Text

Application for Amends to Licenses NPF-35 & NPF-52,deleting Existing License Conditions Which Have Been Fulfilled by Completed Duke Actions,Changing Other Sections Which Have Been Superseded by Current Plant Status
	ML20197G155
Person / Time
Site:	Catawba
Issue date:	12/18/1997
From:	Gordon Peterson; DUKE POWER CO.
To:	; NRC OFFICE OF INFORMATION RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (IRM)
References
	NUDOCS 9712300390
	Download: ML20197G155 (102)
	v • d • e

Duke Power Company A surEwp W9 Cauu4w Nuclee Surion -

aus s~w w.

4840 Concord Road Wrk. SC 2W45 Cary R. 8%emoe.

(803) 831-4231 omct

. % Pmidene (803)831-3426m Lecember 18, 1997

-U.

S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington', DC -20555-0001 ATTENTION:

Dccument Control Desk

SUBJECT:

Duke Energy Corporation' Catawba Nuclear Station Docket Nos, 150-413, 50-414 Proporad Amendment to Facility Operating Licenses Nos. NPF-35, NPF-52 Pursuant to 10CFR50.90, this letter submits a license amendment request (LAR) for the Catawba Nuclear Station Units 1 and 2 Facility Operating Licenses _(FOL). Duke Energy Corporation is proposing that. administrative changes be made to update the Catawba'FOLs. This LAR will: 1) delete existing license conditions which have been fulfilled by completed Duke actions, 2) change other sections of the FOLs which have been superseded by current plant status or current regulatory requirements, or 3) make other administrative changes to the FOLs. As a result of a recently completed Duke review, many of the existing Catawba

-license conditions and other provisions of the FOLs were determined to be outdated or otherwise no longer applicable to the plant. It.should be beneficial to both Duke and the NRC to-revise the Catawba FOLs such that they reflect greater consistency with current conditions.

The contents of this amendment package are as follows:

. Attachments la and lb provide a marked copy of the current

.FOLs for_ Catawba Units 1 and 2 respectively. These marked copies;show the proposed changes and are based upon the most current versions of the FOLs known to Duke.

Attachments 2a and 2b contain the proposed new FOL pages for Catawba Units l'and 2 respectively.

1 Attachment 3 provides a description of the proposed changes and technical justification. Each of the affected license MlHll%$

-Ap'

'1n0323 m=m mm

-P PDR J

h U. S. NRC, Document Oontrol Desk December 18, 1997 Page 2 conditions or other FOL sections are stated in Attachment 3 and a justification is provided for each requested deletion or other change.

Pursuant to 10CFP50.92, Attachment 4 documents the determination that this LAR contains No Significant Hazards Considerations.

Pursuant to 10CFR51.22 (c) (9) and (10), Attachment 5 provides the Environmental Assessment, which in the case of this LAR, states the regulatory basis for the categorical exclusion from the requirement for performing an environmental assessment / impact statement.

Implementat,on of this LAR will not impact the Catawba 4

UFSAR.

In accordance with Duke administrative procedures and the Quality Assurance Program Topical Report, this LAR has been previously reviewed and approved by the Catawba Site Plant Operations Review Committee and the Duke Corporate Nuclear Safety Review Board.

Pursuant to 10CFR50.91, a copy of this LAR is being sent to the State of South Carolina.

If there are asy questions concerning this amendment request, pleast contact Skip Copp at (803) 831-3622.

Very truly yours G.

R.

Peterson

.U.

S._NRC, Document Control Desk December-18,--'1997 Page.3 Attachments:

xc w/atti L. A _Reyes U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Regional Administrator, Region II Atlanta Federal Center 61 Forsyth=St., SW, Suite 23T85 Atlantr., GA 30303 P. S. Tam NRC Senior Project Manager (CNS)

U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mail Stop O-14H25 Washington, DC 20555-0001 D. J. Roberts

. Senior Resident Inspector (CNS)

U.-S. Nuclear. Regulatory Commission Catawba Nuclear Site M. Batavia, Chief Bureau of Radiological Health South Carolina Dcpartment of Health and Environmental Control 2600 Bull Street Columbia, SC.29207 w>

.... -. - _ - -~ ~-

q

.i U.iS. NRC, Document Control' Desk December:'- 18, 1997 j

Page;4 AFFIDAVIT G3. R.-Peterson, being/ duly. sworn,.. states that he is Site?

r Vice President' of: Duke Energy Corporation; that he is authorized;on the part.of the. aforementioned corporation to'

. sign-andLfile with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission this.

amendment to the Catawba Nuclear Station Facility _ Operating.

' Licenses Nos. NPF-35 and-NPF-52; and that all-statementstand.

- netters set.forth herein are true and correct to the best of his' knowledge.

s*

/ -

g.-

A. ;

G.--R.

Peterson, Site Vice President Subscribed and sworn to me: />//9)

' ~'

. 'Da te

.1

.\\f/gh[

~dovereux Tower, Motary Public My Commission-Expires: January 23, 2005 SEAL O

n n

n

.l 1

Attachment la Catawba Unit 1 Facility Operating License Marked Copy

p ena t

UNITED STATES s

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WAaHINoTON. o.C. 30e86 4001

\\.... /

DUKE ENERGY CORPORATIQH l

NORTH CAROLINA ELECTRIC MEMBERSHIP CORPORATION SALUDA RIVER ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE. INC.

DOCKET NO. 50-413 CATAWBA NUCLEAR STATION. UNIT 1 FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE License No. NPF-35 1.

The Nuclear Regulatory Comission (the Comission or the NRC) has found that:

A.

The application for license filed by the Duke Energy Corporation l

acting for itself and North Carolina Electric Membership Corporation and Saluda River Electric Cooperative. Inc. (the licensees) complies with the standards and requirements of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), and the Comission's regulations set forth in 10 CFR Cha>ter I; and all required notifications to other agencies or bodies save been duly rade; B.

Construction of the Catawba Nuclear Station, Unit 1 (the facility) pla 5 h= 5:= =b:t=ti:lly-completed in conformity with Construction Permit No. CPPR-ll6 and the application, as amended, the provisions of the Act and the regulations of the Comission; C.

The facility will t,perate in conformity with the application, as amended, the provisions of the Act, and the regulations of the l

Comission (except as exempted from compliance in Section 2.0.

below);

J D.

There is reasonable assurance:

(1) that the activities authorized by this operating license _can be conducted without endangering the i

health and safety of the public, and (ii) that such activities will be conducted in compliance with the Comission's regulations set forth in 10 CFR Chapter I (except as exempted from compliance in Section 2.D. below);

E.

Duke Energy Corporation

is. technically qualified to engage in the l

l l

Duke Energy Corporation is authorized to act as agent for the North Carolina l

Electric Membership Corporation and the Saluda River Electric Cooperative, Inc., and has exclusive responsibility and control over the physical construction, operation and maintenance of the facility.

4 Amendment No.

-.- activities authorized by this license in accordance with the-Commission's regulations set forth in 10 CFR Chapter I; F.

The licensees have satisfied the applicable provisions of 10 CFR Part 140, " Financial Protection Requirements and Indemnity Agreements, of the Comission's regulations; G.

The issuance of this license will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public; H.

After weighing the environmental, economic, technical, and other benefits of the facility against environmental _ and other costs and considering available alternatives, the issuance of this Facility Operating License No. NPF-35, s'Aject te the ceaditient fer

- pr: tecti:n ef-the :nvir:n::nt ::t forth in the Envir:n;;ntel Pr:t:ction Plen etteched ei Appe,.di& G, is in accordance with 10 CFR Part 51 of the Commission's regulations and all applicable requirements have been satisfied; I.

The receipt, possession, and use of source, byproduct and special nuclear material as authorized by this license will be in accordance with the Commission's regulations in 10 CFR Parts 30, 40 and 70.

2.

Based on the foregoing findings and the Partial Initial Decisions issued by the Atomic Safety and Licensing Boards dated June 22, September 18, and November 27, 1984, regarding this facility and satisfaction of conditions therein imposed, except as hereinafter set forth, and the Commission's vote on January 17, 1985, Facility Operating License No.

NPF-31 issued on December.6, 1984, is superseded by Facility Operating License No. NPF-35 hereby issued to the Duke Energy Corporation, the l

North Carolina Electric Membership Corporation, and the Saluda River Electric Cooperative, Inc., (the licensees) to read as follows:

A.

This license applies to the Catawba Nuclear Station, Unit 1, a pressurized water reactor and associated equipment (the facility) owned by the Duke Energy Corporation, the North Carolina Electric l

Membership Corporation, and the Saluda River Electric Cooperative, Inc.

The facility is located on the licensees' site in York County, South Carolina, on the shore of Lake Wylie approximately 6 miles N # " p _ ngrth of Rog'k Hill, South Carolina, and is described in Duke Energy d

Corporation WFinal Safety Analysis Report, as supplemented and amendedrt4mou;h R:vi:ica No. !!, : d in it: Envir:::::t:1 R:p:rt, ::

4eppl: :nted and :rnd:d thr: ;h R:vi i:n N:. C, B.

Subject to the conditions and requirements incorporated herein, the Commission hereby licenses:

i Amendment NO.

3 (1)

Duke Energy Corporation, pursuant to Section 103 of the Act l

and 10 CFR Part 50, to possess, use, and operate the facility at the designated location in York County, South Carolina, in accordance with the procedures and limitations set forth in the license; (2)

North Carolina Electric Mcnbership Corporation and Saluda River Electric Cooperative, Inc., to possess the facility at the designated location in York County, South Carolina, in accordance with the procedures and limitations set forth in this license; (3)

Duke Energy Corporation, pursuant to the Act and 10 CFR Part l

70 to receive, possess and use at any time special nuclear material as reactor fuel, in accordance with the limitations for storage and amounts required for reactor operation, as described in the inal Safety Analysis Report, as supplemented an amended thre g L id vi, Nu. 11; updahd (4)

Duke Energy Corporation, pursuant to the Act and 10 CFR l

? arts 30, 40 and 70 to receive, possess and use at any time any byprcduct, source and special nuclear material as sealed neutron sources for reactor startup, sealed sources for reactor instrumentation anti radiation monitoring equipment

alibration, and as fission detectors in amounts as required; (5)

Duke Energy Corporation pursuant to the Act and 10 CFR l

Parts 30, 40 and 70, to receive, possess and use in amounts as required any byproduct, source or special nuclear material without restriction to chemical or physical form, for sample analysis or instrument calibration or associated with radioactive apparatus or components; and (6?

Duke Energy Corporation, pursuant to the Act-and 10 CFR l

Parts 30, 40 and 70, to possess, but not separate, such byproduct and special nuclear materials as may be produced by the operation of the facility authorized herein.

(7)

Duke Energy Corporation, pursuant to the Act and 10 CFR l

Parts 30, 40 and 70, to possess, but not separate, such byproduct and special nuclear materials as may be produced by the operation of McGuire Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2, and Oconee Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2 and 3.

C.

This license shall be deemed to contain and is subject to the conditions specified in the Commission's regulations set forth in 10 CFR Chapter I and is subject to all applicable provisions of the Act and to the rules, regulations, and orders of the Commission now or hereafter in effect; and is subject to the additional conditions specified or incorporated below:

Amendment No.

1

.fu tt +j1 lSW

. g--

pv leve-(1)

Maximum Power Level Duke Energy Corporation i authorized to operate the facility at l

4 reactor core p;w;r 1;nis act in ene;; ef 3411 megawatts thermal (100% pewer) in accordance with the conditions specified herein, nd in Attu hn r.t I to thi: lin n.

The pr::;;r:ti:=1 int:,

tertep t::4: n d Oth:r it::: idntified in Attu hn nt I t; this license shall be n--;isted n :;nift:d.

Attuhn nt I-i: h:rch i= :r;;r:t:d i t: tht: li e rte.

n (2)

Technical Soecifications The Technical Specifications contained in Appendix A, as revised through Amendment No.161, which are attached hereto, are hereby incorporated into this license. Duke Energy Corporation snall l

operate the facility in accordance with the Technical Specifications.

Initial Startuo Test Proaram (Section 14, SER, SSER #3)*

ke Energy Corporation shall conduct those aspects o he post-l fue loading initial test ptogram described in Chap r 14 of the

FSAR, amended, which are consistent with the 1 its of this license hout making any major modifications less such modificatio have prior NRC approval. Major odifications are defined as:

(a) elimination o y safety-relate test **;

(b) modification of obje

ives, st method, or acceptance criteria for any safet ated test; (c) performance of any s ty-re ed test at a power level different from tha tated in t FSAR by more than 5 percent of-rated ower; (d) failure to s isfactorily complete the e ire initial startup t program by the time core burnu equals 120 effecti

. full power days; (e)

.dev tion from initial test program administrative p cedures or quality assurance controls described in SAR; and fId.S

The parenthetical notation following the title of-mentlicense conditionk denotes t

.jection of the Safety Evaluation Report and/or its supplement; wherein license condition is discussed.

^1 efety-reisted teste ere these tests which verify the design, construtica

nd eperatier ef :sfety-relatd :y:t:=, :tructurn, nd ;;;ipant.

Amendment No.

i

elays in test-program in excess ~of 30 days (14 d pow el exceeds 50; percent)e concurren power if operation, ntinued power ope s= desired during a

' delay,_ Duke Energy a

a 1-provide justification l-l

.that adequate testi rformed and evaluated to c

demonstrate e facility can ated at the planned y

pow with reasonable assurance tha ealth and-ety of-the public will not be endangered.

Antitrust conditions p

Duke Energy Corporation shall comply with the antitrust conditions l

delineated in Appendix C to-this license.

(

Inservice Testina of Pi=as and Valves (Section 3.9.6, SSER SER #4).

Purs t to 10 CFR Part 50.55a and for the reasons t forth in

-Section 9.6 of SSER #2, the relief identified the submittals dated Marc

,1983, July 10 13,18.- 23, 27, tober 1,_and November 6, I that Duke Energy Corporat n has requested from-l the pump and val testing requirements 10 CFR-Part 50, Section 50.55a(g)(3) and (g '

(i) is granted r that portion of the initial 120-month peri until the ff completes its review or until December 1, 1986, w ever s earlier.

(6)

Inservice Insoect' ion Proar

(

ion 5.2.4 and 6.6, SSER #2*)

By May 31, 1985, Duke rgy Corporat shall submit the balance l

of the inservice-ins ction program as de ibed in its letter dated January 8, 5, for staff review.and royal.

L (7)

Environmenta automent Qualification (Section 3.

SER, SSER-

3, SSER-Prio o March 31, 1985, Duke Energy Corporation shall l

en ronmentally qualify all electrical equipment as required by L

R 50.49.

4 (f)

Fire Protection Proaram (Section 9.5.1, SER, SSER #2, SSER #3, SSER #4, SSER #5)*-

Duke Energy Corporation shall_ implement and maintain in effect all l

1 provisions of the approved fire protection program as described in

-the Final Safety Analysis Report, as-amended, for the facility and pprovedintheSERthroughSupplement[f

, subject to the as l

-fo lowi v ion:l

5pfety N fetter u. m vanuary u, Assi.

To i f e incorporated n SSER #5.

b i

l-p Amendment No. 1 L.,.

A!

- The licensee may make changes to the approved fire protection program without prior approval of the Commission only if those changes would not adversely affect.the ability to achieve and maintain safe shutdown in the event of a fire.

.h Turbine Missiles (Section 3.5.1.3, SER) uke Energy Corporation shall submit for NRC staff approval by l

D ember 6, 1987, a turbine system maintenance program based o the anufacturer's calculations of missile generation proba lities acceptable to the NRC staff or volumetricall inspect 11 low pressure turbine rotors within three ye s or by the secon refueling outage, whichever is later, and t ereafter every three ears or every other refueling outage u 11 a maintenance p gram is approved by the staff.

(10) Operatina Staff E erience Reautrements (Sect n 13.1.2.3, S;ER #3, SSER #4)

Duke Energy Cor) oration DEC) shall hav a licensed senior l

operator on eac1 shift wh has had at east six months of hot operating experience on a s liar t e plant, including at least six weeks at power levels gre er han 20% of full power, and who has had start-up and shutdown erience.

Far'those shifts where such an individual is not av ab on the plant staff, an advisor shall be provided who has at le t four years of power plant experience, including tw years of nu etr plar,t experience, and who has had at least o year of experi ce on shift as a licensed senior operator at a imilar type facilit Use of advisors who were licensed only t the R0 level will be aluated on_a case-by-case basis. Ady) ors shall be trained on pia procedures, technical spec fications and plant systems, and hall be examined on these top s at a level sufficient-to assure f iliarity with the plant.

For each shift, the remainder of the sh t crew shall be trai in the role of the advisors. These adviso shall be retai d until the experience levels identified in the st sen nce above have been achieved. The NRC shall be noti d at 1

st 30 days prior to the date DEC proposes to release the l

dvisors from further service.

l l

l j

._ -_= - -

r 1

(

De". ailed control Room Desian Review. 1.D.1 (Section 18.0, t

Y $P.R #2)

D'J Energy Corporation shall correct all human engine ing l

deft tencies according to the schedule contained in e letter i

from 0 e Energy Corporation dated February 20, 19 l

(12)

Eraroency'Itasoonse capabilities (Generi Lette 82-33, Supplement I to NUREG-0737).

(a)

Deleted E

(b)

Safety Parame r Disolav System 0 PDS) i Prior to April 1, 1985, Duke nergy Corporation shall have l

the SPOS operation (13) Anticinatory Reactor Trio. I

.3.10 (Section 5.2.2 SER)

Prior to exceeding 70% po

,O e Energy corporation shall l

complete the described bine tr tests to verify that-PORVs will not be challenged hen the ant ipatory trip bypass is in effect.

shg 6.2.5, Appendix C SER; Sect on 6 ER 55

3 i

Prior to Ap 1 1, 1985, upgraded analvses and t ts shall be provided the following issues and submitted f staff review and app val; (a)-

thermal response of the containment atmosphere a essential equipment for a spectrum of accident sequences usi revised heat transfer models.

\\

AmendmentNo.)

8 b) effects of upper compartment burns on the operation a survival of air returt fans and ice condenser doors.

(c) operability of the glow plug igniter in a spray en ronment typical of that expected in the upper compartment of the containment.

.(15) Instrum t dion for Detection of Inadeaunte Core to ina. II.F.2 (Section 4.4.3.4 SER, SSER #2)

Prior to s rtup following the first refueling o age, Duke Energy Corporation hall corsplete tha u) grade of the e sting subcooling t

margin monit and the existing )ackup display (16)

Steam GeneratorsTube Ruoture (Section 10.4., SER, SSER #2)

Prior to startup ollowing the second ref ling outage, Duke Energy Corporation shall submit for NRC aff review and approval an analysis which d monstrates that the team generstor single-tube rupture analyst

) resented in the SAR is the most severe case with respect to le. release of f ssion products and calculated doses.

Con istent with t e analytical assumptions, Duke Energy Cor) oration hall prop e any necessary changes to l

Appe" x A to t11s licen (17)

Main Steam Line Break (MSL in de Containment. (Section 6.1.1.1, SER, SSER #2, SSER #4)

(a)

Prior to startup foll g the first refueling outage, Duke Energy Corporation s 11 ubmit for NRC review and approval the results of a co alete rogram of tests and analyses to confirm the validi y and ac uracy of the models and assumptions emplo ed in the evised containment response analysis for MS accidents. This program shall include, but not be lim ed to, the fol wing elaments:

(1)

Hydra ic tests to quantif key parameters related to drai low model input and sumptions for drain reg n configurations repres.tative of those in the p1 t, and uncertainty ana.ys of measured and c puted parameters.

