L-2013-088, Extended Power Uprate Cycle 20 Startup Report
| ML13109A570 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Saint Lucie  |
| Issue date: | 03/15/2013 |
| From: | Katzman E Florida Power & Light Co |
| To: | Document Control Desk, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| L-2013-088 | |
| Download: ML13109A570 (25) | |
Text
March 15, 2013 a I PL L-2013-088 10 CFR 50.36 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ATTN: Document Control Desk Washington, DC 20555 Re: St. Lucie Plant Unit 2 Docket No. 50-389 Renewed Facility Operating License No. NPF-16 Extended Power Uprate Cycle 20 Startup Report
References:
(1) T. Orf (NRC) to M. Nazar (FPL), "St. Lucie Plant, Unit 2 - Issuance of Amendment Regarding Extended Power Uprate (TAC No. ME5843)", September 24, 2012 (Accession No. ML12235A463).
Pursuant to St. Lucie Unit 2 Technical Specification (TS) 6.9.1.1, Florida Power & Light Company (FPL) is submitting the Cycle 20 Startup Report. This report is required due to the implementation of the Extended Power Uprate (EPU) Project Amendment No. 163 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)
A Florida Power & Light Company 6501 S. Ocean Drive, Jensen Beach, FL 34957
St. Lucie Unit 2 L-2013-088 Docket No. 50-389 Attachment Cycle 20 EPU Startup Report Page 1 of 24 St. Lucie Unit 2 - Cycle 20 Extended Power Uprate Power Ascension Testing Summary
St. Lucie Unit 2 L-2013-088 Docket No. 50-389 Attachment Cycle 20 EPU Startup Report Page 2 of 24 Table of Contents I Introduction 3 II Cycle 20 Fuel Design 3 III Approach to Criticality 5 IV Zero Power Physics Testing 5 V Power Ascension Program 6 VI Results 9 VII Summary 14 Vill References 14 List of Figures 1 Cycle 20 - Core Loading Pattern 15 2 Inverse Count Ratio Plot - Startup Channel 2 16 3 Inverse Count Ratio Plot - Wide Range Channel B 17 4 Inverse Count Ratio Plot - Wide Range Channel D 18 5 Cycle 20 - Power Distribution Comparison - 30% Power 19 6 Cycle 20 - Power Distribution Comparison - 45% Power 20 7 Cycle 20 - Power Distribution Comparison - 89% Power 21 8 Cycle 20 - Power Distribution Comparison - 95% Power 22 9 Cycle 20 - Power Distribution Comparison - 100% Power 23 10 Cycle 20 - RCS Temperature vs. Power 24
St. Lucie Unit 2 L-2013-088 Docket No. 50-389 Attachment Cycle 20 EPU Startup Report Page 3 of 24 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 2 following Cycle 20 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. 163 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 20 Startup Report is being submitted in accordance with St. Lucie Unit 2 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.
I1. Cycle 20 Fuel Design The St. Lucie Unit 2 Cycle 20 reload is composed of 84 fresh fuel assemblies (Region AA), 68 once burned assemblies (Region Z), and 65 twice burned assemblies (Region Y) for a total of 217 fuel assemblies manufactured by Westinghouse. The primary design change to the core for Cycle 20 was the replacement of 84 irradiated fuel assemblies with 84 fresh Region AA fuel assemblies.
The mechanical design of Region AA fuel is essentially the same as that of the previous cycle Region Z fuel, and consists of Value-AddedTM fuel pellets, Guardian GridTm design, inconel top grid and ZIRLOTM fuel rod cladding. The fuel management strategy is unchanged from that of the previous Cycle 19.
The safety analysis of this design was performed by Westinghouse and by FPL using NRC approved methodologies. The core design and the generation of physics inputs to safety are performed by FPL using the Westinghouse physics methodology.
The Cycle 20 reload is based on the Westinghouse WCAP-9272, Westinghouse Reload Safety Evaluation Methodology, first introduced in Cycle 15 for St. Lucie Unit 2. This approach uses a checklist format to assess cycle-specific core design, and plant parameters for compliance with the existing safety analysis.
St. Lucie Unit 2 L-901 3-088 Docket No. 50-389 Attachment Cycle 20 EPU Startup Report Page 4 of 24 The Cycle 20 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 20 reload sub-batch identifications are provided in the table below.
Cycle 20 Reload Sub-Batch ID Sub-Batch Number of Assemblies Y1 8 Y2 20 Y3 8 Y4 13 Y5 12 Y6 4 Zi 40 Z2 8 Z3 20 AA1 28 AA2 8 AA3 24 AA4 16 AA5 8 Total 217
St. Lucie Unit 2 L-2013-088 Docket No. 50-389 Attachment Cycle 20 EPU Startup Report Page 5 of 24 II1. Approach to Criticality The approach to criticality involved diluting from a non-critical boron concentration of 1788 PPM to a predicted critical boron concentration of 1582 PPM. Inverse Count Rate Ratio (ICRR) plots were maintained during the dilution process using startup channel 2 and wide range channels B and D. Refer to Figures 2, 3, and 4 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 2, Cycle 20, was achieved on November 20, 2012 at 00:53 with CEA group 5 at 120 inches withdrawn and all other CEAs at the all-rods-out (ARO) position.
