Text

Cycle 29, Revision 0, Core Operating Limits Report (COLR)
	ML23089A082
Person / Time
Site:	Mcguire
Issue date:	03/29/2023
From:	Ceva C; Duke Energy Carolinas
To:	; Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Document Control Desk
References
	RA-23-0079 MCEI-0400-435, Rev. 0
	Download: ML23089A082 (1)
	v • d • e

Celeste Ceva

~ -, DUKE Manager

~ ENERGY Nuclear Support Services Duke Energy MG01VP 112700 Hagers Ferry Road Huntersville, NC 28078 o: 980.875.4646 Celeste .Ceva@duke-energy.com RA-23-0079 March 29, 2023 ATTN : Document Control Desk U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001

Subject:

Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC (Duke Energy)

McGuire Nuclear Station (MNS), Unit 2 Docket Number 50-370 McGuire Unit 2, Cycle 29, Revision 0, Core Operating Limits Report (COLR)

Pursuant to McGuire Technical Specification 5.6.5.d, enclosed is the McGuire Unit 2, Cycle 29, Revision 0, Core Operating Limits Report (COLR) and Appendix A, Power Distribution Monitoring Factors.

This letter and the enclosed COLR do not contain any regulatory commitments . Questions should be directed to Jeff Thomas at (980) 875-4499.

Sincerely, Celeste Ceva Manager, Nuclear Support Services McGuire Nuclear Station Enclosures

1. McGuire Unit 2, Cycle 29, Revision 0, Core Operating Limits Report

2. McGuire Unit 2, Cycle 29, Revision 0, Core Operating Limits Report Appendix A, Power Distribution Monitoring Factors

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission RA-23-0079 Page 2 cc: (with enclosures)

Laura A. Dudes, Regional Administrator U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Region II Marquis One Tower 245 Peachtree Center Ave., NE Suite 1200 Atlanta, GA 30303-1257 John Klos Project Manager (McGuire)

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mail Stop O-9-E3 11555 Rockville Pike Rockville, MD 20852 Chris Safouri NRC Senior Resident Inspector McGuire Nuclear Station

ENCLOSURE 1 McGuire Unit 2, Cycle 29, Revision 0, Core Operating Limits Report

J_~DUKE

~ ENERGY..

Facility Code: MC Applicable Facilities :

Document Number : MCEl-0400-435 Document Revision Number : 000 Document EC Number :

Change Reason : AR02400732 Document Title : McGuire 2 Cycle 29 Core Operating Limits Report Davis, Ryan M Originator 2/14/2023 Bortz, David E Verifier 2/14/2023 Hight, Randy A Safety Analysis CDR 2/14/2023 Elkins, Jason R Site Impact Review 2/15/2023 Robinson, Duncan Approver 2/15/2023 Notes:

MCEI-0400-435 Page 1 Revision 0 McGuire Unit 2 Cycle 29 Core Operating Limits Report Revision 0 February 2023 Calculation Number: MCC-1553.05-00-0727, Revision 0 Reload 50.59 # 02452826 QA Condition 1 The information presented in this report has been prepared and issued in accordance with McGuire Technical Specification 5.6.5.

MCEI-0400-435 Page2 Revision 0 McGuire 2 Cycle 29 Core Operating Limits Report Implementation Instructions for Revision 0 Revision Description and CR Tracking Revision O of the McGuire Unit 2 Cycle 29 COLR contains limits specific to the reload core.

There is no CR associated with this revision.

Implementation Schedule The McGuire Unit 2 Cycle 29 COLR requires the reload 50.59 (AR #02452826) be approved prior to implementation and fuel loading.

Revision Omay become effective any time during NO MODE between cycles 28 and 29, but must become effective prior to entering MODE 6 which starts cycle 29. The McGuire Unit 2 Cycle 29 COLR will cease to be effective during No MODE between cycles 29 and 30.

Data Files to be Implemented No data files are transmitted as part of this document.

Additional Information CDR was performed by Safety Analysis for COLR Sections 1.1, 2.1, 2.9, 2.10, 2.12, and2.15-2.17.

MNS Reactor Engineering performed site inspection in accordance with AD-NF-ALL-0807 andAD-NF-NGO-0214.

MCEI-0400-435 Page 3 Revision 0 McGuire 2 Cycle 29 Core Operating Limits Report REVISION LOG Revision Effective Date Pages Affected COLR 0 February 2023 1-31, Appendix A* M2C29 COLR, Rev. 0

Appendix A contains power distribution monitoring factors used in Technical Specification Surveillance and is not uploaded as part of the EI body. However, Appendix A is uploaded into the document management system, for ease of transmittal to the NRC.

MCEI-0400-435 Page4 Revision 0 McGuire 2 Cycle 29 Core Operating Limits Report 1.0 Core Operating Limits Report This Core Operating Limits Report (COLR) has been prepared in accordance with the requirements of Technical Specification 5.6.5. The Technical Specifications that reference this report are listed below along with the NRC approved analytical methods used to develop and/or determine COLR parameters in Technical Specifications.

NRC Approved TS COLR Methodology (Section Number Technical Specifications COLR Parameter Section 1.1 Number) 2.1.1 Reactor Core Safety Limits RCS Temperature and Pressure 2.1 6, 7,8,9,10,12,15, 16,18, Safety Limits 19 3.1.1 Shutdown Margin Shutdown Margin 2.2 6, 7,8,12,14, 15,16, 18, 19 3.1.3 Moderator Temperature Coefficient MTC 2.3 6,7,8, 14,16, 17 3.1.4 Rod Group Ali!!11ment Limits Shutdown Margin 2.2 6, 7,8, 12,14, 15,16, 18,19 3.1.5 Shutdown Bank Insertion Limits Shutdown Margin 2.2 2,4,6, 7,8,9,10,12, 14,15, Shutdown Bank Insertion Limit 2.4 16,18,19 3.1.6 Control Bank Insertion Limits Shutdown Margin 2.2 2,4,6,7,8,9,10,12, 14, 15, Control Bank Insertion Limit 2.5 16,18,19 3.1.8 Physics Tests Exceptions Shutdown Margin 2.2 6,7,8,12, 14, 15, 16,18,19 3.2.1 Heat Flux Hot Channel Factor Fq 2.6 2,4,6, 7,8,9, I 0, 12,15,16, AFD 2.8 18,19 OT~T 2.9 Penalty Factors 2.6 3.2.2 Nuclear Enthalpy Rise Hot Channel FAf1 2.7 2,4,6,7,8,9, I 0,12, 15,16, Factor OT~T 2.9 18,19 Penalty Factors 2.7 3.2.3 Axial Flux Difference AFD 2.8 2,4,6,7,8,15,l6 3.3.1 Reactor Trip System Instrumentation OT~T 2.9 6, 7,8,9,10,12, 15,16,18, Setpoints OP~T 19 3.4.1 RCS Pressure, Temperature, and RCS Pressure, Temperature and 2.10 6,7,8,9,10,12,18,19 Flow DNB limits Flow 3.5.1 Accumulators Max and Min Boron Cone. 2.11 6,7,8,14,16 3.5.4 Refueling Water Storage Tank Max and Min Boron Cone. 2.12 6,7,8,14,16 3.7.14 Spent Fuel Pool Boron Concentration Min Boron Concentration 2.13 6,7,8,14,16 3.9.1 Refueling Operations - Boron Min Boron Concentration 2.14 6,7,8,14,16 Concentration 5.6.5 Core Operating Limits Report Analytical Methods 1.1 None (COLR)

The Selected Licensee Commitments that reference this report are listed below:

NRC Approved

,COLR SLC Methodology Selected Licensing Commitment COLR Parameter Section Number (Section 1.1 Number) 16.9.14 Borated Water Source - Shutdown Borated Water Volume and 2.15 6,7,8,14,16 Cone. for BAT/RWST 16.9.11 Borated Water Source - Operating Borated Water Volume and 2.16 6,7,8,14,16 Cone. for BAT/RWST 16.9.7 Standby Shutdown System Standby Makeup Pump Water 2.17 6,7,8,14,16 Sunnly

MCEI-0400-435 Page 5 Revision 0 McGuire 2 Cycle 29 Core Operating Limits Report 1.1 Analytical Methods The analytical methods used to determine core operating limits for parameters identified in Technical Specifications and previously reviewed and approved by the NRC as specified in Technical Specification 5.6.5 are as follows.

1. WCAP-9272-P-A, "Westinghouse Reload Safety Evaluation Methodology," (W Proprietary).

Revision 0 Report Date: July 1985 Not Used

2. WCAP-10054-P-A, "Westinghouse Small Break ECCS Evaluation Model using the NOTRUMP Code," (W Proprietary).

Revision 0 Report Date: August 1985 Addendum 2, "Addendum to the Westinghouse Small Break ECCS Evaluation Model Using the NOTRUMP Code: Safety Injection into the Broken Loop and COSI Condensation Model," (W Proprietary). (Referenced in Duke Letter DPC-06-101)

Revision 1 Report Date: July 1997

3. WCAP-10266-P-A, "The 1981 Version Of Westinghouse Evaluation Model Using BASH Code",

<::J:!... Proprietary).

Revision 2 Report Date: March 1987 Not Used

4. WCAP-12945-P-A, Volume 1 and Volumes 2-5, "Code Qualification Document for Best-Estimate Loss of Coolant Analysis," ('j/_ Proprietary).

Revision: Volume 1 (Revision 2) and Volumes 2-5 (Revision 1)

Report Date: March 1998

5. BAW-10168P-A, "B&W Loss-of-Coolant Accident Evaluation Model for Recirculating Steam Generator Plants," (B& W Proprietary).

Revision 1 SER Date: January 22, 1991 Revision 2 SER Dates: August 22, 1996 and November 26, 1996 Revision 3 SERDate: June 15, 1994 Not Used

MCEI-0400-435 Page6 Revision 0 McGuire 2 Cycle 29 Core Operating Limits Report 1.1 Analytical Methods (continued)

6. DPC-NE-3000-PA, "Thermal-Hydraulic Transient Analysis Methodology," (Duke Energy Proprietary).

Revision Sa Report Date: October 2012

7. DPC-NE-3001-PA, "Multidimensional Reactor Transients and Safety Analysis Physics Parameter Methodology," (Duke Energy Proprietary).

Revision 1 Report Date: March 2015

8. DPC-NE-3002-A, "UFSAR Chapter 15 System Transient Analysis Methodology".

Revision 4c Report Date: February 2019

9. DPC-NE-2004P-A, "Duke Power Company McGuire and Catawba Nuclear Stations Core Thermal-Hydraulic Methodology using VIPRE-01," (Duke Energy Proprietary).

Revision 2a Report Date: December 2008

10. DPC-NE-2005P-A, "Thermal Hydraulic Statistical Core Design Methodology," (Duke Energy Proprietary).

Revision 6 Report Date: September 2020

11. DPC-NE-2008P-A, "Fuel Mechanical Reload Analysis Methodology Using TACO3," (Duke Energy Proprietary).

Revision 0 Report Date: April 1995 Not Used

12. DPC-NE-2009-P-A, "Westinghouse Fuel Transition Report," (Duke Energy Proprietary).

Revision 3c Report Date: March 2017

13. DPC-NE-1004A, "Nuclear Design Methodology Using CASMO-3/SIMULATE-3P."

Revision la Report Date: January 2009 Not Used

MCEI-0400-435 Page7 Revision 0 McGuire 2 Cycle 29 Core Operating Limits Report 1.1 Analytical Methods (continued)

14. DPC-NF-2010-A, "Duke Power Company McGuire Nuclear Station Catawba Nuclear Station Nuclear Physics Methodology for Reload Design."

Revision 2a Report Date: December 2009

15. DPC-NE-2011-PA, "Duke Power Company Nuclear Design Methodology Report for Core Operating Limits of Westinghouse Reactors," (Duke Energy Proprietary).

Revision la Report Date: June 2009

16. DPC-NE-1005-PA, "Nuclear Design Methodology Using CASMO-4 / SIMULATE-3 MOX,"

(Duke Energy Proprietary).

Revision 1 Report Date: November 2008

17. DPC-NE-1007-P-A, "Conditional Exemption of the EOC MTC Measurement Methodology,"

(Duke Energy and W Proprietary)

Revision 1 Report Date: December 2022

18. WCAP-12610-P-A, "VANTAGE+ Fuel Assembly Reference Core Report," (W Proprietary).

Revision 0 Report Date: April 1995

19. WCAP-12610-P-A & CENPD-404-P-A, Addendum 1-A, "Optimized ZIRLO'," (W Proprietary).

Revision 0 Report Date: July 2006

MCEI-0400-435 Page 8 Revision 0 McGuire 2 Cycle 29 Core Operating Limits Report 2.0 Operating Limits Cycle-specific parameter limits for the specifications listed in Section 1.0 are presented in the following subsections. These limits have been developed using the NRC approved methodologies specified in Section 1.1.

2.1 Reactor Core Safety Limits (TS 2.1.1) 2.1.1 The Reactor Core Safety Limits are shown in Figure 1.

2.2 Shutdown Margin - SDM (TS 3.1.1, TS 3.1.4, TS 3.1.5, TS 3.1.6 and TS 3.1.8) 2.2.1 For TS 3.1.1, SDM shall be:::: 1.3% t1K/K in MODE 2 with k-eff < 1.0 and in MODES 3 and 4.

2.2.2 For TS 3.1.1, SDM shall be:::: 1.0% t1K/K in MODE 5.

2.2.3 For TS 3.1.4, SDM shall be:::: 1.3% L1K/K in MODES 1 and 2.

2.2.4 For TS 3.1.5, SDM shall be:::: 1.3% t1K/K in MODE 1 and MODE 2 with any control bank not fully inserted.

2.2.5 For TS 3.1.6, SDM shall be:::: 1.3% t1K/K in MODE 1 and MODE 2 with K-eff:::: 1.0.

2.2.6 For TS 3.1.8, SDM shall be:::: 1.3% L1K/K in MODE 2 during PHYSICS TESTS.

MCEI-0400-435 Page 9 Revision 0 McGuire 2 Cycle 29 Core Operating Limits Report Figure 1 Reactor Core Safety Limits Four Loops in Operation 670 . - - - - - - . - - - - - - - , , - - - - - - , - - - - - - - . - - - - - - , - - - - - - - ,

DO NOT OPERATE IN TIDS AREA 660 1------f-------+--------+ ---1

~ 630 b l)

~

1-------f-----------"""-=---+------+---____:""""',---------+------'lk-------l E--

U'.l

~ 620 590 1----------'f-------+-----+------l-------+------l ACCEPTABLE OPERATION 580 ' - - - - - - " ' - - - - - - - - ' - - - - - - - - ' - - - - - - ' - - - - - - - - ' - - - - - - '

0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 Fraction of Rated Thermal Power

MCEI-0400-435 Page 10 Revision 0 McGuire 2 Cycle 29 Core Operating Limits Report 2.3 Moderator Temperature Coefficient - MTC (TS 3.1.3) 2.3.1 The Moderator Temperature Coefficient (MTC) Limits are:

MTC shall be less positive than the upper limits shown in Figure 2.

BOC, ARO, HZP MTC shall be less positive than 0.7E-04 Af</K/°F.

EOC, ARO, RTP MTC shall be less negative than the -4.3E-04 AK/K/°F lower MTC limit.

2.3.2 300 PPM MTC Surveillance Limit is:

Measured 300 PPM ARO, equilibrium RTP MTC shall be less negative than or equal to -3.65E-04 AK/K/°F.

2.3.3 The Revised Predicted near-EOC 300 PPM ARO RTP MTC shall be calculated using the procedure contained in DPC-NE-1007-P-A If the Revised Predicted MTC is less negative than or equal to the 300 PPM SR 3 .1.3 .2 Surveillance Limit, and all benchmark data contained in the surveillance procedure is satisfied, then a MTC measurement in accordance with SR 3 .1.3 .2 is not required to be performed.

2.3.4 60 PPM MTC Surveillance Limit is:

Measured 60 PPM ARO, equilibrium RTP MTC shall be less negative than or equal to -4.125E-04 Af</K/°F.

Where: BOC = Beginning of Cycle (burnup corresponding to the most positive MTC)

EOC = End of Cycle ARO = All Rods Out HZP = Hot Zero Power RTP = Rated Thermal Power PPM = Parts per million (Boron) 2.4 Shutdown Bank Insertion Limit (TS 3.1.5) 2.4.1 Each shutdown bank shall be withdrawn to at least 222 steps. Shutdown banks are withdrawn in sequence and with no overlap.

2.5 Control Bank Insertion Limits (TS 3.1.6) 2.5.1 Control banks shall be within the insertion, sequence, and overlap limits shown in Figure 3. Control bank withdrawal and overlap limits as a function of the fully withdrawn position are shown in Table 1.

MCEI-0400-435 Page 11 Revision 0 McGuire 2 Cycle 29 Core Operating Limits Report Figure 2 Moderator Temperature Coefficient Upper Limit Versus Power Level 1.0 0.9 Unacceptable Operation

,. 0.8

=

-e

~

CJ

~

0.7 u~=-

~ 0 0.6

!~t <l 0.5 Acceptable Operation

=-~

e~

0.4

~~ 0.3 00

= 0.2

~

=

"Cl 0.1 0.0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Percent of Rated Thermal Power NOTE: Compliance with Technical Specification 3.1.3 may require rod withdrawal limits.

Refer to PT/0/A/4150/038 or PT/0/A/4150/028 for details.

MCEI-0400-435 Page 12 Revision 0 McGuire 2 Cycle 29 Core Operating Limits Report Figure 3 Control Bank Insertion Limits Versus Percent Rated Thermal Power Fully Withdrawn (Maximum= 231-~

231 220 - - -

., / "

/

/ /

200

,, ,,, Fully Withdrawn ,,, ,,, "

If 180 ,,

,,, ,,, Control Bank B -

(Minimum= 222)

(100%, 161) !=

/ /

].... 160 R (0%, 163) ,,,

1 C,

/

~ 140 ,,, ,,,

/ /

f ,,, Control Bank C ,,, ,,,

~ 120

=

Q ,;

5 100 ,,, ,,, ,;

"'Q ,,, ,,,

~ 80 ,,, ,,, ,,,

c Q

,, - ,,, ,; Control Bank D

~ 60

.:I"'

-c 40 r::I (0%,47) ,, ,,,

~ ,,,

20

~

~ Fully Inserted ,,,

(30%, 0) ,,, "

0 -

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 Percent of Rated Thermal Power .

The Rod Insertion Limits (RIL) for Control Bank D (CD), Control Bank C (CC), and Control Bank B (CB) can be calculated by:

Bank CD RIL = 2.3(P)- 69 {30 < P < 100)

Bank CC RIL = 2.3(P) +47 {O < P < 76.1) for CC RIL = 222 {76.1 < P < JOO}

Bank CB RIL = 2.3(P) + 163 {O < P < 25. 7) for CB RIL = 222 {25. 7 < P < 100) where P = %Rated Thermal Power NOTE: Compliance with Technical Specification 3.1.3 may require rod withdrawal limits.

Refer to PT/0/A/4150/038 or PT/0/A/4150/028 for details.

MCEI-0400-435 Page 13 Revision 0 McGuire 2 Cycle 29 Core Operating Limits Report Table 1 Control Bank Withdrawal Sequence Equation Control Control Control Control Bank A Bank B Bank C Bank D 0 Start 0 0 0 116 0 Start 0 0 CBAStop CBA- 116 0 0 CBA 116 O Start 0 CBA CBB Stop CBB - 116 0 CBA CBB 116 0 Start CBA CBB CBC Stop CBC-116 Where:

CBA = Fully withdrawn position of Control Bank A CBB = Fully withdrawn position of Control Bank B CBC= Fully withdrawn position of Control' Bank C Allowed Control Bank Fully Withdrawn Positions Range from 222 Steps to 231 Steps for frequent RCCA Repositioning Required per MCEI-0400-112 "RCCA Axial Repositioning Schedule For McGuire Nuclear Station Unit 2"

MCEI-0400-435 Page 14 Revision 0 McGuire 2 Cycle 29 Core Operating Limits Report 2.6 Heat Flux Hot Channel Factor - FQ(X,Y,Z) (TS 3.2.1) 2.6.1 FQ(X,Y,Z) steady-state limits are defined by the following relationships:

F ~TP *K(Z)/P for P > 0.5 F~TP *K(Z)/0.5 forP .:'.S 0.5 where, P = (Thermal Power)/(Rated Thermal Power)

Note: The measured FQ(X,Y,Z) shall be increased by 3% to account for manufacturing tolerances and 5% to account for measurement uncertainty when comparing against the LCO limits. The manufacturing tolerance and measurement uncertainty are implicitly included in the FQ surveillance limits as defined in Sec;tions 2.6.5 and 2.6.6.

