saint Lucie
Issue date:	10/19/2012
From:	Katzman E Florida Power & Light Co
To:	Document Control Desk, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
L-2012-382, TAC ME5091
Download: ML12305A007 (24)

Text

0 FPL October 19, 2012 L-2012-382 10 CFR 50.36 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ATTN: Document Control Desk Washington, DC 20555 Re: St. Lucie Plant Unit 1 Docket No. 50-335 Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-67 Extended Power Uprate Cycle 24 Startup Report

References:

(1) T. Orf (NRC) to M. Nazar (FPL), "St. Lucie Plant, Unit 1 - Issuance of Amendment Regarding Extended Power Uprate (TAC No. ME5091)", July 9, 2012 (Accession No. ML12156A208).

Pursuant to St. Lucie Unit 1 Technical Specification (TS) 6.9.1.1, Florida Power & Light Company (FPL) is submitting the Cycle 24 Startup Report. This report is required due to the implementation of the Extended Power Uprate (EPU) Project Amendment No. 213 that was issued via Reference 1.

Should you have any questions regarding this submittal, please contact Mr. Jack Hoffman, St.

Lucie Extended Power Uprate Licensing Manager, at 772-467-7493.

Sincerely, Eric S. Katzman Licensing Manager St. Lucie Plant Attachments (1)

Florida Power &Light Company

%Ffr 6501 S. Ocean Drive, Jensen Beach, FL 34957

St. Lucie Unit 1 L-2012-382 Docket No. 50-335 Attachment Cycle 24 EPU Startup Report Page 1 of 23 St. Lucie Unit I - Cycle 24 Extended Power Uprate Power Ascension Testing Summary

St. Lucie Unit 1 L-2012-382 Docket No. 50-335 Attachment Cycle 24 EPU Startup Report Page 2 of 23 Table of Contents I Introduction 3 II Cycle 24 Fuel Design 3 III Approach to Criticality 5 IV Zero Power Physics Testing 5 V Power Ascension Program 7 VI Results 10 VII Summary 15 Vill References 16 List of Figures 1 Cycle 24 - Core Loading Pattern 17 2 Inverse Count Ratio Plot - Channel B 18 3 Inverse Count Ratio Plot - Channel D 19 4 Cycle 24 - Power Distribution Comparison - 89% Power 20 5 Cycle 24 - Power Distribution Comparison - 95% Power 21 6 Cycle 24 - Power Distribution Comparison - 100% Power 22 7 Cycle 24 - RCS Temperature vs. Power 23

St. Lucie Unit 1 L-2012-382 Docket No. 50-335 Attachment Cycle 24 EPU Startup Report Page 3 of 23 I. Introduction The purpose of this Startup Report is to provide a summary description of the plant startup and power ascension testing performed at St. Lucie Unit 1 following Cycle 24 refueling which implemented the Extended Power Uprate (EPU) project. The EPU License Amendment Request (LAR) was submitted by Florida Power and Light Company (FPL) to NRC via Reference 1. The NRC Commission approved and issued Amendment No. 213 to FPL via Reference 2. The amendment increased the authorized maximum steady-state reactor core power from 2700 megawatts thermal (MWt) to 3020 MWt. This Cycle 24 Startup Report is being submitted in accordance with St. Lucie Unit 1 Technical Specification 6.9.1.1, items (2) and (4).

The plant startup and power escalation testing verifies that key EPU core and plant parameters are operating as predicted. The major parts of this testing program include:

1) Initial criticality following refueling,

2) Zero power physics testing, and

3) Power ascension testing.

The test data collected during EPU startup and power ascension and summarized in this report concludes that all major systems, structures, and components (SSCs) performed as predicted and there was no adverse impact to the performance of the unit. The EPU startup and power ascension test data satisfied all acceptance criteria and demonstrated conformance to predicted performance. Copies of the completed EPU startup and power ascension test procedures are available on site for review.

II. Cycle 24 Fuel Design The St. Lucie Unit 1 Cycle 24 reload is composed of 100 fresh fuel assemblies (Region FF), 76 once burned assemblies (Region EE), and 41 twice burned assemblies (Region DD) for a total of 217 fuel assemblies manufactured by AREVA-NP, Inc (AREVA). The primary design change to the core for Cycle 24 was the replacement of 100 irradiated fuel assemblies with 100 fresh Region FF fuel assemblies.

All assemblies in the Cycle 24 reload core are of the debris-resistant design. The Region FF fuel employs the same design as that of the previous cycle Region EE fuel. This design includes the use of high thermal performance (HTP) spacer grids, high mechanical performance (HMP) lower grid and the use of the "FuelGuard" lower tie plate. The fuel assembly design for Region FF fuel utilizes radial enrichment zoning similar to that used in previous regions, to reduce peaking, and gain margin in steaming rate to improve fuel performance with respect to fuel rod corrosion, and crud deposition.

The safety analysis for Cycle 24 core was performed by AREVA-NP using NRC approved methodology, with input from FPL. The analyses for the Cycle 24 EPU core support a Departure from Nucleate Boiling Ratio (DNBR) limit at the 95/95 probability/confidence level, consistent with the applicable DNB correlation previously approved by the NRC. The analyses also support the linear heat rate limit corresponding to the fuel centerline melt. All analyses

St. Lucie Unit 1 L-2012-382 Docket No. 50-335 Attachment Cycle 24 EPU Startup Report Page 4 of 23 were performed with the assumption of a steam generator tube plugging level not to exceed 10% average, with a maximum asymmetry of +/- 2% about the average.

The Cycle 24 core map is represented in Figure 1. The assembly serial numbers and control element assembly (CEA) serial numbers are given for each core location. The Cycle 24 reload sub-batch identifications are provided in the table below.

Cycle 24 - Reload Sub-Batch ID Sub-Batch Number of Assemblies DD1 4 DD2 16 DD3 16 DD4 5 EEl 16 EE2 12 EE3 28 EE4 12 EE5 8 FF1 8 FF2 28 FF3 32 FF4 20 FF5 12 Total 217

St. Lucie Unit 1 L-2012-382 Docket No. 50-335 Attachment Cycle 24 EPU Startup Report Page 5 of 23 I1l. Approach to Criticality The approach to criticality involved diluting from a non-critical boron concentration of 1735 ppm to a predicted critical boron concentration of 1517 ppm. Inverse Count Rate Ratio (ICRR) plots were maintained during the dilution process using wide range channels B and D. Refer to Figures 2 and 3 for ICRR information. The table below summarizes the dilution rates and times, as well as beginning and ending boron concentrations.

Initial criticality for St. Lucie Unit 1, Cycle 24, was achieved on March 18, 2012 at 14:50 with CEA group 7 at 120 inches withdrawn and all other CEAs at the all-rods-out (ARO) position.

The actual critical Boron concentration was measured to be 1512 ppm.