The actual critical Boron concentration was measured to be 1560 PPM.
Approach to Criticality Initial Boron Final Boron Dilution Time Concentration Concentration (minutes) 132 gpm 1788 1732 16 88 gpm 1732 1632 43 44 gpm 1632 1560 47 IV. Zero Power Physics Testing To verify that the St. Lucie Unit 2 Cycle 20 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 Measurement of rod worth was not performed as discussed below.
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.
I
St. Lucie Unit 2 L-2013-088 Docket No. 50-389 Attachment Cycle 20 EPU Startup Report Page 6 of 24 All-Rods-Out Critical Boron Concentration The measurement of the all-rods-out (ARO) critical boron concentration was performed. The measured value was 1568.6 ppm which compared favorably with the design value of 1585 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 -0.132 pcm/°F which compared favorably to the predicted MTC value of 0.755 pcm/OF, well within the acceptance criteria of + 2.0 pcm/ 0 F. This complies with St. Lucie Unit 2 Technical Specification 3.1.1.4 requirements that the maximum upper limit shall be < +5 pcm/0 F prior to exceeding 70% of RATED THERMAL POWER.
Measurement of Rod Worth Rod worth measurements were not performed due to the implementation of the STAR program in accordance with Westinghouse WCAP- 16011-P-A, Rev. 0, "Startup Test Activity Reduction Program," February 2005.
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 2 L-2013-088 Docket No. 50-389 Attachment Cycle 20 EPU Startup Report Page 7 of 24 EPU Power Ascension Test Plan Rated Thermal Power Test / 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 at 30% power and ending at 92% (or sooner).
X X X 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.
Leading edge flowmeter LEFM functional check, following vendor X (LEFM) commissioning commissioning.
Note: The 89% plateau corresponds to the previous licensed power level of 2700 MWt, or approximately 89% of the EPU licensed power level of 3020 MWt.
St. Lucie Unit 2 L-2013-088 Docket No. 50-389 Attachment Cycle 20 EPU Startup Report Page 8 of 24 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 2 L-2013-088 Docket No. 50-389 Attachment Cycle 20 EPU Startup Report Page 9 of 24 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:
0 Main steam (outside of containment),
0 Feedwater (outside of containment),
0 Condensate,
- Heater drains and vents, and
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 power plateaus at 30%, 45%, and greater than 98% rated thermal power. The incore detectors were replaced for Cycle 19 as a part of their regularly scheduled replacement program. Incore operability, as required by the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR), was demonstrated throughout the power ascension program, and incore alarm set-points were programmed into the plant computer at the following intervals:
- 30%, 45%, 80%, 89% and 100%
No incore alarms were received during the 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 each power plateau prior to advancing reactor power to the next higher level specified by procedures. These calibrations were performed for the ascension program by the control room operating crews. All calibrations were determined to be satisfactory for each of the reactor protection system (RPS) channels.
St. Lucie Unit 2 L-2013-088 Docket No. 50-389 Attachment Cycle 20 EPU Startup Report Page 10 of 24 Linear Power Range Channel Calibration Linear range detectors, mounted on the reactor protective system (RPS), and the two control channels, were calibrated at 30% power and then again once power was in excess of 92%.
This was to ensure compliance with the shape annealing factor procedure for determining the linear relationship between the incore detectors and the excore detectors. No instrument performance issues were identified in the power ascension program.
Core Power Distribution Monitoring A summary of the flux maps at the 30%, 45%, 89%, 95%, and 100% power levels is provided in Figures 5 through 9 for the post-reload power ascension program. These flux maps are used for comparing 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 powers greater than or equal to 0.9.
In addition, for the 30% plateau the relative power density (RPD) should be within 0.1 RPD units of predicted value for assembly powers less than or equal to 0.9. These criteria were satisfied.
Shape Annealing Factors A shape annealing factor (SAF) test was performed in conjunction with the power ascension.
This test was required as a part of the EPU testing program. The SAF measurement data for all ex-core 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. The correlation coefficients were greater than 0.998 for each channel.
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 value of the boron concentration and should be found to be less than 50 PPM difference. The boron difference was calculated to be 4.1 PPM, which is in good agreement with the predicted value.
RCS Flow Determination A determination of the RCS flow by calorimetric parameters was performed at -89% power and again at -100% power following the start-up after core reload. In both cases, the flows were similar and acceptance criteria were satisfied. At the -100% power plateau, the measured RCS flow was 410,079 gpm which meets the minimum Technical Specification acceptance criteria, including uncertainties.
St. Lucie Unit 2 L-2013-088 Docket No. 50-389 Attachment Cycle 20 EPU Startup Report Page 11 of 24 NSSS Data Collection The St. Lucie Unit 2 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 10. 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 10. As can be seen, the maximum measured cold leg temperature at 100% EPU power of 550.5°F remained below the EPU limit of 551 OF.