(ii) Supplementary tests or analyses t address (i) the applicability of drain flow tests onducted in air to steam environments and (ii) the eff et of thermal gradients within the drain finw liqu.

sheets and droplets.

(iii) Revised containment response analyses w ch incorporate the results of the drain flo test program and address the thermal response to dead-ded compartments.

Amendment No.)6[

= _

i t (iv) Additional containment responce sensitivity analyses to investigsce the effect of drain water temperatur and flow rate, and uncertainties in parameters determined by test.

(v)

Scaled tests or detailed mass transport analy s for a spectrum of break locations to quantify the pact of j

break conditions on thermal gradients and n-condensible gas distribution in containee and on ice condenser performance.

(b)

Durin the interim period of operation, Du Energy Corpora ton shall submit to the NRC staff imonthly reports on the p ograss of the above confirmator research program of tests d analyses regarding contai nt response for MSLB accid ts.

(18) Residual Heat Remov 1 System (Section

.4.4. SER, SSER #2; Section 15.4.4, SSER 3 SSER #4)*

Prior to startup follo ng the firs refueling outage, Duke Energy Corporation shali upgra the pre urizer power operated relief valves (PORVs) and the st m gen ator PORVs to safety related.

(19)

Seismic Eauioment Qualifica (Section 3.10, SSER #2. SSER #3, SSER #4)

A seismic test will be p forme utilizir i eneric mounting scheme with a GLASTIC p d and fi rglass ng for electrical isolation to verify-t acceptabil ty of c.e disting mountitig.

This test will be c plated by July 1985.

2.0 (20)

Deleted (21) Generic Letter 83-28 (Section15.6,SSE

4,**)

Duke Energ Corporation shall submit respo es to and im?lement l

the requi ements of Generic Letter 83-28 on schedule witch is consist t with that given in its November 2, and December 31, 198 etters.

Requires e tion; see paragraph 2.0

- Safety ev ion attached to D. Eisenhut letter dated Januar 17. 1985.

To be incor rated in SSER #5.

AmendmentNo.Jd

2) ErQStys of Offsite Emeroency Prenaredness (Section 13.3, SE,

SSER #1, SSER #2, SSER f3, SSER #4) n the event that the NRC finds that the lack of progress n

mpletion of ti.e procedures in the Federal Emergency Ma gement As ncy's final rule, 44 CFR Part 350, is an indication at a maj? substantive problem exists in achieving or maint ining an adeg e state of preparedness, the provisions of 10 FR Section-50.54(

(2) will apply.

)

(23) b eroenev vreoaredness Issues (ASLBPID,9/18/84 Fy June 4, 1

5. Duke Energy Corporation shall ave submitted for l

Staff review a receiv6d staff approval on t following items:

1.

The Public formation Brochure shall state that high levels of radiation re harmful to health d may be life threatening.

ch statements shal be contained within that portion of the ochure that deal with actions to be taken in the event of a emergency.

2.

The warning signs an decals r all specify the types of emergencies they cover inclu ng nuclear, t

3.

The warning signs and dec s shall notify transients as to.

where they ct.n obtain lo emergency infor. nation, as i

provided in NUREG-0654 alu ion Criterion !!.G.2.

4.

The emergency plans all refle the kinds of locations within the plume ex sure EPZ who ein the warning signs and decals and emergen response info ation will be placed and the )rocedures e oyed to assure th t sufficient numbers are )eing distr uted to effectively ach transients, and that the plans re implemented.

l S.

Comprehensiv plans shall provide for earl notification to I

Carowinds a radiological emergency at Ca wba and for evacuatto of Carowinds.

Tim inans shall des ibe the res )onsi lities of the emergency response orga izations of Mec (le urg and York Counties and provide for th coord ation of their efforts among themselves an with Caro nds' officials.

The plans shall provide for diate not 'ication of patrons and staff of Carowinds at the time of the precaationary closing of the park, of the cause f e emergency.

The means to implement the plans shall b g

ade available.-

l (f)

Additional Conditions

.The Additional Conditions contained in Appendix D, as revised through Amendment No.

, are hereby incorporated into this license.- Duke Energy Corporation shall operate the facility in l

accordance with the Additional Conditions.

Amendment ho.

e

-y.,,.----r-.-.y.m

,,,,y,w-er -

.-%.v-.,,----,--,-y-~r.-rc-

y a c,,/c /.*n c {-cd. Oc l etd o +d F# C* b **

I" c,,n4sl e t

,'n + ke Ow erd S C*C. s ed SSEb.

n

. J D.

ThefacQ1tyrequiresexemptionsfromc ain requtrements et Append 4te: " E :nd-J to 10 Part CFR S0Y-These-4nehde

.-par 4441-exemp,t4en-frem-General-De54p-Cr44*4en ! cf ^.ppe(ndt*-

e)

--wi th-re s pec t-40-t he-upg r4de-to-sa fe ty-re44 t+d-o f-4 he4wenueleee---.

.--pcwar oper-ated-r414ef-valves-{PORVt}-end-stcem generatei PORV.

-unt41-f4est-refuel 4ng-(Sect 4cn 0- 4.4-of SC" end-ME46 2, &nd

---Sect 4en-lh4,4-ef-SS$5-3 :nd P, Wempt4en-frc: the

-requirements-of-Appendix +-IV nsofac-as-they =y requice-the---

ACLi&paridC4 patio" "f ill C renbr_ norennnel fnr

---the-Catawbe-Station ewrgencyri! ? MM&ggent i

preparedates exerettet-(Section-13.0

%tle Wklt;-of-SSE4-4)@Ill.0.2(b)(ii) of Appendix J) partial exem paragraph

, the testing of containment airlocks at times when the containmen.t integrity it not required (Section 6.2.6 of the SER and SSERsV3 and*4), (f)hexemption from the requirement of paragra,ph Ill.A.(d) of Appendix J, insofar as it requires the venting and draining of lines for type A tests (Section 6.2.6 of SSER 3), and (g)cpartial exemption from the requirements of paragraph Ill.B of Appendix J, as jt relates to bellows testing exemptions are au(Section 6.2.6 of the SER and SSERt3). These thc.ized by law end will not end:nger !!fe er

--property-ee-the-commen-defence Ed tecur4ty-and-ar4-etherw!:e 5 -

--the-publ4e-interest-r granted pursuant to 10 CFR 50.12.These exemptions are, therefore, hereby With the granting of these exemptions, the facility will operate, to the extent authorized herein, in conformity with the ap lication, as amended, the provisions of the Act C

ission.

P*'est d nd the ru es and reculations if the a

nt 44

<- <

hP f*

4 C ed l.'c. /se lf- (

.,.C c b,,u s

4 A

Ie e'r'g'yio@rt conso's yn t s.t.'% ne-a'Clon shaN'N11hhpfeine t a'n$) main'tain in' g n

<* m v

{e

.6(('4*/

effect_all ad m*Ugu1 securitP, %govisions of the Commission-ap/prqv d-phys 4+al uard training and qualification a

cafege rdt_

4en64ngen:y 01:=-including amendments made pursuant to provisions of the Miscellaneous Amendments and Search Requirements revisions to 10 CFR 73.55 (51 FR 27817 and 27822) and to the authority of 10 CFR 50.90 and 6 fit 10 CfR 50.54(p).

Thepiang,whichcon safeguards information protected under 10 CFR 73.21 aee'tains

+et;wb; hciete-Stat 4cn Physical Rcurit 4ntitled:

-+ubaltied-threugh-0 etcher 0, M07, -%t:wb":-Nac4 ear-St:tter _"l en, " wi t

-Tetining-and-Qua14(4 sat 4en Plan," vith revistans snhmt+ +od +henunh

~

-August-27. -1986, and *Catidua Nudur Sidiun Saiguaru>

-Contingency-Plan,% tith-rnitions-submitted-through,lenu;r - 0, 498A Changesmadeinaccordancewith10CFR73.55shallbe implemented in accordance with the schedule set forth therein, f.

Reporting (o+o the Commission t

EWof lC4es1..C.Ct*h la M n

DukeEnsrgyCorporationshallreportanyv[C(1) lations of the l

requirementscontaineM

-C,rffa) of this licehhg dg st t,jpn

'3 rf-d&}-thesugh.

nih 'n"o.,1 Iation shall be made w thin l

s %c. lcu. S<c sse.4 ud' Con %'dton s not ce.nb'lmPl<ny Amendment No. 46f"

"'N

.0 i.'c defK

~~ y h c_ p (n.s s ade g u e,dr J., f% g t

e 5, e.dl 4le/ "M uc feat. 5 ee %

7~. n.',/.,g

,(, h t,.p g,.

Plu," *s re Ws c#.

Qdtr siss-Jo ff t OkC Y

'Redi* S b"^

Y ^

p

.He. V *G'"*1 twenty-four (24) hours in ::::

witt, tt.r. previsiens ef 10 CTR

% 76 with written follow-up within 30 cays in accordance with the procedures described in 10 CFR 50.73 (b), (c) and (e).

G.

The licensees shall have and maintain financial protection of such type and in such amounts as the Commission shall require in accordance with Section 170 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, to cover public liability claims.

H.

This license is effective as of the date of issuance and shall expire at midnight on December 6, 2024.

FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Original Signed By:

Edson G. Case /f/

Harold R. Denton, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

Enclosures:

-i. Atied.unt

/ /. Appendix A - Technical Specifications

=2.

App:ndix 3 Envir:n=r,t:1 Pretectica P1:n-Ag. Appendix C - Antitrust Conditions

,J g. Appendix 0 - Additional Conditions Date of 1ssuance: January 17, 1985 Amendment No.

1

January 17, 1 5

\\

ATTAC'.'iENT 1 TO l.lCENSE NPF-35 DukesEnergy Corporation shall comply with the following requirements related I

to th'a TDI diesel engines for Catawba Unit 1.

1.

anges to the maintenance / surveillance program for the T diesel engines, as identified in the licensee's submittals cf A st I and

.Septe'mber ll,1986, shall be subject to the provisions 9 10 CFR 50.59.

The frbauency of the major engine overhauls referred tyin the license conditio below shall be censistent with Section IV..

Overhp.ul frequency in Revision 2 of Appendix !! of the Desi n Review / Quality Revalidati q Report which was transmitted by letter dated May 1, 1986, from J. B. George, Owners Group, to H. R. Denton, RC.

2.

Connecting rod assemblies shall be subjected t he following inspections at eigh major engine overhaul:

(a) The surfaces of the tack teeth should be i pected for signs of fretting.

If fretting has occurred, it s uld be subject to an engineering evaluation or appropriate c rective action.

(b) All connecting rod bolts Sould be lut icated in accordance with the engine manufacturer's instructions a l torqued to the specifications of the manufacturer.

The lengths of t e two pairs of bolts above the crankpin should be measured ut ras nically before and after tensioning.

(c) The lengths of the two pairs of its above the crankpin should be remeasured ultrasonically befo e Atensioning and disassembly of the bolts.

If bolt tension i.s 1 s thah 93% of the value at installation, s

the cause should be determi d, aapro riate corrective action should be taken, and the interval be een ciecks f bolt tension should be reevaluated.

(d) All connecting rod bol should be visuall inspected for thread damage (e.g., galling), and e two pairs of connec in rod bolts above the crankpin should be spected by magnetic part e testing to verify the continued absence cracking.

All washers use with the bolts should be examined visua y for signs of galling or cra ing, and replaced if damaged.

(e) A visual insp tion should be perfonned of all externgl surfaces of the link rod bo to verify the absence of any signs of sert co-induced stress.

(f) All of t e bolt holes in the link rod box should be inspect d fer thread damage e.g., galling) or other signs of abnormalities.

In

dition, the b t holes subject to the highest stresses (e.g., the pai imme ately above the crankpin) should be examined with an appr riate non estructive method to verify the continued absence of crackin Any 1

ications should be recorded for engineering evaluation and appropriate corrective action.

Amend.nent No.

I

l t

12 All of the bolt holes in the link rod box should be inspected for thread damage (e.g galling) or other signs of abnormalities. In addition, the bolt holes subject to ie highest stresses (e.g., the pair immediately above the crankpin) should be exa med

'th an appropriate nondestructive method to verify the continued absence of c eking.

A indications should be recorded for engineering evaluation and a ropriate corr tive action.

3.

(a)

Cylinder locks shall be inspected for " ligament" cracks, " stud to s d" cracks and

" stud toen " cracks as dermed in a report by Failure Analysis ssociates, Inc.

l (FaAA) enti

" Design Review of TDI F-4 and RV-4 Seric Emergency Diesel i

Genemtor Cyli

.r Blocks" (FaAA report no. FaAA-84-9 ll.1 and dated December 1984. (Noie tha e FaAA report specifies additional inspec ' ns to be performed for blocks with "know " or " assumed" ligament cracks.) n mspection intervals (i.e.,

frequency) shall not ceed the intervals calculated using e cumulative damage index modelin the subject F A report, in addition, inspec ' n methods shall be consistent with or equivalent to tho identified in the subject F A report.

(b)

In addition to inspections s illed in the afore entioned FaAA report, blocks with "known" or " assumed" ligame cracks (as fined in the FaAA report) should be inspected at each refueling outage o determ. e whether or not cracks have initiated on the top surface, which was expo beca of the removal of two or more cylinder heads, nis process should be repeat ver several refueling outages until the entire block has been inspected..

Liqu netrant testing or a similarly sensitive nond.structive testing technique sh dd used to detect cracking, and eddy current testing should be used as appropri e to dete ine the depth of any cracks discovered.

(c)

If inspection reveals cracks n the cylinder b ks between stud holes of adjacent cylinders (" stud-to stud" eks) or " stud to-en " cracks, this condition shall be reported promptly to tl NRC staff and the aff ted engine shall be considered inopemble. De engi shall not be restored to " ope ble status" until the proposed disposition and/or e cctive actions luve been approved the NRC staff.

4.

He followine air roll est shall be ocrformed as snecified below. xcept when the olant is glndy in an'Actiondtatement or Technical Specification 3/4.8.1. "l51ectric Power S[vstems.

A.C. Sources"*

The engines s 11 be rolled over with the airstart system and with the cylind stopcocks open before cac planned start, unless that start occurs within 4 hours4.62963e-5 days 0.00111 hours 6.613757e-6 weeks 1.522e-6 months of a shutdow The engines shall also rolled over with the airstart system and with the cylinder stopcoc -

pen after 4 hours4.62963e-5 days 0.00111 hours 6.613757e-6 weeks 1.522e-6 months , ut no more than 8 hours9.259259e-5 days 0.00222 hours 1.322751e-5 weeks 3.044e-6 months , after engine shutdown and then rolled over nee again app imately 24 hours2.777778e-4 days 0.00667 hours 3.968254e-5 weeks 9.132e-6 months after each shutdown. (if an engine is removed from servic for any in other than the rolling-over procedure before expiration of the 8 hour9.259259e-5 days 0.00222 hours 1.322751e-5 weeks 3.044e-6 months or

-hour riods noted above, that engine need not be rolled over while it is out of service. The icensee shall air roll the engine over with the stopcocks open at the time it is return o

13 -

service.) The origin of any water detected in the cylinder must be determined, and an

'inder head that leaks because of a crack shall be replaced. The above air roll test may e di -. tinued following the first refueling outage subject to the following conditions:

(a)

Al

'linder heads are Group !!! heads (i.e., cast after September 1980).

(b)

Quality validation inspections, as identified in the Design eview/ Quality Revalidatio-port, have been completed for all cylinder heads.

(c)

Group til heads ontinue to dernonstrate leak free perfor ec. This should be confirmed with TD fore air roll tests are discontinued.

5.

Periodic inspections of the tu iargers shallinclude the fo wing:

(a)

The turbocharger thrust bearin should be visu y inspected for excessive wear after 40 nonprelubed starts since the pre 'ous visua nspection.

(b)

Turbocharger rotor axial clearance sho d be measured at each refueling outage to verify compliance with TDl/Elliot s

'fications.

In addition, thrust bearing measurements should be compared ith meas ements taken previously to determine a need for further inspection or co ective action.

(c)

Spectrographic and ferro phic engine oil analysis all be performed quarterly to provide early evidence - bearing degrad.ition. Particu attention should be paid to copper level and part' late size, which could signify thmst ring degradation.

(d)

The nozzle ring omponents and inlet guide vanes should be visu.

inspected at each refueling out,e for missing pans or ptrts showing distress on a one rbocharger per-refueling-tage basis, in addition, these inspections should be pe rmed for all turboci gers at each turbocharger overhaul (i.e., at approximately 5 y

'ntervals),

if ar, missing parts or distress is noted, the entire ring assembly should placed the subject turbocharger should be reinspected at the next refueling outage.

a

APPENDIX D ADDIT 10NAL CONDITIONS FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. NPF-35 Duke Energy Corporation shall comply with the following conditions on the l

schedules noted below:

Amendment Implementation Number Additional Condition Date 15 This amendment requires the licensee to Next upd prporate in the Updated Final Safety i

R Anal 7rtQeport (UFSAR) certain changes to the descripT f the facility.

Implementation o mendmen e

incorporation of these e as described in the ee's app on dated Marc r1T97, as supplemented let ated April 2, 10, 16, 22, and

, 1997, and evaluated in the staff's safety Evaluation dated April 29, 1997.

159 This amendment requires the licensee to immediately use administrative controls, as described upon issuance in the licensee's letter of March 7, 1997, of the and evaluated in the staff's safety amendment evaluation dated April 29, 1997, to restrict the dose-equivalent iodine levels to 0.46 microcurie per gram (in lieu of thelimitinTSSection3.4.8,a),andto 26 microcurie per gram (in lieu of the limit of TS Figure 3.4-1), until this license condition is removed b/ a future amendment.

AmendmentNo.If

. ~. _

i f

i I

i Attachment Ib i

Catawba Unit 2 Facility Operating License Marked Copy i

W s

F I

r E

--s n.

n r.

,w.,---

/

\\

UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION g

wAswiwotow, o.c. - -i DUKE ENERGY CORPORATION l

NORTH CAROLINA MUNICIPAL POWER AGENCY NO. 1 PIEDMONT MUNICIPAL POWER AGENCY DOCKET NO. 50-414 CATAWBA NUCLEAR STATION. UNIT 2 FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE License No. NPF-52 1.

The Nuclear Regulatory Comission (the Comission or the NRC) has found that:

A.

The application for license filed by the Duke Energy Corporation l

acting for itself, North Carolina Municipal Power Agency No. I and Piedmont Municipal Power Agency (the licensees) complies with the standards and requirements of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), and the Comission's regulations set forth in 10 CFR Chapter I; and all required notifications to other agencies or bodies havu been duly made; B.

Construction of the Catawba Nuclear Station, Unit 2 (the facility)

A( Aa: been ebitantially= completed in conformity with Construction Permit No. CPPR-Il7 and the application, as amended, the provisions of the Act and the regulations of the Comission; C.

The facility will operate in conformity with the application, as amended, the provisions of the Act, and the regulations of the Comission (except as exempted from compliance in Section 2.D.

below);

D.