Approach to Criticality Initial Boron Final Boron Dilution Time Concentration Concentration (minutes) 132 gpm 1735 1667 20 88 gpm 1667 1567 46 44 gpm 1567 1512 44 IV. Zero Power Physics Testing To verify that the St. Lucie Unit 1 Cycle 24 core operating characteristics are consistent with the design predictions and to provide assurance that the core can be operated as designed, the following tests were performed:

1) Reactivity Computer Checkout,

2) All-Rods-Out Critical Boron Concentration,

3) Isothermal Temperature Coefficient Measurement, and

4) Measurement of Rod Worth.

Reactivity Computer Checkout Proper operation of the reactivity computer is ensured by performing the "Reactivity Computer Checkout." This part of the testing determines the appropriate testing range and checks that reactivity changes are being correctly calculated by the reactivity computer's internal algorithms.

The testing range is selected such that the signal to noise ratio is maximized and that testing is performed below the point of adding nuclear heat. The reactivity calculation is checked by performing a positive and negative reactor period test through introduction of a known amount of positive and negative reactivity. The results of the reactivity computer checkout were compared to predictions provided in the reload engineering change package. Satisfactory agreement was obtained.

St. Lucie Unit 1 L-2012-382 Docket No. 50-335 Attachment Cycle 24 EPU Startup Report Page 6 of 23 All-Rods-Out Critical Boron Concentration The measurement of the all-rods-out (ARO) critical boron concentration was performed. The measured value was 1517.6 ppm which compared favorably with the design value of 1517 ppm.

This was well within the acceptance limits of + 50 ppm.

Isothermal Temperature Coefficient Measurement The measurement of the isothermal temperature coefficient (ITC) was performed and the resulting moderator temperature coefficient (MTC) was derived. The MTC was determined to be 1.48 pcm/°F which compared favorably to the predicted MTC value of 1.37 pcm/°F, well within the acceptance criteria of + 2.0 pcm/°F. This complies with the St. Lucie Unit 1 Technical Specification 3.1.1.4 requirements that the maximum upper limit shall be < +7 pcm/°F prior to exceeding 70% of RATED THERMAL POWER.

Measurement of Rod Worth Rod worth measurements were performed using the super-group rod swap methodology. This method involves exchanging a reference group, which is measured by the boration-dilution technique, with each of the remaining test groups. A comparison of the measured and design CEA reactivity worths is provided in the table below. The following acceptance criteria apply to the measurements made:

1) The measured value of each test group, or super-group measured, is within +15% or +100 pcm of its corresponding design CEA worths, whichever is greater and,

2) The worth of the reference group and the total worth for all the CEA groups measured is within + 10% of the total design worth.

All acceptance criteria were met.

St. Lucie Unit 1 L-2012-382 Docket No. 50-335 Attachment Cycle 24 EPU Startup Report Page 7 of 23 CEA Group Worth Summary CEA Group Measured Worth Design Worth Percent Difference (pcm) (pcm)

Reference Group A 971.21 891 8.26 B 477.36 445 6.78 3 506.15 461 8.92 5 &6 626.96 574 8.45 7 649.45 586 9.77 4 689.79 625 9.39 1 741.93 676 8.89 2 822.9 736 10.57 Total 5485.84 4994 8.97 Percent difference = (Measured - Design)/(Measured) *100 The measured value of each test group, or super-group measured, is within +15% or +100 pcm of its corresponding design CEA worths, whichever is greater and, the worth of the reference group and the total worth for all the CEA groups measured is within +10% of the total design worth.

V. Power Ascension Test Program The EPU power ascension test program consisted of a combination of normal startup and surveillance testing, post-modification testing, and power ascension testing deemed necessary to support acceptance of the proposed EPU. During the EPU start-up, power was increased in a slow and deliberate manner, stopping at pre-determined power levels for steady-state data gathering and formal parameter evaluation. These pre-determined power levels are referred to as test plateaus. The typical post-refueling power plateaus were used until the previously licensed full power condition (2700 MWt) was attained (approximately 89% of the EPU full power level of 3020 MWt). Above 2700 MWt, smaller intervals between test plateaus were established, with a concurrent higher frequency of data acquisition. A summary of the power ascension test plan for power levels beginning at 2700 MWt is provided in table below.

St. Lucie Unit 1 L-2012-382 Docket No. 50-335 Attachment Cycle 24 EPU Startup Report Page 8 of 23 EPU Power Ascension Test Plan Rated Thermal Power Test I Activity Description (% of 3020 MWt) 89 [92 95 98 100 Nuclear & AT power Verify thermal power and adjust instrumentation X X X X X calibration Align linear excore power to calorimetric power.

Linear power range channel Modify axial power shape indication from incore X calibration flux instrumentation. (Final adjustment may precede 92% power.)

Core power distribution Monitor power distribution by incore flux map X X X monitoring Data collection from excore and incore flux Shape annealing factors instrumentation during power ascension, starting X X X at 30% power and ending at 92% (or sooner).

Update of constants at full power.

Hot full power (HFP) boron Evaluation of critical boron concentration at HFP X check RCS flow determination Determine RCS flow by reactor power X X measurement NSSS data collection Data collection X X X X X Balance of plant (BOP) data Data collection X X X X X collection BOP walkdown Equipment monitoring X X X X X Vibration monitoring Vibration__monitoring Monitor vibration in plant piping and rotating

_equipment X X X X X Perform surveys and update survey results impacted by EPU. Areas will include portions of Plant radiation surveys containment, reactor auxiliary building, fuel X X handling building, and the steam trestle, taking accessibility and ALARA into consideration.

MTC test at HFP Determine MTC X Leading edge flowmeter LEFM functional check, following vendor X X (LEFM) commissioning commissioning.

Note: The 89% plateau corresponds to the current licensed power level of 2700 MWt, or approximately 89% of the EPU licensed power level of 3020 MWt.

St. Lucie Unit 1 L-2012-382 Docket No. 50-335 Attachment Cycle 24 EPU Startup Report Page 9 of 23 Prior to exceeding the previous licensed core thermal power of 2700 VlWt, the data gathered at the pre-determined power plateaus, as well as observations of the slow, but dynamic power increases between the power plateaus, allowed verification of the performance of the EPU modifications. The steady-state data collected at approximately 89% power was especially significant because this test plateau corresponded to the previous full power level of 2700 MWt. Data collected at this plateau formed the basis for comparison of data collected at higher plateaus.

Once testing was completed at the 2700 MWt plateau, power was slowly and deliberately increased through four additional test plateaus, each differing by approximately 3% of the EPU rated thermal power. Both dynamic performance during the ascension and steady-state performance for each test plateau were monitored, documented and evaluated against pre-determined acceptance criteria and expected values.

Following each increase in power level, test data was evaluated against its performance acceptance criteria and expected values (i.e., design predictions or limits). If the test data satisfied the acceptance criteria and expected values, then system and component performance were considered to have complied with their design requirements.