The maximum measured hot leg temperature of 600.7 0F corresponds well to the predicted hot leg temperature of 600.9°F, when corrected to actual measured RCS flow.
- Pressurizer pressure - remained constant at approximately 2250 psia throughout the power ascension.
- Pressurizer level - remained constant at approximately 63% throughout the power ascension.
" Containment pressure - average pressure ranged from 0.10 psig to 0.20 psig throughout the power ascension.
- Containment temperature - temperature ranged from 95.2 0 F to 101°F throughout the power ascension.
- Steam generator pressure - ranged between 885 psia at 89% EPU power and 890 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 2 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,
~
St. Lucie Unit 2 L-2013-088 Docket No. 50-389 Attachment Cycle 20 EPU Startup Report Page 12 of 24
- 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 exciter cold gas air temperature. However, this condition was not unexpected due to sensor location. The second issue involved several normal and alternate heater drain valves being in unexpected position. 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. Further investigation of the normal and alternate heater drain valve position deficiency identified a tube leak in the 2A drain cooler. The tube leak was not related to operation at EPU conditions and repairs were made prior to power ascension to 98% power.
0 98% power - only one new test deficiency was noted at this power level. A 10°F difference was noted in the discharge of the 2A and 2B heater drain pumps. However, this temperature difference can be attributed to the repairs (tube plugging) made to the 2A drain cooler.
- 100% power - The most significant issue identified at the 100% power plateau was a higher than expected level in the shell side of the 2A moisture separator reheater (MSR) causing nuisance alarms. A setpoint change was implemented to correct the MSR high level condition.
Vibration Monitoring The St. Lucie Unit 2 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
AW St. Lucie Unit 2 L-2013-088 Docket No. 50-389 Attachment Cycle 20 EPU Startup Report Page 13 of 24 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. The following is a summary of the vibration observations at the various power plateaus:
9 89% power - the 89% power walkdown identified no new vibration points of interest. All piping remained acceptable to proceed to the next power level.
- 92% power - the 92% power walkdown identified no new vibration points of interest. All piping remained acceptable to proceed to the next power level.
- 95% power - two new vibration points of interest were identified for further monitoring.
These items were evaluated and did not impact power ascension to the 98% plateau.
- 98% power - the 98% power walkdown identified no new vibration points of interest. All piping remained acceptable to proceed to the next power level.
- 100% power - the 100% power walkdown identified no new vibration points of interest.
All piping and equipment vibration points of interest and all thermal expansion/support issues were evaluated and deemed acceptable.
- Post-EPU inspection - a final piping and equipment vibration walkdown was conducted approximately three (3) weeks after the 100% EPU power plateau was reached. All previously identified piping vibration points of interest remained acceptable. Three new thermal expansion points of interest were identified. Two involved resetting a spring hanger and the third identified a new support to be added to a small bore condensate line.
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.
Leading Edge Flowmeter (LEFM) Commissioning As described in References 1 and 2, the St. Lucie Unit 2 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
St. Lucie Unit 2 L-2013-088 Docket No. 50-389 Attachment Cycle 20 EPU Startup Report Page 14 of 24 M
T verification of the site-specific uncertainty analyses occurred as part of the LEFM CheckPlus 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 MT 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.
VII. 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.
VIII. References
- 1) R. L. Anderson (FPL) to U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (L-2011-021), "License Amendment Request for Extended Power Uprate," February 25, 2011 (Accession No. ML110730116).
- 2) T. Orf (NRC) to M. Nazar (FPL), "St. Lucie Plant, Unit 2 - Issuance of Amendment Regarding Extended Power Uprate (TAC No. ME5843)", September 24, 2012 (Accession No. ML12235A463).
St. Lucie Unit 2 L-2013-088 Docket No. 50-389 Attachment Cycle 20 EPU Startup Report Page 15 of 24 Figure 1 Cycle 20 - Core Loading Pattern NT PI M I Kg HI Y X W V T S R* N L J G F E D C B A I I I I I I Z Z I I I I I ZieZ3
.... . . .. .. -. ..- 21
~ Z24 I - Z40 w I - Z04 AA39 AAIC
- - q q AA03 AA39 I. Y U. U I Z32 IZ14 Z35 IZ32 I Z14 AAO3 AM1C Z24 IZ40 IZ04 I I I I
-i 4. ...
.. . *"... ---.... 20 128 174
- p - p 'U-W- 128 174 4-4-4-*- 4 Z56 AA44 AA12 AA63 Z38 Y35 Z33 AA66 AA21 AA46 .. .. . .. .. . 19 132 182 87 142 129 k ZI p- p ~4~4~ p - O~4-e - Z52 1AA561p -Z53 1AA551 Z50 Z65 IAAS5I Z50 Y62 I Y59 IAA781 Y29 IAA801 Y25 I Y68 Z52 IAA561 Z53 -. !-. - -.-. 18 85 157 125 151 1 11301 18 Z01 AA38 Z59 Z62 AA30 AA22 Y40 AA68 Y52 AA02 AA32 Z64 Z49 AA59 Z17 . . 17 190 153 194 183 155 167 158 Z37 AA27 Y69 AA33 Y19 Y18 AA40 Y51 AA50 Y17 Y16 AA34 Y54 AA0 F1
--. .. 16 168 126 192 143 147 133 Z11 AA74 Y26 AA16 Y21 AA75 Y03 Y73 Y08 AA62 Y09 AA17 Y72 AA76 Z06 T 15 187 193 90 163 95 173 106 i .
