L-2012-426, Extended Power Uprate Cycle 26 Startup Report

Extended Power Uprate Cycle 26 Startup Report

ML12341A097
Person / Time
Site:	Turkey Point
Issue date:	12/04/2012
From:	Kiley M Florida Power & Light Co
To:	Document Control Desk, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
L-2012-426, TAC ME4907, TAC ME4908
Download: ML12341A097 (19)

Text

L-2012-426 10 CFR 50.36 December 4, 2012 F

U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Attn.: Document Control Desk Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 Re: Turkey Point Unit 3 Docket No. 50-250 Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-31 Extended Power Uprate Cycle 26 Startup Report

Reference:

(1) J. Page (NRC) to M. Nazar (FPL), Turkey Point Units 3 and 4 - Issuance of Amendments Regarding Extended Power Uprate (TAC Nos. ME4907 and ME 4908), June 15, 2012 (Accession No. ML11293A365).

Pursuant to Turkey Point Unit 3 Technical Specification (TS) 6.9.1.1, Florida Power & Light Company (FPL) is submitting the Unit 3 Cycle 26 Startup Report. This attached report is required due to implementation of Unit 3 Amendment No. 249 for the Extended Power Uprate (EPU) Project that was issued via Reference 1. This report summarizes the power ascension testing results completed to date through 98% rated thermal power (RTP). A supplemental report addressing the results at 100% RTP will be provided upon completion of final testing.

Should you have any questions regarding this submittal, please contact Mr. Robert Tomonto, Turkey Point Licensing Manager, at 305-246-7327.

Sincerely, Micha iley y

Site Vice President Turkey Point Nuclear Plant Attachment (1) cc: USNRC Regional Administrator, Region II USNRC Project Manager, Turkey Point Nuclear Plant USNRC Senior Resident Inspector, Turkey Point Nuclear Plant Florida Power & Light Company 07rnf

• ~~ ~ ~

Q117 ý 4 Q.

]N'**LtII II)JL*'

l21..;A.

o Ii a r,;,

,l,

,2 U I L .,J V2

Turkey Point Unit 3 L-2012-426 Docket No. 50-250 Attachment Cycle 26 EPU Startup Report Page 1 of 18 TURKEY POINT UNIT 3 CYCLE 26 EXTENDED POWER UPRATE STARTUP REPORT

Turkey Point Unit 3 L-2012-426 Docket No. 50-250 Attachment Cycle 26 EPU Startup Report Page 2 of 18 Table of Contents I Introduction 3 II Cycle 26 Core Design Summary 4 III Power Ascension Program 6 IV Power Ascension Program Results 12 V Summary 16 VI References 16

Turkey Point Unit 3 L-2012-426 Docket No. 50-250 Attachment Cycle 26 EPU Startup Report Page 3 of 18

1. Introduction The purpose of this Startup Report is to provide a summary description of the plant startup and power ascension testing performed at Turkey Point following the implementation of License Amendment No. 249 on the Extended Power Uprate for Renewed Facility Operating License DPR-31 for Turkey Point Unit 3 that was issued on June 15, 2012

[Reference 1]. The amendment increased the authorized maximum steady-state reactor core power from 2300 megawatts thermal (MWt) to 2644 MWt. This Unit 3 Cycle 26 Startup Report is being submitted in accordance with Turkey Point Technical Specification 6.9.1.1, Items (2) and (4).

Technical Specification 6.9.1.1, Startup Report, states:

"A summary report of plant startup and power escalation testing shall be submitted following: ... (2) amendment to the license involving a planned increase in power level, ...

and (4) modifications that may have significantly altered the nuclear, thermal, or hydraulic performance of the unit. The report shall address each of the tests identified in the FSAR and shall in general include a description of the measured values of the operating conditions of characteristics obtained during the test program and a comparison of these values with design predictions and specifications. Any corrective actions that were required to obtain satisfactory operation shall also be described. Any additional specific details required in license conditions based on other commitments shall be included in this report. Subsequent Startup Reports shall address startup tests that are necessary to demonstrate the acceptability of changes and/or modifications."