In addition to the steady-state parameter data gathered and evaluated at each test condition, the dynamic parameter response data gathered during the ascension between test plateaus was also evaluated and demonstrated overall stability of the plant.

Hydraulic interactions between the new main feedwater pumps and the steam generator flow control valves, as well as the impact of the higher main feedwater flow, were monitored and evaluated. Individual control systems, such as steam generator level control and feedwater heater drain level control, were optimized for the new EPU conditions, as required. The power ascension testing adequately identified any unanticipated adverse system interactions and allowed them to be corrected in a timely fashion prior to full power operation at the uprated conditions.

The acceptance criteria for the power ascension test plan were established as discussed in Regulatory Guide (RG) 1.68, Initial Test Programs for Water-Cooled Nuclear Power Plants.

Criteria were provided against which the success or failure of the test was judged. In some cases, the criteria were qualitative. Where applicable, quantitative criteria had appropriate tolerances.

Specific acceptance criteria and expected values were established and incorporated into the power ascension test procedures.

Vibration Monitoring A piping and equipment vibration monitoring program, including plant walkdowns and monitoring of plant equipment, was established to ensure that any steady-state flow induced piping vibrations following EPU implementation were not detrimental to the plant, piping, pipe supports, or connected equipment.

The predominant way of assessing piping and equipment vibrations was to monitor the piping during the plant heat-up and power ascension. The methodology used for monitoring and evaluating vibration was in accordance with ASME OM-S/G-2007, Standards and

St. Lucie Unit 1 L-2012-382 Docket No. 50-335 Attachment Cycle 24 EPU Startup Report Page 10 of 23 Guides for Operation and Maintenance of Nuclear Power Plants, Part 3, Requirements for Preoperational and Initial Startup Vibration Testing of Nuclear Power Plant Piping Systems.

The scope of the piping and equipment vibration monitoring program included accessible piping that experienced an increase in process flow rates. Branch lines attached to this piping (experiencing increased process flows) were also monitored as operating experience has shown that branch lines are susceptible to vibration-induced damage. The scope of the program included the following systems:

Main steam (outside of containment),

• Feedwater (outside of containment),

• Condensate,

• Heater drains and vents, and

• Extraction steam.

VI. Results During power ascension, the fixed incore detector system is utilized to verify the core is loaded properly and there are no abnormalities occurring in various core parameters (core peaking factors, linear heat rate, and tilt) for the various power plateaus. The incore detectors were replaced during Cycle 24 as a part of their regularly scheduled replacement program. Incore operability was demonstrated throughout each power ascension plateau (pre-EPU and post-EPU), and incore alarm set-points were programmed into the plant computer at the following intervals:

Pre-EPU (2700 MWt): 30%, 45%, 70% and 92%

Post-EPU (3020 MWt): 30%, 64%, 89% and 100%

No incore alarms were received during either power ascension and no linear heat rate monitoring issues were encountered.

Nuclear & AT Power Calibration Nuclear power and delta-T power calibrations were performed at the 89%, 92%, 95%, 98% and 100% EPU power plateaus. The appropriate calibrations were performed prior to advancing reactor power to the next higher power level as specified by procedure. These calibrations were performed by the control room operating crews. All calibrations were determined to be satisfactory for each of the reactor protection system (RPS) channels.

Linear Power Range Channel Calibration Linear range excore nuclear instruments were calibrated at varying intervals across the two power ascension campaigns. In the case of the first start-up under pre-EPU conditions (2700 MWt), the reactor protective system (RPS) linear range detectors and the two control channels, were calibrated at 30% power and then again once power was in excess of 95%. This was to

St. Lucie Unit 1 L-2012-382 Docket No. 50-335 Attachment Cycle 24 EPU Startup Report Page 11 of 23 ensure compliance with the shape annealing factor procedure for determining the linear relationship between the incore detectors and the excore detectors.

Following transition to EPU operation (3020 MWt), nuclear instrument calibrations were performed at 30%, 92% and 100% power. No instrument performance issues were identified in either of the two power ascension programs.

Core Power Distribution Monitoring Following the St. Lucie Unit 1 EPU plant startup, power distribution flux maps were produced at EPU power levels of 89%, 95% and 100% (Figures 4, 5 and 6) to monitor core performance at the new power levels. These flux maps were used to compare the measured power distribution with the predicted power distribution. For the pur'poses of power ascension, the acceptance criteria require the root mean square (RMS) value of the power deviation to be less than or equal to 5%. The individual assembly powers should be within 10% of the predicted power for assembly relative powers greater than or equal to 0.9. The acceptance criteria were satisfied for all cases.

Shape Annealing Factors A shape annealing factor (SAF) test was performed during the pre-EPU power ascension. This test was a part of the pre-EPU testing program in advance of the expected middle-of-cycle shutdown to implement EPU. The SAF measurement data for all excore detectors showed a good statistical correlation coefficient and agreement with the trend of each of the other RPS channels indicating that the calculated SAFs are valid and acceptable for use during the EPU power ascension program. The measured SAFs for all the excore detectors and the control channels met all acceptance criteria limits with correlation coefficients greater than 0.999 for each channel. A separate SAF test was not required during the EPU power ascension.

Hot Full Power (HFP) Boron Check The hot full power boron check is performed once the new core power level has been raised to 100% and has been at that power level for a time sufficient to establish equilibrium poison conditions. The reactor coolant system is sampled and the value of the equilibrium boron concentration is adjusted by other sources of reactivity to determine a final value of the full power boron concentration. This is then compared to the design boron concentration value, with the acceptance criterion being less than 50 ppm difference. The hot full power boron was measured after the EPU full power equilibrium conditions were established. Because sufficient cycle operation had taken before the 100% EPU power level was reached, the effects of boron-10 (B-10) depletion were required to be taken into consideration. When a correction factor for the B-10 depletion was applied, the measured to predicted boron difference was calculated to be 7.8 ppm, the measurement shows very good agreement with the predicted value.

RCS Flow Determination A determination of RCS flow by calorimetric parameters was performed at the 89% and 100%

EPU power plateaus. At the 89% power plateau, the measured RCS flow was 413,238 gpm and at the 100% power plateau, the measured RCS flow was 413,232 gpm. In both cases, the

St. Lucie Unit 1 L-2012-382 Docket No. 50-335 Attachment Cycle 24 EPU Startup Report Page 12 of 23 measured RCS flow met the minimum Technical Specification acceptance criteria, including uncertainties.

NSSS Data Collection The St. Lucie Unit 1 nuclear steam supply system (NSSS) significant parameters were observed at the 89%, 92%, 95%, 98% and 100% EPU power plateaus. These significant parameters included RCS temperatures, pressurizer pressure, pressurizer level, containment pressure, containment temperature, steam generator pressure, and steam generator level.

