L-2013-165, Extended Power Uprate Cycle 24 Startup Report, Revision 1

Extended Power Uprate Cycle 24 Startup Report, Revision 1

ML13142A201
Person / Time
Site:	Saint Lucie
Issue date:	05/09/2013
From:	Katzman E Florida Power & Light Co
To:	Document Control Desk, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
L-2013-165
Download: ML13142A201 (24)

Text

0FPL.

May 9, 2013 L-2013-165 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, Revision 1

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)

(2) FPL letter L-2012-382 dated October 19, 2012, "Renewed Facility Operating License No.

DPR-67 Extended Power Uprate Cycle 24 Startup Report Pursuant to St. Lucie Unit 1 Technical Specification (TS) 6.9.1.1, Florida Power & Light Company (FPL) submitted the Cycle 24 Startup Report, via Reference 2. This report was required due to the implementation of the Extended Power Uprate (EPU) Project Amendment No. 213 that was issued via Reference 1. The Startup Report has been revised to correct the Isothermal Temperature Coefficient (ITC) values. The corrected test results remain in compliance with the Technical Specification requirements.

Should you have any questions regarding this submittal, please contact Mr. John Harmon, St.

Lucie Extended Power Reactor Engineering Supervisor, at 772-467-7204.

Sincerely, Eric S. Katzman Licensing Manager St. Lucie Plant Attachment Florida Power & Light Company 6501 S. Ocean Drive, Jensen Beach, FL 34957

St. Lucie Unit 1 Docket No. 50-335 Cycle 24 EPU Startup Report, Rev. 01 L-2013-165 Attachment Page 1 of 23 St. Lucie Unit 1 - Cycle 24 Extended Power Uprate Power Ascension Testing Summary Revision 1

St. Lucie Unit 1 L-2013-165 Docket No. 50-335 Attachment Cycle 24 EPU Startup Report, Rev. 01 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-2013-165 Docket No. 50-335 Attachment Cycle 24 EPU Startup Report, Rev. 01 Page 3 of 23 I.

Introduction This report has been revised to provide corrected values for the moderator temperature coefficient and properly delineate the isothermal temperature coefficient values.

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

St. Lucie Unit 1 Docket No. 50-335 Cycle 24 EPU Startup Report, Rev. 01 L-2013-165 Attachment Page 4 of 23 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 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-2013-165 Docket No. 50-335 Attachment Cycle 24 EPU Startup Report, Rev. 01 Page 5 of 23 III.

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 Dilution Rate 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 Testinq 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.

All-Rods-Out Critical Boron Concentration

St. Lucie Unit 1 L-2013-165 Docket No. 50-335 Attachment Cycle 24 EPU Startup Report, Rev. 01 Page 6 of 23 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 ITC was determined to be 1.48 pcm/°F which compared favorably to the predicted ITC value of 1.37 pcm/°F, well within the acceptance criteria of + 2.0 pcm/°F. The derived MTC value was 3.05 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 Docket No. 50-335 Cycle 24 EPU Startup Report, Rev. 01 L-2013-165 Attachment 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 Docket No. 50-335 Cycle 24 EPU Startup Report, Rev. 01 L-2013-165 Attachment Page 8 of 23 EPU Power Ascension Test Plan Rated Thermal Power Test / Activity Description

(% of 3020 MWt) 89 _92 95 198 100 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 calibration flux instrumentation. (Final adjustment may precede 92% power.)

Core power distribution monitoring Monitor power distribution by incore flux map X

X X

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 Monitor vibration in plant piping and rotating X

X X

X X

equipment 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

(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-2013-165 Docket No. 50-335 Attachment Cycle 24 EPU Startup Report, Rev. 01 Page 9 of 23 Prior to exceeding the previous licensed core thermal power of 2700 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 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-2013-165 Docket No. 50-335 Attachment Cycle 24 EPU Startup Report, Rev. 01 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),

a Feedwater (outside of containment),

Condensate, Heater drains and vents, and 0

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-2013-165 Docket No. 50-335 Attachment Cycle 24 EPU Startup Report, Rev. 01 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 purposes 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 measured RCS flow met the minimum Technical Specification acceptance criteria, including uncertainties.