AAI3 Z12 AA81 Y37 AA51 Y05 AA14 Y20 AA09 Y06 AA47 Y49 AA82 Z05 AA1 13 14
-. 13 175 161 150 119 184 176 148 AA48 Y31 Y32 AA64 Y41 Y75 Y22 Y44 Y13 Y74 Y50 AA71 Y36 Y30 AA43 ...... 12
-. 11 91 145 156 136 139 166 88 10 AAOI Z28 AA83 Y39 AA45 Y07 AA20 Y24 AA08 Y01 AA37 Y42 AA7 Z03 AAO7 189 152 154 9 195 186 180 179 Z25 Z15 AA72 Y61 AA25 Y14 AA69 Y04 Y76 Y02 AA70 Yll AA24 Y27 AA65 Z8 7 164 177 84 141 89 172 144 Z22 AA19 Y53 AA35 Y1 5 Y1 0 AA54 Y46 AA42 Y23 Y12 AA29 Y67 AA28 Z39 138 131 162 188 137 169 Z36 AA41 Z60 Z68 AA36 AW8 Y48 AA67 Y47 AA15 AA31 Z63 Z51 AA58 Z09 181 140 178 165 185 124 160 5
Z57 AA57 Z54 Y58 I Y28 AA841 Y33 AA791 Y56 I Y57 I Z55 IAA531 Z61 4
93 170 171 134 134 1231 1 Z58 94
- - - I - 170 ~4~4~4~4~p171 - p ~4~4~
Z67 Z67 AA60 AA23 AA61 Z23 Y34 Z29 AA73 AA06 AA52 Z58 3
149 135 92 146 159 I - p~ AA26 p - 4-p - p - p -
Z02 Z34 Zig Z19 AA49 AA04 Z07 I Z26 I Z08 2
191 127
- - a- a- a *- a- a- a-1 Assembly Serial #-----.r Insert Serial #--* 1#
St. Lucie Unit 2 L-2013-088 Docket No. 50-389 Attachment Cycle 20 EPU Startup Report Page 16 of 24 Cycle 20 - Boron Dilution Curve Figure 2. Startup Channel 2 Boron DiluUon 1.0 :1:01:10:
0.9 M M:
0.8 six 3 1 a II x a a2 ax 2 2a 2a I E 0-7 a a r a a 2 2 0.6 0.5 0-4 z Z: z z Z: 71 zz z 0-3 Zý z1z: z za 7,4z a-z
.32 m
- 7. Zý z::
a m 2 z a2 az aa 0.2 2 as 33 0.1 0.0 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 Gallons Dil ut7ed
f St. Lucie Unit 2 Lý2013-088 Docket No. 50-389 Attachment Cycle 20 EPU Startup Report Page 17 of 24 Cycle 20 - Boron Dilution Curve Figure 3. Wide Range Channel B Boron Dilution 1.0 0.9 f. 2 -f ----- ---- =-
0.8 = - - -=- - - -=-== ====
0.7
~05 oo 0.4 0.3~ ~~~~~~~
=**==- - -=--==**** *;!-* , l l ~~~~
l
l l -----
0.3 - --- --
0.1 0 .1;=',= - -= = - =- -=,=
' -= - : =-= :- = -
- " - -'- := -: :: -= -- - ---- ----
0.0 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 Gallons Diluted t i
St. Lucie Unit 2 L-2013-088 Docket No. 50-389 Attachment Cycle 20 EPU Startup Report Page 18 of 24 Cycle 20 - Boron Dilution Curve Figure 4. Wide Range Channel D Boron Dilution 1.0 0.9 0.8 0.7
-- R P* -*__
0.6 0.5 !!!NNN~i!Nz ! NNNNN N NN NNN i N?
zNiNs - --
0.4 ::::
- ~ ~ ~::
*==
~~~~~M
- =::::::::::::::::::
1 H=
=
0.3 0.2 0.1 0.0 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 Gallons Diluted
L-2013-088 Attachment 1 Page 19 of 24 Figure 5 Cycle 20 - Power Distribution Comparison - 30% Power M~oosioi BEAOON p66
'I C6 1= P 0 U 1.6 60661too Ind.74#~660U1
.,L44 I?*i? Ottl211146 II 11 11 I I 113 br i I II bit. . 6i. bww 1
M6 i Mot0 q
wo 16.4 h
160
- W6111
. 5 .1L4011 a
r7-9 h
KI.4 t.1 a
PIN.~1 a,
156 h
-M 432
~
6 41.