As of the issuance date of this report, not all required testing per the Startup Test Program has been completed-for Turkey Point Unit 3 Cycle 26. Technical Specification 6.9.1.1, Startup Report, states "If the Startup Report does not cover all three events (i.e., initial criticality, completion of the Startup Test Program, and resumption or commencement of commercial operation), supplemental reports shall be submitted every 3 months until all three events have been complete." In accordance with the Technical Specifications, additional reports will be provided every 3 months until completion of the Startup Test Program.

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) Cycle 26 core design summary

2) Low 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.

Turkey Point Unit 3 L-2012-426 Docket No. 50-250 Attachment Cycle 26 EPU Startup Report Page 4 of 18 II. Cycle 26 Core Design Summary The Unit 3 Cycle 26 core is designed to operate for 18,400 MWD/MTU. Seventy-two fresh fuel assemblies of the UPGRADE design were loaded into the cycle 26 core. Forty have a nominal enrichment of 3.8 w/o and thirty-two have a nominal enrichment of 4.2 w/o.

Forty-eight of the assemblies reloaded were first-bum of the UPGRADE design and the remaining thirty-seven were second-bum of the DRFA design.

Test Summary The Startup Test Program for Turkey Point Unit 3 Cycle 26 includes Low Power Physics Testing, Power Ascension Testing, Extended Power Uprate Testing and RCS Flow Verification. Low Power Physics Testing is performed in accordance with ANSJ/ANS-19.6.1 1985, Reload Startup Physics Tests for Pressurized Water Reactors. Power Ascension Testing addresses the various flux maps and RCS temperature measurements performed at intermediate power levels as the Unit ascends to 100% power. Extended Power Uprate Testing includes all tests FPL committed to perform during power ascension. The RCS Flow Verification is performed per TS 3/4.2.5, after each fuel loading and at least once per 18 months. Each phase of the Startup Test Program is discussed in more detail in the following paragraphs.

Low Power Physics Testing Low Power Physics Testing was performed over August 14-16, 2012 in accordance with the following general sequence:

1. Initial Criticality: Criticality was achieved by withdrawing all shutdown and control banks and diluting to critical.

2. Zero Power Test Range Determination: This was determined after the point of adding heat had been demonstrated.

3. Online Verification of the Reactivity Computer: This was determined by examining the output of the reactivity computer during rod withdrawal and the determination of the point of adding heat.

4. Boron Endpoint Measurement: This was determined with all the control and shutdown banks withdrawn using the reactivity computer.

5. Rod Worth Measurement: Individual control bank and shutdown bank worths were measured using the rod swap technique. The highest worth bank was measured using the boron dilution technique.

6. Isothermal Temperature Coefficient Measurement (ITC): This was determined using the reactivity computer during a reactor coolant temperature change. The Moderator Temperature Coefficient (MTC) was calculated from the ITC data.

All acceptance criteria were met as can be seen in the table below. The Low Power Physics Test data fidelity with predictions for Cycle 26 was similar to recent Unit 3 cycles.

Turkey Point Unit 3 L-2012-426 Docket No. 50-250 Attachment Cycle 26 EPU Startup Report Page 5 of 18 Low Power Physics Test Results: Unit 3 Cycle 26 ITEM MEASURED PREDICTED DIFFERENCE CRITERIA (M-P)

Boron Endpoint:

HZP All Rods Out (ppm) 1689 1712 -23 +/-50 All Rods Out ITC (pcm/PF) 0.004 -0.954 0.958 +/-2 All Rods Out MTC (pcm!°F) 1.655 0.697 Control Bank Rod Worths (pcm)

A 1049 1086 -37 (-3.4%) 100 pcm or B 285 295 -10 (-3.4%) 15%

C 1453 1451 +2(+0.1%) 15%

D 622 657 -35 (-5.3%) (10%

SA 935 927 +8(+0.9%) Bank C)

SB 1089 1128 -39 (-3.5%)

Total 5433 5544 -111 (-2.0%) +/-7%

Power Ascension Flux Mapping Thermal hydraulic parameters, nuclear parameters and related instrumentation were monitored throughout power ascension. Data was compared to previous cycle power ascension data and engineering predictions, as required, at each test plateau to identify calibration or system problems. Power changes were governed by operating procedures and fuel preconditioning requirements.