There is reasonable assurance:

(i) that the activities authorized by this operating license can be conducted without endangering the health and safety of the public, and (ii) that such activities will be conducted in compliance with the Comission's regulations set forth in 10 CFR Chapter I (exc,rpt as exempted from compliance in Section 2.D. below);

E.

Duke Energy Corporation

is technically qualified to engage in the l

Duke Energy Corporation is authorized to act as agent lor the North Carolina l

Municipal Power. agency No. I and Piedmont Munucipal Power Agency, and has exclusive responsibility and control over the physical construction, operation, and maintenance of the facility.

Amendment No.

n

- i activities authorized by this license in accordance with the Commission's regulations set forth in 10 CFR Chapter I; F.

The licensees have satisfied the applicable provisions of 10 CFR i

Part 140, " Financial Protection Requirements and Indemnity Agreements," of the Commission's regulations; I~

G.

The issuance of this license will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the hecith and safety of the public; H.

After weighing the environmental, economic, technical, and other benefits of the facility against environmental and other costs and t

considering available alternatives, the issuance of this Facility Operating Lic,ense No. NPF-52.,.::tj::t.cto,_th: :::dith:: ':-

1

_m..u__

.t.

_ a______

.t.

c..a _ _ _ _ _ _ a

."rit;;th: "h

tt::hid :: ^;;::d'- A is in accordance with 10 CFR i

Part 51 of the Comission's regulations 'and all applicable requirements have been satisfied; The receipt, possession, and use of source, byproduct and special nuclear material as authorized by this license will be in accordance with the Comission's regulations in 10 CFR Parts 30, 40, and 70.

l 2.

Based on the foregoing findings and the July 26, 1985, and the November 21, 1985, affirmetions-by the Ator.ic Safety and Licensing Appeal Soard of the Partial Initial Decisions issued by the Atomic Safety and Licensing Boards dated June 22, September 18, a.2 November 27, 1984, regarding this facility and satisfaction of conditions therein imposed, and pursuant to approval by the Nuclear i

Regulatory Commission at a meeting held on May 14, 1986, Facility Operati.ig License No. NPF-48, issued on Februar 24, 1986, is superseded by facility Operating License No.-NPF-52, hereb issued to the Duke Energy Corporation, the North Carolina Municipa Power Agency No, I and Piedmont Municipal Power Agency (the licensees) to read as follows:

L A.

This license applies to the Catawba Nuclear Station Unit 2, a pressurized water reactor and associated-equipment (the facility) owned by the North Carolina Municipal Power Agency No. I and Piedmont Municipal Power Agency and operated by Duke Energy l

Corporation. The facility _is located on the licensees' site in York County. South Carolina, on the-shore of' Lake Wylie approximately 6 miles north of Rock Hill, South Carolina, and is i

described in Duke Energy Corporation'sginal Safety Analysis Report.

l as supplemented and amended'*

==d i= 4** E="i - enta.1 %'---*' y

L

: :t d ::d ::::d:d;_

k t/ g Q B.

Subject to the conditions and requirements incorporated herein, the Commission hereby licenses:

i Amendment No. 1 e

li

- 3'-

l I

(1)

Duke Energy Corporation, pursuant to Section 103 of the Act l

l and 10 CFR Part 50, to possess, use, and operate the facility at the designated location in York County, South Carolina, in accordance with the procedures and limitations

}

j set forth in this license,

>i (2)

North Carolina Municipal Power Agency No.1 and-Piedmont..

i

,~

Municipal Power Agency, pursuant to the Act and 10 CFR Part 50, to possess the facility at the designated location in i

South Carolina, in accordance with the York County, d limitations set forth in this license;

(

procedures an L

e (3)

Dukt Energy Corporation, pursuant to.the Act and 10 CFR Part

[

i 2

70, to receive, possess, and use at any time special nuclear material as reactor fuel, in accordance with the limitations for storage and amounts required for reactor operation, as described in thew inal Safety Analysis Report, as 1

amended; t

supplemented andiG W a Y-l (4)

Duke Energy Corporation, pursuant-to the Act and 10 CFR l

Parts 30, 40, and 70 to receive, possess.-and use at any time any byproduct, source and special nuclear material as sealed neutron sources for reactor startup, sealed sources for reactor instrumentation and radiation monitoring equipment calibration, and as fission detectors in amounts as required; (5)

Duke Energy Corporation, pursuant to the Act and 10 CFR l

Parts 30, 40, and 70, to receive, possess, and use in amounts as required any byproduct, source or special nuclear material without restriction to chemical or physical form, for sample analysis or instrument calibration or associated with radioactive apparatus or components; (6)

Duke Energy Corporation, pursuant to the Act and 10 CFR l

Parts 30, 40 and 70, to possess, but not separate, such byproduct and special nuclear materials as may be produced by the operation of the facility authorized herein; and

)

~

(7)

Duke Energy Corporation, pursuant to the Act and 10 CFR l

Parts 30, 40, and 70, to possess, but not separate, such byproduct and special nuclear materials as may be produced by the operation of McGuire Nuclear Station, Units 1 and-2, and Oconee Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2, and 3.

.C.

This license shall be deemed to contain and is subject to the conditions specified in the Commission's regulations set forth in 10 CFR Chapter I and is subject to all applicable provisions of the Act and to the rules, regulations, and orders of the Commission now or hereafter in effect; o

and.is subject to the additional conditions specified or incorporated below:

Amendment No.

(ulh $ })SY of

-4~

(1)

Maximum Power level

[

coreactorcore;:::rlevel:::t)5::::::orized to operate the facility at l

Duke Energy Corporation is au Of 3411 megawatts thermal (100 p;r::nt ; =:r) in accordance with the conditions specified herein.

7e

.(2)

Technical Soecifications The Technical Specifications contained in Appendix A, as revised through Amendment No.153, which are attached hereto, are hereby incorporated into this license.

Duke Energy Corporation shall l

operate the facility in accordance with the Tecnnical Specifications.

W initial Startuo Test Proaram (Section 14, SER, SSER #3 A 5

6

Any changes to the initial 4stdgseribed in Section 14 of the FSAR made ce with the provisT67iref in accordance with 50.59(b) within one

)

Antitrust Conditions Duke Energy Corporation shall comply with the antitrust conditions l

delineated in Appendix C to this license.

7fr)-- Inservice Insoection P oaram (Sections 5.2.4 and 6.6. S SSER' By August 24, 19 mT9y-Gorg ration shall submit the l

uar 1

t 4

(p SSER #4, SSER #5) #-Fire Protection Proaram (Section 9.5.1, SER, SS Duke Energy Cor> oration shall implement and maintain in effect all l

provisions of tie approved fire protection program as described in the Final Safety Analysis Report, as amended, for the facility and pprovedintheSERthroughSupplementf,subjecttothe a

(

following provision L.

g (AflOk The licensee may make changes to the approved fire protection program without prior approval of the Commission only if those changes would not adversely affect the ability to achieve and maintain safe shutdown in the event of a

fire, b't

The parenthetical notation following the title of meny-license condition /

denotes the section of the Safety Evaluation Report and/or its supplements wherein 4h-license condition is discussed.

M'.s Amendment No.153 i

- \\

(

Detailed ControLRoom Desian Review.1.D.1 (Section 18. SER, SSER #2, SSER #5) uko Energy Corporation shall correct all human engineerin l

ficiencies Mcording to the schedule contained in its 1 ter da.d March 28, 1984.

'(8)

[mer ncy Resoonse Caoabilities (Generic Letter 82-33, Supplement 1 to EG-0737).

(a)

De ted (b) lafetA Parameter Disolay System (SPDS) (S tion 18. SSER #5)

Prior to ecember 8, 1989, Duke Energ rporation shall add l

to the ex ting SPDS and have operati 1 the foliv. sing SPDS parameters:

(a) residual heat remov flow, (b) containment isolation st tus, (c) stack radiati measurements, and (d) steam generat or steamline radia on.

The actual value of these and all o her SPDS variable should be displayed for operator viewing in easily and r pidly accessible display formats.

(9)

Anticioatory Reactor Trio.

I.K.3. 0 (Section 5.2.2, SER)

Prior to exceeding 70% power, D e Energy Corporation shall I

complete the described turbine rip tests to verify that PORVs will not be challenged when t a nticipatory trip bypass is in effect.

(10) 11tp Generator Tube Ruot re (Secti 15.4.4.SER SSER #2)

Prior to startup folio ng the first r ueling outage of Catawba Unit 2, Duke Energy C poration shall s it for NRC staff review l

and approval an anal sis which demonstrat s that the steam generator single-t e rusture analysis prehented in the FSAR is the most severe c e witi respect to the ret ase of fission products and cal ulated doses. Consistent w h the analytical assumptions, D e Energy Corporation shall pro ose any necessary l

changes to Ap ndix A to this license.

(11)

Deleted (12)

Generic L tter 83-28 (Section 15.6, SSER #4, SSER #5)

Duke ergy Corporation shall submit responses to and i lement l

the idance of Generic letter 83-28 on a schedule which s co istent with that given in its November 2 and December 1,

1 4, letters.

AmendmentNo.JS i

L

. [

(

) Additional Conditions The Additional Cenditions contained in Appendix D, as revised through Amendment No.,MI, are hereby incorporated into this license. Duke Energy Corporation shall operate the facility in l

accordance with the Additional Conditions.

D.

The facility requires exemptions from cerlain requirements of Appendix J to 10 CFR Part 50, as delineated below/ art pursuant to sh(ations contained in the referenced SER and SIER Theseinclud1(3Jpartial exem)tionfromtherequirementofpaagr/.

a Ill.D.2(b)(i T of Appendix J, tie testing of containment 41rlock times when the containment integrity is not required the requirement of paragrap(h III.A.l(d) of Appendix J, insofar as itSection6 requires the venting and draining of lines for type A tests (Section 6.2.6 of SSER #5), and (c) partial exemption from the requirements of paragraph 111.0 of Appendix J, as it relates to bellows testing (Section 6.2.6 of the SER and SSER #5). These exemptions are authorized by law,

~

will not present an undue risk to the public hpanh and safety,.and are consistent with the common defense and securnyjSpertain special^ etre circumstances, as discussed in 4eeMon S.2.54< f.R= flhr-a PMWM lhese exemptions are, therefore, hereby granteT5ursuant to 10 CFR Cl h 50.12. With the granting of these exemptions, tie facility 4

operate, to the extent authorized herein, in confo g ygg applicatic.;, as amended, the provis!ons of the Act, and the rules and reoulations of the Commission.J In addition, two exemptions were N'ha e portions of G(aeral Design Criterion 4 of Appendix A to 10 C reviously granted pursuant to 10 CFR 50.12. A partial exemption from t

0 whici utre protee tion of structures, systems and components ortant to safe ainst.,ynamic effects associated with postulated actor coolant sys ipe breaks was granted on April 23, 1985 or a period ending with th pletion of the second refueling ou e for Catawba Unit 2 or the adop i of the proposed rulemaking modificatio1 of GDC-4 whichever occurs t.

Effective May 1 986, GDC-4 has been modified to exclude from esign basis t protection of structures, systems and components agai e dynam / effects associated with postulated pipe ruptures of art ry ant loop piping in PWRs when analyses demonstrate the pro)abil rupture of such piping to be extremely low under design bas condit (51 FR 12502 April 11, 1986). As a result of this nal rule and Energy Corporation's l

demonstration in accord e with the rule the tously granted

'recific partial exe ion will no longer,be requi on the rule's effective date, a terminate by its own terms.

Furt e, an exemption fro t e requirements of Appendix E. IV.F, inso as they may require th.

.ctive participation of all Crisis Management Cen personnpVfor the Catawba Station emergency p eparedness exe.ise (Secptn 13.3 of SSER #4), was granted on January 17,198", by the 1 atlance of f acility Operating License No. NPF-35 for Ca'.awba Nuclear tation, Unit 1.

Amendment No. 153

,,,) cd}'A apa\\W DukeEnergyCorsorationshallfullyimplemenhandmaint E.

t i effect all l'

provisions of t,1e gission-approved phy:!:_. security uar training and qualification ( _._ : W ;;rd: :: tty;;n:y pl:::

made pursuant to provisions;of the Misce laneous Amendments and Searchinclu Requiraments revisions to 10 CFR 73.55 (51 FR 27817 and 27822) and to the authority of 10 CFR 50.90 and GR 10 CFR 50.54(p).

The plan which contair$ safeguards information protected under 10 CFR 73.21.-ace /,s i

. entitled:

tate.4,e Liciter stetier, Physteel Security P1:n," with-

-eevist-" -" '4+t+d--thr: ;h Oct d:r 5. 1987; "Cattd : "" clear Station

-Teeining :nd ^ :14f444tten P! n " eith revislea! sWittad th=nh.

.",0;;st 27, 4986; :nd 0:t:4: " :,le:r St:t ten S:f:

--Slan "-witbrevisieu :dmitted-thr::;h hazary-o;;4987.;rd: C tin;;n:y y r

r Changes made_

in accordance with 10 CFR 73.55 shall be implemented in accordance with the schedule set forth therein.

F.

Reporting to the Commission

(.

.r4e z.C.UC Ex c e pt " -"- ~i '- --^"i d^d i = + '"

T-^ a 44:1 Sp

!ficatiens-or-.

-Envir:n :ntel-Pretecti:n P1:n, Duke Energy Corporation shall rep',rt any l

violations of the requirements contained in Section 2.0 of this license in the following manner:

initial notification shall be made within twenty-four (24) hours to the NRC Operations Center via the Emergency Notification System with written follow-up within 30 da with the procedures described ir. 10 CFR 50.73 (b), (c),ys in accordance and (e).

G.

The licensees shall have and maintain fit..#.cial protection of such ty)e and in such amounts as the Commission shall require in accordance wit.)

Section 170 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, to cover public liability claims.

H.

This license is effective as of the date of issuance and shall expire at midnight on February 24, 2026.

FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISION Original Signed By:

Harold R. Denton, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation W

Enclosures:

6 J u.le v fee w l [4 g c.,,,f A /.,,,Y p g y t

-ir--Mt:d:: t 1

//. Appendix A - Technical

'* d* *f '. A '.cp.d.rb W 4 M.4 c M "

8#

E

/

Specifications n

ssf 4+f.'4 leg u A%,Ic i., f..,m f, *,,,,, g 3.

^q:r.{ Q g ir;r.;;rit:1-2 / ' Appendix C - Antitrust Conditions a. 3,( Q, g.g.w f,,,

p,,,,,, n

- g"/ q 3 f.-

Appendix D - Additional Conditions

t rev.* cJ, r

~

Date of issuance: May 15, 1986 AmendmentNo,ph'

May 15, 1986 ATTACHMENT 1 TO LICENSE NPF-52 TDI DIESEL ENGINES RE0VIREMENTS Duke rr related l

to the '

gy Corporation shall comply with the following requirement I diesel engines for Catawba Unit 2.

1.

' Chang to the maintenance / surveillance program for the T diesel engines, as identified in the licensee's submittals of A gust I and Septembe 1, 1986, shall be subject to the provtsions f 10 CFR 50.59.

The freque of the major engine overhauls referred in the license conditions b ow shall be consistent with Section IV

" Overhaul Frequency." in evision 2 of Appendix II of the Ces gn Review / Quality Reva11dation Re rt which was transmitted by lette dated May 1, 1986, from J.B. George, ners Group, to H.R. Denton, C.

2.

Connecting rod assemb ies shall be subjected t the following s

inspections at each maj r engine overhaul:

(a)

The surfaces of the ck teeth shoul be inspected for signs of fretting.

If fretting as occurred it should be subject to an engineering evaluation r appropr ate corrective action.

(b)

All connecting rod bolts sh Id e lubricated in accordance with the engine manufacturer's ins ctions and torqued to the specifications of the manufac er. The lengths of the two pairs of bolts above the crankpin hou be measured ultrasonically before and after tensionin.

(c)

The longths of the two irs of bolts bove the crankpin should be remeasured ultrasonica y before detens ning and disassembly of the bolts.

If bolt t nsion is less than

% of the value at installation, the e se should be determine appropriate corrective action ould be taken, and the i erval between checks of bolt tension s ould be reevaluated.

(d)

All connecting od bolts should be visually inspec ed for thread and the two pairs of connec ng rod bolts damage (e.g., palling),ld be inspected by magnetic pa above the er nipin shou icle testing to erify the continued absence of cracking.

A.

washers used with he bolts should be examined visually for signs of galling r cracking, and replaced if damaged.

(e)

A vis 1 inspection should be performed of all external surfac of t e link rod box to verify the absence of any signs of servi in ced stress.

Amendment No. 1 a

9-(

All of the bolt holes in the link rod box should be inspected for thread damage (c.

galling) or other signs of abnormalities, in oddition, the bolt holes subject to the hl resses (e.g., the pair immediately above the crankpin) should be examined w' an repriate nondestmetive method to verify the continued absence of crackin Any l

Indi tions should be recorded for engineering evaluation and appropriate corrcc ' 'e action.

3.

(a)

Cylinder ks shall be inspected for " ligament" cracks, " stud to stud" c eks and " stud-to-end" crac as defined in a report by Failure Analysis Associates, in. (FaAA) entitled

" Design Revi of TDI R 4 and RV-4 Series Emergency Diesel enerator Cylinder Blocks" (FaAA port no. PaAA 84 9-II.1) and dated December 984. (Note that the FaAA report spect es additional inspections to be performed for locks with "known" or

" assumed" ligament eks.) The inspection intervals (i.e., fr ency) shall not exceed the intervals calculated usi the cumulative damage index model n the subject FaAA report.

In addition, inspection m hods shall be consistent with or uivalent to those identified in the subject FaAA report.

(b)

In addition ;o inspections s

'fied in the aforem tioned FaAA report, blocks with

'known" or " assumed" ligamen cracks (as def ed in the FaAA report) should be inspected at each refueling outage t determine ether or not cracks have initiated on the top surface, which was exposed beca se of th removal of two or more cylinder heads.

His process should be repeated over ve refueling outages until the entire block has been inspected. Liquid penetrant testing r e similarly sensitive non destmetive testing technique should be used to detect crac ng and eddy current testing should be used as s

appropriate to determine the depth of. y crac discovered.

(c)

If inspection reveals emcks in the ylinder blocks tween stud holes of adjacent cylinders

(" stud to-stud" cracks) or " stud. -end" cracks, this ndition shall be reported promptly to

'Jie NRC staff and the affect engine shall be consider inoperable. The engine shall not be restored to " operable s us" until the proposed dis 1sition and/or corrective actions have been approved by th NRC staff.

4.

The followine air-roll test s all be ocrformed as soecified below. exce when the olant is alreadv in an Action Statement 4f Techniel Soccification 3/4.8.1. "Electr}h Power Systems. A.C'.