St. Lucie Unit 1 L-2013-165 Docket No. 50-335 Attachment Cycle 24 EPU Startup Report, Rev. 01 Page 12 of 23 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'F.

The maximum measured hot leg temperature of 600.5°F corresponds well to the predicted hot leg temperature of 600.4°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 96.7°F to 98°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, Feedwater heater performance, Heater drain valve performance,

St. Lucie Unit 1 L-2013-165 Docket No. 50-335 Attachment Cycle 24 EPU Startup Report, Rev. 01 Page 13 of 23 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.

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 power escalation. By comparing the observed pipe vibrations / displacements at various power levels with previously established acceptance criteria, potentially adverse pipe vibrations were

St. Lucie Unit 1 L-2013-165 Docket No. 50-335 Attachment Cycle 24 EPU Startup Report, Rev. 01 Page 14 of 23 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.

a 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.

0 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.

a 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.

a 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.

a 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 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.

St. Lucie Unit 1 L-2013-165 Docket No. 50-335 Attachment Cycle 24 EPU Startup Report, Rev. 01 Page 15 of 23 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 power increase of 1.7%, the Cameron Leading Edge Flow Meter (LEFM) CheckPlus TM 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 CheckPlusTM and the original plant venturi instrumentation was well within the acceptance criteria.

The feedwater temperature difference between the LEFM CheckPlus TM 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-2013-165 Docket No. 50-335 Attachment Cycle 24 EPU Startup Report, Rev. 01 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 Docket No. 50-335 Cycle 24 EPU Startup Report, Rev. 01 L-2013-165 Attachment Page 17 of 23 Figure 1 Cycle 24 - Core Loading Pattern Nt P

M K

H V

T S

R N

L J

G F

E D

C B

A g

a I

I I

I I

I I

I y

004 EE5 EE3 003 Y

i i

l i

i i

i I

I x

w I I IDD33lEE3 1 EE.

I I

DD3 EE2 IEEl I FF7 FF9

!l I

44 005 FF7 44 FF FF9 41 FF3 EEl 31 DID FF8 21 FF1 EE6 EE2 0DD FF4 42 45 002 FF8 FF2 EE6 EE4 FF2 FF5 41 40 EE3 FF EE6 EE51 FF3 DD FF3 EE5 44 40 EF8 FF98 EE2 F2 DD20 FF4 EE7 FF2 45 FO 43 40 FF84 FF5 DD FF5 FF5 EE7 FF2 EE 42 43 15 FF8 EE2 FF5 EEl EE4 FF1 EE DD52 31 40 L

FF7 FF4 001 FF6 FF6 EE7 FF2 EE 41 42 40 EE FF9 EE2 FF1 DD15 FF5 EE7 FF33 43 14 41 14 EE3 FF EE5 EE4 FF2 DD FF4 EE4 45 14 002 FF7 FF2 EE6 EE5 FF2 FF4 EEl 42 40 3

r 21 I I I

I FF7 EE EE3 DD3 45....- *-.....-

20 45 FF4 FF9 FF FF82 DD

-J

. J'-19 44 42 19 DD1 EE2 EE5 FF1 FF8 005 I

I 45 44 21 18 FF60 FF3 EE4 EE6 FF1 FF7 DD4 J--....

17 14 44 1

FF6 DD10 FF1 EE3 EE6 FF EE3 i

16 41 41 EE7 FF54 DD FF2 EE2 FF99 EE 15 43 41 44 03 43 41 4......