Z6 o
1131 4012~
js
[
am7 11.6 tLMl h1ill .1 1.? 0.27 036 ~ o rlm 461616 40 16 4h 4?L.01m146L
-. m I
- 1in 179 -
192 am ).n 170
- 19 1W 76 7 7 4 -.
o law
- F 171' o
LINr 714 I
41U 3Wr47s12
~4m4~
63 s
6L m
'
h 1
4 LIM10 12306 1.13 6 16 114 03 6 4 44 O1.W 1.21712 1.21 W" 11 SAO i.2s 40 0 4 66 L6 47 LIM 45 --- 1 41 4 U 01 4#14 1M4* 4W1 LOLi 410 tow 0194 1 46W L33 46 11 LI16 041 .2 144 1IQ a 13 5 15) is 6 L6 WI 1.6 . LIN 16 U 1 1 ,0011 116 4L5 L 1 U86 401 46 4U7 4.6 461W 4614 4 L am- 6 1on 1am W *A_ A . ='I '6A in to 35 1444 to 12 41 1n3W
.. =
60 1.301 LA 1.38 .u~~~tin l m3 4 j k411 44 112 L. 4 W 4 W 1 161 166 4 W7 1 6 101 666 4 6 461 46 7 34 46 4
,446
- 83 N Iasi LW7 "M L! cm 27 UA~~qL .176 1.7 - 30 16 .1.
Los 1W 141 4 4r,400 am 4, 4=4 407 4067 461 1667 toW 11
- eL1 tow *O ["A LAM Ln to . J"e 134 1.290.2 3411 a 1264 IN us U L le.
L31 4114 LIM 1 o" o 4014, IM, 0 IM 7 64 1 I 6 1 1-SAM016 0 am 4= 1j"4 ou0 LM 1.34~~1.12I"01 Ol1210 A3
.260 1.1616 .144 34, 1 6 6.41 1.16 0 70 1"4 1612 t66 67 16060 1WW 461 4 4411 4m1 464 4610 4 161 16 4N I 0064 7 7 76 1.16a 717 SA64 .+/-
146 L44
.144 am LM Lm aminI I_
6.- 66 a 66 1.406 66-41 WII 1.6 -e a e
-6 1.13 43 6 in 6 163i Lim 6127 1 W 4 1.461 467 467 . 4Low66 12 Lin1 W 43 1.411 ton 6am 7 o" a 161 AM to444am 66 a 16 11 61 062 60 4667 61 46 47 In 41 16 30416 6 416 LOS1 1.:16 L216 Lim 2 X)2 06 0I9 1.76, 461 166 165 66 F01 am6 4WA -&"4 46 6 6 6 409 1SAN 0 4m1
... O L. II - .6 0 1
. ~W L ' 6 L. - . -0 .'~ L'i 1
-- W47 4 146 3 066
~- 4.- 4 ~- 4 ~- 0 -4 ~- 4 ~- 4 6 -4 ~- 6 i-140 lot" FUM6 4 111 0.2 16 16 14
- 4614 4 L ,
~- ~~-r- * - ~- -3
ý-a-ý- ý im Mr.6 RM3 Deviation: 0.88%
Th o.4.tlong6w610opm al 6rwA6..dA 164 Mil 47..6.e4 1 eroo44 ela.tano qul016 4 61 6160Own h .wr~.4 66641.060.6061140.06617064s006207 Ac
L-2013-088 Attachment 1 Page 20 of 24 Figure 6 Cycle 20 - Power Distribution Comparison - 45% Power Measosrd: BEACON mln I
P-rI L-1V5vas hý s 124 11 I 1 4 1.4 ?
a-~.ti45,ff C- F. 0 .r. I I
- 12~41 '4 55 ::~
IN 40 im 1 46 M Use I'm kin 4 A. r A useam X
.1 1 II 4 P~
1.5 1.21 27 list
.5 111 11 .51 145 I"545 4I1 "4 45 45 P512 4 J51 4,1, 1519 452 5 179 17 77 71 , 74 M7 to so 7 1.5 LOW45 5.os .1 JAI in J.2 in 135 LIM 12111 51994 451 1.15 l51 215 LM1 L11. 215 LUW@ 5 Me.36 1.114 M4 4 451 IL a.51 too2 15so .4=A5 a=*M451 445 A, 4lto 41111 45111 151 "5A a5m 4 051 ,II 145 5 to 115 I 1 in M M 515 1.3111 1.OW 145 "a S. u LN.14 15 in Lost all am1i 1.3417 Les :L4 I' m" : 1711 57
.114 i.2 1. .344 Am1 to]5 tell tole 451 451 455 4&%3 4814 .055 4m" am5 am5 151 on1 4
A' Ise 54o 141 545 146 145 14 1 142 I 4.4 525 IN 35 53, 5. 1.971 E 512 .lf"544,, 'a 5, Ls 547o 105 1el5 t51 156 4m4 451 4454 4 M 4012 41 .400 151 L5 5554 Jess 51
,I ' _ .* o.i* I B a .