Based on analyses performed as part of the EPU project, RCS temperatures were the only significant parameter expected to vary during the power ascension. Plots for RCS cold leg temperature, hot leg temperature, and average temperature at the various power plateaus are shown on Figure 7. During power ascension, the NSSS significant parameter values compared well with the predicted values. The following is a summary of the NSSS significant parameters at the various power plateaus:

• RCS temperatures - RCS hot leg, cold leg, and average temperatures for the EPU power plateaus are shown on Figure 7. As can be seen, the maximum measured cold leg temperature at 100% EPU power of 550.4*F remained below the EPU limit of 551 OF.

The maximum measured hot leg temperature of 600.5°F corresponds well to the predicted hot leg temperature of 600.4 0 F, when corrected to actual measured RCS flow.

• Pressurizer pressure - remained constant at 2250 psia throughout the power ascension.

• Pressurizer level - remained constant at 66% throughout the power ascension.

• Containment pressure - average pressure ranged from 0.07 psig to 0.25 psig throughout the power ascension.

• Containment temperature - temperature ranged from 96.70 F to 980 F throughout the power ascension.

• Steam generator pressure - ranged between 863 psia at 89% EPU power and 865 psia at 100% EPU power.

• Steam generator level - remained constant at 65% narrow range scale throughout the power ascension.

Balance of Plant (BOP) Data Collection The St. Lucie Unit 1 balance of plant (BOP) significant parameters were observed at the 89%,

92%, 95%, 98% and 100% EPU power plateaus. As the majority of the EPU hardware changes were made to BOP equipment, extensive monitoring of the secondary side was performed during the EPU power ascension. Major systems and components monitored included:

• High pressure turbine, low pressure turbine, main generator and exciter vibration,

" High pressure turbine, low pressure turbine, main generator and exciter bearing temperatures,

• High and low pressure turbine steam pressure and temperature,

• Moisture separator reheater (MSR) pressure and temperature,

" Turbine digital controls,

• Main generator gas temperatures,

• Turbine cooling water system performance,

" Condensate, main feedwater, and heater drain system pressure and temperature,

• Condensate, main feedwater, and heater drain pump performance,

St. Lucie Unit I L-2012-382 Docket No. 50-335 Attachment Cycle 24 EPU Startup Report Page 13 of 23

• Feedwater heater performance,

• Heater drain valve performance,

• Main condenser performance,

• Main transformer performance,

• Isolated phase bus cooling performance, and

• Main generator electric output.

The BOP data collected during the EPU power ascension testing is too extensive to include in this summary report. The completed test procedure and all BOP data collected at the 89%,

92%, 95%, 98% and 100% EPU power plateaus are available for review on-site, if required. As indicated in the summary section below, there were very few deficiencies observed at the power plateaus and very few BOP parameters required evaluation.

BOP Walkdown Balance of plant (BOP) walkdowns were performed during the 89%, 92%, 95%, 98% and 100%

EPU power plateaus. The purpose of the walkdowns was to visually observe operation of accessible components during the power ascension. Multiple test personnel were used to accomplish the walkdowns and the test personnel discussed all observations and findings prior to power escalation. The corrective action program was utilized to document any walkdown findings or deficiencies. The following is a summary of the test deficiencies identified during the BOP walkdowns at the various power plateaus (note that piping and equipment vibration observations are discussed in the next subsection):

• 89% power - two deficiencies were noted. The first involved a higher than expected reading on the C phase of the isophase bus duct. However, alternate measurement concluded the issue to be an instrumentation issue. The second issue involved a lower than expected low pressure turbine inlet pressure. This condition was determined not to be a threat to power ascension and continued monitoring would be performed.

0 92% power - no additional test deficiencies were noted at this power level.

• 95% power - no additional test deficiencies were noted at this power level.

• 98% power - only one new test deficiency was noted at this power level. A turbine speed nuisance alarm was received from the new turbine control system. The equipment vendor evaluated the condition and determined that a setpoint change would resolve the nuisance alarms.

• 100% power - six minor issues were identified at the 100% EPU power plateau. The most significant was a lower than expected main feedwater pump suction pressure (10 psi low). However, sufficient margin (140 psi) was determined to exist between the measured value and the main feedwater pump low suction pressure trip. The remaining five items were not significant and were entered into the corrective action program for subsequent disposition.

Vibration Monitoring The St. Lucie Unit 1 piping and equipment within the scope of the EPU vibration monitoring program were observed at several different plant operating conditions, namely the 89%, 92%,

95%, 98% and 100% EPU power plateaus. The first observations were conducted prior to the shutdown in which the EPU modifications were implemented. Data from these observations was used to develop the list of priorities and baseline data for observation during the EPU

St. Lucie Unit I L-2012-382 Docket No. 50-335 Attachment Cycle 24 EPU Startup Report Page 14 of 23 power escalation. By comparing the observed pipe vibrations / displacements at various power levels with previously established acceptance criteria, potentially adverse pipe vibrations were identified, evaluated and resolved. The following is a summary of the vibration observations at the various power plateaus:

• 89% power - the walkdowns identified two vibration issues that required further review.

The first issue involved a previously identified vibration issue that was satisfactorily isolated. The second involved a degraded spring hanger that was evaluated for acceptability in the current mode of operation.

• 92% power - the walkdowns identified three new vibration issues of interest. The first involved a spring hanger bottomed-out on an auxiliary steam line, the second issue involved a piping segment that had a slight interference with a floor penetration, and the third issue involved a valve handwheel interfering with a handrail. Al three issues were subsequently evaluated as acceptable.

• 95% power - one new vibration point of interest was identified for further monitoring.

This item was evaluated and did not impact power ascension to the 98% plateau.

• 98% power - one new vibration point of interest was identified for further monitoring.

This item was evaluated and did not impact power ascension to the 100% plateau. A total of seven (7) low margin vibration items were captured at this point and were being tracked as part of the power ascension program.

• 100% power - all piping and equipment vibration points of interest and all thermal expansion/support issues were evaluated and deemed acceptable. A total of eight (8) low margin vibration items were captured at this point and would be inspected in the near future for any potential changes.

• Post-EPU inspection - a final piping and equipment vibration walkdown was conducted approximately ten (10) days after the 100% EPU power plateau was reached. All previously identified piping and equipment vibration points of interest and all thermal expansion/support issues remained acceptable. The eight (8)low margin vibration items were unchanged and deemed acceptable for continued operation.

Plant Radiation Surveys Plant radiation surveys were taken at the 89% and 100% EPU power level. The plant radiation survey areas included portions of containment, the reactor auxiliary building, the fuel handling building, and the steam trestle, taking both accessibility and ALARA into consideration. Once the radiation survey information was obtained at the 89% and 100% EPU power level, a review of the data was performed by the plant Radiological Protection department and the following conclusions were reached:

• The radiation survey results were acceptable for 100% EPU power operation, and

" The radiological postings were adequate for 100% EPU power operation.