Sources"-

ne engines shall rolled over with the airstart system and with the cylin r stopcocks open before each pl ed start, unless that start occurs within 4 hours4.62963e-5 days 0.00111 hours 6.613757e-6 weeks 1.522e-6 months of a shutdov. The engines shall also be led over with the airstart system and with the cylinder stopcoc open after 4 hours4.62963e-5 days 0.00111 hours 6.613757e-6 weeks 1.522e-6 months , but more than 8 hours9.259259e-5 days 0.00222 hours 1.322751e-5 weeks 3.044e-6 months , after engine shutdown and then rolled over once again approxim ly 24 hours2.777778e-4 days 0.00667 hours 3.968254e-5 weeks 9.132e-6 months after each shutdown. (if an engine is removed from servi for any reason o ict than the rolling over procedure before expiration of the 8-hour or 24 hou riods noted ve, that engine need not be rolled over while it is out of service. The licensee sh I air-roll e engic, over with the stopcocks open at the time it is retumed to service.) The origt of water detected in the cylinder must be determined, and any cylinder head that leaks becau =

t i

1-I 0

a crack shall be replaced. The above air roll test may be discontinued following the f

^

re ling outage subject to the following conditions:

(a)

Al linder heads are Group Ill heads (i.e., cast after September 1980).

(b)

Quality r idation inspections, as identified in the Design Review /Q y Revalidation report, have n completed for all cylinder heada.

j (c)

Group Ill heads co 'nue to demonstrate leak free performance.

is should be confirmed -

with TDI before air-ro ests are discontinur '

~

5.

Itriodic inspections of the turboch ers shM

'lude the fol, 1ng:

(a)

The turbocharger thrust bearings s i be visua > inspected for excessive wear after 40 nonprelubed starts since the previous v. 9 ins tion.

(b)

Turbocharger rotor axial clearance shou casured at each,tfueling outage to verify v

compliance with TDI/Elliott specif ions.

addition, thrust bearing measurements should be compared with measure ents taken pre usly to determine a need for further inspection or corrective action.

(c)

Spectrographic and ferro phic engine oil analysis shall be ormed quarterly to provide early evidence of degradation. Particular attention shou be paid to copper level and particulate size, ich could signify thrust bearing degradation.

i -

(d)

The nozzle ri components and inlet guide vanes should be visually i ted at each refueling o age for missing parts or parts showing distress on a one-tu harger-per refuelin utage basis, in addition, these inspections should be perform for all turix argers at each turbocharger overhaul (i.e., at approximately 5 year interv If

. missing parts or distress is noted, the entire ring assembly should be replaced and e

ubject turbocharger should be reinspected at the next refueling outage.

6.

leted 1

-..m--.

--,ier e

=-, -

-+--,=-c

=+=c a-,-

m r -t.r

>- w r e-teme % e - r w-

= +-- r - w m e--

v ie w # =

m-c-m-4*'--e-v n e

'w

-**W v

=e*

i

APPENDIX 0 ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS i

FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. NPF-52 Duke Energy Corporation shall comply with the following conditions on the l

schedules noted below:

Amendment Implementation Number Additional Condition Date Next u #pdate V M5 This amendment requires the licensee to the incorporate in the Updated Final Safety hty s Report (UFSAR) certain changes to the otscr pt4crtof the facility.

Impir.me.'tation ortM amendment i incarpor tion of thes(e ch s

de cribeo in the 1 e s app at datti MarthJr1 7, as supplemented by 16,tt4 C ated April 2, 10, 16, 22, and 8,1997, and evaluated in the staff's Safety Evaluation dated April 29, 1997.

\\

151 This amendment requires the licensee to immediately use administrative controls, as described upon issuance in the licensee's letter of March 7,1997, of the and evaluated in the staff's safety amendment evaluation dated April 29, 1997, to restrict the dose-equivalent iodine levels to 0.46 microcurie per gram (in lieu of the limit in TS Section 3.4.8.a), and to 26 microcurie per gram (in lieu of the limit of TS Figure 3.4-1), until this license condition is removed by a future amendment.

Amendment No. 153

. a Catawba Unit 1 Facility Operating License Remove These Pagest Insert These Pagest 1

1 2

2 3

3 4

4 5

5 6

6 7

8 9

10 11 12 Appendix D Appendix D i

-DUKE ENERGY CORPORATION NORTH CAROLINA ELECTRIC MEMBERSHIP CORPORATION SALDDA RIVER ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE. INC.

DOCKET NO. 50-413 CATAWBA NUCLEAR STATION. UNIT 1 FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE License No. NPF-35 1.

The Nuclear Regulatory Comission (the Comission or the NRC) has found that:

A.

The application for license filed by the Duke Energy Corporation acting for itself and North Carolina Electric Membership Corporation and baluda River Electric Cooperative. Inc. (the licensees) complies with the standards and requirements of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), and the Comission's regulations set forth in 10 CFR Chapter I; and all required notifications to other agencies or bodies have been duly made; B.

Construction of the Catawba Nuclear Station, Unit 1 (the facility) was completed in conformity with Construction Permit No. CPPR-116 and the application, as amended, the provisions of the Act and the-regulations of the Comission:

C.

The facility will operate in conformity with the application, as amended, the provisions of the Act, and the regulations of the

- Comission (except as exempted from compliance in Section 2.D.

below);

p.

There is reasonable assurance (1) that the activities authorized by this operating license can be conducted without endangering the-health and safety of the public, and (ii) that such activities will.

be conducted in compliance with the Comission's regulaticas set Section 2.D.- below)pter I (except as exempted from complia ce in forth in 10 CFR Cha Amendment No.

I

r 2-l E.

Duke Energy Corporation

is technically qualified to engage in the

. activities authorized by this license in accordance with the Comission's regulations set forth in 10 CFR Chapter Il r

F.

The licensees have satisfied the applicable provisions of 10 CFR Part 140, " Financial Protection Requirements and Indemnity Agreements " of the Comission's regulations; G.

The issuance of this license will not be inimical to the comon defense and security or to the health and safety of the publict

'H.

After weighing the environmental, economic, technical, and other I

benefits of the facility against environmental and other costs and considering available alternatives, the issuance of this facility i

0)erating License No. NPF-35, is in accordance with 10 CFR Part 51 of t1e Comission's regulations and all applicable requirements have been satisfied 1.

The receipt, possession, and use of source, byproduct and special nuclear material as authorized by this license will be in accordance with the Comission's regulations in 10 CFR Parts 30, 40 and 70.

j t

2.

Based on the foregoing findings and the Partial Initial Decisions issued by the Atomic Safety and Licensing Boards dated June 22. September 18, and November 27, 1984, regarding this facility and satisfaction of conditions therein imposed, except as hereinafter set forth, and the Comission's vote on January 17, 1985 Facility 0)erating License No.

NPF-::1 issued on December 6,1984, it, superseded )y Facility Operating License No. NPF-35 hereby issued to the Duke Energy Corporation, the North Carolina Electric Membership Corporation, and the Saluda River i

Electric Cooperative, Inc. (the licensees) to read as followsi.

A.

This license applies to the Catawba Nuclear Station, Unit 1, a pressurized water reactor and associated equipment (the facility)

I owned by the Duke Energy Corporation, the North Carolina Electric Membership Corporation, and the Saluda River Electric Cooperative, Inc.

The facility is located on the licensees' site in York County.

South Carolina, on the shore of Lake Wylie approximately 6 miles north of Rock Hill, South Carolina, and is described in Duke Energy Corporation's Updated Final Safety Analysis Report, as supplemented and amended.

~

t

Duke Energy Corporation is authorized to act as agent for the North Carolina Electric Membership Corporation and the Saluda River Electric Cooperative, 1

Inc.. and has exclusive responsibility and control over the physical construction, operation and maintenance of the facility.

{

Amendment No.

I

,,-r-n..-

,--,e

,,.,,, -..., -v,,_,.,,-mn,e,--,,-,,,,,.-nw~.n-.

n,

.,...w n

n

3 B.

Subject to the conditions and requireinents incorporated herein, the Comission hereby licenses:

(1) Duke Energy Corporation, pursuant to Section 103 of the Act and 10 CFR Part 50, to possess, use, and operate the facility at the designated location in York County, South Carolina, in accordance with the procedures and limitations set forth in the licenses (2) North Carolina Electric Membership Corporation and Saluda River Electric Cooperative, Inc., to possess the facility at the designated location in York County, South Carolina, in accordance with the procedures and limitations set forth in this licenses (3) Duke Energy Corporation, pursuant to the Act _and 10 CFR Part 70 to receive, possess and use at any time special nuclear material as reactor fuel, in accordance with the limitations for storage and amounts required for reactor operation, as described in the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report; (4) Duke Energy Corporation, pursuant to the Act and 10 CFR Parts 30, 40 and 70 to receive, possess and use at any time any byproduct, source and special nuclear material as sealed neutron sources for reactor startup, sealed sources fo reactor instrumentation and radiation monitoring equipent calibration, and as fission detectors in amounts as required (5) Duke Energy Corporation, pursuant to the Act and 10 CFR Parts 30, 40 and 70, to receive, possess and use in amounts as required any byproduct, source or special nuclear material without restriction to chemical or physical form, for sample analysis or instrument calibration or associated with radioactive apparatus or components; and (6) Duke Energy Corporation, pursuant to the Act and 10 CFR Parts 30, 40 and 70, to possess, but not separate, such byproduct and 5)ecial nuclear materials as may be produced by the operation of tie facility authorized herein.

(7) Duke Energy Corporation, pursuant to the Act and 10 CFR Parts 30, 40 and 70,-to possess, but not separate, such byproduct and special nuclear materials as may be produced by the operation of McGuire Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2, and Oconee Nuclear Station Units 1, 2 and 3.

C.

This license shall be deemed to contain and is subject to the conditions specified in the Comission's regulations set forth in 10 CFR Chapter I-and is subject to all applicable provisions of the Act

and to the rules, regulations, and orders of the Comission now or hereafter in effect; and is subject to the additional conditions specified or incorporated below:

Amendment No.

']

{

4-l I

(1) Maximum Power Level Duke Energy Corporation is authorized to operate the facility at a reactor core full steady state power level of 3411 megawatts thennal (100%) in accordance with the conditions specified

herein, j

(2) Technical Soecifications The Technical Specifications contained in Appendix A, as revised through Amendment No. [to be provided by the NRC), which are attached hereto, are hereby incorporated into 'his license.

i i

Duke Energy Corporation shall operate the faci ty in accordance with the Technical Specifications.

(3) Antitrust Conditions Duke Energy Corporation shall comply with the antitrust conditions delineated in Appendix C to this license.

(4) Fire Protection Proaram (Section9.5.1,SER,SSER#2,SSER#3, SSER #4, SSER #5)*

Duke Energy Corporaticn shall implement and maintain in effect all provisions of the approved fire protection program as described in the Updated Final Safety Anal / sis Report, as l

i amended, for the facility and as approved in the SER through Supplement 5, subject to the following provision:

The licensee may make changes to the approved fire protection program without prior approval of the Comission only if those changes would not adversely affect the ability to achieve and maintain safe shutdown in the event of a fire.

(5) Additional Conditions The additional conditions contained in Appendix D, as revised through Amendment No. [to be provided by the NRC), are hereby incorporated into this license. Duke En.vgy Corporation shall operate the facility in accordance with the Additional Conditions, i

The parenthetical notation following the title of this license condition l

denotes the section of the Safety Evaluation Report and/or its supplement; r

wherein this license condition is discussed, j

Amendmen' No.

7m=+y,,-

y er

,-y---

.--+w-s y.

,r w,

,,e,7

5-D.

The facility requires exemptions from certain requirements of Appendix J to 10 CFR rart 50, as delineated below and pursuant to evaluations, contained in the referenced SER and SSERs. These include:

(a) partial exemption from the requirement of paragraph III.D.2(b)(11) of Appendix J, the testing of containment airlocks at times when the containment integrity is not required (Section 6.2.6 of the SER, and SSERs #3 and #4), (b) exemption from the requirement of paragraph III.A.1(d) of Appendix J, insofar as it requires the venting and draining of lines for type A tests (Section 6.2.6 of SSER

3), and (c) partial exemption from the requirements of paragraph III.B of Appendix J, as it relates to bellows testing (Section 6.2.6 of the SER and SSER #3). These exem)tions are authorized by law, will not present an undue risk to the pu)1ic health and safety, are consistent with the comon defense and security, and are consistent with certain special circumstances as discussed in the referenced SER and SSERs. These exem)tions are, therefore, hereby granted pursuant to 10 CFR 50.12.

Wit 1 the granting of these exemptions, the facility will operate, to the extent authorized herein, in conformity with the application, as amended, the provisions of the Act, and the rules and regulations of the Comission.

E.

Duke Energy Corporation shall fully implement ano maintain in effect all provisions of the Comission-approved nuclear security and contingency, and guard training and qualification plans including amendments made pursuant to provisions of the Miscellaneous Amendments and Search Requirements revisions to 10 CFR 73.55 (51 FR 27817 and 27822) and to the authority of 10 CFR 50.90 and 10 CFR 50.54(p). The plan, which contains safeguards information protected under 10 CFR 73.21, is entitled: " Nuclear Secuilty and Contingency Plan," as revised.

The plan, which does not contain safeguards information, is entitled: " Nuclear Security Training aad Qualification Plan," as revised. Changes made in accordance with 10 CFR 73.55 shall be implemented in accordance with the schedule set forth therein.

F.

Reporting to the Comission Except for Itt m 2.C.(2), Duke Energy Corporation shall report any violations of the requirements contained in Section 2.0 of this license in the followin Initial notification shall be made within twenty-four (24)g manner: hours to the NRC Operations Center via the Emergency Notification System with written follow-up within 30 days in accordance with the procedures described in 10 CFR 50.73 (b), (c),

and(e).

G.

The licensees shall have and maintain financial protection of such type and in such amounts as the Comission shall require in accordance with Scction 170 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, to cover publi: liability (.laims.

Amendment No.

L

eJ i

y H.-

This license lis effective as of the date of issuance ar4d shall expire at. midnight on December 6 -2024.-

r:

FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COPHISSION--

l Original Signed By Edson G.: Case /f/

F

- Harold R.:Denton, Directer Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Enclosu'res:.

1.

Appendix'A - Technical Specifications 2.

Appendix C - Antitrust Conditions 3., Appendix D. Additional Conditions Date of Issuance: -January 17, 1965 1

I L

b 1

Amendment No.

p,

.~,-wg

-4. - -

4

. +,,,..

.g

APPENDIX D ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE'NO. NPF-35 Duke Energy Corporation shall comply with the following conditions _ on the_

schedules noted below:

-Amendment Implementation Number Additional Condition Date 159

^ This amendment requires the licensee to Immediately use administrative controls, as described upon issuance in the: licensee's letter of March 7,1997,_

of the and evaluated in the staff's safety amendment evaluation dated April 29, 1997, to restrict tha dose-equivalent iodine levels to 0.46 microcurie per gram (in lieu of

- the limit in TS Section 3.4.8.a), and to 26 microcurie per gram (in lieu of the limit of TS Figure 3,4-1), until this license

- condition is removed by a future amendnent.

Amendment No.

3 I

k b Catawba Unit

Facility Operating License Remove These PLges:

Insert These Pages:

1 1

2 2

3 3

4 4

5 5

6 6

7 Appendix D Appendix D

DUKE ENERGY CORPORATION

' NORTH CAROLINA MUNICIPAL POWER AGENCY NO. 1 PIEDMONT MUNICIPAL ~ POWER AGENCY DOCKET NO. 50-414 CATAWBA NUCLEAR STATION. UNIT 2 FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE License No. NPF-52 1.

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Comission or the NRC) has found that:

A.

Tne application for licence filed by the Duke Energy corporation acting for itself, North Carolina Municipal Power Agency No.1 and P;edmont Municipal Power Agency (the licensees) complies with the standards and requirements of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), and the Commission's. regulations set forth-in 10 CFR Chapter I; and all required notifications to other agencies or bodies have been duly made; B.

Construction of the Catawba Nuclear Station, Unit 2 (the facility) was. completed in conformity with Construction Permit No. CPPR-117 and l

the application, as amended, the provisions of tize Act and the regulations of>the Commission; C.

The facility will operate in conformity with the application, as amended, the provisions of the Act, and the regulations of the Commission (except-asexemptedfromcomplianceinSection2.D.

below);

D.

-There is reasonable assurance:

(i) that--the activities authorized by this operating license can be conducted without endangering the health and safety of the public, and (ii) that such activities will be_ conducted in compliance with the Commission's regulations set

'Section 2.D. below)pter 1 (except as exempted from compliance in forth in 10 CFR Cha Amendment No.

i

' E.-

Duke Energy Corporation

is technically qualified to engage in the

- activities authorized by this license in accordance with the--

Comission's regulations set forth in 10 CFR Chapter I;

~

F.

The licensees have satisfied the applicable provisions of 10 CFR Part 140, " Financial Protection Requirements and Indemnity Agreements," of the Comission's regulations;

'G.

The issuance of this license will not be inimical to the comon Gefense and security or to the health and safety of the public; H.

Af ter weighing the environmental.. economic, technical, and other.

-benefits of the facility against environmental and other costs and considering available alternatives, the issuance of this Facility Operating License No. NPF-52, is in accordance with 10 CFR Part 51 of l

the Comission's regulations-and all applicable requirements have been satisfied;~

I.

The receipt, possession, and use of source, byproduct and special nuclear material as authorized by this license will be in accordance with the Comission's regulations in 10 CFR Parts 30, 40, and 70.

2.

Based on the foregoing findings and the July 26, 1985, and the November 21, 1985, affirmations by the Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board of the Partial Initial Decisions issued by the Atomic Safety and Licensing Boards dated June 22, September 18, and November 27, 1984, regarding this facility and satisfaction of conditions therein imposed, and pursuant to approval by the Nuclear Regulatory Comission at a meeting held on May 14, 1986, Facility Operating License No. NPF-48, issued on February 24, 1986, is superseded by Facility Operating License No. NPF-52, hareby issued to the Duke Energy Corporation, the North Carolina Munkipal Power Agency No. I and Piedmont Municipal Power Agency (the licensees) to read as follows:

A.

This license applies to the Catawba Nuclear Station, Unit 2, a pressurized water reactor and associated equipment (the facility) owned by the North Carolina Municipal Power Agency No. I and Piedmont Municipal Power Agency and operated by Duke Energy Corporation. The facility is located on the licensees' site in York County, South Carolina, on the shore of Lake Wylie approximately 6 miles north of Rock Hill, South Carolina, and is described in Duke Energy Corporation's Updated Final Safety Analysis Report, as supplemented and amended.

-* Duke Energy Corporation is authorized to act as agent for the North Carolina Municipal Power Agency No. I and Piedmont Municipal Power Agency, End has exclusive responsibility and control over the physical construction, operation, and maintenance of the facility.

Amendment No.

B.