14 FF1 EE7 FF4 FF4 DD1 FF3 FF7 13 40 43 43 E4 40 1

3 43 12 EEl FF9 EE3 EEl FF44 EEl F100 12 45 31 7E5 10 FF1 EE6 FF5 FF6 D01 FF5 FF80

-".9 40 42 42 003 EE7 FF62 DD16 FF3 EEl FF9 EE7 7

42 14 43 FF6 DD1 FF3 EE4 EE6 FF EE5 40 42 FF47 FF3 EE5 EE6 FF1 FF7 DD3 14 44 DD1 EE2 EE6 FF1 FF8 DD 43 42 21 FF6 FF9 FF3 FF75 DD5 43 41 FF8 EEl EE3 DD2 44 004 IF18 IFF3 EE5 EE2 41 DD1 43 FF6 00 FF73 FF FF9 45 44 FF5 EE2 31 DD3 IEE4 IEEl FF6 41 FF9 Assembly Serial # -

F71 Insert Serial# -#

1. 1. J

St. Lucie Unit 1 Docket No. 50-335 Cycle 24 EPU Startup Report, Rev. 01 L-2013-165 Attachment Page 18 of 23 Cycle 24 - Boron Dilution Curve Figure 2 Inveise Count Ratio Plot - Channel B 0.9 0.8

-0.8 0.70.

0.5 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.2

- 0.2 0.1

- 0.1

0.

-0.0 F-0--i Eýw I EW-1.

St. Lucie Unit 1 Docket No. 50-335 Cycle 24 EPU Startup Report, Rev. 01 L-2013-165 Attachment Page 19 of 23 Cycle 24 - Boron Dilution Curve Figure 3 Inverse Count Ratio Plot. Channel D 1.0 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.7 0.4 0.3

.0.1 0.0j_

6w 4w ILýI

ý916WIWIWIWIWW WIW 111000

St. Lucie Unit 1 Docket No. 50-335 Cycle 24 EPU Startup Report, Rev. 01 L-2013-165 Attachment Page 20 of 23 FIGURE 4 Cycle 24 - Power Distribution Comparison - 89% Power U.k I

MeN.aed:

BEACON psi n:

P.-

L.-g W7.1k.

cuaom.

1343 1304.1 CE..

1268 4264.

B252C-2 I662.

i i 16.3862.476_! 761.26 I8.38

'Mh.

728 63 I*411W.*61*9 IE E

I i

213 12121211 1261253 r

616

-lz 2.23 U621 8

am L178 1.4 L176 86.724 18.1216.3 0.397 Ulf1672 LM Y

L 17 L'4 Lill 1.765 26296.2

_jUS

.:SW

ýUd U`W

ýýW A",

43" 6 T 4 ~6.

4 4.4 4 ~1 4 5A 4 2.84

.41~

4.41.1 4.A43... 4,~3.-

.4 Ill U

i 164 1262 IM1 Ila-12 I= 239 1233 1197 1194 135 13 Los 858LOSS 122 11.23 rZ

.3 LOS 2

11.2 1-.0 1*664 "it 1 1862 1 1.54 1

21 LM23 IPS14LM I1.222 171.27 M

11.86164 8.86

_;L066

_;L

_U

.6*22 IU ý f S

4' 04

~

ýU&

In'-.4 42 4.~~~

4~.

in 13 1191 122118 M I31112 11241JIM 141" 1

119 8NS11,1 wll I

M Jun121 L.26 2.246 LOU2 1.226 Lou2 2.24 LIM8 L212 L1.2 SAM IL12.26 r

LM OSS L"

258 LM861.2 LIST1114 L11720218 1121412 am Fam.Un L:8 Ia m

j "232 8W L.473

.US L310 6.476 2a7 2

1" 172 17"T 176 170 174 173 172 171 176 m

WS 7

M am Lw LN L13 Lat LIN L241 Lr 1.241 LIP Lon L121 L11o 3

6.18 1L2

.26 1.2 1.4 1.2 1.243 1.136 1743 1.243 6.143 1.2 128

.56 L

L.315 IAN4 L2.22

.12 Low4 1.24 1.243 Lill2 Lie4 1.40 1.ow Lin 1.217 Lon 652 4L86 am Low4 6.8 am U13 4L 4*62.*814 Lon 8*4 am US, 4W 4

JA LL 7

LL LL--

6.2-W--~

is IUS 13 2 141

.6 In in M7 I"

In 1

2 4 183 152 181 a5m 1.1 LIN 27 218 Lon L. M 1.m 12 I7 12

1.