Flux mapping was performed at approximately 30%, 50%, 87%, and 100% rated thermal power using the Moveable Incore Detector System. The resulting peaking factors and power distribution were compared to Technical Specification limits to verify that the core was operating within its design limits. All analysis limits were met. The flux map results are shown in the table below. Also shown in the table is a comparison of measured FAH to design FAH predictions. The results show that the measured to predicted fidelity for Cycle 26 is very good and similar to recent Unit 3 cycles. In addition, incore tilt and radial power distribution fidelity were also good and similar to recent Unit 3 cycles.

Turkey Point Unit 3 L-2012-426 Docket No. 50-250 Attachment Cycle 26 EPU Startup Report Page 6 of 18 Power Ascension Flux Map Results: Unit 3 Cycle 26 ITEM MAP I MAP 2 MAP 3 MAP 4 Date of Map 09/12/12 10/13/12 10/26/12 11/19/12 Power Level (%) 26.4 47.4 83.7 99.3 Control BankD 157 164 183 229 Position (steps)

Predicted FAH 1.504 1.459 1.422 1.383 (from map)

Measured FAH 1.544 1.491 1.459 1.422 FAH Difference 2.2 2.6 2.8

((M-P)/P in %)

Incore Tilt 1.016 1.010 1.012 1.014 Maximum Measured to Predicted Assembly +6.5 +3.1 +3.3 +3.7 Power Difference (%)

RMS Measured to Predicted Assembly 1.97 1.54 1.26 1.33 Power Difference (%) I- __

Reactor Coolant System (RCS) Flow Verification The RCS flow verification was performed to satisfy the TS 4.2.5.4 which requires that after each fuel loading and at least once per 18 months, the RCS flow rate be determined by precision heat balance after exceeding 90% power. In addition, TS 3.2.5 requires that the measured RCS flow be greater than or equal to 270,000 gpm. This test was conducted on November 11, 2012.

The measured RCS flow was 285,712 gpm which is similar to the measured RCS flow in recent cycles and meets the TS requirement.

III. 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 (2300 MWt) was attained (approximately 87% of the EPU full power level of 2644 MWt). Above 2300 MWt, 3% intervals between test plateaus were established for data acquisition and evaluation. A summary of the power ascension test plan for power levels beginning at 2300 MWt is provided in Tables 1 and 2 below.

Turkey Point Unit 3 L-2012-426 Docket No. 50-250 Attachment Cycle 26 EPU Startup Report Page 7 of 18 Table 1 PTN Extended Power Uprate Power Ascension Test Plan Test! Test Prior Rated Thermal Power - % of 2644 MWt (Allowance +0%, -5%) (Allowance +0%, -1%)

Modification Description To Startup 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 87 89 92 95 98 100 Nuclear Steam Supply Data System Collection X X X X X X X X X X (NSSS) Data Record Balance of Data Plant Data Collection X X X X X X X X X X Record Transient Data Data Collection X X X X X X X X X Record(6 C Power Core Map Distribution X(5) X X1) X X1) x1) x1) x1) x and COLR Parameters NSSS Calorimetric Verify Thermal and Power Power and Adjust X X X X X X X X X X Range Nuclear Channel Instrumentation Adjustment Reactor Coolant RCS Flow System (RCS) Calorimetric X Flow Measurement

Turkey Point Unit 3 L-2012-426 Docket No. 50-250 Attachment Cycle 26 EPU Startup Report Page 8 of 18 Table 1 PTN Extended Power Uprate Power Ascension Test Plan Test/ Test Prior Rated Thermal Power - % of 2644 MWt (Allowance +0%, -5%) (Allowance +0%, -1%)

Modification Description To Startup 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 87 89 92 95 98 100 Incore-Excore Calibrate ntueaio Excore Axial Offset Instrumentation to Incore AxialX X(2) X(3) X(4)

Calibrations Offset Offset 10% Ramp to X Load Changes Verify System X

Response

OST Turbine Turbine Trip to Verify X System

Response

Turbine Stop Valve, Standard Governor turbine valve Valve, and tests w/post- X(6)

Intercept modification Valve tests Testing.