2.6.2 F ~TP = 2.70 x K(BU) 2.6.3 K(Z) is the normalized F Q(X,Y,Z) as a function of core height. The K(Z) function for Westinghouse RFA fuel is provided in Figure 4.

2.6.4 K(BU) is the normalized F Q(X, Y,Z) as a function of burnup. F ~rP with the K(BU) penalty for Westinghouse RFA fuel is analytically confirmed in cycle-specific reload calculations. K(BU) is set to 1.0 at all burnups.

The following parameters are required for core monitoring per the Surveillance Requirements of Technical Specification 3 .2.1:

L Fg(X,Y,Z)

M 0(X,Y,Z) 2.6.5 FQ(X,Y,Z)OP = UMT *MT* TILT

MCEI-0400-435 Page 15 Revision 0 McGuire 2 Cycle 29 Core Operating Limits Report where:

FJ (X,Y,Z)OP = Cycle dependent maximum allowable design peaking factor that ensures FQ(X,Y,Z) LOCA limit will be preserved for operation within the AFD, RIL, and QPTR limits.

FJ (X,Y,z)OP includes allowances for calculation and measurement uncertainties.

Ft (X,Y,Z) = Design power distribution for FQ. Ft (X,Y,Z) is provided in Appendix Table A-1 for normal operating conditions, and in Appendix Table A-4 for power escalation testing during initial startup operation.

MQ(X,Y,Z) = Margin remaining in core location X,Y,Z to the LOCA limit in the transient power distribution. MQ(X,Y,Z) is provided in Appendix Table A-1 for normal operating conditions and in Appendix Table A-4 for power escalation testing during initial startup operation.

UMT = Total Peak Measurement Uncertainty. (UMT = 1.05)

MT = Engineering Hot Channel Factor. (MT= 1.03)

TILT = Peaking penalty to account for allowable quadrant power tilt ratio of 1.02. (TILT= 1.035)

Fg(X,Y,Z)

Mc(X,Y,Z) 2*6*6 FQL(X' y ' Z)RPS =

UMT *MT* TILT where:

Ft(X,Y,Z)RPS = Cycle dependent maximum allowable design peaking factor that ensures the FQ(X,Y,Z) Centerline Fuel Melt (CFM) limit will be preserved for operation within the AFD, RIL, and QPTR limits. F~(X,Y,Z)RPS includes allowances for calculation and measurement uncertainties.

D FQ(X,Y,Z) = Defined in Section 2.6.5.

MCEI-0400-435 Page 16 Revision 0 McGuire 2 Cycle 29 Core Operating Limits Report Mc(X,Y,Z) = Margin remaining to the CFM limit in core location X,Y,Z from the transient power distribution. Mc(X,Y,Z) is provided in Appendix Table A-2 for normal operating conditions and in Appendix Table A-5 for power escalation testing during initial startup operation.

UMT = Defined in Section 2.6.5.

MT = Defined in Section 2.6.5.

TILT = Defined in Section 2.6.5.

2.6.7 KSLOPE = 0.0725 where:

KSLOPE is the adjustment to K1 value from the OT8T trip setpoint required to compensate for each 1% that Ft (X,Y,Z) exceeds F; (X,Y,Z)R.Ps_

2.6.8 FQ(X,Y,Z) penalty factors for Technical Specification Surveillances 3.2.1.2 and 3.2.1.3 are provided in Table 2.

MCEI-0400-435 Page 17 Revision 0 McGuire 2 Cycle 29 Core Operating Limits Report Figure 4 K(Z), Normalized FQ(X,Y,Z) as a Function of Core Height for Westinghouse RFA Fuel 1.200 ~ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ~

(0.0, 1.00) (4.0, 1.00) 1.000 ..,__ _ _ _ _ _...

1 (12.0, 0.9259)

(4.0, 0.9259) 0.800

@0.600

~

0.400 Core Height (ft) K(Z) 0.0 1.0 0.200 :S 4.0 1.0

>4.0 0.9259 12.0 0.9259 0.000 0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 Core Height (ft)

MCEI-0400-435 Page 18 Revision 0 McGuire 2 Cycle 29 Core Operating Limits Report Table 2 FQ(X,Y,Z) and FAH(X,Y) Penalty Factors For Technical Specification Surveillances 3.2.1.2, 3.2.1.3 and 3.2.2.2 Burnup FQ(X,Y,Z) Fm(X,Y)

(EFPD) Penalty Factor{%) Penalty Factor{%)

4 2.00 2.00 12 2.00 2.00 25 2.00 2.00 50 2.00 2.00 75 2.00 2.00 100 2.00 2.00 125 2.00 2.00 150 2.00 2.00 175 2.00 2.00 200 2.00 2.00 225 2.00 2.00 250 2.00 2.00 275 2.00 2.00 300 2.00 2.00 325 2.00 2.00 350 2.00 2.00 375 2.00 2.00 400 2.00 2.00 425 2.00 2.00 450 2.00 2.00 475 2.00 2.00 480 2.00 2.00 483 2.00 2.00 500 2.00 2.00 510 2.00 2.00 520 2.00 2.00 Note: Linear interpolation is adequate for intermediate cycle burnups. All cycle burnups outside of the range of the table shall use a 2% penalty factor for both FQ(X,Y,Z) and Fm(X,Y) for compliance with the Technical Specification Surveillances 3.2.1.2, 3.2.1.3 and 3.2.2.2.

MCEI-0400-435 Page 19 Revision 0 McGuire 2 Cycle 29 Core Operating Limits Report 2.7 Nuclear Enthalpy Rise Hot Channel Factor - Fm(X,Y) (TS 3.2.2)

F AfI steady-state limits referred to in Technical Specification 3.2.2 is defined by the following relationship.

where:

Fktr(X, Y)Lco is the steady-state, maximum allowed radial peak and includes allowances for calculation/measurement uncertainty.

MARP(X, Y) = Cycle-specific operating limit Maximum Allowable Radial Peaks. MARP(X,Y) radial peaking limits are provided in Table 3.

p = Thermal Power Rated Thermal Power RRH = Thermal Power reduction required to compensate for each 1% that the measured radial peak, F~ (X, Y), exceeds its limit.

(RRH = 3.34 (0.0 < P ::S 1.0))

The following parameters are required for core monitoring per the surveillance requirements of Technical Specification 3.2.2.

2.7.2 Fktr (X,Y/URV = _FAff=n'-(X_,Y_)_x_M--'m==--(X_,_Y_)

UMRxTILT where:

Fktr (X,Y)sURv = Cycle dependent maximum allowable design peaking factor that ensures the FL\iX,Y) limit will be preserved for operation within the AFD, RIL, and QPTR limits. Fktr (X,Y)sURv includes allowances for calculation/measurement uncertainty.

MCEI-0400-43 5 Page 20 Revision 0 McGuire 2 Cycle 29 Core Operating Limits Report F~ (X, Y) = Design radial power distribution for F,m* F~ (X, Y) is provided in Appendix Table A-3 for normal operation and in Appendix Table A-6 for power escalation testing during initial startup operation.

M~H(X, Y) = The margin remaining in core location X, Y relative to the Operational DNB limits in the transient power distribution.

M~(X,Y) is provided in Appendix Table A-3 for normal operation and in Appendix Table A-6 for power escalation testing during initial startup operation.

UMR = Uncertainty value for measured radial peaks (UMR = 1.0).

UMR is 1.0 since a factor of 1.04 is implicitly included in the variable M,m(X, Y).

TILT= Defined in Section 2.6.5.

2.7.3 RRH is defined in Section 2.7.1.

2.7.4 TRH = 0.04 where:

TRH = Reduction in the OT~T K 1 setpoint required to compensate for each 1%

that the measured radial peak, F: (X, Y) exceeds its limit.

2.7.5 Fm (X,Y) penalty factors for Technical Specification Surveillance 3.2.2.2 are provided in Table 2.

2.8 Axial Flux Difference - AFD (TS 3.2.3) 2.8.1 The Axial Flux Difference (AFD) Limits are provided in Figure 5.

MCEI-0400-435 Page 21 Revision 0 McGuire 2 Cycle 29 Core Operating Limits Report Table3 Maximum Allowable Radial Peaks (MARPS)

RFA Steady State Limiting Value Between Loss of Flow Accident (LOFA) MARPs and FAHwcA Core Axial Peak Height ft 1.05 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.9 2.1 3 3.25 0.12 1.6058 1.6058 1.6058 1.6058 1.6058 1.6058 1.6058 1.6058 1.6058 1.6058 1.6058 1.3151 1.2461 1.20 1.6058 1.6058 1.6058 1.6058 1.6058 1.6058 1.6058 1.6058 1.6058 1.6058 1.6058 1.3007 1.2235 2.40 1.6058 1.6058 1.6058 1.6058 1.6058 1.6058 1.6058 1.6058 1.6058 1.6058 1.6058 1.4633 1.4616 3.60 1.6058 1.6058 1.6058 1.6058 1.6058 1.6058 1.6058 1.6058 1.6058 1.6058 1.6058 1.4675 1.3874 4.80 1.6058 1.6058 1.6058 1.6058 1.6058 1.6058 1.6058 1.6058 1.6058 1.6058 1.6058 1.2987 1.2579 6.00 1.6058 1.6058 1.6058 1.6058 1.6058 1.6058 1.6058 1.6058 1.6058 1.6058 1.6058 1.3293 1.2602 7.20 1.6058 1.6058 1.6058 1.6058 1.6058 1.6058 1.6058 1.6058 1.6058 1.6058 1.5982 1.2871 1.2195 8.40 1.6058 1.6058 1.6058 1.6058 1.6058 1.6058 1.6058 1.6058 1.6058 1.6010 1.5127 1.2182 1.1578 9.60 1.6058 1.6058 1.6058 1.6058 1.6058 1.6058 1.6058 1.6058 1.5808 1.5301 1.4444 1.1431 1.0914 10.80 1.6058 1.6058 1.6058 1.6058 1.6058 1.6058 1.5743 1.5573 1.5088 1.4624 1.3832 1.1009 1.0470 11.40 1.6058 1.6058 1.6058 1.6058 1.6057 1.5826 1.5289 1.5098 1.4637 1.4218 1.3458 1.0670 1.0142

MCEI-0400-435 Page 22 Revision 0 McGuire 2 Cycle 29 Core Operating Limits Report Figure 5 Percent of Rated Thermal Power Versus Percent Axial Flux Difference Limits

(-18, 100) (+10, 100) 90 Unacceptable Operation Unacceptable Operation 80 Acceptable Operation 70 60 50

(-36, 50) (+21, 50) 40 30 20

-50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 Axial Flux Difference (% Delta I)

NOTE: Compliance with Technical Specification 3.2.1 may require more restrictive AFD limits. Refer to PT/O/A/4150/002 A or TE-NF-PWR-0802 for details.

MCEI-0400-435 Page 23 Revision 0 McGuire 2 Cycle 29 Core Operating Limits Report 2.9 Reactor Trip System Instrumentation Setpoints (TS 3.3.1) Table 3.3.1-1 2.9.1 Overtemperature AT Setpoint Parameter Values Parameter Value Nominal Tavg at RTP T':S585.1°F Nominal RCS Operating Pressure P' = 2235 psig Overtemperature dT reactor trip setpoint K1 :S 1.1978 Overtemperature dT reactor trip heatup setpoint K2 = 0.03341°F penalty coefficient Overtemperature d T reactor trip depressurization K3 = 0.001601/psi setpoint penalty coefficient Time constants utilized in the lead-lag compensator -r1 2'.: 8 sec.

fordT -r2 :S 3 sec.

Time constant utilized in the lag compensator for d T -r3 :S 2 sec.

Time constants utilized in the lead-lag compensator -r4 2'.:28 sec.

for Tavg -r5 :S 4 sec.

Time constant utilized in the measured Tavg lag 't'6 :S 2 sec.

compensator ft (Af) "positive" breakpoint = t9.0%Af ft (Af) "negative" breakpoint =NIA*

ft (Af) "positive" slope = 1.769 %dTol %M ft (Af) "negative" slope =NIA*

The ft(Af) "negative" breakpoint and the f1(Af) "negative" slope are less restrictive than the OPdT f2(Af) negative breakpoint and slope. Therefore, during a transient which challenges the negative imbalance limits, the OPdT f2(Af) limits will result in a reactor trip before the OTdT ft (dl) limits are reached. This makes implementation of the OTdT ft (Af) negative breakpoint and slope unnecessary.

MCEI-0400-435 Page 24 Revision 0 McGuire 2 Cycle 29 Core Operating Limits Report 2.9.2 Overpower AT Setpoint Parameter Values Parameter Nominal Tavg at RTP T" ::S 585.1 °F Overpower AT reactor trip setpoint 1<4 ::S 1.0909 Overpower AT reactor trip Penalty Ks = 0.02/°F for increasing Tavg Ks= 0.0 for decreasing Tavg Overpower AT reactor trip heatup K6 = 0.001179/°F for T > T" setpoint penalty coefficient K6 = 0.0 for T ::ST" Time constants utilized in the lead- i- 1 2: 8 sec.

lag compensator for AT i-2 ::S 3 sec.

Time constant utilized in the lag i-3 ::S 2 sec.

compensator for AT Time constant utilized in the i- 6 ::S 2 sec.

measured Tavg lag compensator Time constant utilized in the rate-lag controller for Tavg fz(AI) "positive" breakpoint =27.0 %AI fz(AI) "negative" breakpoint =-27.0 %AI fz(AI) "positive" slope = 7.0 %ATof %AI fz(AI) "negative" slope = 7.0 %ATof %AI

MCEI-0400-435 Page 25 Revision 0 McGuire 2 Cycle 29 Core Operating Limits Report 2.10 RCS Pressure, Temperature and Flow Limits for DNB (TS 3.4.1) 2.10.1 RCS pressure, temperature and flow limits for DNB are shown in Table 4.

2.11 Accumulators (TS 3.5.1) 2.11.1 Boron concentration limits during MODES 1 and 2, and MODE 3 with RCS pressure > 1000 psi:

Parameter Applicable Burnup Accumulator minimum boron 0-200 EFPD 2,475 ppm concentration.

Accumulator minimum boron 200.1 - 300 EFPD 2,475 ppm concentration.

Accumulator minimum boron 300.1 - 400 EFPD 2,292 ppm concentration.

Accumulator minimum boron 400.1 - 510 EFPD 2,145 ppm concentration.

Accumulator minimum boron 510.1 - 520 EFPD 1,991 ppm concentration.

Accumulator maximum boron 0-520 EFPD 2,875 ppm concentration.

2.12 Refueling Water Storage Tank-RWST (TS 3.5.4) 2.12.1 Boron concentration limits during MODES 1, 2, 3, and 4:

Parameter Limit RWST minimum boron concentration. 2,675 ppm RWST maximum boron concentration. 2,875 ppm

MCEI-0400-435 Page 26 Revision 0 McGuire 2 Cycle 29 Core Operating Limits Report Table 4 Reactor Co.olant System DNB Parameters No. Operable Parameter Indication Channels Limits

1. Indicated RCS Average Temperature meter 4 :S 587.5 °F meter 3 :S 587.3 °F computer 4 :S 588.0 °F computer 3 :S 587.9 °F

2. Indicated Pressurizer Pressure meter 4 2: 2208.1 psig meter 3 2:2210.1 psig computer 4 2: 2205 .4 psig computer 3 2: 2207 .0 psig

3. RCS Total Flow Rate 2: 388,000 gpm

MCEI-0400-435 Page 27 Revision 0 McGuire 2 Cycle 29 Core Operating Limits Report 2.13 Spent Fuel Pool Boron Concentration (TS 3.7.14) 2.13.1 Minimum boron concentration limit for the spent fuel pool. Applicable when fuel assemblies are stored in the spent fuel pool.

Parameter Limit Spent fuel pool minimum boron concentration. 2,675 ppm 2.14 Refueling Operations - Boron Concentration (TS 3.9.1) 2.14.1 Minimum boron concentration limit for the filled portions of the Reactor Coolant System, refueling canal, and refueling cavity for MODE 6 conditions. The minimum boron concentration limit and plant refueling procedures ensure that core Ke:ffremains within MODE6 reactivity requirement ofKeff :S 0.95.

Parameter Limit Minimum boron concentration of the Reactor Coolant 2,675 ppm System, the refueling canal, and the refueling cavity.

MCEI-0400-435 Page 28 Revision 0 McGuire 2 Cycle 29 Core Operating Limits Report 2.15 Borated Water Source - Shutdown (SLC 16.9.14) 2.15.1 Volume and boron concentrations for the Boric Acid Tank (BAT) and the Refueling Water Storage Tank (RWST) during MODE 4 with any RCS cold leg temperature~ 300 °F and MODES 5 and 6.

Parameter Note: When cycle burnup is > 446 EFPD, Figure 6 may be used to determine required BAT minimum level.

BAT minimum contained borated water volume 10,599 gallons 13.6% Level BAT minimum boron concentration 7,150 ppm BAT minimum water volume required to 2,300 gallons maintain SDM at 7,150 ppm RWST minimum contained borated water 47,700 gallons volume 41 inches RWST minimum boron concentration 2,675 ppm RWST minimum water volume required to 8,200 gallons maintain SDM at 2,675 ppm

MCEI-0400-435 Page 29 Revision 0 McGuire 2 Cycle 29 Core Operating Limits Report 2.16 Borated Water Source - Operating (SLC 16.9.11) 2.16.1 Volume and boron concentrations for the Boric Acid Tank (BAT) and the Refueling Water Storage Tank (RWST) during MODES 1, 2, 3, and MODE 4 with all RCS cold leg temperature> 300 °F.*

Note: The SLC 16.9.11 applicability is down to Mode 4 temperatures of> 300°F. The minimum volumes calculated support cooldown to 200°F to satis UFSAR Cha ter 9 re uirements.

Parameter Note: When cycle burnup is > 446 EFPD, Figure 6 may be used to determine required BAT minimum level.

BAT minimum contained borated water volume 22,049 gallons 38.0% Level BAT minimum boron concentration 7,150 ppm BAT minimum water volume required to 13,750 gallons maintain SDM at 7,150 ppm RWST minimum contained borated water volume 96,607 gallons 103.6 inches RWST minimum boron concentration 2,675 ppm RWST maximum boron concentration (TS 3.5.4) 2,875 ppm RWST minimum water volume required to 57,107 gallons maintain SDM at 2,675 ppm 2.17 Standby Shutdown System - (SLC-16.9.7) 2.17.1 Minimum boron concentration limit for the spent fuel pool required for Standby Makeup Pump Water Supply. Applicable for MODES 1, 2, and 3.

Parameter Spent fuel pool minimum boron concentration for TR 2,675 ppm 16.9.7.2.

MCEI-0400-435 Page 30 Revision 0 McGuire 2 Cycle 29 Core Operating Limits Report Figure 6 Boric Acid Storage Tank Indicated Level Versus RCS Boron Concentration (Valid When Cycle Burn up is > 446 EFPD)

This figure includes additional volumes listed in SLC 16.9.14 and 16.9.11 RCS Boron Concentration BAT Level (ppm) (%level) 0 < 300 37.0 300 < 500 33.0 30.0 500 < 700 28.0 700 < 1000 23.0

l 1000 < 1300 13.6 25.0 -* ____ !_",-*------*---! > 1300 8.7 Q

~

,-;j c 20.0

+* *******-* .