866 L4 1

LIN Ulf U31 1.171 1.187 LOIS L2263 1.8 L2.25 L.874 1.N Lan L1.3 12 LM 1.4 It ant a

SAM "is MIT 86

.8.244

.4164 62 4W

• 2 6.87

.M8

.82 A

8 L

L 6

L5 j1 46 149 243 147 124 143 144 243 143 141 243 39 12 3

136 0.7111 1.23116 L

270 146 1.6 L212 L.

L L. M La LIM2 t2 12 1.n

&2 O OL785 2.2

.12 224 LIIII LI 1.21 5116 LIE?7 LI2SS L2ll "a1 1.247 1.146 1213 765 L

S1 L4 U

1 4Mi124 L.240 224 232 232 31 126 122619 127 1in 120 224 13 122 R21 011 2111 a

LIU2 L.248 1.64 2.24 1.241 Me14 LIM3 Lam2 1.23 LIM8 1.210 kin2 2.24 L.276

.177 Lam LIU L243 L234 1in L2.

Lon7 L26 LIN

.23 L

2.3

.243 1

178 i4 6.165 6.165 4W 4L L6 Low Lop Lai ant 114 2In 124 113 112 111 IN 18n 1

SET 26n 2WE 24 28 282 6.7 LIM L2.2 124 6LIN 16 1.3am 1.826 LI5 1.7 LAN 1.n LINT LIN L8

.145 LIM34 m

1.111 1.674

.257 I.32 1.2 1.2S 7

L.574 II2 12 LIM L.

6*

-4 1.4 017 Le m

.8 99 24 97 9493 32 91 I6 ME 06 6

5 6

.472 L.27 2.23 2.82 2.243 L2.25 1.25 2.227 Len2 1.227 Lin8 L.234

.242 1.66 1.235 L1.77 6*62 U14 6.82 U127 a.82 8*64

.8*6 48L12

.887

.*2 614 4W 62 4*4

.. 6 82 81 24 7-7 7

75 7o 74 72 72 71 78 a3 a3 6.

8.71 1.226 2.276 1.24 Lan6 L210 LIN4 L.25 Lin8 1.218 LOSS6 LI25 2.2SS 2.22 6L7W Vat 1.21 L.5 1.247 LOIS L1.22 1.16 1.257 Lin5 L.211 "I2S 1.243 1.2 L=22 6.789 6.16 822 8*1

• 13 98*12

.861

.824 4 WSW 411 af.86

.. 242 OAK 6.862 4W W

6.

P7 64 44 3

42 41 46 of a3 67 IS 0564 5

6.52 2.276 LIM2 1.87 Ulm2 Lan 1.226 12.76 1.22 1.82 2.26 2*46 1.26 2.76 LE826S Li5n 1.144 2.26 Len 1.283 Lan 1.224 1.274 1.22 Lois 1.2M W.5 1.267 L1.71 6*1 UN6 1_.806 6*6U7 8*26I 1_1.097 6.362 1_6

.8*6

.6*6 6.86 4n 1*2 8

462 66 52 62 2

3 5

4 44 42 41 42 4

39 33 L.318 Low t=22 LIM3 LI656 1.4 1.5 1.240 125 2*66 Lin2 Li22 Lan6 6.2 6.267 1.5 2.287 L1.22 Lill L.243 L.4

.62 122 1247 2*66 in 1.218 LOU3 L315 IAU-U 112._"M 1'

11.

r-IL

_U02

-fa an M

J83 IS 1.1

.25 1.18 1.8 1.2 12*2 1113 182 1.24 1.1" 2.6 1.25 184 In5 27 1.,7, 122 1.4 1.26 1.3 1.22

1.

15 2*6

.41 2.441 2*4 1.276 I.2I 13 1.2M IL 413 Lo I

LW L4W L*I 4LW6 64 8

L6*

23 12 L178 L I.

IV 14.1s.