Steam Generator Manually inserted level Level setpoint step-Feedwater changes in the X X X Flow cagsi h steam Response generator.

Testing IgIenerator.II_

Turkey Point Unit 3 L-2012-426 Docket No. 50-250 Attachment Cycle 26 EPU Startup Report Page 9 of 18 Table 1 PTN Extended Power Uprate Power Ascension Test Plan Test / Test Prior Rated Thermal Power - % of 2644 MWt (Allowance +0%, -5%) (Allowance +0%, -1%)

Modification Description To Startup 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 87 89 92 95 98 100 Monitor Vibration Vibration in Monitoring Plant Piping and Supports Monitor Thermal Thermal X X X X X X X Expansion Expansion iX Plant Piping Plant Verify Radiation Expected X X Surveys Dose Rates Plant Verify Temperature Expected X X Surveys Temperatures NOTES:

(1) If required.

(2) Incore flux map for data acquisition will be performed at less than 50% of 2644 MWt or when annunciator B2/2 or B2/3 alarms, whichever comes first.

(3) Incore flux map for data acquisition will be performed at approximately 87% of 2644 MWt, if required.

(4) At steady state equilibrium Xenon conditions.

(5) Not in LAR-205, performed as part of normal startup procedures (6) Test moved from 35% to 50% to ensure that ESFAS high steam flow and AMSAC arming setpoint are not adversely affected by steam flow imbalance.

Turkey Point Unit 3 L-2012-426 Docket No. 50-250 Attachment Cycle 26 EPU Startup Report Page 10 of 18 Table 2 Large Plant Transient Tests in Turkey Point EPU Power Ascension Test Plan Proposed Test Description Expectation Turbine Overspeed Trip The turbine will be, with the This test will verify proper operation of from 5% EPU Power reactor at approximately 5% the overspeed mechanism for the new power, automatically tripped EHC turbine control, and proper as speed exceeds the electronic operation of the new turbine control overspeed trip setpoint. valves.

10% Ramp Load Change Ramp load change limited by These ramps will test NSSS and BOP at new 30% and 100% station license conditions and control system operation, to ensure EPU Power fuel pre-conditioning that no unanticipated aggregate effects considerations. have been produced by interaction of the plant modifications.

Turbine Stop Valve, Standard turbine valve testing Validate dynamic performance of new Governor Valve, and augmented by post- governor valve design to ensure Intercept Valve Testing at modification tests associated adequate transient response. Verify 35% EPU Power with EHC Turbine control acceptable dynamic performance of and Governor Valve the new HP turbine rotor during Replacement. changes in individual arc steam flows.

Steam Generator Level / Verify response to manually Verify SG level control system Feedwater Flow Dynamic inserted level setpoint step- response and acceptability of over-testing at 30%, 87% and change of 5% in the steam shoot, damping and steady-state limit 95% EPU Power generator. Both up-going and cycling at the new licensed power down-going setpoint changes level. Verify acceptable operation of of different magnitudes will the feedwater control system.

be inserted.

Prior to exceeding the previous licensed core thermal power of 2300 MWt, 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 87% power was especially significant because this test plateau corresponded to the previous full power level of 2300 MWt. Data collected at this plateau formed the basis for comparison of data collected at higher plateaus.

Once testing was completed at the 2300 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. 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 and NUREG 0800, Standard Review Plan for the Review of Safety Analysis Reports for Nuclear Power Plants: LWR Edition, Section 14.2.1. Criteria were provided against which the success or failure of the test was judged.