Subject to the conditions 6nd requirements incorporated herein, the Comission hereby lice;tes:

(1) Duke Energy Corporat',on, pursuant to Section 103 of the Act and 10 CFR Part 50, to possess, use, and operate the facility at-the designated location in York County, South Carolina, in accordance with the procedures and limitations set forth in this license; (2) North Carolina Municipal Power Agency No. I and Piedmont Municipal Power Agency, pursuant to the Act and 10 CFR Part 50, to possess the facility at the designated location in York County, South Carolina, in accordance with the procedures and limitations set forth in this license; (3) Duke Energy Corporation, pursuant to the Act and 10 CFR Part 70, to receive, possess, and use at any time special nuclear material as reactor fuel, in accordance with the limitations for storage and amounts required for reactor operation, as described in the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report, as supplemented and

[

amended; (4) Duke Energy Corporation, pursuant to the Act 6nd 10 CFR Parts 30, 40, and 70 to receive, possess, and use at any time any byproduct, source and special nuclear material as sealed neutron sources for reactor startup, sealed sources for reactor.

instrumentation and radiation monitoring equipment calibration, and as fission detectors in amounts as required; (5) Duke Energy Corporation, pursuant to the Act and 10 CFR Parts 30, 40, and 70, to receive, possess, and use in amounts as required any byproduct, source or special nuclear material without restriction to chemical or physical form, for sample analysis or instrument calibration or associated with radioactive apparatus or components; (6) Duke Energy Corporation, pursuant to the Act and 10 CFR Parts 30, 40 and 70, to possess, but not separate, such byproduct and special nuclear materials as may be produced by the operation of the facility authorized herein; and (7) Duke Energy Corporation, pursuant to the Act and 10 CFR Parts 30, 40, and 70, to possess, but not separate, such byproduct and special nuclear materials as may be produced by the operation of McGuire Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2, and Oconee Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2, and 3.

C.

This license shall be deemed to contain and is subject to the conditions specified in the Commission's regulations set forth in 10 CFR Chapter I and is subject to all applicable provisions of the Act and to the rules, regulations, and orders of the Comission now or Amendment No.

i

+ hereafter in effect; and is subject to the additional conditions specified or incorporated below:-

(1). Maximum Power Level Duke Energy Corporation is authorized to operate the facility at a reactor core full steady state power level of 3411 megawatts thermal (100%) in accordance with the conditions specified herein.

(2) Technical Soecifications The Technical Specifications contained in Appendix A, as revised through Amendaent No. [to be provided by the NRC), which are attached hercto, are hereby incorporated into this license.

Duke Energy Corporation shall operate the facility in accordance with the Technical Specifications.

(3) Antitrust Conditions Duke Energy Corporation shall comply with the antitrust conditions delineated in Appendix C to tnis license.

(4) Fire Protection Prooram (Section 9.5.1, SER, SSER #2, SSER #3, SSER #4, SSER #5)*

Duke Energy Corporation shall implement and maintain in effect all provisions of the approved fire protection program as described in the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report, as amended,_for the facility and as approved in the SER through Supplement 5, subject to the following provision:

The licensee may make changes to the approved fire protection program without prior approval of the Commission only if those changes would not adversely affect the ability to achieve and maintain safe shutdown in the event of a fi re.

(5) Additional Conditions

~

The Additional Conditions contained in Appendix D, as revised through Anendnent No. _[tc be provided by the NRC], are hereby incorporated into this license. Duke Energy Corporation shall operate the facility in-accordance with the Additional Conditions.

j

~*The parenthetical notation following the title of this license condition l

denotes the section of the Safety Evaluati'on Report and/or its supplements wherein this license condition is discussed.

l Amendment No.

+-

<v -

__ D.

The facility requires exemptions from certain requirements of Appendix J to 10 CFR Part 50, as delineated below, and pursuant to evaluations contained in the referenced SER and SSER.

These include:-

l-(a) partial exemption from the requirement of paragraph III.D.2(b)(ii) of Appendix J, the testing of containment airlocks at times when the containment integrity is not required (Section 6.2.6 of SSER #5), (b) exemption from the requirement of paragraph-III.A.1(d) of Appendix J, insofar as it requires the venting and draining of lines for type A tests (Section 6.2.6 of SSER #5), and (c) partial exemption from the requirements of paragraph III.B of Appendix J, as.it relates to bellows testing (Section 6.2.6 of the SERandSSER#5).

These exemptions are authorized by '1w, will not present an undue risk to the public health and safety, are consistent with the comon defense and security, and are consistent with certain special circumstances, as discussed in the referenced SER and SSER.

These exemptions are, therefore, hereby granted pursuant to 10 CFR 50.12. With the granting of these exemptions, the facility will operate, to the extent authorized herein, in-conformity with the application, as amended, the provisions of.the Act, and the rules and regulations of the Comission.

E.

Duke Energy Corporation shall fully implement and maintain in effect all provisions of the Comission-approved nuclear security and contingency, and guard training and qualification plans including amendments made pursuant to provisions of the Miscellcneous Anendments and Search Requirements revisions to 10 CFR 73.55 (51 FR 27017 and 27822) and to the authority of 10 CFR 50.90 and CFR 10 CFR 50.54(p). The plan, which contains safeguards information protected under 10 CFR 73.21, is eatitled:

" Nuclear Security and Contingency Plan," as revised.

The plan which does not contain safeguards information is entitled " Nuclear Security Training and Qualification Plan," as revised.

Changes made in accordance with 10 CFR 73.55 shall be implemented in accordance with the schedule set forth therein.

F.

Reporting to the Comission Except for Item 2.C.(2), Duke Energy Corporation shall report any l

violations of the requirements contained in Section 2.C of this license in the followin Initial notification shall be made within twenty-four (24)g manner: hours to the NRC Operations Center via the Emergency Notification System with written follow-up within 30 days in accordance with the procedures described in 10 CFR 50.73 (b), (c),

and (e).

G.-

The licensees shall have and maintain financial protection of such type and in such amounts as the Comission shall require in accordance with Section 170 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, to cover public liability claims.

Amendment No.

.. ~..

l 6-l LH.

Th'is license is effective as of the date of issuance and shall; expire.

. at midnight on February 24. - 2026. ---

t FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

~

Original Signed By:

Harold R. Denton, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

Enclosures:

1.. Appendix A..'--Technical Specifications 2.

Appendix-C - Antitrust Conditions i

3.

Appendix D'- Additional Conditions Dats.of Issuance: May 15, 1986.

J f.

+

(

Amendment No, i

y m

+

y y

e g

-Jes$W.

ty A

4

-e 9

c.

1e es-

-pw.i

.-pq' 1-w

---w rv k.r

APPENDIX D f

ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS

. FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. NPF-52 Duke Energy Corporation shall comply with the following conditions on the schedules noted below:

Amendnent Implementation

-Number Additional Condition Date

- 151-This amendment requires the licensee to Immediately use administrative controls, as described upon issuance in the licensee's letter of March 7, 1997, of the and evaluated in the staff's safety amendaent evaluation dated April 29-1997, to.

. restrict the dose-equivalent iodine levels to 0.46 microcurie per. gram (in lieu of the limit in TS Section 3.4.8.a), and to 26 microcurie per gram (in lieu of the limit of TS Figure 3.4-1), until this license condition is removed by a future amendment.

1 e

i Amendment No.

i

. Attachment 3 Description-of Proposed Changes and Technical Justification I.

Background

Catawba Nuclear Station's'FOLs consist of two sections ~and three appendices for each unit (Unit 1 License No. NPF-35, Docket No~. 413; Unit-2 License No. NPF-52, Docket No, 41.4 ).

The bqdy.of the FOL contains the NRC response to the Catawba license application that was made by Duke Energy Corporation on behalf-of itself and the additional Catawba-owners. The FOLs basically state that the applicatior. has demonstrated compliance with NRC rules and regulations for the operation of a nuclear power plant. Additionally, the FOLs and their appendices affirm there are requirements for maintaining operating margins of safety (using NRC approved methodology),

to ensure that the health and safety of the public is protected. The Catawba Unit 1 FOL became effective on January 17, 1985, and the Unit 2 FOL became effective on May 15, 1986.

At the time-of initial licensing of Catawba Nuclear Station,

- Duke Energy Corporation was required to demonstrate that the applicable NRC requirements had been fulfilled. When the Catawba FOLs were initially issued, the NRC stipulated additional conditions, i.e.,

specific additional requirements, that Catewba was to comply with in order to receive the FOLs.

Issuance of the Catawba FOLs was made contingent upon Duke complying with these additional conditions, and these conditions were stated within (and become part of) the FOLs.

In general, license conditions address items of outstanding regulatory interest for the NRC, but at the time were not considered significant enough to actually preclude or delay the initial issuance of the FOLs. License conditions state NRC requirements for which the licensee (Duke) must take actions, i

such as' performing tests or analyses, making future submittals, or increasing awareness or attention to an identified aspect of plant operations.

Usually, license. conditions reflect actions to be taken within a specified period of time, or they are contingent upon the completion of.a future action (c) by the licenste. Also, some

- license conditions become outdated because of being nullifiad by changing regulatory requirements or'by the implementation of new programs or policies by the licensee. Consequently overtime, many license-conditions become fulfilled or inapplicable to a plant. As time passes and regulations and 1

P 4

9

= - - -

-w y

+

.~.

. Description.of Proposed Changes-and Technical = Justification:

plant operational needs change, the FOLs need to be. revised; Most' frequently,1these revisions take_the-form of changes:to the plant Technical Specifications (Appendix A to the FOLJ).-

Therefore, experience-has shown that the FOLs, in regard to the' original license conditions, can eastly.become cetdated and?of less value to the-plant operating staff. This latter point is experienced since most of the_ operational:

requirements that-are referenced;on a day-to-day: basis are-contained within the Technical Specifications or other

(

' documents.-Following a recent detailed internal-review, Duke has determined that numerous license conditions and other

- items contained in the original FOLs for Catawba have been

- fulfilled, or are otherwise no longer applicable. Therefore,

^

Duke is proposing this license amendment to update the.FOLs to

.the appropriatc' current status. Approval of this amendment request should make the FOLs a more useful document for the plant operating staff and for the NRC staff as well.

II.

Sumunary of Proposed Changes The proposed changes containedLin this LAR are itemized below.

This LAR deletes license conditions that currently remain in the Catawba Unit 1 FOL; these include: Sections 2.C.(3),

2.C. (5),

2.C. (6),

2.C. (7),

2.C. (9), 2.C.(10), 2.C.(11),

2.C. (12 ), 2.C.(13), 2.C.(14), 2.C.(15), 2.C. (16),2.C. (17 ),

2.C. (18),

2.C. (19), 2.C.(21), 2.C.(22), and 2.C. (23).

This LAR deletes license conditions -that currently remain in the Catawba Unit 2.FOL; these include: Sections 2.C.(3),

2.C. (5)_,

2.C. (7), 2.C.(8),

2.C. (9), 2.C.(10), and 2.C.(12).

The license conditions that are not being deleted from Section

' 2.C are renumbered as needed-to maintain the proper numerical order of the remaining contents of the FOL documents. The renumbering is accomplished such that consistency with the changes contained in this LAR is achieved.

- This LAR deletes Attachment 1 from both the Catawba Unit 1 and Unit 2-FOLs. Attachment 1 specifies the diesel generator

- maintenance / testing / inspection requirements that were in effect at-the time of initial licensing of'each Catawba unit.

Th'is LAR deletes the-first' additional condition from Appendix D of both.-the Catawba Unit l~_and Unit 2 FOLs. This condition required Duke to incorporate changes, as originally described 2

'F-7 fe'

'yr TT-e' we4-i's e

rF w

T svTyr-'

'r-f-

uf' a-

~---

4

--i1r er7-TrNTtI W-Description of Proposed Changes and Technical Justification in a letter to the NRC dated March 7, 1997, in the Updated Safety Analysis Report.

This LAR changes additional sections in the Catawba Unit 1 FOL; these include: Sections 1.B, l.H, 2.A, 2.B.(3),

2.C. (1),

2.C.(8),

2. D, 2.E,

2. F, and the list of Enclosures.

This LAR changes additional sections in the Catawba Unit 2 FOL; these include: Sections 1.B, l.H, 2.A, 2.B.(3),

2.C. (1),

2.C.(6),

2. D, 2.E,

2. F, and the list of Enclosures.

The details of all the proposed changes described above are contained in Section III of Attachment 3.

III. Discussion Duke Energy Corporation proposes to delete the license conditions listed above and described below from the FOLs for Catawba Nuclear Station Unit 1 (License No. NPF-35) and Unit 2 (License No. NPF-52). These license conditions were included in the original FOLs that vere granted for the Catawba units.

Additionally, Duke proposes to change or renumber several sections of the FOLs for both of the Catawba units. These sections are also included in the listing along with a description and justification for each proposed change.

The license conditions / sections are listed below just as they currently appear in the FOLs. Each item is also identified by its numerical designation that was assigned in each of the Catawba unit's original FOL. A description and justification for deleting the license condition or revising the FOL section is also provided as appropriate for each proposed change.

The justificution for deleting the identified license conditions is primarily accomplished by reference to previous Duke and NRC correspondence. These historical documents address actions taken in regard to the applicable license conditions. The documents of significance to the justification of this LAR are not included in this submittal package, but tnese are available in the Duke licensing library.

3

Description of Proposed Changes and Technical Justification Unit 1 FOL - Lict.nse No. NPF-35, Docket No. 413_

(Items 1 Through 301 Proposed' changes 1 through 30, as itenized below, apply to the Catawba Unit 1 FOL, License No. NPF-35.

1. This proposed change applies to FOL Section 1.B which is:

B. Construction of the Catawba Nuclear Station, Unit 1 (the facility) has been substantially completed in conformity with Construction Permit No. CPPR-116 and the application, as amended, the provisions of the Act and the regulations of the Commission; Proposed Change:

FOL Section 1.8 is being changed to state that construction of Catawba Nuclear Station, Unit 1 is completed.

Justification for Change:

This administrative change simply updates the FOL to the cuirent historical status of Catawba Nuclear Station, Unit 1.

2. This proposed change applies to FOL Section 1.H which is:

H. After weighing the environmental, economic, technical, and other benefits of the facility against environmental and other costs and considering available alternatives, the issuance cf this Facility Operating License No. NPF-35, subject to the conditions for protection of the environment set forth in the Environmental Protection Plan attached as Appendix B, is in accordance with 10 CFR Part 51 of the Commission's regulations and all applicable requirements have been satisfied; Proposed Change:

FOL Section 1.H is being changed to eliminate the reference to the Environmental Protection Plan.

Justification for Change:

The Environmental Protection Plan (formerly Appendix B to the FOL) was deleted by Amendment No. 149 to the Catawba Unit 1 FOL. This amendment was approved by the NRC on July 8, 1996.

4 I

Description of Proposed Changes and Technica] Justification

3. This proposed change applies to FOL Section 2. A which is:

A._This license applies to the Catawba Nuclear Station, Unit 1, a pressurized water reactor and associated equipment (the facility) owned by the Duke Energy Corporation, the North Carolina Electric Membership Corporation, and the Saluda River Electric Cooperative, Inc.

The facility is located on the licensees' site in York County, South Carolina, on the shore of Lake Wylie approximately 6 miles north of Rock Hill, South Carolina, and is described in Duke Energy Corporation's Final Safety Analysis Report, as supplemented and amended through Revision No. 11, and in its Environmental Twport, as supplemented and amended through Revision No. 6; Proposed Change:

FOL Section 2.A is being changed to eliminate the reference to the Environmental Protection Plan. The term " Final Safety Analysis Report" is being changed to " Updated Final Safety Analysis Report" (FSAR/UFSAR). Also, the reference to a specific revision number is being eliminated.

Justification for Change:

The Environmental Protection Plan (formerly Appendix B to the FOL) was deleted by Amendment No. 149 to the Catawba Unit 1 FCL. This amendment was approved by the NRC on July 8, 1996.

The change to " Updated Final Safety Analysis Report" is solely administrative and is being made to provide consistency with current Duke and industry terminology.

Duko is proposing an administrative change to remove the amendment / revision / supplement numbers from documents referenced in the FOL (in those cases where the referenced document is subject to constant change in the future). This is generally the technique used in the Unit 2 FOL. There are existing administrative controls to ensure that the referenced documents are properly updated independently of the contents of the FOL, Also, implementation of this proposed change will help reduce the administrative burden of seeking approval of future administrative changes to the FOL just to update an amendment / revision / supplement number.

Specifically for UFSAR revisions, Duke complies with NRC regulation, 10CFR50.71(e), as clarified in an exemption granted by the NRC on June 10, 1997. This exemption 5

Description of Proposed Changes and Technical Justification addresses the submission schedules for future Catawba UFSAR revisions.

Experience has shown that the FOL is being unnecessarily rendered to an administrative out-of-date status by revisions to the referenced documents. As can be illustrated by this LAR, this out-of-date status can remain for an extended period of time. This proposed change will not eliminate any programmatic content of the documents referenced in the FOLs, just the delineacion of a specific amendment / revision / supplement number. This proposed change also provides consistency with the Unit 2 FOL.

4. This proposed change applies to FOL Section 2.B. (3) which is:

(3)

Duke Energy Corporation, pursuant to the Act and 10 CFR Part 70 to receive, possess and use at any time special nuclear material as reactor fuel, in accordance with the limitations for storage and amounts required for reactor operation, as described in the Final Safety Analysis Report, as supplemented and amended through Revision No. 11; Proposed Change In FOL Section 2.B.(3) the term " Final Safety Analysis Report" is being changed to " Updated Final Safety Analysis Report." Also, the reference to a specific revision number is being eliminated. These changes are the same as discussed in Item 3 for the UFSAR.

Justification for Change: The justification for the changes related to the UFSAR is the same as discussed in Item 3.

5. This proposed change applies to FOL Section 2.C.(1) Maximum Power Level which is:

Maximum Power Level Duke Energy Corporation is authorized to operate the facility at reactor core power levels not in excess of 3411 megawatts thermal (100% power) in accordance with the conditions specified herein and in Attachment 1 to this license.

The preoperational tests, startup tests and other items identified in Attachment 1 to this license shall be 6

. -. ~ - -

+

TAttachment 3:

-Description;of-proposed Changes and' Technical Justificationi

.~ completed"as specified. Attachment ~1Lis hereby incorporated-into'this-license.

-)

f 1s being changed to i

Proposed change:

FOL Section 2.C.(1)3 state-that the maximum authorized power level is " full-i steady statefpower: level of 3411 megawatts; thermal ( 10 0 % ) ~. "

Justification for-Change:

This-change is consistent with a recent amendment-to the Oconee FOL and is intended to

. provide clarification on when' Duke would report a power level >100% as-specified in the FOL, Duke administrative-

' controls. define steady state so as to clarify when l

reporting is required.

L

6. License Condition 2.C. (3) Initial Startup Test Program (Section 14, SER, SSER #3)

Duke Energy Corporation shall conduct those aspects of the post fuel-loading initial test program described in Chapter 14 of the PSAR, as amended, which are consistent with-the limits of this license without making any major modifications unless such' modifications have prior NRC approval. Major modifications are defined as:

-(a) elimination of'any safety-related test; (b) modification cf objectives, test method, or acceptance criteria for any safety-related_ test; (c) performance of any safety-related test at a power level different from that stated in the FSAP. by more than 5 percent of rated power; (d) failure to satisfactorily complete the-entire initial startup test program by the' time core burnup equals.120 effective full power days;

-(e) deviation from initial, test program administrative procedures or quality assurance controls described in the FSAR; and-

-(f).- delays in test program.in excess. of 30 days (14 days if power level exceedsL50: percent), concurrent with1 power operation.- If continued power operation is desired _

during a delay,-Duke--Energy Corporation shall provide justification that adequate testing has been performed 7

-. - ~

1 Description of Proposed Changes and-Technical Justification and evaluated to_ demonstrate that the facility can-be

. operated-at the planned power level with reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the public will not-be endangered.

Proposed Change:

License Condition 2.C. (3) and the second associated footnote are being deleted. The first associated footnote iu'being relocated (see Item 10).