\

1

,-;j

~ 15.0 10.0 Unacceptable Operation 5.0 0.0 +----+-----i---+----+---r----+----+--t----+----+--+----+----i-----i 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 2200 2400 2600 2800 RCS Boron Concentration (ppmb)

MCEI-0400-435 Page 31 Revision 0 McGuire 2 Cycle 29 Core Operating Limits Report Appendix A Power Distribution Monitoring Factors NOTE: Appendix A contains power distribution monitoring factors used in Technical Specification Surveillance. This data was generated in the McGuire 2 Cycle 29 Maneuvering Analysis calculation file, MCC-1553.05-00-0723. Due to the size of the monitoring factor data, Appendix A is controlled electronically within the Duke document management system and is not included in the Duke internal copies of the COLR. The Plant Reactor Engineering and Support Systems section will control this information via computer file(s) and should be contacted ifthere is a need to access this information.

Appendix A is included in the COLR copy transmitted to the NRC.

Filename Checksum / File Size m2c29_Appendix_A.pdf 2248745390 / 1410920

ENCLOSURE2 McGuire Unit 2, Cycle 29, Revision 0, Core Operating Limits Report Appendix A, Power Distribution Monitoring Factors

J_~DUKE

~ ENERGY Facility Code : MC Applicable Facilities:

Document Number : MCC -1553.05-00-0723 Document Revision Number : 000 Document EC Number :

Change Reason : NTM 02400732 Document Title : McGuire 2 Cycle 29 Maneuvering Analysis Hager, Nicholas R Originator 11/2/2022 Stasko, Maryanne E Verifier 11/2/2022 Robinson, Duncan Approver 11/2/2022 Notes:

Calculation Cover Sheet McGuire 2 Cycle 29 Maneuvering Analysis Calculation Number: MCC-1553.05-00-0723 Rev# 0 System: Fuel DSD List: Yes [gl No

[BNP, HNP, RNP] Sub-Type: N/A Microfiche Attachment List: Yes [gl No Quality Level Priority E: D Yes [gl No All BNP Unit CNS Unit HNP Unit

[gl MNS Unit 2 ONS Unit RNP Unit WLS Unit HAR Unit D General Office D Keowee Hydro Station Signed Electronically Verification Method 1 [gl 2 D 3 D Other D Printed Name Printed Name Printed Name N. R. Hager M. E. Stasko D. E. Robinson Date Date Date Date captured via Fusion Date captured via Fusion Date captured via Fusion D YES [gl NO Check Box for Multiple Originators or Design Verifiers For Vendor Calculations:

Vendor: Vendor Document#:

Owners Review By: Date:

Approval By: Date:

Form Source: AD-EG-ALL-1117

MCC-1553.05-00-0723 McGuire 2 Cycle 29 Maneuvering Analysis Revision 0 Page i LIST OF AFFECTED PAGES Body of Calculation (including appendices) Supporting Documents Rev.# Pages Revised Pages Deleted Pages Added Rev.# Type Pages Revised Pages Deleted Pages Added 0 -- -- 1-54 0 Attachment 1 -- -- 1-2 Appendix 0 -- -- A-1 -A-6 0 Attachment 2 -- -- 1-2 Revision Summary Revision Summarv Calculation Owner: DO-NFD-DWP (Nuclear Corporate - Nuclear Fuel Design -

-- Westinghouse Nuclear Design) 0 Original issue.

Form Source: AD-EG-ALL-1117

MCC-1553.05-00-0723 McGuire 2 Cycle 29 Maneuvering Analysis Revision 0 Page ii TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 Introduction ........ ..... ................ .................................................................. ......... .............................. 1 2 Design Inputs and Assumptions ....................................................................................................... 4 3 Power Distribution Generation ........................................................................................................ 8 4 Rod Insertion Cutoffs .... .... ............... ........... ........ ................ ... ......................... ..... ............................ 8 5 LCO and RPS Limit Evaluation ....... .. ... ............... ..... ............................. ............... ........ ................. . 9 6 LCO and RPS Limit Summary ..... ....... .......... ................. .. ..... ....... ........................ ...... .. ................. 15 7 Fuel Rod Design Criteria ... ................................................................................ ............................ 21 8 LOCA Input Verification ............................................................................................................... 26 9 REDSARs ...................................................................................................................................... 35 10 Applications ofBurnup-Dependent Limits and Tave Coastdown Evaluation .............................. .41 11 Peaking Factor Limit Report ........... ...................................................... ........... .............................. 43 12 Conclusions ....... ..... .......... ..... ............ .. ................................... ... ... .... ........ ................ ............... ....... 52 13 File Archival ........ .. ..... ...... ........ ...... .............................. ................... .. ..... .......... ... .... .. .................... 53 14 References .......................... ................................................................................. .. ......................... 54 Appendix A- K4 & COLR Breakpoint Change MA Design Input Impacts ........... ........ .............. .......... .. .A-1 ATTACHED SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS ATTACHMENT 1 KEY MARGIN PLOTS ................................................................................... .... .................... 1 ATTACHMENT 2 RECORD OF REVIEW FORM ................... ... ...................... ... ... .......... ......... ....... .................... . 1 File Archive Revision Archival Link 0 \\lcncengwi1m0 1\ark\m2c29\ma\rev0 Form Source: AD-EG-ALL-1117

MCC-1553 .05-00-0723 McGuire 2 Cycle 29 Maneuvering Analysis Revision 0 Page 1 1 INTRODUCTION I 1.1 Statement of Problem This calculation performs the Maneuvering Analysis (MA) and develops monitoring factors for McGuire 2 Cycle 29 (M2C29). This analysis also validates LOCA transient analysis input assumptions and fuel performance criteria related to rod internal pressure, clad stress and DNB propagation.

I 1.2 Purpose of the Calculation The primary purpose of the MA is to validate or develop Reactor Protective System (RPS) and Operating limits that ensure peak local powers are within the design basis analyses in the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR - Reference 1). The analysis also ensures that the LOCA safety analysis assumptions on nuclear design parameters and the nuclear design parameters affecting the fuel performance criteria are satisfied for the reload core.

The design of a reload core requires developing a loading pattern that satisfies generic safety guidelines on peaking; reactivity and bumup. Following development of a design, analyses are performed to ensure the nuclear design parameters relevant to Technical Specification (Tech Spec - Reference 2) limits, safety analysis assumptions, core thermal-hydraulic analysis and fuel mechanical performance analyses are satisfied. The calculation analyzes the core power distributions and power peaking factors of interest for Condition I and Condition II events (UFSAR, Chapters 4 and 15) and:

1) confirms that the applicable design inputs are satisfied.

2) produces additional design inputs for verification, reanalysis or new COLR limits if any design inputs are not satisfied. ,

I 1.3 QA Condition This calculation is Safety Related QA condition 1.

I 1.4 Design Methods and Analytical Models The design methods and analytical methodology used for this analysis are described in four NRC-approved topical reports:

DPC-NE-2011, Nuclear Design Methodology for Core Operating Limits of Westinghouse Reactors" (Reference 3)

DPC-NF-2010, Nuclear Physics Methodology for Reload Design" (Reference 4)

DPC-NE-1005, "Nuclear Design Methodology using CASMO-4/SIMULATE-3 MOX" (Reference 5)

DPC-NE-2009, "Duke Power Company Westinghouse Fuel Transition Report" (Reference 6)

The computer codes used in this analysis are shown in Table 1.4-1. All codes used in this analysis are SWQL B per criteria in AD-IT-ALL-0002 and therefore are appropriate for a QA 1 calculation.

MCC-1553 .05-00-0723 McGuire 2 Cycle 29 Maneuvering Analysis Revision 0 Page2 Table 1.4-1 Computer Codes Reference Computer Code Version Vendor Modules and Features Used No.

SMARGINS 12 7 Duke Energy VANGUARD 06 12 Duke Energy with this PHANTOM 02* 15 Duke Energy The input files archived calculation indicate which MAGIC 02 9 Duke Energy modules/features are used.

COMET 04a 11 Duke Energy Neuromancer 01 10 Duke Energy

PHANTOM version 02 was used for all jobs requiring PHANTOM even though version 03 was available, due to Neuromancer version 01 not running properly with the deltakwft.lib file documented in Section 2.1.

The code errors/P&L discussed in the code outputs do not affect the M2C2,9 MA.

I 1.s SAR Criteria SAR-related evaluations performed in the cycle specific MA calculation are described in detail in Appendix A of Reference 17. These SAR-related evaluations are:

Operational limit evaluation to define cycle specific AFD limits, RIL, QPTR limits for protection against OL DNB, LOCA.

RPS limit evaluation to verify RPS A.O. limits for f(Af) input to OT~T and OP~T trip setpoints for protection against RPS DNB, CFM.

Fuel mechanical limits and LOCA limit input verification evaluations validate the design inputs for the above defined limits.

The cycle specific Reload Design Safety Analysis Review (REDSAR) checklist contains the design inputs and key physics parameters important to the design and licensing basis safety analysis for the SAR-related evaluations. The limits applicable to the MA are contained in REDSAR Sections II, IV and V. If all reload parameters are bounded by values assumed in the REDSAR checklist, the licensing basis analyses for the reload core are also bounding and no further evaluation is required. Additional analysis is required for any parameters that are not bounded.

Technical Specification and bases for their applicability to the MA calculation are described in Appendix A of Reference 17. These TS limits are:

TS 3.1.6 - Control Bank Insertion Limit

TS 3.2.1 - Heat Flux Hot Channel Factor (FQ(x,y,z))

TS 3.2.2 - Nuclear Enthalpy Rise Hot Channel Factor (F.lli(x,y))

TS 3.2.3 -Axial Flux Difference (AFD)

TS 3.2.4 - Quadrant Power Tilt Ratio (QPTR)

TS 3.3.1 - Reactor Trip System (RTS) Instrumentation

MCC-1553.05-00-0723 McGuire 2 Cycle 29 Maneuvering Analysis Revision 0 Page 3 I 1.6 Applicable Codes and Standards The following Duke Energy procedures, directives, and standards apply to the MA calculation.

AD-EG-ALL-1117, Design Analyses and Calculations

AD-EG-ALL-1110, Design Review Requirements

AD-NF-ALL-0807, Reload Design Process

AD-OP-ALL-0203, Reactivity Management

AD-IT-ALL-0002, Software Quality Assurance (SQA) Program Administration

AD-EG-ALL-1106, Configuration Management and Margin Management

AD-LS-ALL-0008, 10CFRS0.59 Review Process

AD-LS-ALL-0007, Applicability Determination Process I 1.1 Other Considerations

1. 7.1 REDSAR Reference Values When the REDSAR reference values are not satisfied, the affected group is notified (prior to the official REDSAR transmittal), if it is an unusual, unexpected result.

1.7.2 Calculation 50.59 Consideration This power distribution calculation and the power distribution related core operating limits resulting from this calculation are performed using appropriate NRC-approved methods. Therefore, this calculation does not require a 50.59 evaluation. An overall 50.59 evaluation for the reload is performed by the Safety Analysis group, if determined necessary, which considers the Nuclear Design calculations and changes (if a licensing submittal is not required).

I 1.8 General Conclusions General conclusions are presented within Section 12 of this calculation. This analysis:

validates the required operating limits on AFD and control rod insertion.

satisfies the Safety Analysis REDSAR inputs.

satisfies the Fuel Mechanical & Thermal Hydraulics REDSAR inputs.

generates monitor factors and the PFLR files for use in the M2C29 COLR and COMET/GARDEL calculations.

This validation is applicable for the M2C28 & M2C29 operating windows listed in Section 2.

MCC-1553.05-00-0723 McGuire 2 Cycle 29 Maneuvering Analysis Revision 0 Page4 2 DESIGN INPUTS AND ASSUMPTIONS This section provides the general Design Inputs, Assumptions, and Calculation Notes used to perform the MA. Those inputs or assumptions that are specific to a particular evaluation are presented with the details of the evaluation.

I 2.1 Design Inputs (Analysis Requirements) 2.1.1. Fuel Mechanical REDSAR Section V (Reference 13) provides transient power limits and fuel rod design parameters for fuel with Opt-Zirlo cladding.

rfamech2.lib PMTQ/24Apr2012 deltakwft.lib FCTR/29Jul2016 rfaoptzirloriprl .lib BCSL/10Jul2017 2.1.2. Thermal Hydraulics REDSAR Section IV (Reference 14) provides MARP limits in the file below:

murmaps.lib MCDR/06Apr2015 2.1.3. Safety Analysis REDSAR Section II (Reference 14) provides AO limits for the RPS f(AI) setpoints and LOCA limits. Both, Appendix K Small Break LOCA analysis and Best Estimate (BE) Large Break LOCA analysis limits, are provided. CFM AO cutoffs are provided.

Other Design Inputs 2.1.4. M2C29 is designed to operate to 510 EFPD (-10/+ 10 EFPD), with a planned 30 day Tave/power coastdown as described in Reference 16 and verified in the cycle specific COPR (Reference 18).

2.1.5. The Generic MA Input Library is used in the calculation. Complete details on the content and usage of this library and additional details regarding the overall MA execution process is presented in Reference 17. Unless specifically noted, the inputs remain valid for this calculation.

mabase rlO.lib SCNJ/23Jul2019 2.1.6. Burnup statepoints evaluated in the MA are 4, 50,100,150,250,350 and 450, per Table 3-4 of the M2C29 COPR (Reference 18). Verified in Sections 5, 7, 8, and 11.

I 2.2 Design Assumptions 2.2.1. RPS and Operational limits are assumed to be the values in Table 2.2-1. The Operational AFD limits are assumed based on limits typically provided to the station. However, RPS AO limits are based on values used in the Safety Analysis calculation to determine the f(AI) portion of the OTAT and OPAT setpoints which are provided in the SA REDSAR (Reference 14). The MA verifies the acceptability of the RPS AO DNB limit by determining if positive margin exists relative to the RPS AO. New limits are only determined if additional margin is required or the RPS AO limits are exceeded. Therefore, the RPS values are considered assumptions rather than design inputs. The same is true of the RPS CFM f(AI) limits.

Note: The OPAT trip setpoints from the SA REDSAR (Reference 14) are the same as N-1 COLR (Reference 22) and assumed applicable for this RPS (fAI) analysis except for changes to COLR Section 2.9.2 parameter K4 (AR#02412813) to gain operating margin and OPAT f2(AI) dead band from +/-35% AI to +/-27% AI to gain accident analysis margin (AR #02428237). This was discussed in M2C29 Reload Team Meeting and agreed upon by site via issuance of M2R28 WR to update these values for all channels during outage (Reference 28). Appendix A discusses K4 &

MCC-1553.05-QQ .. 0723 McGuire 2 Cycle 29 Maneuvering Analysis Revision 0 Page 5 COLR Breakpoint changes on MA design input impacts upon CFM and Fuel Rod Design MA inputs.

2.2.2. The range of control rod positions that are evaluated for RPS limits are established to cover conditions dictated by the boron dilution accident for nominal condition rod scan cases and by overcooling transients for low temp cases. The range of control rod positions evaluated for Operating limits are determined from the power dependent rod insertion limits, per Section 2.4 of Reference 3. Verified in M2C29 COPR (Reference 18) by use ofcycle specific RJCs.

2.2.3. The desired operating limits for AFD and RlL are assumed to remain unchanged from recent practice. The operating limits in Tables 2.2-1 and 2.2-2 are taken from the M2C28 COLR (Reference 22). Verified in Section 6.

2.2.4. The M2C28 burnup window is assumed to be 489 (-10/+ 10) EFPD, per Reference 18. This assumption is being tracked by NTM02400732-11.

I 2.3 Calculation Notes 2.3 .1 RCCA positions are defined as follows. Verified in M2C29 COPR (Reference 18) by rod positions inputs into SIMULATE.

ARO parked position is 226 SWD. The assumed ARO parked position is outside of the active fuel region, as defined by Reference 16

Rod bank tip-to-tip difference is 116 SWD

Steady state Control Bank D position at HFP is 215 SWD to closely represent normal operating conditions

RCCA axial repositioning evaluation is discussed in detail in Appendix A of Reference 17.

RCCA axially repositioning greater than or equal to 223 SWD occurs periodically during cycle operation to mitigate wear concerns (Reference 8). Subsequent analyses address a full range of possible ARO positions spanning from 222 - 231 SWD. Reference 17 RCCA axial repositioning discussion remains applicable to this cycle's MA and justifies the continued use of the M2C28 COLR (Reference 22) rod insertion limit figure and table.

2.3.2 M2C29 only contains Opt Zirlo, RFA-2 fuel (Reference 16), therefore no mixed core penalties are required. Also, there is no strain analysis required for Opt Zirlo fuel per REDSAR V (Reference 13).

2.3.3 A burnup dependent Rod Bow DNB penalty is not required for assembly burnups between 28 and 33 GWD/MTU based on analysis performed in Section 4.3 of the M2C29 SIMULATE Setup (Reference 16).

Note-The input assumptions used in the M2C29 COPR (Reference 18) and discussed in 2.1.4, 2.1.6, 2.2.2, 2.2.4, and 2.3.1 were reviewed and determined to remain validfor this calculation. The data developed in the COPRprovides the information discussed in Sections 3 and 4, therefore these sections also remain valid.

MCC-1553.05-00-0723 McGuire 2 Cycle 29 Maneuvering Analysis Revision 0 Page 6 Table 2.2-1 Desired Operational, RPS, and CFM AFD/AO Limits Operational Limits (Reference 22)

Preferred Operational Limits Equivalent AO Limits for MA Negative Positive Negative AO Positive AO Power Level AFDLimit AFDLimit Power Level Limit Limit

(%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%)

100 -18 10 100 -22.6 14.6 75# -27 15.5 75* -42.1 26.8 50 -36 21 50 -81.2 51.2 RPS Limits (Reference 14)

Power Level Negative AO Limit Positive AO Limit

(%) (%) (%)

118 -30 -15 Upper 110# -38.89 0.56 Limits 100 -50 20 100 -28 -18 Lower 85# -41.2 10.8 Limits 75 -50 30 CFM Limits (Appendix A)

Power Level Negative AO Limit Positive AO Limit

(%) (%) (%)

118 -31.1 31.1 110 -34.3 34.3

Linearly interpolated from AFD data and converted to AO

Linearly interpolated AO Limit = AFD Limit -+ AFDFractional Measurement Uncertainty (4.6%)

. Power Note: AFD Measurement Uncertainty (4.6%) developed in Reference 21 and verified in Section 9 vs REDSAR Il (Reference 14) trip limit inputs and uncertainties.

MCC-1553.05-00-0723 McGuire 2 Cycle 29 Maneuvering Analysis Revision 0 Pa12;e 7 Table 2.2-2 Desired Rod Insertion Limits Control Bank D Rod Position Comment 226 Fully Withdrawn 161 100% RIL 149 100% RIL - 12 SWD 126 85%RIL 103 75%RIL 91 75% RIL - 12 SWD 46 50%RIL 34 50% RIL - 12 SWD 0 Fully Inserted From Reference 22

MCC-1553.05-00-0723 McGuire 2 Cycle 29 Maneuvering Analysis Revision 0 Page 8 3 POWER DISTRIBUTION GENERATION I 3.1 Ghost Libraries The following COPR and MA ghost libraries are set up and QA' d for use in this calculation. Ghost files aid in mass variable replacement and MA job execution. Ghost library content and details are described in Reference 23 Appendix B as well as Reference 17 Appendix E.

Ghost Library Name: checksum Reference coprlib.ghost 257268635 Ref. 18, Table 3-11 coprriclib.ghost 893846777 Ref. 18, Table 3-11 malib.ghost 1230495930 NIA The Ghost job executions in this MA used Reference 17 Appendix E Table 2 ghost input files and checksums, except when noted.