Turkey Point Unit 3 L-2012-426 Docket No. 50-250 Attachment Cycle 26 EPU Startup Report Page 11 of 18 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. Level 1 acceptance criteria are values for process parameters assigned in the design of the plant that are safety significant. If a Level 1 criterion is not satisfied, the power ascension will be stopped and the plant will be placed in a condition that is judged to be safe based upon prior testing. Resolution of the issue that resulted in exceeding the Level 1 criterion must be resolved by equipment changes or through engineering evaluation, as appropriate. Level 2 acceptance criteria are values that relates to plant functions or parameters that are not safety significant. If Level 2 criteria are not met, the Power Ascension Test Plan may continue. Investigation of the issue that resulted in exceeding the Level 2 criterion may continue in parallel with the power escalation. These investigations would be handled by existing plant processes and procedures.

Following each increase in power level, test data was evaluated against its performance acceptance criteria (Level 1 and 2 and expected values, i.e., prediction targets for power level). If the test data satisfied the acceptance criteria, then system and component performance were considered to have complied with their design requirements. Predicted values are used for optimizing SSC performance only and are not acceptance criteria.

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.

At the present date of this report, Turkey Point Unit 3 has not reached the 100% EPU power level due-to excessive steam and feedwater flow oscillation above 99% power. Single channel Hi steam flow and feed flow/steam flow mismatch alarms were received at approximately 99.7% power which is considered exceeding level 1 test acceptance criteria.

The plant power was lowered to approximately 99.5% power to reduce oscillations to normal levels while the cause of the alarms is determined and corrective actions are implemented.

Once 100% power is achieved and testing at 100% level is completed, a supplemental report will be provided which will include the cause of the alarms and corrective actions taken.

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 operation at higher power levels.

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.

Turkey Point Unit 3 L-2012-426 Docket No. 50-250 Attachment Cycle 26 EPU Startup Report Page 12 of 18 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 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 that experienced 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), including Reheater Inlet

• Main Steam modified supports (inside containment),

• Feedwater (outside of containment),

• Condensate,

• Extraction Steam,

• Heater Drains,

• Moisture Separator Drains, and

• Turbine Gland Steam and Drains.

IV. Results NSSS Data Collection The Turkey Point Unit 3 nuclear steam supply system (NSSS) significant parameters were observed at the 20%, 30%, 50%, 75%, 87%, 89%, 92%, 95%, and 98% EPU power plateaus.

During power ascension, the NSSS significant parameter values compared well with the predicted values at the various power plateaus with the exception of RCS Tref and those dependent on RCS Tref. RCS Tref is affected by the turbine inlet pressure (TIP). The Tref circuit was normalized to the actual TIP value at approximately 95% power for the expected value at 100% power. At the 98% reactor power level, the actual TIP value was found to be approximately 28 psi below the program value. The TIP deviation at 100% will be reduced slightly but is expected to be below program by approximately 25 psi which equates to less than one degree Tref deviation. Based on actual values at the 100% level additional rescaling may be performed. There are no safety concerns with normalizing the Tref value since Tavg is analyzed for a range of high and low values that envelope the values achieved during the power ascension. Adjusting Tref allows for greater cycle efficiency by operating Tavg on program. Below provides a brief summary of major control parameters. In addition, Table 3 provides a summary of the NSSS significant parameters at the various power plateaus.

RCS temperatures - As can be seen from Table 3, the maximum measured average RCS temperature at 98% EPU power is 577.6°F which is below the EPU full power limit of 581.5°F and is expected to remain below this limit once 100% is achieved.

Pressurizer pressure - remained at 2235 psia +/- 5% within normal operating band throughout the power ascension and transient test.

• Pressurizer level - The pressurizer level program changes from 22.5% at RCS average temperature 547 'F to 56.9% at full load RCS average temperature of 580'F.

Turkey Point Unit 3 L-2012-426 Docket No. 50-250 Attachment Cycle 26 EPU Startup Report Page 13 of 18 Pressurizer level was maintained on program throughout the power escalation within normal control system tolerances.