Justification for Deletion: This license condition has been fulfilled. The Catawba Unit 1-post-fuel-loading. test program was successfully completed and documented in a report to the NRC dated. September 27, 1985. The deletion of this license condition eliminates the-need for the associated-footnote.

7. License Condition 2.C. (5) Inservice Testing of Pumps and Valves (Section 3.9.6, SSER #2, SSER #4)

Pursuant to 10 CFR Part 50.55a and for the reasons set forth in Section 3.9.6 of SSER #2, the relief identified in the submittals dated March 9, 1983, July 10, 13, 18, 23, 27, October 1, and November 6, 1984, that Duke Energy Corporation has requested from the pump and valve testing requirements of_10 CFR Part 50, Section 50.55a(g) (3) and (g) (4 ) (i) is granted for that portion of the initial 120-month period until the staff completes its review or until December 1, 1986, whichever is earlier.

Proposed Change:

License Condition 2.C.(5) is being deleted.

Justification for Deletion:

This license condition is no longer applicable. Duke submitted the Catawba Unit 1 first ten-year interval Inservice Testing (IST) Program for pumps and valves by letter dated March 9, 1983.

The NRC issued an SER/TER on this program by letter dated January 8, 1987.

The SER/TER included disposition of the relief requests contained in this license condition. Also, the applicable time-frame for the identified relief has now expired and terminated on-its own terms.

8

Description of Proposed Changes and Technical Justification

8.. License Condition 2.C. (C) Inservice Inspection' Program (Sections 5'.2.4 and 6.6, SSER #2).

By May 31,-1985, Duke Energy-Corporation shall submit the balance of the inservice inspection program as described in its letter' dated January 8, 1995, for staff review and approval.

, Proposed Change:

License Condition 2.C. (6) and the associated footnote are being deleted.

Justification for Deletion: This license condition has been fulfilled. The inservice inspection plan for the Unit 1 first ten-year interval was submitted by Duke on May 22, 1985 and approved by the NRC on January 8, 1987. The effective dates for the ISI plans were June 29, 1985 for Unit 1 and August 18, 1986 for Unit 2. The first interval ISI plans have now been completed for both Catawba units.

Since Duke has received approval of the ISI plans, this license condition is no longer applicable ta either of the Catawba units. With the deletion of this license condition, the. associated footnote is no longer needed.

9. License Condition 2.C. (7) Environmental Equipment Qualification (Section 3.11, SER, SSER #3, SSER #4)

Prior to March 31, 1985, Duke Energy Corporation shall environmentally qualify all electrical equipment as required by 10 CFR 50.49.

Proposed Change:

License Condition 2.C. (7) is being deleted.

-Justification fer Deletion:

This license condition has

'be3n fulfilled. Duke provided Catawba's initial response to NUREG-0588 on June 17, 1982 and provided subsequent submittals dated February 8, 1984, April 25, 1984, June 18, 1984. September 12, 1984, March 15, 1985 (two submittals on this_date),-and April 1, 1985 (which also contained the final resolution of.all. items resulting from the NRC audit of_the Catawba environmental qualification program that was conducted March 6-8, 1984). The March 15, 1985 Duke letter to the NRC discussed _the resolution of the four EQ items that remained outstanding at that time. An auditable record 9

I Description of Proposed. Changes and Technical Justification 1

of--the Catawba 10CFR50.49/NUREG-0588 equipment is maintained in the Envirormental Qualification Master List.

- 10. License Condition 2.C. (8) Fire Protection Procram (Section 9.5.1, SER, SSER #2, SSSR #3, SSER #4, SSER_#5)

Duke Energy Corporation shall implement and maintain in i

effect all provisions of the approved fire protection program as described in the Final Safety Analysis Report, as amended, for the facility and as approved.in the SER through Supplement 6, subject to the following provision:

The licensee may make changes to the approved fire protection program without prior approval of the Commission only if those changes would not adversely affect the ability to achieve and maintain safe shutdown in the event of a fire.

Proposed Change:

Administrative changes are being made to License Condition 2.C.(8). The term " Final Safety Analysis Report" is being changed to " Updated Final Safety analysis Report".

The reference to SER Supplement 6 is being changed to SER Supplement 5.

An appropriate footnote and reference, an asterisk (*),

are being relocated to apply to this license condition. Within the footnote, change the words "many" and "the" to "this".

Justification for Change:

The change to " Updated Final Safety Analysis Report" is solely administrative and is being made.to provide consistency with current Duke and industry terminology.

The reference to SER Supplement 6 is being changed to obtain consistency with the reference to SER Supplement 5 4

in the heading for this license condition. No discussion of fire protection was-found in SER Supplement 6.

The changes related to the footnote are considered to be solely administrative.

10:

.mg-,,s.

y y

y-

m. - - -

m

Ittachment 3 Description of Proposed Changes and Technical Justification

11. License Condition 2.C. (9) Turbine Missi.?>' (Section 3.5.1.3, SER)

Duke Energy Corporation shall submit for NRC staff approval by December 6, 1987, a turbine system maintenance program based on the manufacturer's calculations of missile generation probabilities acceptable to the NRC staff or volumetrically inspect all low pressure turbine rotors within three years or by the second refueling outage, whichever is later, and thereafter every three years or every other refueling outage until a maintenance program is approved by the staff.

Proposed Change:

License Condition 2.C. (9) is being deleted.

Justification for Deletion:

This license condition has been fulfilled. Duke submitted a turbine system maintenance program to the NRC by letter dated April 24, 1986. This program was based upon missile generation probabilities calculated by General Electric. The NRC approved this program in an SER dated June 2, 1987.

12. License Condition 2.C. (10) Operating, Staff Experience Requirements (Section 13.1.2.3, SSER #3, SSER #4)

Duke Energy Corporation shall have a licensed senior operator on each shift who has had at least six months of hot operating experience on a similar type plant, including at least six weeks at power levels greater than 20% of full power, and who has had start-up and shutdown experience.

For those shifts where such an individual is not available on the plant staff, an advisor shall be provided who has had at least four years of power plant experience, including two years of nuclear plant experience, and who has had at least one year of experience on shift as a licensed senior operator at a similar type facility.

Use of advisors who were licensed only at the RO level will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.

Advisors shall be trained on plaat procedures, technical specifications and plunt systems, and shall be examined on these topics at a level sufficient to assure familiarity with the plant.

For each shift, the remainder of the shift crew shall be trained in the role of the advisors.

These advisors shall be retained until the experience levels identified in the 11

e -

Description of' Proposed Changes-and-Technical-Justification.

first sentence above have-been-achieved.

The NRC shallLbe notified _at leastl30 days prior to the date-DPC proposes-to

-release theEadvisors from further service.

troposed Chang:

License Condition 2.C. (10) is being_

deleted.

Justification for Deletion:

The current Catawba Technical Specifications requirements for minimum shift staffing and the accredited operatorfqualification and training program supersede this license condition.

Duke updated its operator qualification and training program consistent with the revised!10CFR55 which became effective May 26, 1987.

In a letter to tne NRC dated May 18, 1987 Duke provided certification of the accreditation of its licensed operator tre.ining program by INPO and the National Nuclear Accrediting _ Board.

13. License Condition 2.C. (11) Detailed Control Room Design Review, I.D.1 (Section-18.0, SER, SSER #2)

Duke Energy Corporation shall correct all human engineering deficiencies according to the schedule-contained in the letter-from Duke Energy Corporation dated February 20, 1984.

Proposed Change: License Condition 2.C.(11) is being deleted.

Justification for Deletion:

This license condition has been fulfilled. The human engineering deficiencies that were identified in the February 20, 1904 Duke-letter to the NRC_have been completed. A review of the Duke commitment-raanagement historical records was conducted. These records document that the outstanding issues related to this license condition were completed during the first refueling outage for Catawba Unit 1. In a letter to the NRC dated April 18, 1989, Duke advised the NRC that the activities related to the Detailed Control Room Design Review-for

' Catawba _ Unit 1 were complete.

12

~.

Description of Proposed Changes and Technical-Justification

14. License Condition 2.C. (12) Emergency Response Capabilities (Generic Letter 82-33, Supplement-1 to NUREG-0737)

(a)

Deleted (b)

Safety Parameter Display System (SPDS)

Prior to April 1, 1985, Duke Energy Corporation shall have the.SPDS operational.

Proposed Change:

License Condition 2.C.(12) is being deleted.

Justification for Deletion:

This license condition has been fulfilled. In a letter to the NRC dated March 15, 1985, Duke advised the NRC that the catawba Unit 1 SPDS system had been declared operational, t

15. License Condition 2.C. (13) Anticipatory Reactor Trip, II.K.3.10 (Section 5.2.2, SER)

Prior to exceeding 70% power, Duke Energy Corporation shall complete the described turbine trip tests to verify that PORVs will not be challenged when the anticipatory trip bypass is in effect.

Proposed Change:

License Condition 2.C. (13) is being deleted.

Justification for Deletion:

This license condition has been fulfilled. This testing was performed during the dates of March 27, 1985 - March 28, 1985. The results of this testing were detailed in the Catawba Unit 1 Startup Report dated September 27, 1985. Specifically, the results reported for this test (TP/1/A/2650/07) document that the PORVs were not challenged. The startup Report was submitted to the NRC by Duke letter also dated September 27, 1985.

13

i -

Description of-Proposed Changes and Technical Justification

16. License Condition 2.C. (14) Hydrogen Control-Measure, II.B.7 (Section 6.2.5, Appendix.C, SER; Section 6.2.5, SSER #2, SSER f.1, SSER.#4)

Pr2ar to April 1, 1985, upgraded analyses and tests shall be provided-on ~be following issues and submitted for staff review and approval:

_(a) thermal response of the containment atmosphere and-t essential equipment for a spectrum of accident sequences using revised heat transfer models.

-(b) _ effects of upper compartment burns on the operation and survival of air return fans and ice condenser doors.

(c) operability of the glow plug ignite in a spray environment typical of that expected in the upper compartment of the containment.

Proposed Change: License Condition 2.C. (14) is being deleted.

Justification for Deletion:

This license condition has been-fulfilled. Revision 16 of the Duke report, "An Analysis of Hydrogen Control Measures at McGuire Nuclear Station" was submitted to.the NRC by letter dated August 5, 1993. As noted in an earlier revision (Revision 9), the-scope of this document was expanded to also apply to Catawba Nuclear Station. Revision 16 incorporates the NRC's

.SER dated May 26, 1993 and closed the hydrogen issue for bo'.n-McGuire and Catawba Nuclear Stations.

17. License Condition 2.C. (15)

Instrumentation for Detection of Inadequate Core Cooling, II.F.2 (Section 4.4.3.4,

SER, SSER #2)

Prior to startup following the first refueling outage, Duke

-Energy Corporation shall comp > te the upgrade of the

'existingEsubcooling margin monitor und the existing backup display.

Proposed Change: License Condition 2.C.(15) is being deleted.

14

L Description of Proposed Changes and' Technical: Justification Justification for Deletion:

This license condition has been-fulfilled. Upgrades tb thelsubcooling margin monitor have now been completed. A review of the Duke commitment management historical records was conducted.LThese records document that the outstanding issues related to this license-condition were completed during the first refueling outage for Catawba Unit 1. The most recent status update was provided to the NRC in a Duke letter dated-February;5, 1986 which-included a figure depicting the upgrades-for the Catawba system.

10. License Condition 2.C. (16) Steam Generator Tube Rupture (Section 15.4.4, SER, SSER #2)

Prior to startup following the second refueling outage, Duke Energy Corporation shall submit for NRC staff review and approval an analysis which demonstrates that the steam generator single-tube rupture analysis presented in the FSAR is the most severe case with respect to the release of fission products and calculated doses.

Consistent with the analytical assumptions, Duke Energy Corporation shall propose any necessary changes to Appendix A to this license.

Proposed Change: License Condition 2.C. (16) is being deleted.

Justification for Deletion:

This license condition has been fulfilled. The steam generator tube rupture analysis was initially submitted-to the NRC in a Duke letter dated December 7, 1987. Supplemental Duke submittals to the NRC were made on August 8 and 24, 1988; June 29, and August 20, 1990. The resultant Technical Specifications adding limiting conditions for operation-and surveillance requirements for the steam generator power operated relief valves were submitted to the NRC by Duke letter dated December 4, 1987.

The NRC issued an SER on this matter by letter dated May 14, 1991. Following several supplemental

' Duke submittals to the NRC made on December 7, 11, and 29, 1987; March 29, May 4'and 18, June 16, July 1, August IB and 24, and December 15, 1988; and June 12 and 28, 1989; the proposed Technical Specifications were issued by the NRC on August 15, 1989 as FOL amendment numbers 68 and 62, for Catawba Units 1 and 2 respectively.

15

- _,- ~.-.

. Descriptioniof" Proposed. Changes;and: Technical Justification j

.j

~

19'. License Condition 2.C. (17) Main-Steam Line Break (MSLB)

~

Inside Containment'(Section 6.2.1.1, SER, SSER #2, SSERL#4)

(a)4 Prior to'startup following _ the first refueling outage,-

7

' Duke Energy Corporation shall: submit:for NRC review-

-and approval the results of a completed program of tests and: analyses.to confirm._thefvalidity and

' accuracy.of the models and assumptions employed in1the revised' containment response' analysis for MSLB accidents.

This program-shalF include, but not be limited'to, the following elements:-

l (i)'

' Hydraulic tests to quantify ~ key parameters related-to drain flow model input and assumptions for drain region configurations representative of those in the plant,-and uncertainty analysis of measured and computed 4

j parameters.

(ii)

Supplementary tests or analyses to address (i)-

the applicability of_ drain _ flow tests conducted in_ air to steam environments and-(ii) the effect of thermal-gradients within the drain flow-r l-liquid sheets and droplets, r

(iii) Revised containment response analyses which incorporate'the results of the drain flow test-program and address the thermal response to dead-ended compartments, i

(iv)

Additional containment response sensitivity analyses to investigate the effect of drain water temperature and flow rate, and uncertainties in parameters determined-by_-test.

L (v)

Scaled-tests or detailed mass _ transport analyses for a spectrum of break locations to quantify-the impact of break conditions on--thermal gradients and_non-condensable gas distribution in-containment and on ice condenser performance.

(b)'

During the interim period of operation, Duke Energy Corporation shall submit.to the NRC staff bimonthly.

reports onothe progress of the above confirmatory research-program of-tests-and analyses regarding-7

~ containment-response for MSLB accidents.

16

.u.. _.-

2

)

^ Attachment 3 Description of Proposed-Changes and Techn'ical Justification Wroposed Change: License Condition 2.C. (17) is bcing deleted.-

Justification for Deletion:

For item (a), this license:

condition has-been fulfilled and was addressed by an NRC SER issued by letter dated June 10, 1991. In this'SER, the NRC. staff referenced Westinghouse topical reports WCAP-1098AP/10987 and WCAP-10988P/10989 submitted to the NRC by Westinghouse letters dated November 27, 1985. This SER stated that the plant specific analyses contained in these WCAPs for McGuire and Catawba was acceptable and that Staff activities related to this license condition were complete.

For Item (b), this license condition has been fulfilled.

Bimonthly reports were submitted to the NRC by Duke letters

~

beginning February 12, 1985 and concluding October 11, 1985. Duke advised the NRC of the completion of the confirmatory research program in a letter dated December 17, 1985..

20. License Condition 2.C. (18) Residual Heat Removal System (Section 5.4.4, SER, SSER #2; Section 15.4.4, SER #3, SSER

4)

Prior to startup following the first refueling outage, Duke Energy Corporation shall upgrade the pressurizer power operated relief valves (PORVs) and the steam generator PORVs to safety related.

Proposed Change: License Condition 2.C.(18) and the associated footnote are being deleted.

Justification for Deletion: This license condition has been fulfilled. Upgrades to the PORVs have been completed.

The status of the. Duke commitment to upgrade the PORVs was reaffirmed to the NRC in a Duke letter dated March 21,.

1985. A review of the Duke commitment management historical records was conducted. These records document that the outstanding issues related to this license condition were addressed by nuclear station modifications (NSMs 10523=and 10524). These NSMs for the PORVs upgrade were completed in November 1986. With the deletion of.this license condition, the associated footnote ic no longer needed.

17 i

4

-y..

i Description of Proposed Changes and Technical Justification-

+

21. License _ Condition 2.C. (19) Seismic Equipment Qualification (Section 3.10, SSER 82, SSER #3,1SSER #4)

A seismic test will be performed utilizing a generic mounting scheme with a GLASTIC pad and fiberglass bushing for electrical isolation to verify the acceptability of_the existing mounting.

This test will be completed _by July 1985.

Proposed Change: License Condition 2.C. (19) is being deleted.

Justification for Deletion:

This license condition has been_ fulfilled. The required testing has been completed and 1s-documented in Test Report CNM1393.00-0020, " Seismic Simulator Test Program on an Electrical Isolation Mounting System of a Typical Electrical Enclosure." Also, in a letter to the NRC dated June 24, 1985, Duke advised the NRC that the testing associated with this license condition had been completed and that the item was considered closed.

22. License Condition 2.C. (21) Generic' Letter 83-28 (Section 15.6, SSER #4)

Duke Energy Corporation shall submit responses to and implement the-requirements of Generic Letter 83-28 on a schedule which is consistent with that given in its November 2, and December 31, 1984, letters.

Proposed Change: License Condition 2.C. (21) and the associated footnote are being deleted.

7 itification for Deletion:

This license condition has been fulfilled. Duke provided its initial response to Generic Letter 83-28 in a letter to the NRC dated November 4,

1983. An additional response updating the NRC on the statas of the implementation of items required by Generic Letter 83-28 was provided in a letter dated December 3, 1985. The NRC provided SERs or other documentation stating the-acceptability of Duke's actions on the applichble GL 28 items:as follows:

Item 1.1 - June 21, 1985 Item 1.2 - June 121,.1985 Item 2.1 (Part 1) - July 16, 1986 18

)

i Description of Proposed Char.ges and Technical Justification i

Item 2.1-(Part 2) - January 15, 1987 J

Items 2.2.1 and 2.2.2 - October 26, 1987 i

~ Items 3.1.1, 3.1.2, 3.2.1, 3.2.2, and 4.5.1 - July 29, 1987 l

J Items 4.1 and 4.2 (Parts 1 and 2) - October 26, 1987 h

Items _4.2.3 and 4.2.4 - Not required based on the

-cenclusions resulting from the issuance of Generic Letter j

83-28, Supplement 1.

Item 4.3 - NRC Inspection Report Nos. 50-413/86-26 and 50-l 3

414/86-29 concluded and documented that the modifications j

1 made to the reactor trip breakers control circuit in j

t response:to Item 4.3 met the intent of the generic letter.

Item 4.5.2 - January 28, 1987 p

Item 4.5.3 - July 21, 1989=

i

_ Additionally, Duke addressed the requirements of the NRC ATWS rule, 10CFR50.62 by implemer.tation of the Westinghouse AMSAC System.

NRC provided an SER on this approach by

}

letter: dated September 22, 1986.

i With the deletivn of this license condition, the associated footnote is no longer needed.

l

23. License _ Condition 2.C. (22) Progress of Offsite Emergency Preparedness (Section 13.3, SER, SSER #1, SSER #2, SSER #3, SSER #4)

{

r.