1441 4451 51 5.51,1.7. 1.14.I 51 .545I51 U .515 5.e345e in2 1.2311 4 57412 to" 1511 eas5 ease am 4.6 4 *444.
445 451 451 4514 4 5m . U115 151 5. am4
.s2 us 141 1.12 51 11 519 to 44
- is5 n15 5.4 .3 Al-1457 1511 Lin 51 4 Be551 45 51i 4"in 4 LID4513 15111 547 45 in5 0.590 155 Late5 5in 1.55 m4 1.517 36 411 5.36 5.13 .151 -L 1.23 i 575 3.5 5 5 1 .2 152 51 544 52 51 41 4512 44122 452 451 41 151 0151 1511 e511 to L32 S.W-... to in4131 *5_ U .11 MY5.7 5..51 5.5 IJ15 We5 "a45 15 544 1.51 51 1.M1 5 5 go 4153 151e 151 155 155 145 4 5m2 4554 451 45 44,11 14 0,0115 1am 515 1.573I 1,3 044 1..4 Lot 5 1575 544 n12 575, 1.3111 51 eas5 LOU5 Les7 5.55 to55 4m 44m 4So 451 451 451 L555 1515 1513 IN
'a Los IL.. Din at 31.. Lo 40 Is" ]LI JIM so ~ .131 via L 4
'L 5" L 1INk 4 7 51 11107 am~ IN a~ L. 1 L. 112 5
L 13L 1
SL ."L 4 5 3Les11 1 111 lieI 5
2445 2451
.AM 5544.54315 I555.4
. L i 51 1.5
.'L 5.6 5325
'I 55 4
~ 45 N
544 54 L. I",I RMS Deviation: 0.82%
~h...55~~ ~
- 51. 57 Its. v~s .0.0515.
15o=
~ ~ ~
5.55155
.01550stA~~54
= A.55 .2550 55535~511105 W OMM20
.4 4 1550 .W541, 5.555554pwro~s1s J=s4515.
I f 1... 51 15rcet5115551551.sm
L-2013-088 Attachment 1 Page 21 of 24 Figure 7 Cycle 20 - Power Distribution Comparison - 89% Power 0Me.o r id* BEA CO N ntook Zxp.00 112&1 `'13.1' I P1 9- C-0 . 0 ,""
" I -,
114 ip4* * ,
- 1 11
,,W'; IT 2 . his2 2 .4_
I a .r 1 i ,417 r40Isr~~~~~o24A am -101 00 Im
-am 1 l.6.W48 06 W 42 104 ~
1' 6.0 4 201, 200 I______
1.17 I001.1 6 -0 129 126120 Of.8 P742 1Lae0p20 1123 11 471 1 L$7 I 21 izW 14.402I" 102 1.1 II 40 ~10100I4012 l.01.0 0 1 10 uS 12 L330
~ 4 ~ 4164 416 F '-4--4 4 - F a- 4 - 5 , 4 13 1in i 0.fill I"7 1.00 120 402 11 1l 1 110 1.21 7
.240 117 28 1.14
.- me. t,467 L1 4 130al 1.6 110 70 1.32 1.2
.41.21 1704 1
1154118 1016113 F.-
71 1.
r-.10 21.
Uf1 012 0 7M toot2240 23, 0 1.199 11m1 20o2 06
.340 1.1" 1.44 410 07
$7)l "11 4
.910 0a0 AW 1440 2.0 ml.2 &M4 I.&3 M7 LOS 2L.1 L2 137 I .337 2.I 096 140 10 21 L24 L237 .129 4 0 40 4-a0 40am fee2 0.8 am01 1q02 4010 am00 40m am4 106 IM 106 too0
- . TiI.
L 7- . l i ,f l . .
1"4 1 244 163 4 2 42i 10 21n 1M S17 210 221 210 153l~
0,6 Lao1 1.80 i30 50m .100 .07 206 a4 2.2 am 40.
41 13106 1.0 224 0I. .22 :10 too 9,..1 30 .0711 64 . I'M.. 040
-am 180 1012 UN1 101 40 404% L, 416 04 1-Am, 4 1 0.040 106 a- 1066 0. 4801=
1 j L41 as 4 A As
.. Its in 21* 140 47 2.20 41 104 18 24 0 12 0 tol17.o0 1.37 1.07 .L 213 no 0,110 1 &Il, 6 5il16 20 .. &I 1 2.310 to .160 0 04 jo Wi 48 li0 4I 101 LN2 "Oil*
3LI 1 101 it#
1001 06 126 41620* d"463 121406 m
036 m
1 a
21911 tl 16 L0?16 is m
4167 41 430 412 2.21 1.21 2.221 nI 1690 5- Ofl n- 2.1 0746 LIM140 M29 a-u 2 13Liu 2 14m0 am 1407 1017 0.006 1011 180 4062 -0.o" 40m 4am 10 106 1tw0 am8 11 101 21 1 &1 227 1II I*J~l 21s I
II I j'itm 114 I. ol 133
_ I Iltl 42 lt Ai 6*s
+"4.1lit 100 004 L .t01 to0 1 1 L.