6.315 L~3I.W1.77 L145 1LITE 67681U"if6-26 6:-

IA1A I'-4jW I-Un A74M

ýl I La I6.

L4310.47218.4731626 2.6 sdd b... limant" t qual, 1.5.% Sad Ii RMS Deviation: 0.6r%

Th. 2.a2,,i d=.ton1

.em, opsr4bI. 532 Apendls A. FIS de-lal.

i.** 82e le321me=Tetf 4.6.1 Ipdalme.d 4 thn230 aad 98 Sa2clam p led4 powam.

ma Plate Dowel mcenston

St. Lucie Unit 1 Docket No. 50-335 Cycle 24 EPU Startup Report, Rev. 01 L-2013-165 Attachment Page 21 of 23 Figure 5 Cycle 24 - Power Distribution Comparison - 95% Power Unk I

Measined:

BEACON Design:

Cs Peels-I I 6

1 21 4

I

.I I

II I

I I i 11366 12.4 12.4 11.43 11 6.302 6.474 SA73 "I36

81" 48;3 48" E

i "i.3 "I:

6.M L.M 53 LIM 1

1.75 5T@

L5631 I 1O 6.76 L171 L14I L178 0.76 5

L.317

@.5M 6

45.11 2.85 16 I5ll

-2.t5 l

Je Je

=

=

M

[

C T

6.43 Less5 LIM5 1.24 L5232 L5.15 1231 5.217 L5.55 Los5; 165 L am523 a

-am 12.55 I.Ih5 1 j".6.569

.2.85

`"7 I.;`A toI-'

Lg I"

I92 too lie JM J8 1"4 M

1"2 1,1 L4 il 5

256 L56 LI 1

Lan Lin 15.83 J5 LIM 5210 51 0,430 1.461 1.136 L

5583 L

LIST Lan L.222 LM LISP L1T L.214 LIM

.453

.5.86I 6

3 7

6eas1 4

6

_56

.7 0..4

-Ia 8W

'B L365 L391 4.4711 A.4 L.476 L64 2.366

,L96 Be6 IM 7

17 I

77 n

176 57 174 173 172 171 171 1"

561 147 15 L32 Le5a L22o L136 Lo5 1.251 L246 LIM L245 L24 L2 LL20 L53 5.10 6I.352

.317 Lou L214 L124 Lau L246 L241 LIPS L241 L246 Lea L124 L.27 IAN 6.6

.286 5*6

6.

.2.6 6.6

-. NI56

.2.6

.6.565

.26

-.2II6

.856

.862

.2.652 6.I6 am 4LM sa Low 4L

]

40

-2

'5LI 4.m

.4.

"i Ls l

as NA ll JLI2 1

Li L*I Il 1-5 "4

w43 162 11 1&

in in II7 I"

15 154 1`3 152 151 6.2 L7 Lil.5 l Law 1.21 5

L5236 L7 L.236 5m 521e.21 2

L IN L5

.6451 L65 I23 LIN Loa 1.16 L5.8 52.67L 6

L5.n2 6.019 L2 L5.u L63 5.214 6.5 486 am 5*83

6.

LOOT Um 46.861 4

4L$5 48 om6 5*5 5*6 5

5*55 I"6 Lt L

147 145 25 244 52 1

L3 142 141 56 M3 536 137 13 LIM7 L228 55 1.5 5.3 2

L i5 n

.2.6

5.

Ll.5 Late Line LI2 L221 LIM5 6

L.7 L217 Lin Lm La241 L2216 LIS

1.

LI2 L218 Lan 5.24 L214 LI6.755 2

L85 LOW 04611

$mm 5

L3 Anne Low 56 46 L2

-LI M2L6 LI-128 L4 I*

1-1 1

2 1I4 a-ol A

ý7 14 13 111 l 1

J310 01.0 in* U1 in 012 t l

1.Je 41.319M 53 5

3 1

29 122 1

55 226 124 123 In 121 5i 219 6.

Lo L28 1".