I 3.2 Steady State Power Distributions Steady-state power distributions for the MA are generated in the M2C29 Calculation of Power and Reactivity Parameters (COPR, Reference 18). These are:

HFP, quarter core nominal depletions based on N-1 cycle short, nominal, and long BOC restart files. The nominal window depletion serves as the basis for all MA evaluations while the short and long window depletions are used to determine the Additional Margin Factor (AMF).

Base (100% FP, steady-state, nominal) power distributions that are required at each key MA burnup to perform Fuel Rod Design (FRD) Transient Stress analyses for RFA fuel and to satisfy Tech Spec surveillance requirements 3.2.1.2, 3.2.1.3, and 3.2.2.2. The FRD transient stress analysis only requires 100% FP data. Burnup distributions are also required at key MA burnups to perform margin analyses since thermal limits for CFM and some FRD limits are burnup dependent.

I 3.3 Transient Power Distributions.

Xenon transients are used to generate Condition I and II transient power distributions. The M2C29 COPR (Reference 18):

Creates top and bottom peaked power distributions at key burnup points

Describes rod scan cases created from the xenon power distributions summarized in Table 3-7 of Reference 18

Documents the rod scan executions in Table 3-11 of Reference 18 4 Ron INSERTION CUTOFFS As determined in Reference 18, cycle specific Rod Insertion Cutoffs (RICs) are used for this core design.

Applicable RICs for burnups of interest are shown in Table 4-1.1 of Reference 18.

MCC-1553.05-00-0723 McGuire 2 Cycle 29 Maneuvering Analysis Revision 0 Page 9 5 LCO AND RPS LIMIT EvALUATI0N I 5.1 Introduction This section evaluates the cycle specific Operational and RPS Limits. Appendix A of Reference 17 addresses most of the limits and generic values used in this section.

I 5.2 General Input Parameters The Super Margins computer code (SMARGINS) is used to evaluate margin to defined limits. Various uncertainties and tolerances are included in the margin calculation to ensure conservative results.

Ultimately, AFD and RILs are set to exclude all power distributions that result in negative margins.

SMARGINS has several calculational modules. The modules of interest for the Operational and RPS Limit evaluation are CFM, DNB, and LOCA. Each of the modules has specific input parameters that pertain only to that specific module. However, there are several input parameters that are global in nature that are addressed in this section.

5.2.1 SMARGINS "Generic" Input Values The SMARGINS user manual discusses several "Generic" program inputs. Only those that are specifically applicable to the Operational and RPS Limit evaluation are addressed. Details concerning the "generic" SMARGINS input values are provided in Reference 17.

5.2.2 Additional Margin Factor AMF accounts for changes in core peaking due to the analyzed cycle N-1 burnup window. Details concerning AMF are provided in Reference 17. The AMF calculation was performed in Table 3-3 of Reference 18 and the results are shown below.

AMF= 1.0117 5.2.3 Average Linear Heat Rate (AVLHRo)

As described in Reference 17, and applicable for a core at 3469 MWth:

AVLHRo = 5.6736 KW/ft 5.2.4 Peaking Penalty to Account for Excore Tilt As described in Reference 17, and applicable for this core:

TILT=l.035 5.2.5 Uncertainty Factors As described in Reference 17, and listed in Table 5.2-1 are applicable for this core:

MCC-1553.05-00-0723 McGuire 2 Cycle 29 Maneuvering Analysis Revision 0 Page 10 Table 5.2-1 LEU Uncertainty Factors SMARGINS Engineering Total Parameter Bias Assembly Pin SCUF*

HCF Uncertainty Input Fm 0.002 0.0248 0.0169 0.030 0.0300 1.0320 Fq 0.020 0.0409 0.0169 0.030 0.0535 1.0735 Fz 0.020 0.0350 - - 0.0350 1.0550

The SCUF values shown in the table above are the statistical combination (SRSS) of the individual uncertainty values without the bias. The total uncertainty shown in the last column is the SCUF plus the bias.

5.2.6 Conservatisms Conservatisms applied in this MA include:

AMF which is applied in all the margin calculations for all burnups (except as noted).

CFM limits up to 20 GWD/MTU include 0.5 kW/ft margin and limits from 30 to 60 GWD/MTU are reduced to account for fuel conductivity degradation (Reference 24)

MCC-1553.05-00-0723 McGuire 2 Cycle 29 Maneuvering Analysis Revision 0 Page 11 I 5.3 CFM Module Input This section describes the input used in the CFM module. All other inputs are described in Reference 17 and REDSAR Section V (Reference 13).

Card Name/ Input Variables Input Parameter / Discussion FACTOR AVLHR Average linear heat rate is total core power divided by total length of fuel rods (KW/ft) accounting for fuel densification and thermal expansion. The A VLHR is calculated as shown in the following equation (Reference 17):

AVLHR = AVLHR0 x TILT x RPF x AMF The values of AVLHRo, TILT, and AMF are developed in Section 5.2. They are:

AVLHRo = 5.6736 (Section 5.2.3)

TILT = 1.035 (Section 5.2.4)

RPF = 0.974 (Ref. 17, App. A, Sec. 5.3)

AMF = 1.0117 (Section 5.2.2)

Using values developed above, average linear heat rate is:

AVLHR = 5.6736 X 1.035 X 0.974 X 1.0117 AVLHR = 5.7864 CMXLHR Deck 'CFMRFA' from the REDSAR V input library rfamech2.lib (Section 2.1.1)

MCC-1553.05-00-0723 McGuire 2 Cycle 29 Maneuvering Analysis Revision 0 Page 12 I 5.4 DNB Module Input This section describes the cycle specific input used in the DNB module. All other inputs are described in Reference 17 and REDSAR Section IV (Reference 14).

Card Name/ Input Variables Input Parameter / Discussion FACTOR RADUC The RADUC for DNB is described in detail in Reference 17. The final form of the RADUC for DNB analysis can be simplified to the following:

RADUC = AMF x UCR where: UCR = 1.0 (Ref. 17, App. A, Section 5.4)

AMF= 1.0117 (Section 5.2.2)

The resulting RADUC value is:

RADUC = 1.0117

1.0

=1.0117 SCALE MARP libraries are updated for the MUR uprate at 75% (OPR), 101.7%, and 120% RTP. For these cases SCALE=l.0 The remaining MARP libraries have not been updated, so percent power is based on a RTP of3411MWth. MARPs are adjusted to be consistent with SIMULATE3 and MARPs RTP for MUR uprate. Comparison of previous MARPs generated at 100% and 101. 7% power showed approximately a 1.7% reduction for the uprated core (Reference 17), and thus SCALE is adjusted to account for this. Also noted in REDSAR IV (Reference 14).

SCALE= 0.9830 MARP The M2C29 Thermal Hydraulic REDSAR Section IV (Reference 14) provides the MARPs required for the DNB analysis.

MUR- WRB2M- 388- OPR- 1017 101.7% power, operating limits MUR- WRB2M- 388- OPR- 075 75% power, operating limits RFA- WRB2M- 388- OPR- 050 50% power, operating limits RFA- WRB2M- 388- RPS- 120- LO 120% power, Low Tin, RPS RFA- WRB2M- 388- RPS- 110- LO 110% power, Low Tin, RPS MUR- WRB2M- 388- RPS- 1017- LO 101. 7% power, Low Tin, RPS MUR- WRB2M- 388- RPS- 1017- HI 101.7% power, high Tin, RPS RFA- WRB2M- 388- RPS- 085- HI 85% power, high Tin, RPS RFA WRB2M 388 RPS 075 HI 75% power, him Tin, RPS

MCC-1553 .05-00-0723 McGuire 2 Cycle 29 Maneuvering Analysis Revision 0 Page 13 I 5.5 LOCA Module Input This section describes the cycle specific input used in the LOCA module. All other inputs are described in Reference 17 and REDSAR Section II (Reference 14).

Card Name/ Input Variables Input Parameter / Discussion FACTOR AVLHR AVLHR is slightly different for the LOCA module because TILT is entered separately. Therefore, average linear heat rate for the LOCA module is:

AVLHR = AVLHR0 x RPF x AMF AVLHRo = 5.6736 (Section 5.2.3)

AMF = 1.0117 (Section 5.2.2)

RPF = 1.00 (Ref. 17, App. A, Sec. 5.5)

Based on values presented, average linear heat rate is:

AVLHR = 5.6736

I.OJ 17

1.00

=5.7400 LBURN/LMXLHR Deck 'LOCALIMITS27_MUR' in the generic MA library

MCC-1553.05-00-0723 McGuire 2 Cycle 29 Maneuvering Analysis Revision 0 Page 14 I 5.6 SMARGINS Execution SMARGINS is executed for the MA operational and RPS limits using the scan files created in Reference

18. A summary of the SMARGINS executions is shown in Table 5.6-1.

Table 5.6-1 SMARGINs Execution Summary File Name Job Identifier/Date Reference MA Input Library mabase rl0.lib SCNJ/23Jul2019 Reference 17 (Section 4.0)

Burnup SCAN File mfbase.scn HHVC/12Apr2022 Reference 18 (Table 3-11)

Rod Scan SCAN Reference 18 (Table 3-11)

Files Power Level Type of Limits T-in Job Name/Date SMARG Punch File Operational NFFB I 20Sep2022 ol_ghost.pch 100, 75, 50 Nominal (DNB&LOCA) NFKF I 20Sep2022 olspace_ghost.pch Nominal NFRM /20Sep2022 cftn_bu7_ghost.pch 118, 110 CFM

&Low NGCG /20Sep2022 cfinspace_ bu7_ghost.pch RPS Low& Nominal NDGT /20Sep2022 rpsdnb_ bu7_ghost.pch 118, 110, 100, 85, 75 High &Low MWSJ/20Sep2022 rpsdnbspace_ bu7_ghost.pch Note the '*space' SMARGINS jobs use the 'CREATE' module to generate data at the desired operating, RPS, and CFM limits and the results are displayed in Section 6. The predecessor jobs generate the data displayed in the margin plots also created in Section 6 as required by Reference 3. This is used to ease minimum margin determination.

Note that warning messages appear in the *space jobs. The warnings are consistent with previous calculations and most are related to proximity of available cases relative to the AO limit (cases not available beyond AO limit to allow interpolation). Another warning in the rpsdnbspace_bu7_ghost job indicates no scan cases were selected, for a given input scan file. Both warnings are typical and expected.

Below is an example and explanation for the warning about no cases selected.

The following warning was present in the rpsdnbspace_bu7_ghost job:

"NO SCAN CASES FROM SCAN FILE 9 WERE SELECTED."

This results from scan file 9, top 1001.scn (the top peak xenon rod scan), not containing AO values required by SMARGINS case 12 (RPS High DNB, Low T-in). The desired AO range (-28% to -18%) is accounted for in botlO0l.scn (bottom peak xenon rod scan).

MCC-1553.05-00-0723 McGuire 2 Cycle 29 Maneuvering Analysis Revision 0 Page 15 6 LCO AND RPS LIMIT

SUMMARY

This section evaluates the results of the SMARGINS execution per LCO and RPS Limits Evaluation in Reference 17 and summarizes the Operational and RPS limits for this reload.

16.1 Margin Plot The computer code MAGIC is used to interpret the SMARGINS punch file data. Additional details on how to interpret plots are contained in Reference 17.

6.1.1 MAGIC Execution The punch files documented in the SMARGINS execution section are input to MAGIC along with the assumed limits in Table 2.2-1. Only critical plots, if any, are included on paper in the calculation (Attachment 1), while all plots are saved electronically.

Table 6.1-1 provides the details concerning the MAGIC execution.

Table 6.1-1 MAGIC Execution Summary Output Files Job Name/Date PNG File Name plotol_ghost.out HRGL / 21 Sep2022 /OLPLOT/fly* .png, rodiso* .png plotrps_ghost.out HRFF I 21 Sep2022 /RPSPLOT/fly* .png, rodiso*.png plotcfm_ghost.out, HRFT I 21 Sep2022 /CFMPLOT/fly* .png, rodiso* .png

MCC-1553.05-00-0723 McGuire 2 Cycle 29 Maneuvering Analysis Revision 0 Page 16 I 6.2 Operational Limit Summary Margin at the desired operational limits for 100% PP is shown in Table 6.2-1 and comes from olspace_ghost.pch. The results have been verified against the Operating Limits margin plots. The data represents the minimum margin available for each burnup, power level, and rod position analyzed. In all cases, the minimum margin is determined at the desired AO limits shown in Table 2.2-1.

Table 6.2-1 Margin at Desired Operating Limits - 100% FP

(-22.6 to +14.6 AO cutoffs)

Limit Burnup Margin Rod Index OLDNB 4 14.32 149 50 15.41 149 100 15.60 149 150 14.66 149 250 13.73 149 350 11.26 149 450 12.49 149 LOCA 4 8.78 226 50 8.42 149 100 8.48 149 150 7.66 149 250 6.88 226 350 5.51 226 450 7.05 226 The 50% and 75% PP operational/LOCA limits were reviewed and shown to have positive margin (all

>11%) at the desired operational limits for all points. Note, 50% PP negative AOs did not achieve the desired operational AO limits and were greater than 12% AO away from the limits. However, these limits are deemed acceptable per Reference 17 argument that sufficient positive margin exists for these points and the xenon/ rod maneuver power distributions are conservative because the core is not physically able to go beyond the AOs achieved.

The desired operational AO limits and RILs presented in Section 2 provide positive margin at all locations.

It is desired to retain ~3% margin to prevent the need to reduce the limits during operation. The DNB margin is sufficiently greater than 3% and therefore acceptable. The minimum LOCA margin at all points is also above 3% and acceptable. The AFD operational limits (not including AFD measurement uncertainty) are shown in Table 6.2-2 along with the conversion to AO limits.

MCC-1553.05-00-0723 McGuire 2 Cycle 29 Maneuvering Analysis Revision 0 Page 17 Table 6.2-2 Final Operational Limits Power Level Negative Positive Negative Positive

(%) AO Limit AO Limit AFDLimit AFDLfmit

(%) (%) (%) (%)

100 -22.6 14.6 -18 10 75* -42.1 26.8 -27 15.5 50 -81.2 51.2 -36 21

The 75% FP point is interpolated from the 100% and 50% FP AFD points and the AO limit above is calculated from the AFD limit. Note that AFD is linear with power while AO is not. The AO limit is defined as follows:

AFD Limit + AFD Measured Uncertainty (4.6%)

AO Limit= -

Fractional Power The final AFD limits to be used in the COLR are shown in Table 6.2-2. Note, the negative, HFP, AFD limit will be -18% for this design, consistent with recent MNS MAs. The final AFD limits will be used in generating monitoring factors.

The rod insertion that corresponds to the operational AFD limits validated above is the same as the RlL in the current COLR (M2C28). Since the LOCA and operational DNBR margins are acceptable within the operational AFD limit, the M2C28 rod insertion limits remain valid.

With respect to the allowable QPTR in the Tech Spec, the MA is performed with a power peaking penalty of 1.035 (3.5%), which corresponds to an allowable QPTR of2%. Therefore, the QPTR operational limit of 2% remains valid.

Reference 17 states that the 100% FP LOCA operational margin plots should be verified on a cycle specific basis to ensure at least 10% margin exists within +/-10% AFD. This is verified in Figure 6.2-1.

Note, if the 100% FP LOCA FQ margin was less than 10% within +/-10% AFD, additional steps would be taken to gain margin (refer to Reference 17).

MCC-15 53. 0 5-00-0723 McGuire 2 Cycle 29 Maneuvering Analysis Revision 0 Page 18 Fi ure 6.2-1 100% Fq Margin vs %AO 30 Tran Top

Tran Bot

-a-min margin space 25

~.*

.....*~

. lil

~ t. *....

20

. .

t* '~,.

. . . . 4'. ....,t:

l* , ljt *

- 1

~

- - ~

r-......

,...~ .

~

-:~ * *...

.. j

... ~~ t* ....

10 . * *

~

.... JI['-*

...".... -i All Fq m1r1ln points must be outs1de of bo>e

I ..,

5

~

0

-25 -20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20

%AO

MCC-1553.05-00-0723 McGuire 2 Cycle 29 Maneuvering Analysis Revision 0 Page 19 I 6.3 RPS Limit Summary The allowable AO that corresponds to the existing RPS f(Af) trip setpoints are issued in the SA REDSAR Section II.

Table 6.3-1 shows a summary of the minimum margin available at the desired RPS Limits using data from the rpsdnbspace job.

Table 6.3-1 Minimum Margin at Desired RPS Limits 100% FP, High T1N MARPs (-28% to -18% AO cutoff)

Limit Burnup Margin Rod Index %AO RPSHN 4 2.48 46 -18.00 50 3.24 46 -23.55 100 1.75 46 -24.26 150 0.49 46 -21.25 250 2.12 70 -18.00 350 3.43 103 -18.00 450 5.22 126 -18.00 RPSHL 4 0.46 103 -18.00 50 2.16 103 -18.00 100 3.09 103 -18.80 150 2.31 103 -20.93 250 1.28 103 -18.00 350 1.94 103 -18.00 450 4.03 126 -21.67 Positive margin exists everywhere; a cycle specific DNB analysis is not required (per Reference 17).

The 75% and 85% FP RPS limits were reviewed and shown to have positive margin (> 12%) at or within desired RPS AO limits. The 100%, 110% and 118% FP Low TIN RPS (RPSLN and RPSLL) limits were reviewed and maintain positive margin (>8%) at or within the desired RPS AO limits.

In summary, all the RPS requirements are met with the AO limits and RILs assumed in Section 2.0.

MCC-1553.05-00-0723 McGuire 2 Cycle 29 Maneuvering Analysis Revision 0 Page 20 I 6.4 CFM Limit Summary The most limiting CFM margin within the desired CFM limits assumed in Section 2.0 occurs at 118% FP and 4 EFPD. The margin at that point is 16.54% for a rod index of 185.

Note: CFM margin slightly increased for M2C29 because the desired CFM limits were reduced due to change in K4 and COLR Breakpoint discussed in Appendix A.

I 6.5 Thermal Hydraulic Analysis The Safety Analysis Models (SA) group may perform cycle-specific DNB analyses of certain cases in order to:

Verify that MA MARP DNB margins are conservative, and

Evaluate points with limiting margin (if applicable).

Reference 17 states that if the minimum DNB peaking margin calculated in the MA is positive (> 0% ), no statepoint evaluation is necessary, and the assumed limits are acceptable. Since all margins in this analysis are positive, a cycle-specific DNB analysis is not required.

MCC-1553.05-00-0723 McGuire 2 Cycle 29 Maneuvering Analysis Revision 0 Page 21 7 FUEL ROD DESIGN CRITERIA The RFA fuel rod design acceptance criteria verified for each reload core design are based on the Westinghouse fuel rod design methodology. The methodology for calculating key nuclear input parameters, used to confirm the validity of licensing basis fuel rod design calculations, is described in Reference 17 and Reference 26. The key nuclear input assumptions verified for each cycle are obtained from the M2C29 Mechanical Analysis REDSAR,Section V (Reference 13).

J 7.1 RFA Fuel Rod Design Criteria Input Assumption Key inputs verified include F AH steady state and peak pin power history, maximum fuel burnup, and DNB propagation.

7.1.1 FAH Steady State Peak Pin Power History This is provided to FMP via the M2C29 SIMULATE Setup.

7.1.2 Maximum Fuel Pin Burn up This is provided to FMP via the M2C29 SIMULATE Setup.

7.1.3 RFA DNB Propagation Chapter 15 Pin Census Limits(% pins in DNB) for Single Rod Withdrawal and Locked Rotor are required cycle specific checks to confirm the key assumptions employed in the DNB propagation analysis. These criteria are evaluated, and results communicated in the M2C29 SAPP (Reference 25) to meet REDSAR Section V design inputs.

J 7.2 RFA Rod Internal Pressure The rod internal pressure (RIP) analysis is performed to demonstrate that internal pressure within a RFA fuel rod does not result in fuel rod diametrical gap increase during steady state operation due to cladding creep or extensive DNB propagation.