MTC Test at HFP The magnitude of the moderator temperature coefficient (MTC) was measured in accordance with Technical Specification 4.1.1.4.2 with St. Lucie Unit 1 operating at the pre-EPU 100%

power level (2700 MWt). This Technical Specification requires a measurement be performed within 7 effective full power days (EFPD) of achieving equilibrium full power conditions. The measured MTC magnitude of -4.83 pcm/°F was in very good agreement with a predicted value

St. Lucie Unit 1 L-2012-382 Docket No. 50-335 Attachment Cycle 24 EPU Startup Report Page 15 of 23 of -4.48 pcm/°F when corrected for boron concentration differences due to the difference in the time in life between the predicted exposure and the actual time of the performance of the test.

The measured value of the MTC met all acceptance criteria limits. The measurement of the MTC was not required to be performed at the EPU 100% power level (3020 MWt).

Leading Edge Flowmeter (LEFM) Commissioning As described in References 1 and 2, the St. Lucie Unit 1 EPU project included a 1.7%

Measurement Uncertainty Recapture (MUR) thermal power increase. To achieve the MUR M

T power increase of 1.7%, the Cameron Leading Edge Flow Meter (LEFM) CheckPlus ultrasonic flow measurement instrumentation was installed to improve feedwater flow measurement accuracy. An individual LEFM CheckPlusTM system flow element (spool piece) was installed in each of the two main feedwater lines and was calibrated in a site-specific model test at Alden Research Laboratories with traceability to National Standards. The LEFM CheckPlusTM system was installed and commissioned in accordance with FPL procedures and Cameron installation and test requirements. LEFM CheckPlusTM commissioning included verification of ultrasonic signal quality and evaluated the actual plant hydraulic velocity profiles as compared to those documented during the Alden Research Laboratories testing. Final verification of the site-specific uncertainty analyses occurred as part of the LEFM CheckPlusTM system commissioning process. The commissioning process provides final positive confirmation that actual performance in the field meets the uncertainty bounds established for the instrumentation.

Significant results were as follows:

" Confirmation was obtained from Cameron certifying that the LEFM CheckPlus TM was functioning in accordance with the performance requirements.

• The measured feedwater flow difference between the LEFM CheckPlus TM and the original plant venturi instrumentation was well within the acceptance criteria.

• The feedwater temperature difference between the LEFM CheckPlusTM and the plant temperature instrumentation was well within the acceptance criteria.

" The reactor power difference between the LEFM CheckPlus TM and the original plant venturi instrumentation was well within the acceptance criteria.

VIII. Summary The test data collected during EPU startup and power ascension and summarized in this report concludes that all major systems, structures, and components (SSCs) performed as predicted and there was no adverse impact to the performance of the unit. The EPU startup and power ascension test data satisfied all acceptance criteria and demonstrated conformance to predicted performance. Copies of the completed EPU startup and power ascension test procedures are available on site for review.

St. Lucie Unit 1 L-2012-382 Docket No. 50-335 Attachment Cycle 24 EPU Startup Report Page 16 of 23 VII. References

1) R. L. Anderson (FPL) to U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (L-2010-259), "License Amendment Request for Extended Power Uprate," November 22, 2010 (Accession No. ML103560419).

2) T. Orf (NRC) to M. Nazar (FPL), "St. Lucie Plant, Unit 1 - Issuance of Amendment Regarding Extended Power Uprate (TAC No. ME5091)", July 9, 2012 (Accession No. ML12156A208).

St. Lucie Unit 1 L-2012-382 Docket No. 50-335 Attachment Cycle 24 EPU Startup Report Page 17 of 23 Figure 1 Cycle 24 - Core Loading Pattern Nt P M K H y x W V T S R N"L'J G F E D C B A I I I I II .* II II, II II I DD3 EE37I . . I I I I I D032 D EE29 EE10 FF71 FF90 FF74 EES EE35 DD34 21

-'- -SI 447 450 - - . ' . ' .

DD53 FF76 FF2 FF92 FF39 EEI7 FF46 FF93 FF4 FF82003 442 416 311 443 426 i i 004 FF85 FF11 EE64 EE25 DD6 FF49 DD19 EE24 EE59 FF18 FF86 DD57 ' '

210 424 451 455 446 211 -'-"-"- - 18 D021 FF83 FF20 EE68 EE45 FF29 FF59 EE3 FF60 FF30 EE44 EE67 FF10 FF70 D043 145 441 17 413401 EE38 FF5 EE62 EE51 FF35 0D7 FF38 EES0 FF67 DD10 FF13 EE34 EE61 FF6 EE31 i 49 408 411 415 FF98 E23 FF24 DD20 FF41 EE70 FF25 EE72 FF54 0D8 FF21 EE22 FF99 EE6 I DD44 456 FOI 434 405 433 410 448 0D37 9 FF51 FF52 EE73 FF22 EE2 FF17 EE74 FF45 FF48 0011 FF37 FF72 14 EE55 421 437 150 404 438 432 EE4 1 12 FF89 EE27 FF58 EE16 EE47 FF19 EE4 DD52 EEl1 FF9 EE33 EE12 FF44 EE19 FF100 310 403 L1 454 312 EE56 10 FF43 DD12 FF65 FF63 EE75 FF28 EE9 FF16 EE69 FF57 FF68 DD18 FF56 FF80 DD39 417 427 407 402 425 423 0030 8

EEl, FF91 EE.2O FF15 1315 FF53 EE76 FF33 EE71 FF62 DD16 FF32 EE18 FF96 EE7 ...

-" 7 436 144 414 147 422 149 435 EE32 FF7 EE57 EE40 FF27 DD5 FF42 EE43 FF66 DD17 FF36 EE49 EE63 FF1 EE54 453 148 406 420 6 FF77 FF26 EE66 EE52 FF23 FF40 EE13 FF47 FF31 EE53 EE6; FF14 FF78 DD35 428 409 146 444 DD47 FF87 FF34 EE58 EE26 0D14 FF61 DD13 EE21 EE60 FF12 FF88 DD1 212 419 430 431 429 213 002 FF73 FF8 FF97 FF50 EE28 FF64 FF94 FF3 FF75 DD55 452 445 313 439 418 1 1 DD38 EE4I EEt4 FF69 FF95 FF81 EElS EE39 DD27 412 440 2 DD2 I E42 IEE "8I0D23I 1 Assembly Serial # - N Insert Serial # I

St. Lucie Unit 1 L-2012-382 Docket No. 50-335 Attachment Cycle 24 EPU Startup Report Page 18 of 23 Cycle 24 - Boron Dilution Curve Figure 2 Inverse Count Ratio Plot - Channel B

• A 1.0 1.0 0.9 0.9

0. 0.8 0.7 0.1 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.

100 2 3000 4 I 50 Iý III 0w 110 ...