211 230 220 2LO L 212 i a L0i %4 600 "M Low L0 1 106 II "2,8 <'. 2 LAI2
'I ,
& .01 10ll 12 10o
.... LM am U
'-=0.6 4L to10 40 4"6 J-. M, LIMno am 10 1 16 LI 10 19 4001 It22 1.213 2.210 ym6 1 *20 0.71 1.132 340 22.8 "10 In7 "I .8 23 1022 al"2 110 12 0 4 406 4002 404 4006 0.001 0.0 1l20 .06 1067 100 1 1 1 77 0 1 4 Li Lat &M UNT in Li L3 T* 1 M, lm "o ,'
a"I no
,.i I et it 411 I..
=-31 1 f4l
[ 4 Of 600. 7
~
0.80 6
106 ~ 21011 080 ~ 16 101 L 0.6 16 07 0
22621 4012 8
6.1 0.06 124 124 . 102 j fai 18 l &03 8 16 1 a 41 1976 5 fm10 2.01 2 om m.3 1 .3 ", 200 10 AS22 no.1 G 42 106 21 122 1 " 23 1 1 .0 1.22 2.a 1 1 .012 180 11 L"714.022 140 0.06 1KM 106 V .10618 7 A06 1 .97 406 8 LI If" L
- I 120 l IO 223 0.06 0.61.00016 16 0.6 2846 097 46 1.3 2 150
- 106
- 1240 0.0 *31.0180 1.1 0.6
-tall N.- r7.. L5- e. N... :. L 11.
0 W 1 61~ 1. 151 117 6 111 03 406 1.42- L.
14-
[9440 -- L.m~ .1 L1I40 I L... . 1-1 0404al2e Let La I.7 110 L.7aal I .
- I0f i..,m0614u
~ 000r> h Kov ~f RMS Deviation: 0.72%
m* *s~ soend ~ pngx A. 10301 4.sIOlf 011o024b0la=tltloo of s tog5,02.an14
- 41fmmtlof ,1}, If t*=t. ~fomed ip~m t5103000105000O010410n0po2+l401.0 p~tMtlo Oo40oql 411500010o110
L-2013-088 Attachment 1 Page 22 of 24 Figure 8 Cycle 20 - Power Distribution Comparison - 95% Power
- 4 CtP..23 064492*t 1.41M W"/
W40 1 I239`t!-U12 7 ILL, a 6n 6m bm 1- 6. 1'.
193 1' LM M
ff'-Imr5 hsY3 12,. 12.
r.-
M.
lLng FLZOO FLM 71- E:-.. rý- L7.1 ý.- ' -h ~~1 lot i 179
-mU 171 a- L."I-77 1-am'[4N 1274 ,l IM 74 49 73 it bN19 L. am aI hot Is to4 aNmL ha L. &
in4 li 47 a
-a 4122 412 141 1W 154 416 . .15 4W 491 5 197 111 159 ..
"*liU a Lou~
IS _S I $
4, IM 1.l Lin3
.2144 S1-2
-4a0e 3x a
tLm 249 L21 a 1
m 547 13
,1.3
.. 1a2 2.
144 5
344LI1L4 1IJ33 9.1 11 I
4 Am 1`4
[.3 3
A l I
1 N
4 Lips-a m L
37M 434N I
1 a m1
- 1. 221Ii4
.00 A
m~
1.93 I4 1.1, 134 1.M1
.64el Sl 57 3 a4 3
&a9 40 0.49 13 1 K 454 ii to 2 6 4 i. 1o 24 h. 5 .
374 RV 63 am 1.*234.24 U&I 3 l o 217159 .13.
&AN 1 912 141 LIN "I1I UIN 4'1 4L . l4a41 Zo 1 I 454 459
-a,*
L~q L'1 a,*
.3
= MI n12 a 3
.m, in3 I,3I4l W4 ilL1 31 i 12 1 44
.3* I i34 Lou r221 MI
.11 in I" LL 9 ,.. N ý4 ."w 979 a 1 l,3 37U ,.aM L59 -t 4154 23 mN 13-am 44
- 34 4am 159 9 11 it 4 to No ou o II am 4740 1.840 M.5 L99 5 N129 up am4 1 39 5 I 9 l4.4 2.82 A- I 34 .4 5 31I .3 121 .2M5 159 .1
~ L ' L Lou
,31 IN 67 42C1.545L14194945 1.
1.23 I
IN 311
.31
- 1. 95 44 1 M
.42134914 91 A2 1 on 1.23 1."1 I"7 1a4591945 643 422 15-f 1.21.9 1.6 1.4 67 1 -I 15126 13413 24911121297
$911212.54~a. 2 16.121.39 1.641259 12.1 1.47 131 2.5 2.34 12 "tK7 931 up I 1.V l-hzeL "L7'L i~
L L L"
12174 3
L4151 In ~s 143 ý62.-h~
- 4. E
~ 0 4 LLLI
~ K.r ffa-4 I RMS DevIation: 0.68%
Th4h7196149~2334347 934974ll~7 ~ 7 3~~46V444IO4llN4M ~~2tN9 92.341212444%8544 EKI
.. 99 9923922$ p.w9r 16.4 812437341134 p0W94444999$92l 1.42993442232.