7.2.1 Transient RIP Peak Linear Heat Rate Transient power limits are evaluated to ensure that rod internal pressure requirements are met for Condition II events.

7 .2.1.1 Input Development Table 7 .2-1 shows the cycle specific input used in the RIP evaluation in the CFM module. All other inputs are described in Sections 5.3 and 7.2 of Reference 17, Appendix A. See Reference 17 for more details on input development.

MCC-1553.05-00-0723 McGuire 2 Cycle 29 Maneuvering Analysis Revision 0 Page 22 Table 7.2-1 SMARGINS Input for RIP Evaluation Card Name/ Input Variables Input Parameter/ Discussion CREATE AOTARG Axial Offset target for state point power. Calculated in Appendix A with Design Assumption 2.2.1 K4 and COLR Breakpoint changes.

100%FP: +/- 31.3%

11 03/4FP: + 30.0%

LIMSETC LIMSET Limit Set Number--- 4: first/second cycle Opt. Zirlo fuel, 5: third cycle Opt. Zirlo fuel 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 5 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 4 4 4 5 5 4 5 5 5 5 CMXLHR CBURN, Exposure and transient local power limit from the Fuel Mechanical REDSAR Section V (Reference 13).

CMXLHR This cycle has different limits for first and second cycle fuel, and third cycle fuel.

First and second cycle fuel use deck RIPOZ2, while the third cycle fuel uses deck RIPOZ3.

RODBOW Input for rod bow (and assembly bow) is from the RODBOW_CFM deck in the MA input library (Reference 17). Multiple limit sets are handled by use of the 'repeat' card.

I 7.3 Transient Stress / Strain The clad stress and strain analyses for RFA fuel are performed to ensure:

the volumetric average effective stress does not exceed the cladding yield stress during a Condition II transient

the circumferential elastic and plastic strain does not exceed a tensile strain of 1.0% from a pre-transient steady state condition.

Per Reference 17 and 26, stress/strain analysis are performed using ASME Boiler Pressure Vessel Code Method for cladding strain analysis for RFA Zirlo fuel, and the Westinghouse Fuel Rod Design stress analysis method for Opt Zirlo fuel.

Delta kW/ft stress/strain margin analysis are performed as described in Reference 17 and 26. The transient peaking factors represent the maximum best estimate power density achieved during an overpower Condition II transient and the mtbase peaking factor represents reference power density in the delta kW/ft calculation.

MCC-1553.05-00-0723 McGuire 2 Cycle 29 Maneuvering Analysis Revision 0 Page23 7.3.1 CladStrain-AkW/ft M2C29 contains only Opt Zirlo fuel, therefore clad strain analysis is not required. REDSAR Section V (Reference 13) provides no design inputs for RFA clad strain delta kW/ft limits for M2C29.

7.3 .2 Clad Stress - AkW/ft N euromancer Delta kW/ft clad stress margin analysis is performed by the Neuromancer computer code. REDSAR Section V (Reference 13) provides RFA clad stress delta/kwft design l1mits for Opt ZIRLO fuel. Delta kW/ft Neuromancer inputs are shown in Table 7.3-1. Reference 17 contains details o~ the kW/ft input development. Only the change variables that are different from those listed in Reference 17 are shown in Table 7.3-1. Execution details and results are in Section 7.4.

Table 7.3-1 Delta kW/ft Analysis Neuromancer Input Card Name/

Input Parameter / Discussion Input Variables AVLHR To maintain consistency with SMARGINS delta kW/ft calculation, Neuromancer's A VLHR is assumed to include AMF.

AVLHR = AVLHR0 x AMF The value of A VLHRo and AMF are developed in Sections 5.2.3 and 5.2.2, respectively.

A VLHRo = 5.6736 AMF= 1.0117 AVLHR=5.7400 Note: The 0.974 RPF factor is accounted for in the REDSAR limits.

ao limits In order to aid FMP in the event of a cycle specific analysis, it is recommended to (option) add the ao_limits option. This card gives a positive and negative AO to filter when writing the JSON for violations. Use values from Table 7 .2-1 from Reference 17.

100%FP: options={ 'ao_limits': [-31.3, 31.3]}

110%FP: options={'ao limits': [-30.0, 30.0]}

Apply Limit the dkW/ft calculation to only certain assemblies. The list should be a quarter-(option) core assembly shaped list of 56 entries, starting with H-08 and continuing to G-08, looping around to H-09, etc. An entry of' 1' signifies to apply the limit to the specific area (Opt Zirlo), whereas 'O' means to not analyze that assembly (Zirlo).

Note: M2C29 contains all Opt Zirlo fuel, therefore an entry of' 1' is input in 1/4 core map to perform the &W/ft calculation for all assemblies.

MCC-1553.05-00-0723 McGuire 2 Cycle 29 Maneuvering Analysis Revision 0 Page 24 Card Name/

Input Parameter / Discussion Input Variables ric_filter This card selects the statepoint cases used from the input scan files that are to be evaluated by filtering out cases that do not need to be considered. The CRDBNK values and EFPDs can be found in the cycle specific COPR.

100% FP, Nominal Tin:

{ 4: 46, 50: 46, 100: 46, 150: 46, 250: 70, 350: 91, 450: 126) 100% FP, Low Tin:

{ 4: 103, 50: 103, 100: 103, 150: 103, 250: 103, 350: 103, 450: 126) 110% FP, Nominal Tin:

{ 4: 103, 50: 103, 100: 103, 150: 126, 250: 149, 350: 149, 450: 149) 110% FP, Low Tin:

{ 4: 126, 50: 126, 100: 126, 150: 126, 250: 126, 350: 126, 450: 149) case burnup 4 50 100 150 250 350 450 I 7.4 Execution Details concerning the RFA FRD RIP and Af<:W/ft clad stress executions are shown in Table 7.4-1.

Table 7.4-1 SMARGINS Execution File Name Job Identifier/Date MA Input Library mabase- rl0.lib Section 2.1 botl lOn.scn botll0I.scn top 11 On.sen top 1101.scn Reference 18 Scan File Input botlO0n.scn botl0Ol.scn Table 3-11 toplO0n.scn toplO0l.scn mfbase.scn rip_bu7_ghost.out RIP Output NGWJ / 20Sep2022 rip_bu7_ghost.pch Af<:W/ft Stress neuro_ bu7_ghost.out Neuromancer NJQM I 20Sep2022 (See Note 1 for no json file) (cksum- NIA)

Output 1 There are several warning messages in the RIP job. These messages were investigated and found to be acceptable (all related to proximity of cases to AO targets). These messages are consistent with recent MA calculations.

Note 1: The Neuromancer job had several warnings regarding extrapolated limits when the initial Fq exceeded what is given in the REDSAR V limits tables. Per reference 17, the stress delta kW/ft limits are generally linear at high initial Fq, so any error introduced by extrapolation (typically just beyond the limit) would be negligible. In addition, cycle specific analysis has historically shown

MCC-1553.05-00-0723 McGuire 2 Cycle 29 Maneuvering Analysis Revision 0 Page 25 adequate margin remains between the bounding limits and cycle specific analysis. These warnings are consistent with last cycle.

Also note no json file was created because there were no REDSAR V limit violations for M2C29.

This is expected for Neuromancer with no violations and is because of the reduced AFD span analyzed for FRD analysis due to change in K4 and COLR Breakpoint discussed in Appendix A.

7.4.1 Results The minimum margin from the executions is shown in Table 7.4-2.

The RFA RIP REDSAR V (Reference 13) criteria is satisfied because there is positive margin for all assemblies in the allowed AO operating space.

Stress LlkW/ft limits for Opt. Zirlo fuel has positive margin and therefore a JSON file is not created by Neuromancer since no REDSR V limit violations.

All REDSAR V (Reference 13) FRD limits were satisfied in the cycle specific MA Table 7.4-2 RFA FRD SMARGINS Execution FRDLIMIT CASE EFPD %FP TRAN CD XTIME %AO %MARGIN RIP RIPLOW 450 110 BOT 226 5.28 -30.00 8.87 LlkW/ft Stress 329 350 110 BOT 149 4 -29.85 2.45 I 7.5 Corrosion Per Reference 17, verification of corrosion limits is not required as long as the cycle specific RIP limits demonstrate positive margin. The RIP limits have been confirmed to provide positive margin per Section 7.4.1. Therefore, no further analysis is required.

MCC-1553 .05-00-0723 McGuire 2 Cycle 29 Maneuvering Analysis Revision 0 Paj?;e 26 8 LOCA INPUT VERIFICATION This section verifies acceptability of key LOCA input parameters assumed in Westinghouse Appendix K small break LOCA analyses and best estimate large break LOCA analyses applicable to the RFA fuel assembly design. Additional details are contained in References 17 and 27.

SA REDSAR Section II (Reference 14) provides the design limits for each parameter of interest to Westinghouse small and large break LOCA analyses.

I 8.1 Licensed Core Power (MWth)

The analysis performed in this calculation is based on 3469 MWth, and is bounded by the limits provided in Reference 14. Therefore, no further verification of this parameter is required.

18.2 Total Core Peaking (FQ) / K(z) Limit/ K(BU)

These parameters were evaluated in Section 5.5 as part of the LCO LOCA evaluation. All REDSAR criteria were met.

I 8.3 Maximum Steady State Depletion (FQ)

The limiting Fo for this parameter is 2.1, with burndown multipliers as shown in REDSAR Section II.

This limit is verified against the maximum steady state, nominal depletion Fo calculated at HFP, control bank D at 215 SWD position (Calculation Note 2.3.1), with equilibrium xenon conditions. The maximum steady state depletion Fo should include effects of tilt and N-1 burnup window (AMF). The following equation defines this parameter verification (Reference 17).

(FQ) x T]LT x AMF :5 2.1 (FQ) X 1.035 X 1.0117 :5 2.1 The Fo Steady State limit is burnup dependent; therefore, the checks need to ensure all burnup statepoints are bounded. The PRINT module in SMARGINS, using the FQDAT option, will edit the peak Fo and pin burnup in the max Fm location for each assembly in each case. The desired HFP AO limits presented in Section 6.0 are used in this evaluation. Note that F0 SS is only required for CD>215 SWD, however, all Po's within allowed operating space are edited to quantify F0 (transient and steady state) behavior as a function ofburnup.

8.3.1 Input Development The SMARGINS input for this calculation is developed using the guidance in Reference 17, Appendix A, Section 8.3.1 and remain valid for this analysis. Execution details and results are discussed in Section 8.10.

I 8.4 Nuclear Enthalpy Rise Hot Channel Factor (F,m)

As shown in the SA REDSAR Section II, the F L\H limit for RF A is ::S 1.67 with a burndown penalty multiplier. The Fm verification requires that the following relationship be satisfied.

F[H X Ff_EUF X TILT X AMF :5 Fi.H

MCC-1553.05-00-0723 McGuire 2 Cycle 29 Maneuvering Analysis Revision 0 Page 27 8.4.1 Input Development The FDH module in SMARGINS verifies the nuclear enthalpy rise (FkH) limit. Input conditions for this analysis are described in Section 8.4 of Reference 17, Appendix A. AFD limits determined in Section 6.2 are used in the evaluation.

Table 8.4-1 provides a summary of the SMARGINS input parameters applied for RFA fuel. All other inputs and details concerning the Fm input development can be found in Reference 17 and remain valid for this cycle. Note: Per Reference 17, deterministic application of total uncertainty is confirmed to be

~ 8% in Fm LOCA design analysis reload check with input RADUC and TILT.

Table 8.4-1 SMARGINS Input for FAH Verification Card Name/ Input Variables Input Parameter / Discussion FACTOR AMF Additional Margin Factor. Value is 1.0117 from Section 5.2.2.

Execution details and results are discussed in Section 8.10.

8.5 Maximum Relative Power in the Hot Assembly (Pavg-HA)

The P avg-HA limit with burndown multiplier for RFA is 1.585, with burndown multipliers as shown in REDSAR Section II. The small break LOCA P avg-HA limit is used because it is more limiting than the BE LOCA limit for RFA. Verification of the P avg-HA limits is based on satisfying the relationship:

P!vg-HA X FfiuF-HA X TILT X AMF ~ P/;_vg-HA Note that Appendix K LOCA Methodology does not include the TILT factor, but BELOCA does.

Therefore, TILT is applied to bound both evaluations.

8.5.1 Input Development The FDH module in SMARGINS verifies maximum assembly average power limit, P avg-HA* Input conditions for this analysis are described in Sections 8.5 of Reference 17, Appendix A. AFD limits determined in Section 6.2 are used in the evaluation.

Table 8.5-1 provides a summary of the cycle specific SMARGINS input parameters applied for RFA fuel.

All other inputs and details concerning the Pavg-HA input development can be found in Reference 17 and remain valid for this cycle.

The FDH module does not recognize the F ABOW card used previously to apply the additional Rod Bow DNB peaking penalty addressed in Section 5.4 (Reference 17). However, since the limit for PBAR is based on MAPH vs. CBURN, the MAPH card was modified to incorporate the additional margin penalty at 33 GWD/MTU. Note per Calculation Note 2.3.3, FABOW (Rod bow) is not required. The rod bow penalty is already included in the ghost generic input for PBAR and is conservative to include in MA.

MCC-1553.05-00-0723 McGuire 2 Cycle 29 Maneuvering Analysis Revision 0 Page 28 Table 8.5-1 SMARGINS Input for Pavg-HA Verification Card Name/ Input Variables Input Parameter / Discussion FACTOR AMF Additional Margin Factor. Value is 1.0117 from Section 5.2.2.

Execution details and results are discussed in Section 8.10.

I 8.6 Small and Large Break LOCA Axial Shapes Axial shapes assumed in the Small and Large Break LOCA analyses are shown in SA REDSAR Section II. The assumed shapes must fall within the HFP operational AFD limits from Section 6. These limits bound the LOCA axial shape limit of +20% at HFP per SA REDSAR Section II. Therefore, axial shape input assumptions that form the basis for the LOCA limits are acceptable.

I 8.7 Minimum Core Average Burnup The minimum core average burnup limit is 10 GWD/MTU for Westinghouse BELOCA analysis per REDSAR Section II. The core average burnup is obtained from the SIMULATE-3 output for the short N-1 window HFP depletion job at BOC (0 EFPD) statepoint performed in cycle specific COPR (Reference 18, dpl_sht.out, HGKW/12Apr2022). No uncertainties are included on minimum core average burnup.

The core average burnup is 20.3355 GWD/MTU. This value meets the ~10 GWD/MTU BELOCA requirement.

I 8.8 Normalized 1/3 Power Integrals (PBOT/PMID)

The required BELOCA analyses power integral range is bounded for PBOT's between 0.22 & 0.48 and for PMID's between 0.30 & 0.44 in a trapezoidal shape per the SA REDSAR Section II. The PBOT/PMID limits are verified by calculating the power integrals PBOT and PMID with the SMARGINS PRINT module, 'COREAX' edit option. The range of power integrals PBOT/PMID are calculated for axial power shapes allowed during normal operations transients at HFP within the allowed operating AFD and RILs from Section 6 (i.e. 12 step misalignment and un-error adjusted AFD). All other inputs and details concerning the PBOT/PMID input development can be found in Reference 17 and remain valid for this cycle. Execution details and results are discussed in Section 8.10.

8.9 Range of Average Power of Peripheral Assemblies (PLOW)

The BELOCA limits for the range of average power of peripheral assemblies are a minimum of 0.20 and maximum of 0.80 as specified in SA REDSAR Section II. The average peripheral assembly power is calculated for all axial power shapes allowed by the HFP un-error adjusted operating AFD limits and rod insertions allowed by the RIL - 12 steps during nominal operations.

MCC-1553 .05-00-0723 McGuire 2 Cycle 29 Maneuvering Analysis Revision 0 Page 29 SMARGINS uses the PRINT module 'PERAVG' edit options and input weighting of the peripheral assemblies to calculate the average power of peripheral assemblies. The input excore assembly weight factors for the peripheral assemblies in the1/4 core symmetric locations are 0.04545 (2/44) for core locations A-08 & H-15, and 0.09091 (4/44) for all other peripheral assembly locations.

Execution details and results are discussed in Section 8.10.

I 8.10 LOCA SMARGINS Execution and Results Details of the LOCA SMARGINS executions to confirm the acceptability of SA RED SAR Section II key LOCA input parameters from the previous sections are shown in Table 8.10-1.

Table 8.10-1 SMARGINS Execution for REDSAR II Key LOCA Input Parameters Verification Description File Name Job ID/Date top 100n.scn Scan File Input botlO0n.scn Reference 18, Table 3-11 mfbase.scn Section 8.3 fqedit_ghost.out NMVD / 20Sep2022 F q Edit Output fqedit_ghost.pch Section 8.4 f dh_ghost.out 1 NNDQ I 20Sep2022 FDR Output f dh_ghost.pch Section 8.5 pha_ghost.out NMLD / 20Sep2022 p avg-HA Output pha_ghost.pch Section 8.8 pbotpmid_ghost.out NMQN I 20Sep2022 PBOT/PMID Output pbotpmid_ghost.pch Section 8.9 plow_ghost.out NMGM I 20Sep2022 PLOW Output plow_ghost.pch SMARGINS Execution Notes:

1. Section 8.4 FDH Output: The FDH module does not accept the FABOW card, so the DNB peaking penalty addressed in Section 5.4 (Reference 17) could not be applied directly. The generic input conservatively applies the penalty (0.6%) to all pins with the associated core burnup > 4 EFPD, even though this is not required. Section 2.3.3 states no DNB penalty is required for this cycle.

Application of the DNB peaking penalty is conservative.

MCC-1553 .05-00-0723 McGuire 2 Cycle 29 Maneuvering Analysis Revision 0 Page 30 8.10.1 Fq Steady State Results The fqedit_ghost.pch file from Table 8.10-1 is imported into an Excel file. The Fq's for each assembly and case are augmented by AMF and TILT, shown in Sections 5.2.2 and 5.2.4, and plotted as shown in Figure 8.10-1. Figure 8.10-1 only plots the steady state Fq from the mfbase scan file. Figure 8.10-2 plots all Fq (steady state and transient) within allowed operating space to quantify Fq (steady state and transient) behavior as a function of burnup.

The results from Figure 8.10-1 show FQ steady state is less than the limiting values provided in RED SAR Section II (Reference 14).

8.10.2 FDH Results The minimum FDH margin from fdh_ghost.pch file of the SMARGINS execution is shown below. The nuclear enthalpy rise LOCA input assumption is acceptable for this design.

EFPD %FP TRAN CD XTIME %MARGIN 250 100 TOP 149 4.31 0.42 8.10.3 Pavg-HA Results The minimum Pavg-HA margin from pha_ghost.pch file of the SMARGINS execution is shown below. The Pavg-HA LOCA input assumption is acceptable for this core design.

EFPD %FP TRAN CD XTIME %MARGIN 150 100 TOP 149 0 1.19 8.10.4 PBOT/PMID Results The pbotpmid_ghost.pch file from Table 8.10-1 is imported into an Excel file and the power integral results vs. the limiting REDSAR II trapezoid are plotted in Figure 8.10-3. The results show that this PBOT/PMID BELOCA limits are bounded for the reload core.

8.10.5 PLOW Results The plow_ghost.pch file from Table 8.10-1 is imported into an Excel file and the SMARGINS calculated average peripheral assembly powers for all cases analyzed are augmented by AMF, shown in Section 5.2.2, which accounts for the cycle N-1 burnup window. The spreadsheet assists in determining the maximum and minimum peripheral assembly average power for the cycle specific limit verification as shown below. These results show that the peripheral assembly average power BELOCA limits are bounded for this core design.

Value Limits Min. Average Power 0.3365 I 1.0117 (AMF) = 0.3326 2:: 0.20 Max. Average Power 0.4407 x 1.0117 (AMF) = 0.4459 ~0.80

MCC-1553 .05-00-0723 McGuire 2 Cycle 29 Maneuvering Analysis Revision 0 Page 31 Figure 8.10-1 FQ SS (with Tilt and AMF) vs. Pin Burnup M2C29 Fq SS (w/ TILT and AMF) vs. Pin Exposure 2.5 ~ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

2.0 + - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ~°""'--.::::: - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

~~ .. .