1.211 L28 56 1.230 54m L226 L.n 5.25 Lin2 I"

LIM LIM LIT2

.35 L.241 Lin LI5 5.3 I

Lin L53 L252 L55 Lon241 L232 2

17

• An 6.869 5*26 6.5e9 6

0.004 66 2.6 6.666 6.86 2.565 9

2.565

.2.62 41.111 6.31 555 lie 114 113 112 5

11 6

l 69 56 1

67 0,

6 6

53 52 64711 L14 2

1.2 4.14 L.

L Lose2 1.214 IAN 11.44 0 5

1.268 Less Lill Lin 526

.136 514B L5 I5 32 5L.13 1W75 Lin Lon 6.84 5e3 16 5

5I 53 LIM L2 L72 L

L2 LI"

.L14 6as 6

WIN 1

5*5 "i

I

.2is S

7 116314 2.863 6f '

.2.263 6.55 Las

.L 2 6.66 2.867 I..6 "is2 In1 S

8 97 93 92 i

L47 2176 L21 1I L5. I

.2 1

.41I L5 5

.23 8 Lon3 L.236 1

,211 I.244 Lon3 L.238 L1 L171 L232 1

.025 L241 5 4 LIST 1.236 5.639 1L236 Life

.23

.14

.1 IT.5

.6

. I I.

8 1

. I 3

" I

.6 L

4 6 22 21 55 79 76 77 78 75 74 73 72 71 To a9 52 632.

L76 L124 L1.57 1.240 5.2 L218 1.54 Lill LIST I24 L.ots L246 L214 5I.25 6.7165 6La Lou 0.43 4.15 "Is Laos 5

486 6

887 L.oo 6.464 6

.2.5An of 55 5

5 3

62 51 52 5

7 of so

§4 53 L#52 5.576 LIN1 5.27 5.21 1.421 1.236 LOTS6 5.238 56 1.216 5.27 Lill 1.72 L.5n "It6 5.5 1.1 6

13 5.2 1.06 23L 1.85 1233 LIM7 1234 5.22 I=2 1.862

.167 Life2 6.52 6.86 6.256 5*67 6.25 6.22 2*61 4.013

-&A"

.2.55 am5 s.66 6.6 6.83 5*6

.8.8 II2 I 5

58 56 5

4 7

45 45 44 Q5 a

41 56 39 38 6.35 Lon5 L.212 L136 5.721 LI2M 5.256 L.55 L24 Li25e 5.256

.13

1.

e" 5.56 316 6.369 Lon5 1.227 1524 5.24 5.25 5.241 L.59 L245 1.246 5.22 L124 L.214 LOWS 6.317 I.56st2 6.26 6*6 6.."5 5*66 I.22 4861 486t-3

.656 BAN5 LI62 6565 6.26 AM; 0.1067 5 3.

Ž1 37 136 12 131 1"3 132 31 132.

12 12 I 27 H2 W5 I'm3 LIN53 L229 Lill5 LI55 L5.27 LI22 L586 1.56 1.1 219 15.31 0.458 6.43 1.138 15.214 LEF IM' 1.2

.3 I"

11.13 527 1.6 6.2

~~2316.266Le I=

6.6L

.6

• 5 652 46.61IP L26 I5 7

L1.238 0.56 4*61 5.4

2.

rA

1.

5*M

@.M

$.M Lost

@8.M257 18 8

.7.

1. -

I.-

IJLM U"

24 1

213 212 251 26 1 19 11 271 1"

5 14

6.

a LIT5.

L5 Li7 5.22 32132 L5.236 5226 L

s 1

.4 2.461 5J55 5.15 1.257 1.231 LV.

5.232

.L214 L5.5 Lose 14=1

-a'"

4822 6.86 6.8,M

.2*6 am.5 4862 SAM5 6.86 86 13 5

II IS 9

.1**

L=35 as22 2.7 1.170 5.5l56

, 157 61.7011 1*08 6:361 "I3T Lo62 LI4 M L76 L

T148 1762 L6.