" Containment temperature - temperature ranged from 99.5°F to 1 14.7°F throughout the power ascension well below the 125 'F limit.

• Steam generator header pressure - ranged between 935 psig at 20% EPU power and 778 psig at 98% EPU power.

• Steam generator level - remained constant at 50% narrow range scale within normal control system tolerances throughout the power ascension.

Balance of Plant (BOP) Data Collection The Turkey Point Unit 3 balance of plant (BOP) significant parameters were observed at the 20%, 30%, 50%, 75%, 87%, 89%, 92%, 95%, and 98% 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,

• Feedwater heater performance,

• Heater drain valve performance,

• Main condenser performance,

• Main transformer performance,

• Isolated phase bus cooling performance, and

• Main generator electric output.

A portion of the Balance of Plant (BOP) data was obtained through walkdowns at each plateau. The purpose of the walkdowns was to visually observe operation of accessible components during the power ascension not available on the plant process computer.

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. Several instruments were found either to be out of calibration or require repair. Once the instrument was repaired or alternative instruments provided, accurate data was obtained. The BOP parameters requiring evaluation were 4A and 4B FW heater extraction temperature and the 5A and 5B FW heater levels. The higher than expected extraction steam temperature was evaluated by Engineering and found to meet piping code criteria and was therefore acceptable. The 5A and 5B FW heater levels were lower than expected. Engineering evaluated the lower than expected levels and will adjust the DCS low level alarm after obtaining the actual level at

Turkey Point Unit 3 L-2012-426 Docket No. 50-250 Attachment Cycle 26 EPU Startup Report Page 14 of 18 100% power level. There are no level control valves for the #5 FW heaters and Engineering determined that no adverse system performance exists.

The BOP data collected during the EPU power ascension testing is too extensive to include in this summary report but Table 3 provides a summary of major control parameters. The completed test procedure and all BOP data collected at the 20%, 30%, 50%, 75%, 87%,

89%, 92%, 95%, and 98% EPU power plateaus are available for review on-site, if required.

Vibration Monitoring The Turkey Point Unit 3 piping and equipment within the scope of the EPU vibration monitoring program were observed at several different plant operating conditions, namely the 30%, 50%, 87%, 89%, 92%, 95%, and 98% 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 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.

Engineering has reviewed the vibration and thermal expansion data from each of the applicable plateaus through 98% and determined that all lines in the monitoring program have met their acceptance criteria.

A screening criteria was established where piping/tubing/supports with vibration levels with displacements of 1/16" to 1/8" required further engineering analysis. For the piping, tubing, and supports within the program that experienced vibration levels exceeding the screening criteria, nine items which are listed in Table 4 show low margin but are still below the acceptance criteria at the 98% power level.

Based on a review of the tubing/support configuration, the layout is such that tubing stress levels should remain below the endurance limit while vibrating at these displacement levels.

Confirmatory piping analysis has verified this conclusion.

Six lines outside containment and the steam flow meter sensing lines inside containment were identified with elevatedvibration levels above the program screening levels that have low margin. Each of these lines have been evaluated and found to have stress levels below the endurance limit for 98% and are expected to remain below the limits for 100% or have sufficient flexibility to prevent damage. These will be re-evaluated when 100% power is achieved.

Engineering has reviewed the vibration and thermal expansion data from each of the applicable plateaus through 98% and determined that all lines in the monitoring program have met their acceptance criteria.

Thermography Checks and Temperature Profiles Temperature monitoring of the Main and Auxiliary Transformers and the Isophase Bus duct using thermography was performed at the 30%, 50%, 75%, 87%, 89%, 92%, 95%, and 98%

power levels. This thermography checks were performed to ensure none of the equipment was overheating due to the EPU power increase. The test data was evaluated and found that all temperatures were below the alert range and within the expected values for the current generator output.