I' t f it. .. tt *#

a, ,..* .t *****

.7 ., .,. ** *

~~i .

-g1, l!'. * * * ***

~

FqSS u.

j j

E O"

rn L______

- ... * * -~----=------

~,,. **

_,. Fq SS Limit 0.5 + - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

0.0 +-----~-----~----~-----~----~-----~----~

0 10 20 30 40 so 60 70 Pin Burnup (GWD/MTU) of the FtiH Pin

MCC-1553.05-00-0723 McGuire 2 Cycle 29 Maneuvering Analysis Revision 0 Page 32 Figure 8.10-2 Fo Transient (with Tilt and AMF} vs. Pin Burno M2C29 Fq Tran (w/ TILT and AMF) vs. Pin Exposure 3.0 . . . . . - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

2.5

~ 2.0 I ct "Cl C

~

..c T

j 1.5 "Cl All Fq

_.. Fq Tran Limit i I I

~,, I 1111 11 0.5 +------------------------------------------

0 .0 +-----"""T""--------,-----..-----"""T""--------,-----..------,

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 Pin Burnup (GWD/MTU) of the Ft\H Pin

MCC-1553.05-00-0723 McGuire 2 Cycle 29 Maneuvering Analysis Revision 0 Page 33 Figure 8.10-3 BELOCA Pbot/Pmid Sampling Space Best-Estimate LBLOCA Power Integrals 0.5 0.30, 0.48 ... ... ...

0.45 ... ... ...

0.4 0.44, 0.40

,*: ~~

I-0 0.35 PBOT/PMID

- REDSAR Limit 0.3 0.30,0.27 0.25 0.44, 0.22 0.2 0.15 - t - - - ~ ~ ~ ~ - t - - ~ ~ ~ ~ - - - , - ~ ~ ~ ~ - - ~ ~ ~ ~ - ~ - ~ ~ ~ - - ,

0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5 PMID 8.11 Core Wide Zirc Reaction Power Census Limits A pin census is performed to show that hydrogen generation limits are met for core wide Zirc reaction LOCA assumption. The pin census is only performed at BOL because the increased oxidation present on fuel at higher bumups limits the amount of hydrogen released from a Zr02 reaction. The F c,H pin census is performed on all power distributions allowed within the HFP operating AFD space and rod insertions allowed by RIL - 12 SWD during normal operation from Section 6.

A quadrant tilt penalty is applied to 1/4 of the core. A radial uncertainty factor is applied to the highest 5%

F c.H values after SMARGINS execution. A bumup penalty is also applied to all cases. The AMF and tilt are applied in SMARGINS while the radial uncertainty is applied in an Excel spreadsheet.

8.11.1 Input Development The DNB module in the SMARGINS code is used to perform the core wide zirc pin census calculation.

The rod scans for the zirc pin census are only required at 100% FP, nominal T-in, at 4 EFPD. The rod scans are run for the xenon time steps determined in Reference 18.

MCC-1553.05-00-0723 McGuire 2 Cycle 29 Maneuvering Analysis Revision 0 Page 34 An input library is used to facilitate the execution and QA of the pin census calculation. The input library creation is documented in the Reference 27. The input library is created to allow analysis of all points within the desired operating space for rod positions at or above the rod insertion limit (-12 SWD allowed by Tech Spec). Cycle-specific change variables for the input library decks are shown in Table 8.11-1.

Table 8.11-1 CENSUS Change Variables Generic

'CHANGE' CENSUS Variable Values Description Reference AON -22.6 Negative AO limit Section 6.2 AOP 14.6 Positive AO limit Section 6.2 Bank D position - 100%

RIL 149 Table 2.2-2 RIL-12 SWD Value ofRADUC is simply AMF for this evaluation. The RADUC 1.0117 Section 5.2.2 radial uncertainty is applied during post processing.

TILT 1.035 or 1.000 Quadrant power tilt factor. Section 5.2.4 XETRAN XT Xenon Flag NIA 8.11.2 Pin Census Execution Two SMARGINS executions are performed for the pin census calculations - one with tilt and one without. Both of the SMARGINS executions have AMF input as the RADUC value. The radial uncertainty is applied during post-processing using Excel. The executions are summarized in Table 8.11-2.

Table 8.11-2 SMARGINS Census Execution File Name Job Identifier/Date Census Input Library zrcensus2.lib DLQB/01 Sep2000 botl 00n.scn Scan files Reference 18 Table 3-11 toplO0n.scn census_notilt_ghost.out NNTN I 20Sep2022 census notilt ghost.pch Census Output Files census_tilt_ghost.out NNKH / 20Sep2022 census_tilt_ghost. pch

MCC-1553.05-00-0723 McGuire 2 Cycle 29 Maneuvering Analysis Revision 0 Page 35 8.11 .3 Pin Census Results The percentage of the reactor core operating above the specified FllH values are plotted against the fuel rod power census limits from the Safety Analysis REDSAR Section II (Reference 14). A plot of the results versus the limit is shown in Figure 8.11-1. The quarter core tilt pin census values are calculated in Excel using a simple weighted average of 75% "No Tilt" and 25% "Tilt" results. The quarter core results are further adjusted by the radial uncertainty (4%) portion ofRADUC for the highest 5% powers in the core.

The highest 5% power values are indicated by the FllH value where 5% of the pins are above the specified F llH values. The radial uncertainty is applied from this FllH back to the first FllH value with a non-zero pin percentage. Figure 8.11-1 shows the adjusted F llH values along with the percentage of pins above the F llH values.

The core wide pin census results are bounded by the values assumed in the reference LOCA analysis.

Therefore, the 10CFR 50.46 limits for hydrogen production from a core wide ZrO2 reaction are satisfied for this cycle.

Figure 8.11-1 Pin Census Results 1.80 1.60

~

1 .40

~

~--- ---

1.20

--.-----.-w.

c

~ 1.00 TILT applied to 1/4 of core, AMF applied core wide, RADUC applied for highest 5% of powers

o % of Pins in DNB - Limit 0.80 0.60 -

0 .40 0.20 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Pins in DNB (%)

9 REDSARs REDSAR Sections II/IV, and V contain limits that are verified and communicated in the MA.

MCC-15 53 .05-00-0723 McGuire 2 Cycle 29 Maneuvering Analysis Revision 0 Page 36 I 9.1 REDSAR Section II/IV MA Generated Data Fuel Temperature REDSAR Checks Most of the limits are obtained from previous sections of this calculation. However, fuel temperature for 75% full power condition II events are not directly evaluated in the MA.

The maximum BOC fuel temperature is obtained from the nominal TOP/BOT transient at 4 and 50 EFPD (which is the closest MA statepoint to the max boron).

SIMPOST was executed in the COPR (Reference 18) to obtain the required data. Details of the execution are shown in Table 9.1-1.

Table 9.1-1 75% FP Fuel Temperature SIMPOST Job File Name Job Identifier/Date top07 Sn.sen Scan File Input Reference 18 bot075n.scn Table 3-11 Output postfueltemp75 _ghost.out Excore AFD Related Trip Uncertainties Section G ofREDSAR Section II contains a list of important uncertainty values used to calculate the AFD 3/4AI uncertainty. To confirm these values, Reference 21 was reviewed and confirmed to be using the same values shown in Section G of the REDSAR Section II.

Miscellaneous Safety Analysis Trip Limits and Uncertainties Section H of REDSAR Section II contains the high pressure limit, pressure uncertainty and Tavg uncertainty. The high pressure limit and Tavg uncertainty are used in Reference 26 to develop the OP!)..T and OT!)..T trip. Reference 21 also uses the high pressure limit. Both References 21 and 26 were reviewed and confirmed to be using the same values shown in Section H of the REDSAR Section II. REDSAR Section II high pressure limit and pressure uncertainty have changed to account for an increase in the pressurizer pressure allowance associated with Surveillance Test Risk-Informed Documented Evaluation (STRIDE). The Generic Maneuvering Analysis (Reference 17) contains a discussion justifying that the increased pressure limit and uncertainty are acceptable for current core designs. That discussion is valid for this cycle and Section H REDSAR II values are confirmed.

Minimum surveillance uncertainty for FAH is satisfied by using the limiting F8H(x,y) values between 100%

RTP LOF MARPs and F AH LOCA limit with measurement uncertainty as described in Section 11.0 PFLR for FAH LCO surveillance. Minimum surveillance uncertainty for FQ is satisfied by the product of UMTM (1.05) and MTM (1.03) equaling 1.0815 in section 11.0 PFLR for FQ LCO surveillance.

The following information represents the data for REDSAR Section II.

MCC-1553.05-00-0723 McGuire 2 Cycle 29 Maneuvering Analysis Revision 0 Page 37 Parameter Reference Value Ref.l Reload Value Ref.

II. MA GENERATED DATA A. RPS LIMITS

1. Upper Limits on A.O. as a function of core power (100% RTP = 3469 MWth)

Negative A.O. limit at 118% power, % ::?: -30 1 -30 MA Positive A.O. limit at 118% power,% ::;; -15 1 -15 MA Negative A.O. limit at 100% power,% ::?: -50 1 -50 MA Positive A.O. limit at 100% power,% ::;;+20 1 +20 MA

2. Lower Limits on A.O. as a function of core power (100% RTP = 3469 MWth)

Negative A.O. limit at 100% power, % ::?:-28 1 -28 MA Positive A.O. limit at 100% power,% ::;; -18 1 -18 MA Negative A.O. limit at 75% power, % ::?:-50 1 -50 MA Positive A.O. limit at 75% power, % ::;;+30 1 +30 MA Data from Table 2.2-1 B. INITIAL CONDITION FUEL TEMPERATURES

1. Max/ Min volumetric avera e fuel tern erature for initial conditions, 75% ower, °F BOC max ::;; 1075 3 984 COPR Data from output file given in Table 9.1-1. Note, no burnup window penalty is applied because there is ample margin to the limit.

1 Reference from REDSAR Section II (Reference 14)

MCC-1553.05-00-0723 McGuire 2 Cycle 29 Maneuvering Analysis Revision 0 Page 38 Parameter Reference Value Ref. 1 Reload Value Ref.

C. LOCA LIMITS (Westinghouse RFA)

Licensed Core Power (MWth) 3411/3469 (a) 4 3469 MA Total Core Peaking (FQ) Axial Dependence Elevation (ft} EQ 0.0 2.7 4 Satisfied MA 4.0 2.7

>4.0 2.7 12.0 2.7 K(Z) Limit: < 4.0 ft ~ 1.0 4 Satisfied MA

> 4.0 ft ~ 0.9259 4 Satisfied MA Nuclear Enthalpy Rise Factor (F,m) ~ 1.67 4 Satisfied MA Hot Assembly Average ~ 1.585 (Small Break LOCA) 4 Satisfied MA Peaking Factor (PHA) ~ 1.6058 (BE LOCA)

Axial Offset at 100% Power AO~+20% 4 Satisfied MA LBLOCA

%ofRods J:AH Max Rod Power Census 0.0-10.0 ~ 1.67 10.0-20.0 ~ 1.523 4 Satisfied MA Notes: 20.0-30.0 ~ 1.425

1) Stair step for LBLOCA 30.0-60.0 ~ 1.326 60.0-100.0

~ 1.212 Average Relative Power in 44 0.20 ~PLOW~ 0.8 4 Satisfied MA Peripheral Assemblies, PLOW Minimum Core Average Burnup 2::: 10,000 4 Satisfied MA (MWD/MTU)

Maximum Steady State Depletion FQ ~ 2.1 4 Satisfied MA (no uncertainties)

Normalized 1/3 Power Integrals, Within dashed lines of Figure II.C-1 4 Satisfied MA PBOT /PMID Normalized Peaking Factor Burndown RodBurnuQ Values <MWD/MTU)<*l .t.Q(b) Ft.H(c) 0 1.0 1.0 4 Satisfied MA 35,000 1.0 1.0 55,000 0.9 0.95 62,000 0.8 0.9 Noqnalized PHA Burndown Values Assembly BurnuQ

<MWD/MTU) (e,I) :5!a(d) 0 1.0 4 Satisfied MA 33,654 1.0 52,885 0.95 59,615 0.9 Minimum Surveillance Uncertainty for the Enthalpy Rise Peaking Factor ,:::4% 4 Satisfied MA (F Afl)

Minimum Surveillance Uncertainty for the Total Core Peaking Factor ,:::8.15% 4 Satisfied MA (F 0) 1 Reference from REDSAR Section II (Reference 14)

MCC-1553.05-00-0723 McGuire 2 Cycle 29 Maneuvering Analysis Revision 0 Page 39 (a) W BE LBLOCA analysis reflects 3469 MW1h (1.7% mini Uprate and Reduction of Power Uncertainty to 0.3%). W Small Break LOCA analysis reflects 3411 MW1h with a 2.0% Power Uncertainty.

(b) This column is applicable to transient and baseload FQ. This column is normalized to the analysis-of-record (AOR) transient FQ (with uncertainties) of2.7 and baseload FQ (without uncertainties) of2.l.

(c) This column is normalized to the AORFdH (with uncertainties) ofl.67.

(d) This column is normalized to the AOR PHA (with uncertainties) of 1.67/1.04.

(e) Linear interpolation can be used to determine normalized peaking factors for intermediate points not provided in the table.

Bumups must remain within the regulatory limit of 62,000 MWD/MTU.

(f) Extrapolation beyond 59,615 MWD/MTU is acceptable provided individual rod bumups remain below 62,000 MWD/MTU.

Parameter Reference Value Ref. 1 Reload Value D. MAXIMUM CORE INLET TEMPERATURE DECREASE WITHOUT REACTOR TRIP FOR CONDITION II COOLDOWN TRANSIENTS(a)

BOC, °F ~25 5 I Satisfied I COPRI EOC, °F ~ 10 5 I Satisfied I COPRI (a) Acceptable to linearly interpolate between BOC and EOC, if necessary G. IMBALANCE RELATED LlT TRIP UNCERTAINTIES CNS PMAl (% span) =2.00 10 NIA CNS PMA2 (% span) =0.67 10 NIA CNS RCA (% span) = 1.00 10 NIA CNS RD (% span) = 1.00 10 NIA CNS RTE (% span) =0.50 10 NIA CNS Instrumentation Span (% Af) =+75.0 10 NIA CNS F Af CSA (% Af) =+6.68 10 NIA MNS PMAl (% span) =2.50 10 Satisfied MA MNS PMA2 (% span) =0.83 10 Satisfied MA MNS RCA (% span) =0.50 10 Satisfied MA MNS RD (% span) = 1.00 10 Satisfied MA MNS RTE (% span) =0.50 10 Satisfied MA MNS Instrumentation Span (% Af) =+60.0 10 Satisfied MA MNS FAf CSA (% Af) =+6.22 10 Satisfied MA H. Miscellaneous Safety Analysis Trip Limits and Uncertainties MNSICNS High Pressurizer Pressure Limit (psig) =2425 10 Satisfied MA MNSICNS Pressure Uncertainty (psi)<al =+/-52 10 NIA MNSICNS Tave Uncertainty (°F) =+/-4 10 Satisfied MA (a) 40 psi allowance and a 12 psi bias due to thermal non-repeatability REFERENCES All of the above References for REDSAR Section II are listed in Reference 14.

The M2C29 Maneuvering Analysis, used to complete Section II, is:

MA "McGuire 2 Cycle 29 Maneuvering Analysis", MCC-1553.05-00-0723, Rev. 0 COPR "McGuire 2 Cycle 29 Calculation of Power and Reactivity Parameters", MCC-1553.05-00-0720, Rev. 0 1 Reference from REDSAR Section II (Reference 14)

MCC-1553.05-00-0723 McGuire 2 Cycle 29 Maneuvering Analysis Revision 0 Page 40 I 9.2 REDSAR Section V Generated Data Fuel Mechanical REDSAR Section V (Reference 13) provides transient power limits and fuel rod design parameters. Section 2.1 defined the design input for these limits and Sections 5, 6, and 7 validated their use and acceptable results in the cycle specific MA. Specific limits validated were CFM, clad stress, and RIP (REDSAR V).

All REDSAR V parameter limits were satisfied in the cycle specific MA.

MCC-1553.05-00-0723 McGuire 2 Cycle 29 Maneuvering Analysis Revision 0 Page 41 10 APPLICATIONS OF BURNUP-DEPENDENT LIMITS AND TAVE COASTDOWN EVALUATION 10.1 Application ofRFA Burnap-Dependent Fuel Limits at EOC MA power distribution analyses are performed at an end of cycle (EOC) burnup that corresponds to approximately 70-100 ppm soluble boron per Reference 3. This burnup point is chosen in order to ensure there is sufficient excess core reactivity to maintain criticality during design xenon transients used to produce severe xenon distributions for use in rod scan calculations. The calculation is not performed at the true EOC burnup corresponding to HFP ARO EOC O ppm conditions because the reactor core cannot achieve the combination of rod insertion and severe xenon distributions that produce limiting margin to limits.

The decrease in design limits with increasing burnup could be a concern because the MA is performed at an EOC burnup corresponding to 70-100 ppm and not the true EOC. This leads to some questions as to whether the more severe power distributions evaluated at the 70-100 ppm burnup offsets the decrease in the applicable limits at the true EOC burnup.

10.1.1 EOC Decreasing Limits RFA fuel rod internal pressure (RIP), CFM, Af<:W/ft stress, and corrosion limits decrease with burnup.

Based on the discussion in Reference 17, which remains valid for this cycle, it is concluded that it is not necessary to penalize the RFA RIP, CFM, or Af<:W/ft stress limits for the decrease in design limits with burnup.

LOCA limits in REDSAR II (Reference 14) include a burnup dependence on Fq, FqSS, FMI, and Pbar LOCA limit verification inputs for Thermal Conductivity Degradation (TCD) effects on fuel. Based on the discussion in Reference 17, which remains valid for this cycle, it is concluded that it is not necessary to penalize the LOCA limits for the decrease in LOCA design limits with burnup.

10.1.2 Conclusion The application of RFA RIP, CFM, Af<:W/ft stress, and LOCA input limits in the MA is acceptable and there is no need to penalize any analyses due to decreasing design limits with burnup.

I 10.2 Tave Coastdown Evaluation Cycle specific Tave reduction guidelines summarized in Reference 19 were used to determine the acceptability of MA for a Tave reduction coastdown.

10.2.1 Design and Licensing Basis Considerations The design and licensing basis considerations listed in Reference 17 were reviewed and remain valid for this calculation.

10.2.2 Tave Assumptions and Engineering Judgements Key assumptions employed in the EOC Tave coastdown evaluation are described in detail in Appendix A Section 10.2.2 of Reference 17 and remain applicable to this cycle's MA.

MCC-1553.05-00-0723 McGuire 2 Cycle 29 Maneuvering Analysis Revision 0 Page 42 10.3 Maneuvering Analysis Evaluation The Maneuvering Analysis evaluation was performed using the acceptance criteria established in Reference 19. The limits shown in Table 10.1 are established based upon results presented in this analysis and any value which violates the acceptance criteria should be further evaluated. Additional information on the Tave reduction evaluation for the MA can be found in Reference 19 and 17, Appendix A.

Table 10.1 Tave Coas td own MA Margm . E va Iua ti on LIMIT EOC Value Acceptance Criteria Discussion/Reference LOCA 7 .05 % @, 450 EFPD >2% Section 6.2 CFM 22.35% (aJ 450 EFPD >3% Section 6.4 HFPFoa 1.747 <2.1 Reference 18 F,rn 1.88% @, 450 EFPD Positive Margin Section 8.4 PBAR 6.51 % (ci) 450 EFPD Positive Margin Section 8.5 PLOW (min)h 0.3326 >0.2 Section 8.9 PLOW (max)h 0.4459 <0.8 Section 8.9 8.87% for 11 03/4FP RIP (a), 450 EFPD >3% Section 7.2 Delta kW/ft (OptZ stress) 9.11 % (aJ 450 EFPD >3% Section 7.3

a. EOC (480 EFPD) Fq *TILT* AMF= 1.668*1.035*1.0I 17= 1.747 (at start ofTave coastdown). The EOC F9 is from the nominal depletion output file (Reference 18 Table 3-11 , dpl_nom.out, HGNC I 12Apr2022).

b. These are the minimum and maximum average peripheral assembly powers (not necessarily at EOC), the coastdown has a negligible change ofradial power distribution, so the limits should be maintained.