IM ll,.4= I am,., I.,,,L,"

.m

il

.a,,

.. +,m.Lo.,

14 1

21 1

List5 6473 0.474 4.3112 AM 6 4563 4.114 4862 4L.3 5*

.89

_8.7 RMS Deviation: 0.59%

The Inc.,e detecSIen I965266m I operble se Assendtx Ah RMS drvAlInen should litlesIs than nov5 to 5.01% and me2et Ith isqu,2enm6s o14.6.1 I9,etmed 21562 3088 6rid 265203t62OW152te45l98Mei dulng ith. 6O3We IcSmouen 5es2ro45amar.

Kw

St. Lucie Unit 1 Docket No. 50-335 Cycle 24 EPU Startup Report, Rev. 01 L-2013-165 Attachment Page 22 of 23 Figure 6 Cycle 24 - Power Distribution Comparison - 100% Power Unit I

Mdeaw"4o: BEACON oi.

so..

IG8 MI.0 1481.15 8

12.1%C

.91,1.

I i I List8 8.479 L.470

• in8 6.3m L474 8.473 L.381 48""2

.;'w"

.56

.8.8

'I Use IUM 0.111 Ll8 L

in LIN 0.791 Lots LIM L3SP "is 8.764 L3.39 LIM LIU 6.705 G22 8.318 6.8 l

I.81 -. 814

-..59 1

.5.58

.1

.1Y 8

1.5.? 2

-8.8 i as c

I i 0

T US4 ILI"6 1330 10.3 L3228 LIPS6 L226 L32381 33

.56 L"

LA

.I40 L423 Le ILI" 1 1.211 3322 1.399 3.2 13.216 L3.3 33e" I84 a.8.8"'

6881Le

• 83I.

6

.za ~ ~ ~ ~ I~'

~

I mu

ýL; T

139 j192 1'I" 1" 8 In 88 I' let11 18 3318 Lo46 LIPS3 L33.23 LIU.

Le 1331".2 1.229 Lon L AS1 LIN38 L3231.28 8.46a Last Lill12 13.296 1.163 Li.351LIM2 13.2321.3 13.3 13.36 L13 31313 6.43

_:A I _4.1101 0.404 1 86 2 I 4AM 1-an 3 LN2 nem I.

2in

.8 1"o"II LISP Left

-0.101 L473 1.4711 3474 3610 3.44 34M

&738 38 37 173 1T7 376 375 174 173 172 371 IT7 35 1"

MY7 3

6.3310 Low 3.228 LIM3.3 o

3.50 LIP5 3.24 3i38 L324 1.256 L3a L128 LIPS Li

.335 LOU 323 L324 3ou L24 L3241 L.

3.24 3c LAW L124 1.286 1"

6389 L I

.4.

Ut4 4.0 4 1.103 4t~t

_tE

.3,0 Lm Ld LW

.Po

."as LSI 41-1

LMt 4L=

LOW AMl

-4n1

ýw m

.,o L?

~

~

-~

4l.

S4

-=

i L

1" 154 M3 181 11 1"

359 158 147 15 1"

1" 53 35 353 am2 L176 LIM

3.

216 L.a3 t

L232 Lao2 L88 236 L.U21 LIPS L2 13 3.3 M

6122 38 3.7 1M 1.2114 L0213 L2 3

L25 LIMT Lou2 L24 I382 LM 3

"it 2

8164 883 817 8188 41.403 48 8162

• 1.4 8188 Lw 88 8

8,403

• 58 iLI P-1 L72 L-ALI A4 aL 4LLa LT 15n 349 34 347 348 145 144 134 142 141 141 139 138 137 338

&788 3.2261 L17 3L2P L4 36 L210 L330 L3 LI3U 1.238 Lon L.258 3.PS L28 Will Was 2

3.0 3L.247 Lo2 1.212 3L2N 35 L

3.

L212 1.821 L348 3.30 3213 4764 4.8M 6.864 8135 11 818 482 662

.88

.63 4M82 483 66

.8

-.86

.8.88 Lot.

._1.

... m... M I-.e

" I... M J S 13 8.3 1332 332 33 FOX 1n 32

1.