Turkey Point Unit 3 L-2012-426 Docket No. 50-250 Attachment Cycle 26 EPU Startup Report Page 15 of 18 Steam Generator Level / Feedwater Flow Dynamic Test Feedwater Regulating Valve (FRV) Performance tests were conducted at the 30%, 50%,

87%, and 95% power levels. Each of the S/G level control systems was tested to demonstrate a stable control system after EPU modifications to the FW system and level control system. The test imposed a 3-5% level deviation and determined if the automatic S/G level control system restored to level program. The test data were evaluated and found that each of the S/G level control system met the acceptance criteria. Even though the FRVs met their acceptance criteria, additional tuning was performed at the 95% power level and an additional dynamic test was satisfactorily performed at the 98% power level.

Turbine Stop Valve Test Turbine Stop Valve test was performed at the 50% power level rather than 35% as stated in Table 2 above since this is the power level stop valve testing is normally performed and it allowed ATWS Mitigation System Actuation Circuity(AMSAC) and Hi Steam flow channels to remain operable. The higher power level has no impact on the validity of the test. This test was completed successfully. The turbine control system sequenced each stop valve closed in automatic and control valves adjusted their position automatically to maintain turbine load.

10% Load Ramp A 10 % load ramp down and then back up was performed at-the 30% reactor power plateau testing. The ramps were performed at a 1%/min rate. All monitored parameters were within allowable limits for the turbine load reduction test at the 30% power level. The turbine load reduction and increase test demonstrated that plant control systems are capable of maintaining the plant processes within defined limits. This test will be performed again once 100% reactor power is achieved.

Generator Power System Stabilizer (PSS)

This test demonstrates the ability of the PSS to aid the generator's voltage regulator in maintaining voltage steady. This test was performed satisfactorily at the 50% and 98%

power levels.

Plant Radiation Surveys Plant radiation surveys were taken at the 87% EPU power level. The plant radiation survey areas included portions of the containment, the auxiliary building, the turbine deck, the equipment hatch and ramp areas, as well as the radiation area monitors, taking accessibility and ALARA into consideration. Once the radiation survey information was obtained at the 87% EPU power level, a review of the data was performed by the Radiation Protection department and all values were found to be within normal expected range and no posting changes were required. Surveys will be re-performed at the 100% power level and evaluated for expected dose increases.

Plant Temperature Surveys Baseline ambient temperature surveys were performed for areas where EPU has significantly impacted heat loads at the 87% power level. Once the temperature survey information was obtained at the 87% EPU power level, a review of the data was performed by the Engineering

Turkey Point Unit 3 L-2012-426 Docket No. 50-250 Attachment Cycle 26 EPU Startup Report Page 16 of 18 department and all values were found to be within the normal expected range. Surveys will be re-performed and evaluated at the 100% power level.

Leading Edge Flowmeter (LEFM) Commissioning As described in Reference 1, the Turkey Point EPU project included a 1.7% Measurement Uncertainty Recapture (MUR) thermal power increase. To achieve the MUR power increase of 1.7%, the Cameron Leading Edge Flow Meter (LEFM) CheckPlusTM 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 three 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 which satisfies licensing commitment 13 in Section 3.3 (a) of the EPU SER. In addition to the Cameron commissioning test and evaluations, FPL evaluated LEFM performance as follows:

A review of feedwater parameters for LEFM and the Venturi based measurements were completed to determine deviations and reasonableness of the Venturi correction factor.

There are no operational alarms or other deficiencies noted. Steam Generator Heat rates and calorimetric calculations were performed using the LEFM and Venturi based data. The LEFM ultrasonic flow transmitters are performing as expected. After repair of the "B" loop Venturi flow transmitter used for calorimetric calculation, the LEFM is showing a 1.4%

greater thermal power than the Venturi based value at 98%. This measurement difference is expected to decrease slightly as the power level approaches 100%. The Venturi LEFM correction factor adjusts the Venturi flowrate down such that the 1.4% deviation is eliminated and Venturi flow matches LEFM flow.

V. Summary The test data collected during EPU startup and power ascension and summarized in this report demonstrates 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. Supplemental data for 100% rated thermal power will be provided upon test completion.