1

St. Lucie Unit 1 L-2012-382 Docket No. 50-335 Attachment Cycle 24 EPU Startup Report Page 19 of 23 Cycle 24- Boron Dilution Curve Figure 3 Inverse Count Ratio Plot - Channel D

.0.0 0.8 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1

- - 0.0 V'yo_* W IW I W IWIJ7W WIW 11WIIUIU IW JWIEik 6ýk

St. Lucie Unit 1 L-2012-382 Docket No. 50-335 Attachment Cycle 24 EPU Startup Report Page 20 of 23 FIGURE 4 Cycle 24 - Power Distribution Comparison - 89% Power UnIt I Masuisid: BEACON P1.- L..d 1 EmposuroI""1 a I I I a TT Mwmcý "WA 1217 JIM F E 125 1214

""33 1770" 1"":U" 1 In i I

- -~ - -

'1 In6 0.397 112n l

456 L .6 IN 12.27 1 178 L.5 L24 2.I4 U"~.-

IMI L177 1307 9.70061"4 1211 Lou2.4"tM 1.22 6.34?0 v 264 6.46 46409 MU 283 IUM Lon6 AM.5 LIMI Line4 4L46 MI LnII 6.56I no UNM Law2 I",

LINI LIPS 4466 L2141 167 L.218 Lin

-8122 846 LIN5 LVI7

.6.111 86 LOSS LMAM 184 L.84 C7 i

8 Lin5 Me11 23 LM21 LION L L.22 9 Me LIAM1225 LIIO N L29 L129 L.42 U 1126" 12.193 2.44B IM LW1 LIPS 1.M2 L223 tin51 LM4 LMI? L2122 I- n13 In'62 n154 1.25 6.429 3166 I'm3 .I-1 I- U44I"' I'l in 117 117 177 174 176 174 172 172 172 170 6 1S I" M7 I" 6.32 1.576 1.223 Lin LOWI LIAM6 L"2 LII L24 2.26 lawI LinI 1214 LOSI L310 if

.135 LU L L LM LAWS 24 2L. LIII 40 UMU UN MUN MUW UN 441 4M6 L2.0 L2 MU0 I IL 2 4M1 1.2LO,LMLMU 2A.. 1367

.4L3 467

.1 LT AA "1 ý2 Ll L2 21 M L._ A. -

I4" 244 I" I 3 12 16i1 26 25 156 IVI 254 2I" 254 I" I 212 III U5 LI L22 2.7 1UN LOW I U= .r71 UN .2 LM III 1.1 Um1 U.5 L171 LINT Lg .233 n .0118 .74 UN4 Me Me 23 Low 1.103 L2.14 6.U16 MU UW M1 Ule 147 Un .466 *44 4 MUn -MU 16 6.? 4M -4 A-2 U - -5 Me -L --

inI 1416 24 147 146 2 146 l4 143 143 141 140 III 123 137 IN 4II 6.799 UN3 127@ L260 LOW2 2.219 LIN5 1.200 LIN5 UN1 III III LII UN2 6.75O L7 2.222 Lin2 2.4 LIo 211 -4 2.L27 2.4 LII1 Line L247 LIN L20I 6.70 4 L46

'MU MLU Lon 6. -L46 -046 4-U7 45 _.1um MU U0 M 11n U0 4-.M 136 LIII 6.34 W 132 131 in 22 i 127 122 134 i21 I 121 M2 li 636 LINI L4 1.OO6 L20 LI LISP UNe Lon3 UN L2.5 2.1 216 Lo2n 10 L171 177 LN LM L243 M2 Lt L227 132 L.227 L5 LUN3 L24 1 Lon Lm L2271 am 664U0 l.U 1517 UK64 6LOW5 46

. L.4 AM 6.m6 U7 6-61 6.664 - 63 1.471 I 224 "11 3 22 II I I *II i 3 L267 I 1**II 1" 1 ,1184311 12 L.4 3I .

Il '0 L Ii 7 LINI 2. 4116 LI 2149 -=

L ,II III Li

= LM 62 Los16 LII LII 1.14 6,470 L1" 6 L 14 1517 1l5 156 6 lMUU 42 .67U1L44

_ 281.427 664 1. 4562 156 4L L .LM 5 7m UI 1I 17 5II4 164 13" "111 60 4n, 67 v6 I 1 U 2 615 L3 2 U L22UN3 LII LM L*Li L21o 1

• 27*

6 1. -I.11 4SU2 466 .16 -146 .6, MU . 4 Be MU 1521 U514 1 2.300

13. 12 U2 71 71 77 7t 76 74 73 72 71 To 4L a4 Len I 6721 MW7 Lin I, I=

UMU UNA L2III 1512 L179 LIII 612 LIII L247 ZI,.1.11 Lou3 LOIS 6.41 L318 LII1 Ll A666 LIN5 LIU5 L2 -4.1 LIII LM LIII L2.27 4W LINI

.,am55 L221 UN1 LI11

.6.161 S

Lon2 0.,

LoiI M

I=

LI4 M.U12 2.24 2.162 Lou 5 1.23 1.222 4562 6.6 6.7 L"178 455 47 4 4 64 431 62 42 II 5 6 7 5 4 5 123 L.270 2.12 LOIS LII 2.1 L.236 1.978 UN23 1.26 2 LIII LIM1 1.178 1523 U1, 2.14 .103 LIII 2.26 MeI 2.34 2.474 UN LinI 2.3 LIMI 2.17 L.171 U169 6.54 Lou6 U.66 "is2 U087 &MU .464 4L.114 41.1 LMU _461M 6.6 am -6462 U051 62 61 7 4 aI5 U 4 In 41 41 13.

In31 LOW I 2.3 216 LII UN 21 LIII LM4 UN Len .1 N 247 .2 1&6 2.M L2.27 1.22 L2IIII LE 212 22 2.43 1.147 2.OW 2.12 LIII LM I L6315 UAL M_ 1L_ L I - 6 L .

L419 LIM L16U LIIS LIN LM36 U L2 3 Le LIU L III L1 LINJI0M 4 27y t.41 11.116 36 13A"" 34 LIA In I2 . 231

,2 16 0

LI"" 1. 2 3 221 127 LIM 125 6.40 I.

2. OU 178 L.76 U 12.2 LIII L249 U 1.219 4 2.54IN 1646 4 21 23 1L.4 Line 117121 12.32 1 3 111 LIP5 In 1 N II LI.. 7 2 IM .19 4 INLUZ I14 U141 Len I' .64 U U.64 U41 -U.64 .156 L56 LA 1.21 L I*3 7 2.

II I I I"

23II°-I - I" 1311 1U31 1, Len 0.745 6,78.

M U0

.174 L177 4-4U17 LI4 LI24 45

- I' 7'+- '- 6 1.

L17.

MU 1.75 L.75 4564 1521 SAM4 446 1is1 1367 M.

06.380 L17 6470 1136. I _________

11431 1142 643 136 I RMS Deviation: 0.68%

Till 1n16e d.44.4. 146666 1116835,1166et Aogsndix A. RMS 4e141fd a should be Inn4than w *42 & to61 5.0%and = __

66446618 requIreme 544.6.121pfomned .41 1 36d 0 4 o Pe6cent erMl IntoMoment dufln4 the Power aec"W" 464 6noef11m.