Monitoring factors are not required unless the site plans on taking a flux map during the Tave coastdown and the magnitude of the Tave reduction at the time of the map is greater than 6°F.

Table 10.1 results confirm adequate MA margin remains for the duration of Tave coastdown for all items.

Additional items to note for stress analysis: Clad hardening at EOC will increase margin with burnup. This analysis assumes minimum margin at 450 EFPD, when the coastdown is assumed to start at 480 EFPD, thereby gaining additional margin. The 3% margin in the Generic MA library is developed so that there is always retained margin. Uncertainties are built into the above calculations, therefore if positive margin exists in the cycle specific analysis, no further action is needed.

MCC-1553.05-00-0723 McGuire 2 Cycle 29 Maneuvering Analysis Revision 0 Page 43 11 PEAKING FACTOR LIMIT REPORT The Peaking Factor Limit Report (PFLR) file is used by the COMET/GARDEL computer codes to perform power distribution surveillances required by Tech Specs 3.2.1 and 3.2.2 (Reference 2). The PFLR file contains design values and margin factors for FQ and Fm. The design values are obtained from base case or steady state power distributions. The margin factors are the margin to the transient limits (LOCA, DNB, or CFM) reflected as a fraction instead of a percentage. The node with the minimum margin becomes the margin factor used. In combination, the design values and margin factors represent maximum allowable values ofFQ and Fm (Monitoring Factors-MPs). The PFLR file also contains the uncorrected nominal AFD versus power level limits and the OTLiT Kl value. Along with these limits are the factors required to adjust the limits in the event of an FQ or Fm violation.

Two PFLR files are generated: one for power escalation from 30% to 100% power at BOC; and one for normal operation from 50% to 100% power, as a function of burnup. The files are valid for M2C29, for the specified burnup window (defined in Section 2). Once the PFLR files are generated, they are provided to the plant via the COMET update calculation or GARDEL cycle initialization.

The rod bow DNBR penalty is not required, per Calculation Note 2.3.3 I 11.1 Base Power Distributions (MFBASE)

The current projection for the EOC M2C28 burnup is 489.4 EFPD, assuming a 100% capacity factor over the remaining calendar days of the cycle. This is based on 339.4 EFPD on 9/21/2021 and an outage start date of midnight 2/18/2023 (NTM 02400732-11 is tracking). The M2C28 cycle length as.sumed for the nominal depletion in Reference 18 was 489 EFPD (assuming 99% capacity factor). The difference of 0.4 EFPD is within the criteria of <5 EFPD shown in Reference 17. A review of AMF data in Reference 18 Table 3-3, shows the difference in peaking factors associated with 4 EFPD should be well below 1% (i.e.,

max AMF for +/-10 EFPD difference is 1.17%). Therefore, the base power distribution created in Reference 18 is acceptable for use in this calculation.

I 11.2 Power Escalation (POWESC)

Reference 18 created both sets of base power distributions for 30% to 100% power at BOC, and for normal operation from 50% to 100% power, as a function of burnup. Details of the job executions are in Table 11.2-1.

The mfbase and powesc results are the same as from Reference 18 since an updated base power distribution is not necessary. It is desired to have all BASE case axial offsets within ~0.2% of the "target AO" as described in Reference 17. This was achieved for all cases. Therefore, the results are acceptable. (Reference 18, Section 3.6).

MCC-1553.05-00-0723 McGuire 2 Cycle 29 Maneuvering Analysis Revision 0 Page 44 Table 11.2-1 Depletion & Power Escalation Distribution Execution File Name Job Identifier/Date Reference MFBASE mfbase.out HHVC/12Apr2022 Ref. 18, Table 3-11 Output files mfbase.scn Power Escalation mfpowesc_ghost.out HMFQ/12Apr2022 Ref. 18, Table 3-11 Output files mfpowesc.scn postmf_ghost.out SIMPOST Edit HMFT/12Apr2022 Ref. 18, Table 3-11 postmf ghost.pch j 11.3 SMARGINS Input SMARGINS is used to create the PFLR files for power escalation and normal power operation. SMARGINS input is described in detail in Reference 17 and remains valid for this cycle.

111.4 COMET/GARDEL Input Data There are several input cards in SMARGINS that simply pass data directly to the PFLR file for use by the COMET/GARDEL code. Those cards are described in Reference 17, Appendix A, Table 11.4-1 and include the modules names of T51FQ and T51FDH. This input was reviewed and remains applicable for this cycle with RFA fuel and limits developed in the earlier sections of this calculation file.

The following are some of the input values used in the COMET/GARDEL input. Additional discussion can be found in Reference 17. See Section 11.5 .3 for additional KSLOPE/TRH discussion.

UMTM = 1.05

KSLOPE = 0.0725

TRH =0.04

RRH = REDSAR IV RRH value is within plant conditions analyzed by the LBLOCA analysis per Reference 14 and 17

Table 11 .4-1 lists cards that have a higher probability of change or have changed recently. Note that these values apply to both the power escalation and normal operation PFLR files.

MCC-1553 .05-00-0723 McGuire 2 Cycle 29 Maneuvering Analysis Revision 0 Page45 Table 11.4-1 COMET/GARDEL Input Data Card Name/ Input Variables Input Parameter/ Discussion T51FQ Reference 14 shows the FQ limits versus elevation for M2C29:

K(z) / FQ limit K(Z) DATA- ISYMK, NKZ, FQRTP, NAXKZ 4 1 2.70 4 AXKZFORRFA 0.0 4.00 4.01 12.0 K(Z)FORRFA 1.0 1.0 0.9259 0.9259**

Note: K(BU) is not included for Tech. Spec. FQ LCO monitoring. (Section 11.5.1)

- Note: 0.9259 is the K(Z) limit for the respective elevation as described in the COLR (Reference 22) and provided in REDSAR II (Reference 14)

T51FQ As per Table 2.2-1 and Reference 17:

F-SUB-Q OP/RPS F-SUB-Q OP/RPS LIMITS CARDS: AFD LIMITS AND SLOPES LIMITS 2 2 1.0000 1.0000 10.0000 21.0000

-18.0000 -36.0000 100.0000 50.0000 100.0000 50.0000 1.1978 0.0725 11.4.1 CREATE Module The CREATE card in SMARGINS is used to interpolate/extrapolate to the actual axial offset limit for the CFM, DNB, and LOCA modules. The AOTARGs are evaluated per Section 5. The 100% AOTARGs include an additional 5% extrapolation to add a measure of conservatism to the result. The 50% and 75% values are extrapolated by 7% 1, due to the slight potential of a more severe transient that could exist at lower power levels.

The CREATE input for SMARGINS is shown in Reference 17. This input was reviewed and remains applicable for this cycle.

1 The 5% and 7% extrapolation limits apply to the AFD, rather than the AO values, so the actual extrapolation for values of AO is greater for the 50% and 75% cases. The 7% extrapolation only applies if the AFDs in the rod scan cases are within 7% of the AFD equivalent of AOTARG. Otherwise, the AFD values are extrapolated only 5%.

MCC-1553.05-00-0723 McGuire 2 Cycle 29 Maneuvering Analysis Revision 0 Page 46 11.4.2 CFM Module The CFM module is used to develop the Mc values (i.e., Margin Factors for the FQ RPS Limits). The SMARGINS CFM Module input for the PFLR file creation is described in Reference 17. The input was reviewed and remains applicable for this cycle with RFA fuel and limits developed in this calculation. Cycle specific changes are shown in Table 11.4-2.

Table 11.4-2 CFM Module Input Data Card Name/ Input Variables Input Parameter / Discussion FACTOR AVLHR AVLHR = AVLHR 0 x RPF AVLHR = 5.6736 X 0.974 = 5.5261 FILTER Used to select only the required cases based on Bumup, AO, and Rod Insertion Cutoffs (Reference 18) for 118% power. The filter cards specify limiting rod insertion cutoffs for both nom and low T-in cases. Note: AO inputs are from Appendix A.

'FILTER' 4, 7 CRDBNK l' 'AO' 'AO' 'EFPD'

>=126 >=-31.1 <=31.1 =004

>=126 >=-31.1 <=31.1 =050

>=126 >=-31.1 <=31.1 =100

>=149 >=-31.1 <=31.1 =150

>=149 >=-31.1 <=31.1 =250

>=149 >=-31.1 <=31.1 =350

>=149 >=-31.1 <=31.1 =450 WMON Base case identifier - "MFBASE" for normal operation and "M2C29PE" for power escalation.

MCC-1553.05-00-0723 McGuire 2 Cycle 29 Maneuvering Analysis Revision 0 Page 47 11.4.3 LOCA Module The LOCA module is used to develop the MQ values (i.e., Margin Factors for the FQOPS Limits). The SMARGINS LOCA module input for the PFLR file creation is described in detail in Reference 17. This input was reviewed and remains applicable for this cycle with RFA fuel and limits developed previously in this calculation. Cycle specific changes are shown in Table 11.4-3.

Table 11.4-3 LOCA Module Input Data Card Name/ Input Variables Input Parameter/ Discussion FACTOR AVLHR The Core Operating Limits Methodology Report (Reference 3) does not require a calorimetric uncertainty. As a result, the value of AVLHR can be reduced to account for the calorimetric error included in the LOCA analysis per REDSAR Section IL Therefore, AVLHR = 5.6736/ 1.003/or MUR core AVLHR = 5.6566 WMON BASCAS Base case identifier= job id for all base cases; "MFBASE" for normal operation and "M2C29PE for power escalation. Needs to coincide with SIMULATE power distribution generation.

FILTER Used to select only the required cases based on Burnup, AO, Power, and Rod Insertion Cutoffs (Reference 18).

Example:

'FILTER' 5, 7

'CRDBNK l' 'AO' 'AO' 'POWER' 'EFPD'

>=149 >=-22.6 <=14.6 =100 =4

>=149 >=-22.6 <=14.6 =100 =50

>=149 >=-22.6 <=14.6 =100 =100

>=149 >=-22.6 <=14.6 =100 =150

>=149 >=-22.6 <=14.6 =100 =250

>=149 >=-22.6 <=14.6 =100 =350

>=149 >=-22.6 <=14.6 =100 =450 Where AO is obtained from earlier in this section and CRDBANK 1 corresponds to the power dependent RIL - 12 SWD from Section 2.

MCC-1553.05-00-0723 McGuire 2 Cycle 29 Maneuvering Analysis Revision 0 Page 48 11 .4.4 DNB Module The DNB module is used to develop the Mm values (i.e., Margin Factors for the Fm Surveillance Limits).

The SMARGINS DNB module input for the PFLR file creation is described in detail in Reference 17. This input was reviewed and remains applicable for this cycle with RFA fuel and limits developed in this calculation. Cycle-specific changes are shown in Table 11.4-4 below. Note: Rod bow DNBR penalty is not used for MF DNB module as discussed in Section 11.5 .2.

Table 11.4-4 DNB Module Input Data Card Name/ Input Variables Input Parameter/ Discussion FACTOR SCALE Same as Section 5 .4.

WMON BASCAS Base case identifier= job id for all base cases; "MFBASE" for normal operation and "M2C29PE" for power escalation. Needs to coincide with SIMULATE power distribution generation.

FILTER Used to select only the required cases based on Burnup, AO, Power, and Rod Insertion Cutoffs (Reference 18). Similar to LOCA Module.

11.4.5 T51MP Module Burnup-dependent margin penalty factors are used in FQ and Fm Tech Spec surveillance using the SMARGINS T51MP module. The SMARGINS input required to calculate the burnup-dependent margin penalty data in the PFLR file is described in detail in Reference 17. This input was reviewed and remains applicable for this cycle. No cycle-specific changes are necessary from that described in Reference 17.

MCC-1553.05-00-0723 McGuire 2 Cycle 29 Maneuvering Analysis Revision 0 Page 49 I 11.5 Monitoring Factor Consideration 11.5.1 FQ Monitoring for LOCA TCD Limit Inputs K(BU) is implicitly included in FQsurveillance monitoring factors (PFLR files) generated in Section 11. Per Reference 17, it is not necessary to include the effects ofTCD in the LCO portion of the Tech Specs because:

1. FQ surveillance limits are more restrictive than the LCO limits and surveillance action statements would invoke compensatory actions well before LCO FQ limits would be challenged. This compensating action would ensure a measured- predicted (M-P) peaking deviation significantly below the LCO limits would be satisfied.

2. Actions performed in Section 8, shown in Figures 8.10-1 and 8.10-2, shows the limiting location for LOCA does not occur in high bumup fuel where the revised TCD penalty is a concern and LOCA limits are impacted.

11.5.2 Rod Bow DNB Penalty The M2C29 SIMULATE Setup (Reference 16) checks that no feed assemblies have assembly average bumups >28 GWD/MTU, and no once burned assembles with assembly average bumups between 28 and 33 GWD/MTU lead the core in peaking. Both of these criteria are not met, however no rod bow DNBR penalty is required per calculation note 2.3.3. Section 6.0 OLDNB margin results show ample DNB margin (>11 %)

such that the < 0.0066% rod bow DNB penalty is negligible. Therefore, a rod bow DNB penalty will not be included in the generation ofMFs for this cycle.

11.5.3 KSLOPE/TRH Discussion It is assumed that KSLOPE is conservative based on the methodology in the Nuclear Design Safety Limits calculation based on current core peaking and thermal hydraulic conditions being similar to the conditions used to develop KSLOPE.

The TRH calculation is performed to be bounding and is based primarily on system flow rate and water properties and is not highly sensitive to fuel type. TRH Factor calculation (Reference 20) has been revised to assure TRH is valid for all current MNS/CNS cycle's rated thermal powers and total core flow conditions.

Therefore, TRH remains unchanged for this cycle's MA.

MCC-1553.05-00-0723 McGuire 2 Cycle 29 Maneuvering Analysis Revision 0 Page 50 j 11.6 SMARGINS Execution SMARGINS is used to generate normal operation and power escalation PFLR files. SMARGINS generates FQ, FfH, Mc, MQ, M11H, and the FQand F11Hpeaking penalty factors. These factors are used as input for the COMET/GARDEL code, which calculates F!fAX and FfJ,lx, and Tech Spec margins (FQ0 P, FQRPs, Fm surveillance and FQIFm steady state). The Monitoring Factors are documented in the Core Operating Limits Report (COLR). The SMARGINS executions used to generate these factors are documented in Table 11.6-1.

Table 11.6-1 SMARGINS Execution for PFLR File Generation File Name Job Identifier/Date MA Input Library mabase r10 .lib Design Input 2.1.5 top 100n.scn botl 00n.scn top075n.scn bot075n.scn top050n.scn Reference 18 Rod Scan Input bot050n.scn Table 3-11 topl 18n.scn bot118n.scn top 1181.scn botl 181.scn mfbase.scn Ref. 18 Table 3-11 mfuowesc.scn Scan file input dpl_nom.scn Ref. 18 Table 3-11 pflr_ bu7_ghost.out pflr_ bu7_ghost.pch* NPJB I 20Sep2022 pflr_ bu7_ghost.cir cksum:

m2c29pflr.r00 Output Files 2202828041 m2c29pflrpe.r00 4110311168 pflrpe_ghost.out pflrpe_ghost.pch* NPNV / 20Sep2022 pflrpe_ghost.cir Note, several warning messages appeared in the PFLR jobs. These warnings are typical and related to the CREATE module (and the lack ofrod scan data at the relatively extreme AOs) and do not impact the results.

Also note (*) that the margins presented in the punch files should not be used, as several values on the FACTOR card differ in the PFLR methodology, including no AMF or TILT. Use margin results produced in Section 5 .6 if needed. Additionally, the FABOW card was not used in these DNB cases unlike Section 5.4 as described in Section 11.5.2.

Information-only COMET/GARDEL executions were performed using the PFLR files above and the data from the N-1 cycle, as further assurance the files were formatted correctly. All PFLR file testing showed normal termination thus proving PFLR files are formatted correctly.

MCC-1553.05-00-0723 McGuire 2 Cycle 29 Maneuvering Analysis Revision 0 Page 51 The burnup dependent margin peaking penalties are shown in Table 11.6-2. The Milli factors are reviewed and compared to the previous cycle to verify adequate surveillance margin is maintained. There is no anomalous behavior and they are consistent with expectations. The 2MINTS edit (predicted TS Fdh surveillance margin) was also reviewed and minimum margins are as expected. The Milli factors review for M2C29 MA is acceptable. Note: Reference 17 and previous MA include table of Milli factors in the calculation, but this is deemed onerous for the intent of this review. The review is to ensure unexpected results or de-rate would not occur during flux map surveillance for which the above review does.

Table 11.6-2 Margin Penalties FQ Filli Surveillance Surveillance EFPD Calculated Value Calculated Value 4 0.9914 1.02 0.9893 1.02 12 1.0138 1.02 0.9913 1.02 25 1.0108 1.02 0.9939 1.02 50 1.0005 1.02 0.9984 1.02 75 1.0044 1.02 1.0064 1.02 100 1.0091 1.02 1.0096 1.02 125 1.0045 1.02 1.0088 1.02 150 1.0066 1.02 1.0092 1.02 175 1.0068 1.02 1.0064 1.02 200 1.0016 1.02 1.0036 1.02 225 1.0055 1.02 1.0048 1.02 250 1.0117 1.02 1.0128 - 1.02 275 1.0078 1.02 1.0117 1.02 300 1.0032 1.02 1.0104 1.02 325 1.0018 1.02 1.0077 1.02 350 0.9990 1.02 0.9991 1.02 375 0.9978 1.02 0.9983 1.02 400 0.9963 1.02 0.9977 1.02 425 0.9932 1.02 0.9975 1.02 450 0.9818 1.02 0.9992 1.02 475 0.9902 1.02 1.0015 1.02 480 0.9981 1.02 1.0013 1.02 483 1.0024 1.02 1.0012 1.02 500 1.0123 1.02 1.0007 1.02 510 1.0123 1.02 1.0006 1.02 520 1.0128 1.02 1.0006 1.02 Note: Above data is corrected for minimum PQINC/PHINC of 1.02. The calculated and Technical Specification minimum value of 1.02 is auctioneered to determine the appropriate value for surveillance calculations.

MCC-1553.05-00-0723 McGuire 2 Cycle 29 Maneuvering Analysis Revision 0 Page 52 12 CONCLUSIONS The purpose of this calculation is to validate or develop Reactor Protection System (RPS) and Operating limits to ensure that peak local powers are within the design basis analyses in the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (Reference 1).

Section 2 of this calculation provided the major design inputs to the MA for M2C29. In that section, desired Operational, RPS, and CFM limits were presented. The results of this calculation determined that the desired Operational, RPS, and CFM limits are acceptable. The operational and rod insertion limits reported for the M2C29 COLR are shown in Table 12.1-1 and 12.1-2. All other desired limits were validated in this calculation.

Table 12.1-1 Final Operational Limits Power Level Negative AFD Limit Positive AFD Limit

(%) (%) (%)

100 -18 10 75 -27 15.5 50 -36 21 Table 12.1-2 Rod Insertion Limits Control Bank SWD

% Full Power B C D 100 226 226 161 0 163 47 0 All REDSAR criteria were verified to be acceptable for the M2C29 operating window (up to 520 EFPD) based on a M2C28 burnup of 489 EFPD (-10/+ 10).

I 12.1 Precautions and Limitations Below are the precautions and limitations identified during completions of this calculation.