I' the event that the NRC fic s that the lack of progress

~

in completion of the procedures in the Federal Emergency Management Agency's final rule, 44 CFR Part 350, is an indication that a major substantive problem exists in l

achieving ur mainttining an adequate state of preparedness,

~

the provisions af 10 CFR Section 50.54 (s) (2) will apply.

Proposed change: License Condition 2.C. (22) is being deleted.-

1

. Justification ~for Deletics:

This license condition has been fulfilled. The NRC provided copies of the FEMA's 44CFR350-findings to Duke by letter dated November 27,

_1985. Erclosed with-the NRC letter were FEMA letters dated October 8, 1985' advising the NRC and the States of North Carolina and South Carolina of the approval of the statec' emergency response plans developed ~1n support of Catawba

. Nuclear Station. In a follow up letter dated August 15, 11986, FEMA advised the NRC of the acceptability of the n

19

,;a:

s

. ~

.._...-.__,,-__,._.__-_.,..,,a Description of Proposed Changes and Technical Justification aler. and notification system (sirens) installed around Catawba, thus removing this caveat from the October 8, 1985 44CFR350 approval.

24. License condition 2.C. (23) Emergency Preparedness Issues (ASLB PID, 9/18/84) by June 4, 1985, Duke Energy Corporation shall have submitted for staff review and received staff approval on the following items:

1. The Public Information Brochure shall state that high levels of radiation are harmful to health and may be life threatening.

Such statements shall be contained within that portion of the brochure that deals with actions to be taken in the event of an emergency.

2. The warnings r,igns and decals shall specify the 'ypes of emergencies they cover including nuclear.

3. The warning signs and decals shall notify transients as to where they can obtain local emergency information, as provided in NUREG-0654 Evaluation Criterion II.G.2.

4. The emergency plans shall reflect the kinds of locations within the plume exposure EPZ wherein the warning signs and decals and emergency response information will be placed and the procedures employed to assure that sufficient numbers are being distributed to effectively rer,ch transients, and that the plans are implemented.

5. Comprehensive plans shall provide for early notification to Carowinds of a radiological emergency at Catawba and for evacuation of Carowinds.

The plans shall describe the responsibilities of the emergency response organizations of Mecklenburg and York Counties and provide for the coordination of thei efforts among themselves and with cerowinds' officials.

The plans shall provis9 for inmediate notification of patrons and staff of Catowinds at the time of the precautionary closing of the park, of the cause of the emergency.

The means to implement the plans shall be made available.

Proposed Changei License Condition 2.C. (23) is being deleted.

20

Description of Proposed Changes and Technical Justification i

Justification for Deletion:

This license condition has I

4 been_ fulfilled. The_ additional emergency preparedness 1

information and completion of actions required by this a

license condition were submitted to the NRC by Du-s letters i

dated March 18 and June 12, 1985.

NRC approval for Item 2 was received in an NRC letter dated May 14, 1985.

Approval

'for the remaining items was received in an NRC letter dated t

Junc 3, 1985.

H25. This p;oposed change applies to FOL Section 2.D, which ist D. The facility requires exemptions from certain requirements of Appendices A, E and J to 10 CFR Part 50.

~

These include (a) partial exemption from General Design Criterion 1 of Appendix A, with respect to the upgrade j

to safety-rolated of the pressurizer power operated relief valves (PORVs) and steam generator PORVs until first refueling (Section 5.4.4 of SER and SSER 2, and Section 15.4.4 of SSERs 3 and 4), (b) exemption from the requirements of Appendix E, IV.F, insofar as they may require the active participation of all Crisis Management Center personnel for the Catawba Station amergency preparednsas exercises (Section 13.3 of SSER 4), (c) partial exemption from the requirement of paragraph III.D.2 (b) (ii) of Appendix J, the testing of containment airlocks at times when the containment integrity is not required (Section 6.2.6 of-the SER, and SSERs 3 and 4), (d) exemption from the requirement of paragraph III.A.(d) of Appendix J, insofar as it requires the venting and draining of lines for type A tests (Section 6.2.6 of SSER 3), and (e) partial exemption from the requirements of paragraph III.B of Appendix J, as it relates to bellows testing (Section 6.2.6 of the SER and SSER 3). These exemptions are authorized by law and will not endanger life or property-or the common defense and security and are otherwise in i

the public interest. 'These exemptions are, therefore, hereby granted pursuant to 10 CFR 50.12.-

With the

_ granting of thesesexemptions, the-facility will operate, to the extent authorized herein, in conformity with the

. application, as-amended, the provisions of the Actr and the rules and regulations of the Commission.

-Proposed Changet Items (a) and (b), as described above in Section 2.D.of the FOL, are being deleted. The Appendix J 1

21:

--+

u-4

-n,&

1

)

i Description of Proposed Changes:and Technical Justificacion j

i exemptions currently described in Items (c), (d), and (e) _

l are being retained and renumbered. A portion of.the text of this section (oee Attachment la) is being reworded for consistency-with_the Unit 2 FOL.

Justification for Proposed change For Item (a), Duke no

. longer needs this exemption from General Design criterion 1 of Appendix A. Tho pressurizer PORVs and steam generator PORVs have been upgraded. See the justificction for Item l

21,. which addresses the proposed deletion of Unit 1 Licanse i

Condition 2.C.(18).

For Item (b), Duke no longer needs this exemption from Appendix E, IV.F. Emergency Operations Facility (EOF) personnel now drill in accordance with 10CFR50, Appendix E.

l 4

Section N.1.a of the Catawba Emergency Plan, (change 96-3 1

as submitted to the NRC on September 16, 1996) contains the i

requirement to conduct emergency exercises in accordance with the requirements of 10CFR50, Appendix E.

Administrative changes a..a included in order to provide consistency (in wordint.) with Section 2.D of the Unit 2 FOL. This administratine change does not affect the context of Section 2.D.

26. This proposed change applies to FOL Section 2.E which is:

i E. Duke Energy Corporation shall fully implement and maintain in effect all provisions of the Commission-approved physical security, guard training and qualification and safeguards contingency plans 1'

including-amenuments made pursuant to provisions of the Miscellaneous Amendments and Search Requirements revisions to 10 CFR 73.55 (51 FR 27817 and 27822) and-to the authority of 10 CFR 50.90 and CFR 50.54 (p).

The plans, which contain safeguards information protected under 10 CFR-73.21, are entitled:." Catawba Nuclear

-Station Physical Security Plan," with revisions submitted through_ october 6, 1987; " Catawba Nuclear Station Training and Qualification Plan," with revisions submitted through August 27, 1986; and Catawba Nuclear Station Safeguards Contingency-Plan," with revisions

. submitted through January 8, 1987 Change made in accordance with 10 CFR 73.55 shall be implemented in accordance with the schedule set forth therein, i

22-

+

e.N a,-w..a,.,_

-w

,-,,<-wm.~

w.--,n

.ww..

w wA n v t-

, m N-m

,m.-

x p

--e n-r e

w m

s - >.e 'en e ww !

j Description of Proposed Changes and Technical Justification Proposed Change:

The docrtent titles for the above

]

l referenced plans are being changed. Consistent _with other changes proposed in this LAR, the revision submittal dates l

are being deleted. The changes are:

i i

Change " Catawba Nuclear Station Physical Security Plan"'to

" Nuclear Security and Contingestcy Plan."

Change " Catawba Nuclear Statiot Training and Qualification l

Plan" to " Nuclear Security Training and Qualification Plan." Note, this document is not classified as safeguards i

information.

j

' Delete " Catawba Nuclear Station Safeguards contingency Plan." This.information is now included in the " Nuclear Security;and Contingency Plan."

Justification for Proposed Change: The titles of the referenced security documents have changed since the initial issuance of the Catawba FOLs, and are subject to change again since Duke's corporate name has changed from Duke Power Company-to Duke Energy Corporation. The proposed changes contained in this LAR bring the titles of-these t

documents.up to date with the current status as submitted to the NRC. The " Nuclear Security and Contingency Plan" was submitteu to the NRC on April'18, 1996. The " Nuclear Security Training and Qualification Plan" was submitted to the NRC on April 19, 1996.

i Revision numbers and dates are continually being made outdated since these specific documents do undergo change.

The results of these changes cause the FOL to become outdated and in need of an amendment. Processing

' administrative amendments to the FOL just to update revision numbers or submittal dates for reference documents causes an unwarranted administrative burden on the part of the_ licensee and the NRC Staff. Also, see-Item 3 for further discussion of the deletion of reference documents-amendment / revision / supplement numbers from the FOLs.

U r

l 23 x..____.._.-.,.___n_,_-__-

l s

Description of Proposed Changes and Technical Justification l

27. This proposed change applies to FOL Section 2.F which is.

F.

Reporting to the Commission Duke Energy Corporation shall report any violations of the requirements contained in Section 2, Items C. (1),

s C.(3) through C.(23) of this license.

Initial notification shall be made within twenty-four (24) hours in accordance with the provisions of 10 CFR 50.72 with written follow-up within 30 days in accordance with the procedures described in 10 CPR 50.73 (b), (c) and (e).

F Proposed Change:

The requirements for reportability contained in Section 2.F of the FOL, are being rewritten.

e Section 2.F references by numerical and alphabetical order reportable items contained in Section 2.C of the FOL. This proposed change revises these references to be consistent with the revisions this LAR makes to the numerical and alphabetical order of the remaining license conditions.

Also, an exception to items contained in tr.e station Technical Spec 3fications is added for consistency with the Unit 2 FOL.

Justification for Proposed Change:

This administrative change provides consistency with the revisions this LAR makes to the numerical order of the remaining license conditions and clarifies the distinction of Technical Specifications reporting requirements. This change provides consistency between the Units 1 and 2 FOLs.

4

28. This proposed change applies to the list of Enclosures for the FOL.

Proposed Change:

The list of enclosures for the FOL is revised to be consistent with the changes proposed in this LAR. Specifically: 1) Attachment 1 is being deleted, 2) l Appendix B is being deleted, and 3) the listed order of the remaining Appendices (Appendix A, Appendix C, and Appendix D) is being renumbered.

Justification for Proposed Change:

This change is purely administrative and prcvides consistency with the revisions this LAR makes to the numerical order of the remaining appendices.

24 1

\\

1 Description of Proposed Changes and Technical Justification

29. This proposed change applies to FOL NPF-35 Attachment 1,

-i which is -

ATTACHMENT 1 TO LICENSE NPF-35 Duke Energy Corporation shall comply with the following requirements related to the TDI diesel engines for Catawba Unit 1.

t

1. Changes to the maintenance / surveillance program for the TDI diesel engines, as identified in the licensee's submittals of August 1 a7d September 11, 1986, shall be subject to the provisions of 10 CFR 50.59.

The frequency of the major engine overhauls referred to in the license conditions below shall be consistent with Section IV.1,

" Overhaul Frequency," in Revision 2 of Appendix II of the Design Review / Quality Revalidation Report which was transmitted by letter dated May 1, 1986, from J. B. George, Owners Group, to H. R.

Denton, j

NRC.

l

2. Connecting rod assemblies shall be subjected to the following inspectiens at each major engine overhaul (a) The surfaces of the rack teeth should be inspected for signs of fretting.

If fretting has occurred, it snould be subject to an engineer'ng evaluation for appropriate corrective action.

(b) All connecting rod bolts should be lubricated in accordance with the engine manufacturer's instructions and torqued to the specifications of the manufacturer.

The lengths of the two pairs of bolts above the crankpin should be measured ultrasonically before and after tensioning.

(c) The lengths of the two pairs of bolts above the crankpin should be remeasured ultrasonically before detensioning and disassembly of the bolts.

If bolt

-tension is less than 93% of the value at installation, the cause'should be determined, appropriate corrective action should be taken, and the interval between checks of bolt tension should be reevaluated.

(d) All connecting rod bolts should be visually inspected for thread damage (e.g., galling), and the 25

- _ ~ _

I Description of Proposed Changes and Technical Justification two pairs of connecting rod bolts above the crankpin should be inspected by magnetic particle testing to verify the continued absence of cracking.

All i

2shers used with the bolts should be examined

[

/isually for signs of galling or cracking, and replaced if damaged.

(e) A visual inspection should be performed of all external surfaces of the link rod box to verify the absence of any signs of service-induced stress.

(f) All of the bolt holes in the link rod box should be inrpected for thread damage (e.g., galling) or other signs of abnormalities.

In addition, the bolt holes subject to the highest stresses (e.g.,

the pair immediately above the crankpin) should be examined _

l with an appropriate nondestructive method to verify the continued absence of cracking. Any indications should be recorded for engineering evaluation and appropriate corrective action.

3.

(a) Cylinder blocks shall be inspected for " ligament" cracks, " stud-to-stud" cracks and " stud-to-end" cracks as defined in a report by Failure Analysis Associates, Inc.

(FaAA) entitled " Design Review of TDI F-4 and RV-4 Series Emergency Diesel Generator cylinder Blocks" (FaAA report no. FaAA-84-9-11.1) and dated December 1984.

(Note that the FaAA report specifies additional inspections to be performed for blocks with "known" or " assumed" ligament cracks.)

The inspection intervals (i.e.,

frequency) shall not exceed the intervals calculated using the cumulative i

damage index model in the subject FaAA report.

In addition, inspection methods shall be consistent with or equivalent to those identified in the subject FaAA report.

(b) In addition to inspections specified in the aforementioned FaAA report, blocks with "known" or

" assumed" ligament cracks (as defined in the FaAA report) should be inspected at each refueling outage to determine whether or not cracks have initiated on the top surface, which was exposed because of the removal of two or more cylinder heads.

This process should be repeated over several refueling octages until the entire block has been inspected.

Liquid penetrant testing or a similarly sensitive 16

_. ~. _.

l Description of Proposed Changes and Technical Justification nondestructive testing technigee should be used to detect cracking, and eddy current testing should be used as appropriate to determine the depth of any cracks discovered.

(c) If inspection reveals cracks in the cylinder blocks between stud holes of adjacent cylinders (" stud-to-stud" cracks) or " stud-to-end" cracks, this condition shall be reported promptly to the NRC staff and the affected engine shall be considered inoperable.

The engine shall not be restored to

" operable status" until the proposed disposition and/or corrective actions have been approved by the NRC staff.

4. The following air-roll test shall be performed as specified below, except when the plant is already in an Action Statement or Technical Specification 3/4.8.1, 4

" Electric Power Systems, A.C.

Sources":

The engines shall be rolled over with the airstart system and with the cylinder stopcocks open beforo each planned start, unless that start occurs within 4 hours4.62963e-5 days 0.00111 hours 6.613757e-6 weeks 1.522e-6 months of a shutdown.

The engines shall also be rolled over with the airstart system and with the cylinder stopcocks open after 4 houro, but no more t'.an 8 hours9.259259e-5 days 0.00222 hours 1.322751e-5 weeks 3.044e-6 months , after engine shutdown and then rolled over once again approximately 24 hours2.777778e-4 days 0.00667 hours 3.968254e-5 weeks 9.132e-6 months after each shutdown.

(If an engine is removed from service for any reason other than the rolling-over procedure before expiration of the 8-hour or 24-hour periods noted above, that engine need not be rolled over while it is out of service.

The i

license 9 shall air-roll the engine over with the stopcocks open at the time it is returned to service.)

The origin of any water detected in the cylinder must be-determined, and any cylinder head that leaks because of a crack shall be replaced.

The above-air roll test may be discontinued following the first refueling outage subject to the following conditions:

(a) All cylinder heads are Group III heads (i.e., cast after September 1980).

(b) Quality revalidation inspections, as identified in the Design a.: view / Quality Revalidation report, have been completed for all cylinder heads.

27 D

l Description of Proposed Changes and Technical Justification j

1 l

(c) Group III heads continue to demonstrate leak-free performance.

This should be confirmed with TDI before air-roll tests are discontinued.

5. Periodic inspections of the turbochargers shall include the followings (a) The turbocharger thrust bearings should be visually inspected for excessive wear after 40 nonprelubed starts since the previous visual inspection.

(b) Turbocharger rotor axial clearance should be measured at each refueling outage to verify compliance with TDI/Elliott specifications.

In addition, thrust bearing measurements should be compared with measurements taken previously to determine a need for further inspection or corrective action.

(c) Spectrographic and ferrographic engine oil analysis shall be performed quarterly to provide early evidence of bearing degradation.

Particular attention should be paid to copper level and particulate size, which could signify thrust bearing degradation.

(d) The nozzle ring components and inlet guide vanes should be visually inspected at each refueling outage for missing parts or parts showing distress on a one-turbocharger-per-refueling-outage barts.

In addition, these inspections should be performed for all turbochargers at each turbocharger overhaul (i.e.,

at approximately 5-year intervals).

If any missing parts or distress is noted, the entire ring assembly should be replaced and the subject turbocharger should be reinspected at the next refueling outage.

Proposed Change: of the FOL is being deleted.

Justification for Deletion: should have been previously deleted from the Catawba Unit 1 FOL. Attachment 1 was originally related to, or referenced by, former license condition 2.C. (20).

I' wever, this license condition was deleted by FOL Amendment No. 119. This amendment was approved by the NRC on June 2, 1994. In this 28

i i

Attachment'3 Description of Proposed Changes and-Technical Justification amendment, which Duke submitted on April 29, 1993, the transition from the original FOL requirements (contained in

! ) to the present diesel generator testing i

program was justified. This justification was primarily based upon the ceneric submittal made by the TDI owners Group. Following NRC approval, the implementation of Amendment 119 did not result in the deletion of Attachment i from the FOL.

I t

a 1

29 i

_ -.-- ~. _, _

~

r Description of Proposed Changes and Technical Justification

30. This proposed change applies to FOL NPF-35 Appendix D, which is:

APPENDIX D ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS FACTLITY OPERATING LICENSE No. NPF-35 Duke Energy Corporation shall comply with the followiry conditions on the schedules noted below:

Amendment Implementation Number

. Additional Conditions Date 159 This amendment requires the licensee Next update to incorporate in the Updated Final of the UFSAR Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR) certa.in changes to the description of the facility. Implementation of this amendment is the incorporation of these changes as described in the licensee's application dated March 7, 1997, as supplemented by lettero dated April 2, 10, 16, 22, and 28, 1997, and evaluated in the staff's Safety Evaluation dated April 29, 1997 159 This amendment requires the licensee Immediately to use administrative controls, as upon issuance described in the licensee's letter of the of March 7, 1997, and evaluated in amendment the staff's safety evaluation dated April 29, 1997, to restrict the dose-equivalent iodine levels to 0.46 microcurie per grani (in lieu of the limit in TS Section 3.4.8.a), and to 25 microcurie per gram (in lieu of the limit of TS Figure 3.4-1), until this license condition is removed by a future amendment.

Proposed Change: The first condition of Appendix D is being deleted. This condition required Duke to incorporate in the 30 i

Description of Proposed Changes and Technical Justification UFSAR certain changes to the description of the facility as described in a Duke letter to the NRC dated March 7,

1997, and supplemented by letters dated April 2, 10, 16, 22, and 20, 1997, and evaluated in the NRC Staff's Safety Evaluation dated Apri.1 29, 1997 Justification for Deletion: The requirements of this additional license condition have been included in the 1997 UFSAR Update. This update was submitted to the NRC by Duke letter dated Septe.nber 25, 1997. The requirements of this license condition (credit is taken for local operation of the steam line PORVs in the event tnat remote operation is unavailable during a steam generator tube rupture accident situation) are addressed in Section 15.6.3 of the update.