VI. References

1. J. Page (NRC) to M. Nazar (FPL), Turkey Point Units 3 and 4 - Issuance of Amendments Regarding Extended Power Uprate (TAC Nos. ME4907 and ME 4908), (Accession No. ML11293A365, June 15, 2012.

Turkey Point Unit 3 L-2012-426 Docket No. 50-250 Attachment Cycle 26 EPU Startup Report Page 17 of 18 Table 3 BOP and Primary Parameter Summary 98 Primary Major Parameter 20% 30% 50% 75% 87% 89% 92% 95% %m Avg Power % 16.0 27.3 48.0 72.3 84.8 88.1 91.9 94.8 97.3 Avg Thot 'F 556.5 561.6 574.9 591.6 599.8 602.8 605.2 606.9 607.7 AvgTcold 'F 543.0 544.0 543.7 545.2 546.5 547.0 547.4 548.1 547.5 Avg Tavg 'F 549.7 552.8 559.3 568.4 573.1 574.9 576.3 577.5 577.56 SG A Hdr Press psig 934 902 853 812 796 792 787 784 778 SG B Hdr Press psig 935 903 854 813 798 794 788 786 779 SG C Hdr Press psig 932 902 853 814 795 790 788 785 779 Pzr Avg % Level 26.5 29.6 35.7 45.0 49.8 51.6 53.1 54.3 54.3 Turbine Inlet Avg Press (TIP) psig 76.3 149.9 273.05 457.1 545.9 580.8 606.0 627.4 638.9 Tref 551.3 554.7 560.6 569.3 573.6 575.1 576.3 577.4 577.9 Containment Temp 'F Highest 114.0 114.7 107.6 106.7 102.4 99.5 99.8 103.2 104.7 BOP Major Parameter SG A Level % 50.5 49.8 50.2 49.6 49.2 49.0 48.9 49.0 48.9 SG B Level % 49.7 51.6 49.9 50.1 50.2 50.2 50.2 50.2 51.0 SG C Level % 51.1 51.8 49.8 49.1 48.8 48.7 48.6 48.6 48.7 Avg Steam flow MPPH 0.629 0.854 1.64 2.65 3.14 3.33 3.48 3.61 3.69 Avg FW flow MPPH 0.513 0.920 1.71 2.73 3.24 3.39 3.56 3.67 3.82 Final Venturi FW Temp 'F 287.5 328.4 374.3 412.3 425.5 430.1 433.4 436.0 437.3 Condenser Backpressure in-Hg 1.58 1.75 1.45 1.94 1.32 1.46 1.49 1.74 2.00 Generator Output Mwe 78.8 165.8 364.1 609.3 723.7 769.1 801.1 823.6 835.0 Thermal Output MWt 277.0 662.5 1247.8 1907.3 2216.6 2334.5 2427.0 2498.6 2575.6 (1) All feedwater flow and thermal output values are based on the Venturi flow meter except at 98% power which are based on the LEFM flow meter

Turkey Point Unit 3 L-2012-426 Docket No. 50-250 Attachment Cycle 26 EPU Startup Report Page 18 of 18 Table 4 Piping/tubing Experiencing Increased vibration with Low Margin Item Pipe Segment or Component I SGFP A suction line at the mezzanine level including the attached tubing lines.

2 SGFP B suction line at the mezzanine level including the attached tubing lines.

3 One Feedwater recirc line (west side) off of the SGFP A suction line.

4 One Feedwater recirc line (east side) off of the SGFP B suction line.

5 Three Feedwater LEFM tubing lines at the east side of turbine operating deck.

6 Four Feedwater recirc valve tubing line configurations attached to the Feedwater recirc valves near the Condenser penetrations at the west side lower pit area.

7 One 33/4" Main steam drain line off of the east side MS header drain line in the SW comer of the basement level.

8 One 1/2/" Extraction steam trap line (South line) in and out of Valves 3-ST-17 A/B/C in the SW comer of the basement level.

9 Non-functional spring hanger, 3-MSR-1 16 on a 4 inch MSR C vent line to Re-heater Drain Tank 3B on turbine operating deck.