St. Lucie Unit I L-2012-382 Docket No. 50-335 Attachment Cycle 24 EPU Startup Report Page 21 of 23 Figure 5 Cycle 24 - Power Distribution Comparison - 95% Power Unit t MoanuteLd: BEACON c[Ap-.I~ $16" 13011 R P MI L K J H a B...., C MA.46 ji Ti 217 1215 215 114 MU 641,711 L478 IL365 IMU

-6.8 M.74

- .1.514 L.473 856 "I31

-6.86 I i IF 213 L31-SI in Lois, Lois 41111 167 MU

.75 N

VW1 411W its LIlm

.17 JL17 Lln LII

.LI 1.71 6L3 u I'l4.O16 287 6.71 "a

L7W4UM

.1 M IIII31 "is3 M

L318 M17

_;tw a

El T

39414 23 t.115 Em 107 196 M5 C L228 1309 LIMI MIND1.4 LIM L21I -L221n LIU 1.46 10.451 1.423II IAN

-LM1 Lin L21: 1.217 LIM Le"I -1.4J"I1 U.i -4.1114 III_U12 L231 4W* 4M -6115" 192 In M M 1811 ii 1.l I" In6 157 194 a Lill LIn 4I"N Lin LIU LIII LinI LIU LIU LIuI 1.217 L1M LII LAMI III Lon LI60 LIM LIMI LIMI LIM2 Lon

.. 9" Mai"' Lt 1.157 LI-M .6652 . t",

L II 1. L13@ LM 1.21 1 L ll L2 L248 LIU L Lo 3 M17 1.34 L14 L114 LII L245 41 I L L41 I 245 1.11 L.124 M7

-. 18A 0319 "5 1" 113 152 I1 IN a in- 157 1 1" 15 111 102 151 L176 I526 Lill 1M L210 LM L23 7 1.231 1.1 L.11 Lon LIN0 LIM UII --

612 LII 1.167 ILM 1.203 LOU 1.234 LOWt6 1233 Loll L211 1.1 LIIM LI fill 4Ke.1 . 1J13 .6 LO6 686 -6TM164 446 414043 L I 6 L1. IMIT L6165 -AM6 ALA a -7L IL M -; LI InI 140 148 147 146 I46 144 143 142 141 146 L39 138 137 I1 6.6 LIU L176 Law LIM L2I1 Li6 L20 LIN L21 = L2 L165 1*.2,6701 MI765 LIII 1.15 1.141 1.919 L2I LIP5 1.2541 LIMI LIII 1616 LII LIFT L214 '.780

-am6 6.61 Los1 8*14 6.51 ILM 1.M1 6861 -6.65 4901 6.M6 6665 6.61 MIS .6 M INI 6.31 133 in 131 138 in In Is7 126 In 114 123 122 12, 126 136

.17 L24I L Leo Lin L.1 1.U 13 1.4 1.131 10" L4 1.266 11 LIE Lill -4 JA.- 1.17 1.231 183 1.11 L.233 15 1.1 1.64Lon LI3 8 LIS? L234 LI41 1.n LI23 1.171 UM .L6 633 &.on1 Lowy 2.654 OLSON. -M3 II 00 6.1111 6654

• IO Mt LW -811 I 4 its L.476 I 3 L.473 11 111 114 113 112 111 lie 1n 1 117 1 IN, 1M4 1 11 0,47 1.64 II 4LW LVII L,216 LIMI LL, ILI Leo GAO 1.46 LII L LiIl 11 1.266 1 I

.14 L, L222 1.6 LI7 1.2S LIP3 0 1.6M 1.258 1.176 LM 1222 L" 1.14 1.47 L4 Loll "is L@17 L14 LM am, -43 -tMIt fL kL L1117 L6 &"1 -41. La -L_

mlot La L.474 891067 604

% 93 9 1 9 a a 17 a $A?6

_M4W 1179 L240 LWIN 1.2 Lie LI.N 1.231 1 LIIn 1.23Lt LI 6 .2 rL I L.171 1.132 I" L2141 1.23 LIFT7 Li23 1.631 LIII 1155 L.233 L24I 81 LOU 2 I 1.L171

-611 6.4 61l1 6151119 1.66 1.6 -4.86 .M6 aaa6 -6.961 -865 SAM6 -6651 -6.13

.4 LIII I I LIN 82 2I a5 79 78 77 75 75 74 72 71 71 71 aI aI 63 L.718 LIII L178 1.21I LMI L1.2 LI"5 LinI LINI LIMI Lae2 1.25 LIII L220 6.75 - 1.511 _/

0.7111 L214 1.157 LI4I 1.M2 Lill LI"5 1.25 LIP5 LII 1615 LIII 1645 L21 .6 6.56 1165 ".13 MIs MI1 Lon6 -6.81 -666 LW7 6.4 MII LW84 1.86 LMU -4 10L L & " -ALA A- - L- - a-'-LL-2 1ý 67 56 I 5 3 62 61 69 56 aI 57 5 4 5 M4 61on 1.171 Lill LIII LIII Lon2 L.22 L17I 1.231 LMI L 1I LM7 1.119 .17 16 -n LUN LIII L.3 L@62 L1.3 1.195 L233 1.176 L234 LII 1.3113I 1.662 11117 LIU 06123

`MU "i3 I17 LMU Me7 MI -I'm1 .6 6L6 61107

.A .. 7 -a -.

AM16

-~ - ~ , -a .

Lose

, -a L.37 MU*

-A

.63 62 111 IN* II 4 I 44 16 43 4 41 41 39 38 316 Lon5 11218 Lill1 1676 1.4 .15 MI 1240 LIMI 1.6 LIII LIII LM81 6318 _

0631 :7I 1.217 L1214 1.4 L2 i.11.3 *1 L245 LOIS 1.4 L.214 LII L317

" I 6165 MU 6114 MN!A MUl~ 4W 6165- -14" Jýl66 &L" 15 4`n "4W 16411 LinI L1229 LiIl 1.11 1.229 1181 115 2Lill Lo36 UNt~ 1.11 L.41 37 1.43 131 tin3

.. it 13 L214 134 MI37 133 1.156 132 "M

111

ý 1310 22 1.661117 Ln

.. ~ 1.33

~

i LI7

.- LW 1I26 L139 20 "I4

- -n 1

Z4 123 122 121 In 5 I 1 5 1 1 6.41 646 IIM 11.13 I L7171 L1.2314 II LIMI LI.6Ml 1LIII 1 1.

Lin 117 I_415 14 II 1646 6

L451 IM 27 XI 119 I 9MI 1. 1 MU3 Ink 1.6 .4146 3 2=

13 2 1 II i1s 1 17 1. 1.1 6317 §22 L.70 1 1.146 1.171 L.702 . 18 9 M.II3 -. 112 -. 6 MU 6.46 -I.N,8 M .8 LM MLI to1420 1-15 AM 61 RMS Deviation: 0.59%

14.