1. Design Assumption 2.2.4 N-1 bumup window is being tracked for the M2C28 reload by NTM 02400732-11.

2. M2C29 MA Design Assumption 2.2.1 notes a change to the design assumption going into the M2C29 MA for K4 and COLR f2(AI) negative/positive breakpoint from +/-35.0 to +/-27.0. These design assumption changes are used in development of MA input and results and differs from Generic MA Base guidance.

These changes should be reflected in the RCD, COLR, and RSE. The assumption change is being tracked by NTM 02400732-16. Note: This NTM was written for M2C29 SAPP but is applicable to MA too. K4 change is not tracked in NTM because it is provided in REDSAR II (Reference 14) design output and will change in RCD, COLR, and RSE via normal reload process.

12.2 Generic MA Base Calculation Deviations Appendix A evaluates and calculates design inputs for REDSAR II K4 and COLR Breakpoint change that differ from what is included in the MA Base and other reference calculation.

MCC-1553.05-00-0723 McGuire 2 Cycle 29 Maneuvering Analysis Revision 0 Page 53 13 FILE ARCHIVAL The files described below are archived in the Nuclear Engineering Division archives, under the following directory name:

/m2c29/ma/rev0 File Description comet.zip COMET test files docxls.zip WORD and EXCEL files and copies of the REDSARs frd.zip SMARGINS files used for RFA fuel rod design analysis Contains copies of cycle-specific SIMULATE libraries and generic libraries used in lib.zip this calculation loca.zip SMARGINS files used for Appendix K LOCA analysis mplot.zip MAGIC files used to generate AO plots pflr.zip SMARGINS files used for the peaking factor limit report smarg.zip SMARGINS files used to verify RPS, Operating, and CFM limits ghost.zip Contains ghost libraries used in file execution.

MCC-1553.05-00-0723 McGuire 2 Cycle 29 Maneuvering Analysis Revision 0 Page 54 14 REFERENCES

1. McGuire Nuclear Station Updated Final Safety Analysis Report

2. McGuire Nuclear Station Unit 2, Technical Specifications and Bases

3. "Nuclear Design Methodology Report for Core Operating Limits of Westinghouse Reactors",

DPC-NE-2011-PA, Rev. la, Duke Power Company

4. "Nuclear Physics Methodology for Reload Design," DPC-NF-2010-A, Rev. 2a, Duke Power Company

5. "Nuclear Design Methodology Using CASMO-4/SIMULATE-3 MOX", DPC-NE-1005-P-A, Rev. 1

6. "Westinghouse Fuel Transition Report", DPC-NE-2009P-A, Rev. 3c

7. SQA documentation for SMARGINS (smarg12) AR# 02320148

8. "RCCA Axial Repositioning Schedule for McGuire Nuclear Station Unit 2", MCEI-0400-112, Rev. 7

9. SQA documentation for MAGIC (magic02) AR# 02426157

10. SQA documentation for Neuromancer (neuro0l) AR# 02036220

11. COMET, SDQA-70273-COM, Rev. 0lA

12. SQA documentation for VANGUARD (vanguard06) AR# 01933191

13. "M2C29 REDSAR Section V", DPND-1553.63-1294, Rev. 0

14. "M2C29 REDSAR Sections II and IV", DPND-1553.63-1293, Rev. 0

15. SQA documentation for PHANTOM (phantom02) AR# 02125511

16. "McGuire 2 Cycle 29 SIMULATE Setup", MCC-1553.05-00-0715, Rev. 0

17. "CASMO-4 Generic Maneuvering Analysis Input Library", DPC-1553.05-00-0184, Rev. 12

18. "McGuire 2 Cycle 29 Calculation of Power and Reactivity Parameters", MCC-1553.05-00-0720, Rev.0

19. "McGuire 2 Cycle 14 Tave Coastdown Evaluation", MCC-1553.05-00-0354, Rev. 1

20. "1RH Factor", DPC-1553.05-00-0135, Rev. 1

21. "Excore AFD Measurement Uncertainty", DPC-1553.05-00-0069, Rev. 4

22. "McGuire 2 Cycle 28 Core Operating Limits Report", MCC-1553.05-00-0710, Rev. 0

23. "Input Library for Calculation of Power and Reactivity Parameters", DPC-1553.05-00-0226, Rev. 3

24. "Generic Fuel Melt Analysis for Westinghouse 17xl 7 Fuel", DPC-1553.26-00-0133, Rev. 5

25. "McGuire 2 Cycle 29 Safety Analysis Physics Parameters", MCC-1553.05-00-0722, Rev. 0

26. "McGuire and Catawba Nuclear Design Fuel Rod Design Verification Methodology",

DPC-1553.05-00-0162, Rev. 3

27. "McGuire and Catawba LOCA Input Verification Methodology", DPC-1553.05-00-0157, Rev. 2

28. OPDT K4 and Imbalance Penalty Changes, email from M2C29 Reload Team Lead Chad Thompson, July 13, 2022 [pdf archived with this calculation].

29. Protection and Safeguard Instrument Uncertainties, MCC-1552.08-00-0028, Rev. 22

McGuire 2 Cycle 29 Maneuvering Analysis MCC-1553.05-00-0723 Appendix A- K4 & COLR Breakpoint Change MA Design Input Impacts Revision 0 Appendix A-1 Appendix A K4 & COLR Breakpoint Change MA Design Input Impacts

McGuire 2 Cycle 29 Maneuvering Analysis MCC-1553.05-00-0723 Appendix A- K4 & COLR Breakpoint Change MA Design Input Impacts Revision 0 Appendix A-2 INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION -K4 & COLR BREAKPOINT CHANGE Design Assumption 2.2.1 notes a change in SA REDSAR II K4 parameter (Reference 14) and COLR f2(~I) negative/positive breakpoint from +/-35.0 to +/-27.0 (WND design assumption COLR parameter). These changes are implemented in M2C29 MA to gain operating and reload analysis margin. This change was .

pursued per communication in Reference 28 and concurrence from site via reload team meetings for inclusion in RCD/COLR/RSE. These parameter calculation input changes differ from previous MA and guidance from the Generic MA Input Library (Reference 17) which assumed previous COLR (Reference 22) that still reflects old K4 and +/-35.0 breakpoint. The new K4 and +/-27.0 breakpoint change is used in various MA design input calculations (i.e. FOP and maximum allowed AFD/AO) and will be reflected in the M2C29 RCD, COLR, and RSE reload analysis. If this change is found to be unacceptable by the site for any reason, a revision to SA and WND calculations will be necessary to explore CFM and FRD margin impacts.

This change in analysis input is noted in the Precautions and Limitations.

Note: The Safety Analysis K4 (Reference 29) value used in UFSAR Chapter 15 accident analyses is not changing. Also, the discussion below sometimes refers to TS K4 change which is REDSAR II K4 that will be input into COLR, thus becoming TS K4 limit.

IMPACT OF K4 AND BREAKPOINT CHANGE UPON MA .DESIGN INPUTS M2C29 REDSAR Section II/IV (Reference 14) shows a change in TS K4 from 1.0864 to 1.0909 and Nuclear Design will implement assumption change of COLR f2(~I) negative/positive breakpoint from +/-35.0 to+/-

27.0 (Reference 28). Appendix A evaluates impacts to design inputs from these changes for M2C29 MA.

Direct MA inputs and indirect design inputs/assumptions from MA calculation references are reviewed for the K4 and COLR breakpoint change.

A review of the M2C29 MA and the Generic MA Input Library (Reference 17) for the K4 change shows a direct K4 impact to MA input for the SMARGINs FOP input (calorimetric uncertainty factor) in the Fuel Rod Design (FRD) evaluation for RIP and Stress/Strain REDSAR Limits as described in Reference 17, Section 7, Appendix A. FOP= 0.02 for the 100% power case without the 1.7% MUR uprate and is equal to K4+0.02-l.10 for the 110% RTP case. For MUR uprate cores, FOP remains equal to 0.003 for 100% power case and the 110% FP case now represents 109.09%FP applicable to the transient power set by new K4 term in OPDT. Applying the 11 03/4FP reduction with 1.7% MUR makes this term negligible ( 110% - 1. 7% ~

109.09%-1.7%), therefore 0.003 is used since it remains conservative and there are no changes to FOP input in FRD for M2C29 MA. For non MUR cores, the new K4 term 1.0919, FOP is equal to 1.0909+0.02-l.10 =

0.0109.

A review of design inputs/assumptions from references in the M2C29 MA and the Generic MA Input Library (Reference 17) for K4 and COLR Breakpoint change shows the Excore AFD Measurement Uncertainty calculation (Reference 21) uses K4 and COLR Breakpoint change in determination of the maximum AFD calculation (AO cutoff) in MA. Also, the Fuel Rod Design Verification Methodology (Reference 26) AFD span evaluated for FRD RIP and stress/strain analysis is directly impacted by a change in K4 and COLR Breakpoint.

McGuire 2 Cycle 29 Maneuvering Analysis MCC-1553 .05-00-0723 Appendix A- K4 & COLR Breakpoint Change MA Design Input Impacts Revision 0 Appendix A-3 Also, since K4 and COLR Breakpoint change are not used to calculate AFD measurement uncertainty and REDSAR II Section G inputs have not changed from input used in Reference 21 for M2C29, the AFD measurement uncertainty calculated in Reference 21 and used in M2C29 MA remain valid and unchanged.

The AFDs that produce a reactor trip and define the AFD space evaluated in the MA for CFM and FRD calculations use the SA K4 and TS K4 terms, respectively and COLR Breakpoint. Reference 21 calculates the maximum AFD that produced a reactor trip via the f2(Af) penalty in the OP!iT trip function as a function of reactor power which is used to define the AFD space for CFM margin calculations. It is calculated as described in Reference 21, page 249 and once the lead-lag terms and K terms which lower the !iT setpoint are removed results in the equation f2(Af) = K4-!iT/!iTo. Note: Reference 21, page 222 states "For McGuire and Catawba, KS is defined to be positive for an increasing Tavg and zero for a decreasing Tavg. Therefore, this term can only lower the setpoint, not increase it."

The current maximum AFD limits (AO cutoffs) were calculated in Reference 21, Rev. 2 page 230 using a Conservative Imbalance Beyond the Setpoint assumption listed on page 229. Maximum AFD limits are used in the MA CFM margin calculation and several SAPP calculations to limit the AFD space analyzed.

Reference 21, Rev. 3 maximum AFD limit calculation repeated this calculation for a change in SA K4 at that time to quantify the retained margin in the maximum AFD limits using the conservative imbalance beyond the setpoint assumption. The Reference 21, Rev. 3 maximum AFD limit calculations on page 249 is repeated in this Appendix for the current SA K4 of 1.165 from Reference 29. These calculations were performed in fdi.xlxs archived with this calculation.

Notes: The !iT discussion on page 249 remains applicable for this revision. Also, Reference 21, Rev. 3 refers to Error Adjusted K4 used in the maximum AFD limits calculation. This is actually the SA K4 derived from TS K4 plus uncertainties described in Reference 29 and for this revision the SA K4 is not changing.

Power Minimum AT I ATo AT Penalty Level(%) AT (ATa=58.4F) (1.165-AT/ATo) 118 61.67 1.0560 0.1090 110 57.01 0.9762 0.1888 100 51.24 0.8774 0.2876 85 42.7 0.7312 0.4338 75 37.04 0.6342 0.5308 50 23.49 0.4022 0.7628

McGuire 2 Cycle 29 Maneuvering Analysis MCC-1553.05-00-0723 Appendix A- K4 & COLR Breakpoint Change MA Design Input Impacts Revision 0 Appendix A-4 fz(AI} penalty Rev. 2 Retained Power AT required for Conservative Margin Level Penalty reactor trip AFD Beyond to Conservative

% (AT I 0.07) Setpoint Setpoint 118 0.1090 1.56 3.0 1.44 110 0.1888 2.70 4.0 1.30 100 0.2876 4.11 6.0 1.89 85 0.4338 6.20 7.5 1.30 75 0.5308 7.58 9.0 1.42 50 0.7628 10.90 12.0 1.10 The retained margin results show margin remains to the conservative AFD Beyond Setpoint assumption in Rev. 2 such that the conservative AFD Beyond Setpoint calculated in Reference 21, Rev. 2 page 230 remain applicable. The above retained margin results did not decrease significantly supporting the conclusion that Reference 21 values are conservative and applicable.

With the conservative AFD Beyond Setpoint assumption in Reference 21, Rev. 2 confirmed, the maximum permitted AFD limit by OP~T RPS Setpoint can be calculated as described in Reference 21 page 230 with the new COLR Breakpoint of +/-27 .0% WND design assumption. To avoid confusion as to which AFD limit applies to which station, the most conservative Af error adjustment was chosen from Reference 21. This was 6.71 % AI. The Maximum AFDs permitted by the OP~T RPS Setpoint for the various power levels for both McGuire and Catawba are shown below. The AFDs are also given as Axial Offset (AO = AFD / Power Level). These were calculated in EXCEL spreadsheet, fdi.xlsx, Tab: K4= SA 1.165, archived with this calculation.

Maximum AFDs with COLR F2(Af) Breakpoint of +/-27.0 with 6.7% Conservative Imbalance error adjustment for the RPS Setpoints Power Maximum Maximum Level AFD Axial Offset 118 36.7 31.1 110 37.7 34.3 100 39.7 39.7 85 41.2 48.5 75 42.7 56.9 50 45.7 91.4 Note, Reference 21, Rev. 3 page 245 states "the K4 value in the OPDT trip function must be~ 1.0864 for these parameters (excore AFD measurement uncertainty and maximum AFD limits) to be valid". However, the results of this Appendix show these parameters remain valid for the current value of SA K4 in Reference

29. This statement is a design assumption to quantify the validity of the calculation assumption and initiate an evaluation if there is a change in the cycle specific K4 in which this Appendix addresses. Also note

McGuire 2 Cycle 29 Maneuvering Analysis MCC-15 53 .05-00-0723 Appendix A- K4 & COLR Breakpoint Change MA Design Input Impacts Revision 0 Appendix A-5 Maximum AFD calculations in Reference 21 are performed with conservative assumptions for input parameters such as K4, flow, retained margin, to ensure conservative Maximum AFD results analyzed before OP.1T RPS Setpoint trip.

The FRD Verification Methodology (Reference 26) AFD span evaluated for RIP and stress/strain is directly impacted by a change in K4 and COLR Breakpoint because FRD uses best estimate TS/REDSAR parameters in its determination of AFD span. The OPDT/OTDT AFD trip limits as a function of power level generated for McGuire Unit 2 (MUR Uprate cores) is based on the input assumptions from REDSAR II and calculated as described in Reference 26 in EXCEL spreadsheet, afdtripcalc-mlm2cl.xlsx. The AFD calculation for the design input changes shows the 110% FP AFD at the new REDSAR II K4 value is the new COLR f2(Af) Breakpoint plus 3% uncertainty, +/-30.0% per Reference 26 methodology. The AFD calculation per Reference 26 methodology for 1003/4FP results in AFD of +/-31.30%.

Note: Figure 4-4 of Reference 26 is revised in this Appendix below to show impact on all operating and RPS Setpoint protected AFD space for the change in K4 and COLR Breakpoint. The figure shows the reduction in OPDT AFD space and wider gap between OTDT. The figure also shows for 50%FP, negative AFD, Condition I operating space AFD is slightly outside the Condition II OPDT RPS Setpoint space and these AFDs cross approximately at 60%FP. This is considered acceptable based upon following arguments,

The AFD space difference is small (~2%) at 50%FP and decreases to zero by 60%FP

Condition II accident RPS analysis are not evaluated until 75%FP statepoint power for RPS DNB and not evaluated until 100/110% FP for FRD analysis Condition II accident statepoint powers

A Condition II accidents would have to progress from initial condition power level to 100/110% FP FRD analysis statepoint power to be evaluated and therefore powers between 50-60%FP would not be considered in the FRD analysis.

It is recommended that an adjustment to the negative 50%FP AFD operating space be considered and proposed to the sites. This recommendation is included in MA FNT notes.

In conclusion, the following impacts to M2C29 MA design inputs from SA REDSAR II K4 parameter (Reference 14) and COLR f2(~I) negative/positive breakpoint from +/-35.0 to +/-27.0 are summarized below for use in future MA for MUR cores until the reference calculations and Generic MA Input library can be updated.

FOP input in FRD for M2C29 MA does not change from Reference 17

AFD measurement uncertainty calculated in Reference 21 remains unchanged

Maximum AFDs permitted by the OP~T RPS Setpoint for CFM margin analysis as calculated above Power Maximum Maximum Level AFD Axial Offset 118 36.7 31.1 110 37.7 34.3

FRD AFD span evaluated for RIP and stress/strain as calculated above

McGuire 2 Cycle 29 Maneuvering Analysis MCC-1553.05-00-0723 Appendix A- K4 & COLR Breakpoint Change MA Design Input Impacts Revision 0 Appendix A-6 o AFD for 110% FP is +/-30.0%

o AFD for 1003/4FP is +/-31.30%

FNT note update the design inputs in the reference calculations and Generic MA Input library Appendix A Figure 4-4 MNS Units 1 and 2 and Catawba Unit 1 OPDT and OTDT AFD Trip Limits 140 130

,_Delta Requi edfor Tri~D ~ring l ftft~

(OTO~ anc P = 19 OO#an ~ 2235~)

I 120 '

"-... ~

~,"' " ' ~" ~---

"t; 11 0 (PPDT

'-~

100 j I ~ 190();

90 I I ,._,

. ,._- .. \ \ ...

II \ ~

~

I 80 I

\

2415 25#

~ " ""' "'

I'-...

r-,.._

D.. 70 V ........

II \ \

~

~C 60 J

~

50 ef \ \ /

(D ltalR ,quire HorT, p 40 -- -=-- f t . ...I Be ron Oil ution ransie nt) 30 20 10 0

--60 -50 -40 20 -1 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 Axial Flux Difference (%)

MCC-1553.05-00-0723 McGuire 2 Cycle 29 Maneuvering Analysis Revision 0 Attachment 1 Page 1 ATTACHMENT 1 Key Margin Plots

MCC-1553.05-00-0723 McGuire 2 Cycle 29 Maneuvering Analysis Revision 0 Attachment 1 Page 2 Margin Plots are included in the Section 6 Margin Plot *.png files archived with this calculation file.

Key Margin Plots would be included for low margin results for LOCA or DNB (i.e. margins <3%

LOCA/OLDNB & margins <0% RPSDNB as described in Section 6.0) and plots showing Rod Scan statepoints selected to send to SA for cycle specific DNB Analysis. Section 6.0 results showed ample LOCA and DNB margin and no cycle specific DNB analysis required, therefore no Margin Plots are included in this Attachment. All Margin Plots can be found as described above.

MCC-1553.05-00-0723 McGuire 2 Cycle 29 Maneuvering Analysis Revision 0 Attachment 2 Page 1 ATTACHMENT 2 Record of Review Form

MCC-1553.05-00-0723 McGuire 2 Cycle 29 Maneuvering Analysis Revision 0 Attachment 2 Page 2 Record of Review MCC -1553.05-00-0723 Revision: 0 DPND -1553.63-1293 Revision: 1 Document: DPND -1553.63-1294 Revision: 1 The signature of the Design Verification Reviewer confirms:

The type of verification method performed

Technical errors have been resolved and the records have been included, if applicable YES Reviewer OR -- Concurrent Reviewer Design Verification Review Method YES Design Review

- - Alternate Calculation Other Records: - Attached

_ _ Qualification Testing Note:

This Record of Review form may be used to document other reviews, but is only required for Design Verification Reviews.

M. E. Stasko (Signed Electronicalll} Nuclear Date in Fusion Reviewer (Print/Sign) Discipline Date Item Technical Error Resolution No.

N/A None N/A QA Record Form Source: AD-EG-ALL-1110

RA-23-0079, Cycle 29, Revision 0, Core Operating Limits Report (COLR)

Text

Subject:

SUMMARY

Navigation menu

RA-23-0079, Cycle 29, Revision 0, Core Operating Limits Report (COLR)

Text

Subject:

SUMMARY

Navigation menu

Search