328 125 124L 322 121 32 in 63 L17 3.24 3.64 L3.S 3.248 LISP

.5 30

3. 2.

IP3.

L L32 3.3 32 L35 L5 32 Laid 3.24 3.234 LM3 3.233 Le 3232 LIN L32 L3.243 3.D 3236 Life 3.4 1.211, 324 3LI2 Lama6 3.26 L3t8 L

L6 561 3.8 Lilt 8239 3.286 L3.

L38 1.399 3.223 LM3 L8 L.264 L3.t 8

Last L325 is" L.36 3.3 IP L3.8 6.213 8

8 8.883 882

.e 6.62 86 8.8 8

.8. 6Ln

&I L9

.L7 91 9

3 2

31

&T 83 1.-

6 L7 P6 U1 Pt.*

LMa 17 UL L17 3.24 3.am 1.246 3.25 3.t3 L238 L3.

3.238 3.3 3.2S 324 3

3.38 3.238 3.82 3.24 3.238 LIN5 3.23 Leal 3233 3.37 3.23 3.24 1.11101 3.2381 LIU8 8.86 81M 83 8

1 8.882 4.1.l2

.88 A8 8

82 3 1 W

71 7S 77 7

75 74 73 73 731 7

TO a

a 0.730 L.228 3.37

.286 Lou3 3.216 LIPS6 3.286 3.IN 3.236 32 LIN5 3.30 Late6 8766 0.794 3.213 Lt35 L.246 3523 3.212 L.57 L.268 LI35 3.23 3.82 L247 3.30 3.235 Wa78 818 8187 8134 8134 8Pa69 Lon6 8.86 8.88

.88 8.6e.88 862 8

4.88 8.8 67 56 3

82 81 If to 5

7 AS of 84 83 8.53 L.7 335

.76 3.1 L

23 Lon2 3.23 List6 1.3

.2

.2110 3876 Lill8 L170 LM2 al2 53 56 5

47 46 of 44 3

42 41 39 38 8.L.88 3216 Lin3 Late6 1.2011 3.24 L8 3.249 L.256 3M7 L3.8 L.229 Less8 82A 6.389 3.LI 3.8

_.2 3.1

.4

.4 332 3.243 3a.24 3.1 1.1 3.23 3.1 8.318 6.51 88 864 818 887 817 882

• 62

.881 884 188 6.506 8.8

• .04 841642

.7

.5 It as 4M I4

-o a

.6 37 IN I

5 IN 14 13" 12 131 3

121 In 27 25 125 8.473 L3133 3212 LIP6 13.35 Lou2 I=22 La"2 LOS 1.436

.2116 L.331 "I4 I

.1 Ls 34 1

22 211 18 1"

111 117 IN 17 1 14 L.8 3.88 LISP5 1.210 3.236 3.399 3.236 L.216 3.30 0354

.431 Last 4.88 4.88 L2168 L

LISP L28 3

80 1.6213 88 L 688 3..

6 3

8.338 8Low 187 833

.8.1111

3.

0 8.704 813 1838

~ ~ ~

L.;*`PM 4

.8 6.18 14 121 2

1 1I 16.383 1 8.7 16.44186 RMS Deviation: 0.68%

413 IRfW j]-.-

The Iflcaredte cto 4,3.03.

Is5.

38 88rble 583 A.

83.

RSdpa~n8384b 8333 8880 638e3 ~

~

~

~ ~ ~ i 338.h833866@

R.6.

Ieiaio peIhm6 ul7 be low than83533388838883 3

sor Pa nelt

.0 nd

St. Lucie Unit 1 Docket No. 50-335 Cycle 24 EPU Startup Report, Rev. 01 L-2013-165 Attachment Page 23 of 23 Figure 7 Cycle 24 - RCS Temperature vs. Power EPU Power Ascension RCS Temrneratures 14-Sa-610.0 600.0 590.0 580.0 570.0 560.0 550.0 540.0 530.0 520.0 RCS T-cold RCS T-hot RCS T-ave 89%

92%

95%

98%

Percent EPU Power 100%