1its Insoet Me=d1, 61515 16 ruhb.Aj n~ 96 s x AAS 1950 61116614bo Ion then.01 eatta1t 5.0% and wee too o1.6.ts. dutina 111. A IOW,46nsIon low 011618111.

St. Lucie Unit 1 L-2012-382 Docket No. 50-335 Attachment Cycle 24 EPU Startup Report Page 22 of 23 Figure 6 Cycle 24 - Power Distribution Comparison - 100% Power Unit I Meaired: BFAC0N14gn ExApoow I*M* i4m 1

CZA.o .nt. IN Is I I I I I I I F 1 MU1 iT 1.414M v 311 L310

-liam L474

.114 1473 liiim LMIi

-l I W I

lin ... LIN ii Lill Lnm L7N US L764 L4W 17;4 LIM, L136 L139 -7U Liii1711 un LSIi 1.31 12 LuI .4W -'iii

-lii 4W -fte-V 2"43 111 210 1", LIS 197 Mi 196 154 CU LIM LOU Liii Lill LM LIii LnI LISS L OL446 LaiiiL LDO 4W L213 LIVP Liii LZII LiGS L239 -am -am Leto o"',45111

.Lot .;I -Uloi 431 Iii tgl I" it in 137 In 111 183 L12 III til Lii 1.411 LINI LI2 LIN Liii L9 LM 1516 LM L131 L211 L13i LMi Life Lo LMi -LIIIS LW? Lila L&ll 9 LOW Loni Lon JlAW L2131'.113 SA2 4011 1L"! 4103 4A" 4LW 1.1 -iii 1"i 177 175 177 176 171 111 11 172 111i~ 171 1ii 1i ii L2 LOU L22 LI Ii L210 Li24 LIN Liii M1 LI064 L313 L1 4 Lou U4i L LM L41 Lii L.ii Li24 LOU Liii LIM L114 L LIPS L 1" MU .I.

LW 4064 157 L"6 4LN Lw 4111 4M 4W Lot 4W3 4L6 W 4LI' I"= " 163 142 161 iIn Ii ini 157 1" 1" 194 13 102 151 Iii L17 Li1i LOU L20 LAiU L2II LU LW30

1. LiOS Li1t LonI LIis LIMi "lis 8.622 Life LIMi 1.66 1.211 Liii 1.235 LOT? LMi 1"i 1.29i LOU6 i.i I.i is1 AM L014 Li £1-,7 LOW 4LO1 4W LOS3 -Lei L163 LW In? ant -LMl 4L7 A-. L- L4 D-2 A-.2 in I'm 143 1347 1i I ilo 1 I'd in 141 7 LA Li iM -U....13 I.

In &7U Lii 4

LW 1.16 LW Lim LIM Lou LinI I"

Liii LW LW Late Li.i Li12 4.1 LiiL LIN LWU Liii L.11 lW LIN LM i Li1i Li2 A1112 LW 1.1121 411 Li61 LiiLW6 LIM LIMi L L216 Liit4L=

0.71 178- 4Li List

-MU lli 111 114 I,1 I13 129 Ili II W iM i 11 M i In III in 10 0.

MU2 ii LISI LW 1L" iLLM0 L4I0 Laix Lioa LWI Life L24 LIII LIM L23 LMii -L lit1 LI"i LIi LW Liac L 1.167 L233 Loa L2i3 Lii Liii Liii Lou Liii LIi AL LW Me ii LW LW LUs LL LW LID Lai LW 411 L473 11l

.41 LM4 IL L3M 1-21 ILA* L - AL 117 0,470 L438 i 1I 11 11 11 11 li in IN4 ISO 1  ; 1 0 ,47 L44 M7 L219 Li2i Lin Lii Liii* eoi LM L LIII LOU Lill L23i LIII LIi -#

L13i LW" LW L1i LiI L268 Lie i L60 L L2I Lii Liii LI2 LIW Liii ALOi Lii LIi "in UI7 L Low

-3 *W " AM LOW Lon 47 LW LW 4m UJ. LUU U LL- 11- _L2 DA L3 07U U .7 Do L31W LW. Lii7 Lii La lAW -LW "'Mi LM L 4 LMi LW LWl -LMi 4 L71 LW LIIe Liii Liif Lii 1L230 Iii Me Li, Li. L2 LanI Ll 21 AL- 1I7 LIiN LI L41 L24 Lin Lin4 LedI I Liii L234 LiM Liou L2ii LIS7 Li2 LII Doi 171 7ii Lii Li6 70i LW LW Lii 171 Lii AtI SOii o

, n U..U... -131 U.....L U I .. Dei 1l 48.7.UI 13 5 MN70 Lii1 1.i1 L.22 LII Liii Li46 Li.2 LI.I LIiM Lii LW LiOi Li6i Li260 157 LINi Life L212 li 1.M7 LM L24i Lii LW" I1.117 L21 L MIiE ILI 4L Ad- .. - 31. W -.... I- -.A;. 1,1 LAID Liii LM LWU L597 LW L24 -177 -LM1 LW2 LOW LW6 LIii -15 L 41.31 LM L Il LM L* LI Ie Lf In L"D11 LM 1.43 L Li 1.2 Lin Lill Li LISP LAiiID 1 i.2" I_

L Ii L 219 Li ILi MVi L1i1 L2i 1 .37L LINi Lon1 IZZiL 1.5 LMi I= L Ii 11

1. W jM 4M _11,16 I-In_L8 ii r r A I-,7 I., I It 31 17 16 If 14 1231 LL IL LIM LAWi 2.41 LIM Le" Lii* Uii L2N3 LLMI Liii3n ISi LIM ILI- Li.6 L419 4LUe LU44 4WM -Lil

-LeW am 4Wrn 4WN Lla LILi

_L2 -iA Li -87 t) 1i II 1i L LVi L7iN LITI LII 5.7W U1 1.1.

L318 L,1 L138 L714 LM LI L1 L~ii l"I LI 4814 I!4 It- Ii& I * -#-

RMS Deviatdon: 0.58% 1i~i Timh I d~~Ihn et, VI1211.pMiooPS A. RIBS devia.in ,hwnld dixsuh u.11.,.Oz.q.i5.. i too DPisilum.

St. Lucie Unit 1 L-2012-382 Docket No. 50-335 Attachment Cycle 24 EPU Startup Report Page 23 of 23 Figure 7 Cycle 24 - RCS Temperature vs. Power EPU Power Ascension RCS 610.0 600.0 590.0 580.0 u- 570.0

-RCS T-cold

-RCS T-hot A 560.0 RCS T-ave 550.0 540.0 530.0 520.0 89% 92% 95% 98% 100%

Percent EPU Power