L-2013-088 Attachment 1 Page 23 of 24 Figure 9 Cycle 20 - Power Distribution Comparison - 100% Power VAMF4 BEACON PI l I . . ,I i u iq; 0 il .t7 X P " ,n ,A"b°RON 4 '1I 4010 .4 1 L.5004 L.( law 0 . 4 0 .10 ".14121 0
4101 0i .0l 0d* k5 W 04 LinS 0461
-U 1. 1. 15 o 0 04 LOWs ls ism 40124 .N11"9 0 30 .0 P100 10.. r10 Iu 4002 F
~ F - .1 so~ 4 1o 0... Fh-..
I" hlls 6- his.
lot 0 Iin lo. 1ot lift Lit0 I.
x -I
.. 8LV547 1100 OI L.'
11100 L. 0 0 1L 2 .0 LOU0 ~ 1.1 L.414m P00I'M 10 ON 111 7LI IIN 177LW 71
.in 7 174 113 I. 40 Mam3T inL.Xe1 L.inl L00 L 01 MA~ Imr 17 h.,430 La 454 LOU L19 LM 2 .004 IM L0 124 329*o0 1 .00 4151 4004 4m 400 4 4L4001 0 444 4011 am am #0A "M 004 som 4m 14 s
LIN00 154 r.9 .020 a 44 LLOMN 401 1 LIM LIM a Z 4.155 4M1 12 Oi 04 gal0 40 1 4 m 4 1l 40,1 4i 0 & 0 0 4 A a1 to 4 0to 004 4 1441 4 4oU4 0 45 40 411 1 I "a
12 LM 5 157 04 .o Li1IL
.I000 a 1J1
.0I0 LM ~
Ll S L L 16 1311 M
,06.
I0.0
..GXHI ~ Wl am L
,0. .050
.310 X0
-114 0.57 0 AN 14.01A
.4 Li4 t
a 401 1 0 1040 1M00 1UM 8.06 101 4001 4004 400 4=W 04 14 14 1oo
-a -
I.12 a U 121 129 1R4 W U2 11 g21 0.210 1122) 1311 M)40 L.20
- 1) Lim LU. 1 1.1 late4 0 107 131 5206 L221 M72 LU. I I=22 Will al 1.2110 41 0407 4=0 10,04 4149 uW 4114 004 400 4-AM 4000 40N, 4002 m0. 0.01 AM00 am 0N 4 .7 at05 400 li Is 40 135 1 le I 1.44 05 0 0o 4132 AM 4W 4
01010 1 3
00 we OW
~ 144003 007 10M; 029 40N0 400 40M I
4M LIM 1004
.410 007 06 M.2 10204 1212 000am4 4010 4A 1 44 LI703 04 LM.5 L34 Lin 030 155 .l, 3341 L.01 0,so 100 9 .0 05L~g u 0
%00 .4 in .. 4004 4040 4W 4 I. 000 100am1. "DO 19003 AM0 0 4 04 M24 LM 1 100 .44 LiW .
147 01450 1.050 114 0334 0S .06 054 tar07 4004 tol4 0012 ant1 144 0000 4005 4004 4000 4 ON4 tell 4.0 CM 4 am6 0 .1 104 11 5 4 1.0 2 .04 120 500 in 1449 CY 7 2 17 up0 Im100 W015 P 0 I ~ 10 1101.2 132 1'0 14 1
0.00 u
0.6 1'
0.5 19.0 4 0 90 0 0 4 00 0 4000
- -- I- ---
14 L
.0 L- am - U.10 '.0.W -amL 14 12 Il 10 0 0 0 17 10 i 14 i50 1.6 1.s120m050 1.1 520 1.50 1.0 104 13 1507 116 10 127 024 1.0 5.0 524 1.24 1.5 15
.1140077 Ii 4iI W 4 l40I0 I40I ",m O aI 4 4M 4 =
13 1.44 112 ha10 400 [ LIN I
NgL
.0 40 I100 1b0 1~
RMS Deviation: 0.72%
dooOooov.mI f I~00Al" 7454~oIu 15= sos
=*,40, mond U:0100610 Th~~~ .ooo mooWoI moo 00. 17770400000 .040.1 5 10000000408f 000400004 ,05,04 0'040 0000001 lad 07801505 A
I St. Lucie Unit 2 L-2013-088 Docket No. 50-389 Attachment Cycle 20 EPU Startup Report Page 24 of 24 Figure 10 Cycle 20 - RCS Temperature vs. Power EPU Power Ascension RCS Temperatures 610.0 600.0 590.0 580.0 U- 570.0 -- RCS T-cold
-a- RCS T-hot 560.0 RCS T-ave 550.0 540.0 530.0 520.0 89% 92% 95% 98% 100%
Percent EPU Power I
I