31

Description of Proposed Changes and Technical Justification Unit 2 FOL - License No. NPF-52, Docket No. 414 l

(Items 31 Through 49)

Proposed changes 31 through 49, as itemized below, apply to the Catawba Unit 2 FOL, NPF-52.

i

31. This proposed change applies to FOL Section 1.8 which is B. Construction of the Catawba Nuclear Station, Unit 2 (the facility) has been substantially completed in conformity with Construction Pen 11t No. CPPR-117 and the application, as amended, the provisions of the Act and the regulations of the Commission; Proposed Change:_

FOL Section 1.B is being changed to state that construction of Catawba Nuclear Station, Unit 2 is completed.

JustificatAon for Change:

This administrative change simply updates the FOL to the current historical status of Catawba Nuclear Station, Unit 2.

32. This proposed change applies to FOL Section 1.H which is:

H. After weighing the environmental, economic, technical, and other benefits of the facility against environmental and other costs and consideting available alternatives, the issuance of this Facility Operating License No. NPF-52, subject to the conditions for protection of the environment set forth in the Environmental Protection Plan attached as Appendix B, is in accordance with 10 CFR Part 51 of the Commission's regulations and all applicable requirements have been satisfied; Proposed Change FOL Section 1.H is being changed to eliminate the reference to the Environmental Protection Plan.

Justification for Change:

The Environmental Protection Plan (formerly Appendix B to the FOL) was deleted by Amendment'No. 143 to the Catawba Unit 2 FOL. This amendment was approved by the NRC on July 8, 1996.

32

I Description of Proposed Changes and Technical Justification

33. This proposed change applies to FOL Section 2. A which is:

A.

This license applies to the Catawba Nuclear Station, Unit 2, a pressurized water reactor and associated equipment (the facility) owned by the North Carolina Municipal Power Agency No. 1 and Piedmont Municipal Power Agency'and Operated by Duke Energy Corporation.

~

The facility is located on the licensees' site in York County, South Carolina, on the shore of Lake Wylie i

approximately 6 miles north of Rock Hill, South Carolina,-and is described in Duke Energy Corporation's Final Safety Analysis Report, as supplemented and amended; and in its Environmental Report, as supplemented and amended; Proposed Change

- FOL Section 2.A is being changed to eliminate the reference to the Environmental Protection Plan. The term " Final '.. ty Analysis Report" is being-changed ta " Updated FinaA Safety Analysis Report."

Justification for Changes-- The Environmental Protection i

Plan (formerly Appendix B to the FOL) was deleted by Amendment No. 143 to the Catawba Unit 2 FOL. This amendment was approved by the NRC on July 8, 1996.

The change to " Updated Final Safety Analysis Report" is solely administrative and is being made to provide 1

consistency with current Duke and industry terminology, v

34. This proposed change applies to FOL Section 2.B. (3) which is:

C (3) Duke Energy Corporation, pursuant to the Act and 10 CFR Part 70 to receive, possess and use at any time special nuclear material as reactor fuel, in accordance with the limitations for storage and amounts required for reactor operation, as described in the Fir.nl Safety Analysis Report, as supplemented and amended.

Proposed Change:'.In FOL Section 2.B.(3) the term " Final Safety Analysis Report" is being changed to " Updated Final

-Safety Analysis Report."-

Justification for Change: The change to'" Updated Final Safety Analysis Report" is sole.1y administrative'and is 33' t

4

I F

- Description of' Proposed Changes and Technical Justification i

being made to provide consistency with current Duke and I

3.dustry terminology.

f

35. This proposed change applies-to FOL Section 2.C. (1) Maximum

{

Power Levol which is:

Maximum Power Level 1

Duke Energy Corporation is authorized to operate the facility at reactor core power levels not in excess of 3411 megawatts thermal (100 percent power) in accordance with the. conditions specified herein.-

Proposed Change FOL Section 2.C. (1) is being changed to I

state that the maximum authorized power level is "tull steady state power level of 3411 megawatts thermal (100%)."

l Justification for change: This change is consistent with a l

4 recent amendment to the Oconee FOL and is intended to provide clarification on when Duke would report a power level >100% as specified in the FOL, Duke administrative controls define steady state so as to clarify when reporting is required.

1 b

36. License Condition 2.C. (3)

Initial Startup Test Program (Section 14, SER, SSER #3, SSER #4, SSER #5, SSER #6)

Any changes to the Initial Test Piagram described in Section 14 of the FSAR made in accordance with the provisions of 10 CFR 50.59 shall be reported in accordarce with 50.59(b) within-one month of such change.

Proposed Change License Condition 2.C.(3) is being deleted.

Justification for Deletion:

This license condition has been fulfilled.

-The Catawba post-fuel-loading test program was successfully completed and documented in'a report to the NRC dated November 17, 1986, 34 g,

y g

ww

,+.-y.-qw-ry-e.>-n=4 y

-y--

sr+m---

,rg y

w gg e

n y

g 7,

-yy gr.,=

- - +wg y

r--=-+-g

--'-m-T yF*'

W' TW

-"W*"Tr 'T N'

Description of Proposed Changes and Technical Justification l

37. License Condition 2.C. (5) Inservice Inspection Program (Sections 5.2.4 and 6.6, SSER #2, SSER #5) l By August 24, 1986, Duke Energy Corporation shall submit.

[

the balance of the inservice inspection program as describe

in its~1etter dated January 8, 1985, for staff review and approval.

Proposed Change License Condition 2.C.(5) is being l

deleted.

Justification for Deletion: This license condition has been fulfilled. The inservice inspection plans for the-Unit 2 first ten-year interval were submitted by Duke on August 18, 1986 and approved by the NRC on January 8,1987. The effective dates for the ISI plans were June 29, 1985 for Unit-1 and August 18, 1986 for Unit 2. The first interval i

ISI plans hava been completed for both Catawba units. Since-Duke received approval of the ISI plans, this license condition is no longer applicable to either of the Catawba units.

38. License Condition 2.C. (6) Fire Protection Proaram (Section 9.5.1, SER, SSER #2, SSER #3, SSER #4, SSER #5)

Duke _ Energy Corporation shall implement and maintain in effect all provisions - of the approved fire protection program as described in-the - Fintal Safety Analysis Report, as amended, for the facility and as approved in the SER through Supplement 6,

subject to the following provisjon below:

The licensee may make changes to the approved fire protection program without prior approval of the Commission only if those changes would not adversely affect the ability to achieve and maintain safe shutdown in the e' ent

_of a fire.

Proposed Changet Administrative changes are being made to License 7 Condition 2.C.(6). The term " Final Safety-analysis

- Report-is being_ changed to Updated Final Safety analysis j

Report."

The reference to SER' Supplement 6 is being changed to SER Supplement 5.

t 35

i i

Description of Proposed Changes and Technical Justification I

t An appropriate footnote and reference, an asterisk (*),

are i

being relocated to apply to this license condition. Within L

the footnote, change the words "many" and "the" to "this".

i

-The word "below" is being deleted.

f The: change to " Updated Final l

Justification for Change Safety Anclysis Report" is solely administrative and is being made to provide consistency with current Duke and j

industry terminology.

i

^

The. change in reference to SER Supplement 6 is being changed to obtain consistency with the reference to:SERL i

t-

-Supplement 5 in the heading for this license condition. No.

4 discussion of fire protection was found in SER Supplement l

6.

The additional changes are considered to be solely j

administrative.

39. License Condition 2.C. (7)

Detailed Control Room Design 1

Review, I.D.1 (Section 18, SER, SSER #2, SSER #5) l 4'

L Duke. Energy Corporation shall correct all human engineering deficiencies according to the schedule contained in the letter from Duke Energy Corporation dated March 28, 1984.

Proposed changes. License Condition 2.C. (7) is being deleted.

Justification for Deletion: This license condition has been fulfilled. The human engineering deficiencies that were identified in the March 28, 1984-Duke letter to the NRC have been completed. A review of the Duke commitment

- management-historical records was conducted. These records document that the outstanding issues related to this license condition. wore completed during the first refueling outage:for Catawba: Unit 2. In a letter:to the NRC dated April-18, 1989,-Duke advised-the NRC that the activities:

related to the Detailed Control Room Design Review for l'

Catawba Unit 2 we're complete.

t b

36

.-u

....u.

u_,.__._.,..._,_

f I

i

{

Description of Proposed Changes and Technical Justification

40. License condition 2.C. (8) Emergency Response Capabilities (Generic Letter 82-33, Supplement 1 to NUREG-0737) i (a) Deleted i

i (b) Safety Paramotor Display System (SPDS) (Section 18, i

SSER #5)

Prior to December 8, 1989, Duke Energy Corporation shall I

add to the existing SPDS and have operational the following SPDS parameterst (a) residual heat removal flow, (b) t containment isolation status, (c) stack radiation measurements, (d) steam generator or steamline radiation.

l The actual value of these and all other SPDS variables

. should be displayed for cperator viewing in easily and rapidly accessible display formats.

Proposed Change License Condition 2.C. (8) is being deleted.

Justification for Deletion:

This license condition has been fulfilled. The four items described in this license 4

condition wero communicated to Duke in an NRC letter dated l

September 4, 1987. In a letter to the NRC dated February 18, 1988, Duke committed to installing these modifications on the SPDS for both Catawba Units. The NRC-found that Duke's commitment was a satisfactory resolution of the issues outstanding on the Catawba SPDS in a letter dated l

May 13, 1988. By letter dated January 18, 1990, Duke advised the NRC that the modifications described in the February 18, 1,988 letter had been implemented, t

a

41. License condition 2.C. (9)

Anticipatory Reactor Trip, II.K 3.10 (Section 5.2.2, SER)

Prior to exceeding 70% power, Duke Energy Corporation shall 4

complete the described turbine trip tests to verify that PORVs will not be challenged when the anticipatory trip bypass is-in effect.

-Proposed Change: Licer.se Condition 2.C. (9) is being deleted.

Justification for Deletion:

This license condition has been fulfilled.

This testing was performed on July 23, 37 4

U-

,.,,-,,w.r 8-+,

n--e,,.+mnm,-nn

--rv.,,,,,

.,.,w-.-.-

--,o..--~-

,r---m-e v..,g-r

1 Attachment ?

Description of Proposed Changes and Technical Justification 1986.

The results of this testing were detailed in the Catawba Unit 2 Startup Report dated November 17, 1986.

Specifically, the results reported for this test (TP/2/A/2650/07) document that the PORVs were not challenged. The startup Report was submitted to the NRC by Duke letter also dated November 17, 1986.

42. License Condition 2.C. (10) Steam Generator Tube Rupture (Section 15. 4. 4, SER, SSER #2)

Prior to startup following the first refueling outage of Catawba Unit 2, Duke Energy Corporation shall submit for NRC staff review and approval an analysis which de.aonstrates that the steam generator single-tube rupture analysis presented in the FSAR is the most severe case with respect to tha release of fission products and calculated dosos.

Consistent with the analytical assumptions, Duke Energy Corporation shall propose any necessary changes to Appendix A to this license.

Proposed Change License Condition 2.C.(10) is being deleted.

Justification for Deletion: This license condition is complete.

The steam generator tube rupture analysis was initially submitted to the NRC in a Duke letter dated December 7, 1987.

Supplemental Duke submittals were made to the HRC on August 8 and 24, 1988; June 29, and August 20, 1990, The resultant Technical Specifications adding limiting conditions for operation and surveillance requirements for the steam generator power operated relief valves were submitted by Duke letter dated December 4, 1987. The NRC issued an SER on this matter by letter dated May 14, 1991. Following several supplemental Duke submittals made on December 7, 11, and 29, 1987; March 29, May 4 and 18, June 16, July 1, August 8 and 24, and December 15, 1988; and June 12 and 28, 1989; the proposed Technical Specifications were issued by the NRC on August 15, 1989 as FOL amendment numbers 68 and 62, for Catawba Units 1 and 2 respectively.

38 Description of Proposed Changes and Technical Juutification

43. License Condition 2.C. (12)

Generic Letter 83-28 (Section 15.6, SSER #4, SS2R #5)

Duke Energy Corporation shall submit responses to and implement the guidance of Generic Letter 83-28 on a schedule which is consistent with that given in its No" ember 2 and December 31, 1984, letters.

Proposed Change License Cor.dition ?.C. (12) is being deleted.

Justification for Deletion:

This license condition has been fulfilled.

Duke provided its initial response to Generic Letter 83-28 in a letter to the NRC dated November 4,

1983.

An additional response updating the NRC on the status of the implementation of items required by Generic Letter 83-28 was provided in a letter to the NRC dated December 3, 198!.

The NRC provided SERs or other dccumentation stating the acceptability of Duke's actions on the applicable GL 83-28 items as follows:

Item 1.1 - June 21, 1985 I+cm 1.2 - June 21, 1985 Item 2.1 (Part 1) - July 16, 1986 Item 2.1 (Part 2) - January 15, 1987 Items 2.2 1 and 2.2.2 - Octe er 26, 1987 Items 3.1.1, 3.1.2, 3.2.1,

^ 2, and 4.5.1 - July 29, 1987 Items 4.1 and 4.2 (Parts 1 and 2) - October 26, 1987 Items 4.2.3 and 4.2.4 - Not required based on the conclusions resulting from the isesance of Generic Letter 83-28, fupplement 1.

Item 4.3 - NRC Inspection Report Nos. 50-413/86-26 and 50-414/86-2) concluded and documented that the modifications made to the reactor trip breakers control circuit in response to Item 4.3 met the intent of the generic letter.

Item 4.5.2 - January 28, 1987 Item 4.5.3 - July 21, 1989 Additionally, Duke addrecsed the requirements of the NRC ATWS rule, 10CFR50.62 by implementation of the Westinghouse AMSAC system.

NRC provided an SER on this approach by letter dated September 22, 1986.

39 L

_~

Description of Proposed Changes and Technical Justification

44. This proposed change applies to FOL Section 2.D, which is:

D.

The facility requires exemptions from certain requirements of Appendix J to 10 CFR Part 50, as delineated below, and pursuant to evaluations contained in the referenced SER and SSERs.

These include (a) partial exemption from the requirement of paragraph III. D.2 (b) (ii) of Appendix J, the testing of containment airlocks at times when the containment integrity la not required (Section 6.2.6 of SSER #5),

(b) exemption from the requirement of paragraph III.A.1(d) of Appendix J, insofar as it requires the venting and draining of lines for type A tests (Section 6.2.6 of SSER #5), and (c) partial exemption from the requirements of paragraph III.B of Appendix J, as it relates to bellows testing (Section 6.2.6 of the SER and SSER #5).

These exemptions are authorized by law, will not present an undue risk to the public health and safety, and are consistent with the common defense and security; and certain special circumstances, as discussed in Section 6.2.6 of SSER #5, aree present.

These exemptions are, therefore, hereby granted pursuant to 10 CFR 50.12.

With the granting of these exemptions, the facility will operate, to the extent authorized herein, in conformity with the application, as amended, the provisions of the Act, and the rules and regulations of the Commission.

In addition, two exemptions were previously granted pursuant to 10 CFR 50.12.

A partial exemption from those portions of General Design Criterion 4 of Appendix A to 10 CFR 50 which require protection of structures, systems and components important to safety against dynamic effects associated with postulated reactor coolant system pipe breaks was granted on April 23, 1985, for a period ending with the completion of the second refueling outage for Catawba Unit 2 or the adoption of the proposed rulemaking for modification of GDC-4 whichever occurs first.

Effective May 12, 1986, GDC-4 has been modified to exclude from the design basis the protection of structures, systems and components against the dynamic effects associated with postulated pipe ruptures of primary coolant loop piping in PWRs when analyses demonstrate the probability of rupture of such piping to be extremely low under design basis conditions (51 FR 12502 April 11, 1986).

As a result of this final rule and Duke Energy Corporation demonstration in accordance with the rule, the 40

t Description of. Proposed Changes and Technical Justification _

i previously granted specific partial exemption will no longer be required, on the rule's effective date, and terminate by its own terms.

Furthermore, an exemption from the requirements of Appendix E, IV.F, insofar-as j

they may require the active participation of all Crisis Management Center personnel for the Catawba Station

-emergency preparedness exercises (Section 13.3 of SSER i

4), was granted on January 17, 1985, by the issuance of the_ Facility Operating = License No. NPF-35 for Catawba Nuclear Station, Unit 1.

Proposed Change Two of the exemptions discussed in Section 2.D of the FOL are being deleted.

These are the -

exemptions previously granted from General Design Criterion l

4 of Appendix A to 10CFR50 and from Appendix E, IV.F. A portion of the text of this section (see Attachment 1b) is being reworded for consistency with the Unit 1 FOL. The r

Appendix J exemptions are being retained.

Justification for Proposed Change:

These exemptions being deleted are no longer required by Catawba. The applicable time frame for the previous exemption (dated April 23, 1985) from General Design Criterion 4 of Appendix A to 1

10CFR50 has now expired and terminated on its own terms.

Duke no longer needs the previous exemption from Appendix E, IV.F. This exemption was approved in an NRC letter dated i

January 6, 1984 and was also associated with the issuance of the Catawba Unit 1 FOL (as referenced here in Section 2.D of the Unit 2 FOL). Currently, Emergency Operations Facility (EOF) personnci now. drill in accordance with Appendix E (also see Item 27 for further-discussion of the justification to delete the-exemption from the Appendix E requirements).

Administrative changes are included in order to provide consistency (in wording) with Section 2.0 of the Unit 1 POL. This administrative change does not affect the context of Section 2.D.

45.;This proposed change applies to FOL Section 2.E, which is:

F.

Duke-Energy' Corporation shall fully implement and maintain in effect all-provisions of the Commission-approved physical security, guard training and 41

.a.

u.-.

-. ~.

.. - ~.

c Description of Troposed Changes and Technical Justification qualification,-and safeguards contingencyfplans including amendments made pursuant to provisions of the Miscellaneous Amendments and Search Requirements revisions to 10 CFR 73.55 (51 FR-27817 and 27822) and to the authority of 10 CFR 50.90 and 10 CFR 50.54 (p).

The plans, which contain safeguards information protected under 10 CFR 73.21, are entitled:

" Catawba Nuclear Station Physical Security Plan",.with revisions submitted through October 6, 1987; " Catawba Nuclear Station Training and Qualification Plan," with revisions submitted through August 27.,

1980s and

" Catawba-Nuclear Station Safeguards Contingency Plan,"

with revisions submitted through January 8, 1987 Changes made in accordance with 10 CFR 73.55 shall_be implemented in accordance with the schedule set forth therein.

Proposed Change The document titles for the above referenced _ plans are being changed. Consistent with other changes proposed in this LAR, the revision submittal dates are being deleted. The changes are*

Change " Catawba Nuclear Station Physical Security Plan" to

=" Nuclear Security and Contingency Plan."

Change " Catawba Nuclear Station Training and Qualification Plan" to " Nuclear Security Training and Qualification Plan." Note, this document is not classified as' safeguards information.

Delete " Catawba Nuclear Station Safeguards Contingency Plan." This information is now included in the " Nuclear Security and Contingency Plan."

Justification for Proposed Changer The titles of the referenced security documents have changed since the initial issuance of the Catawba FOLs, and are subject tc change again since Duke's corporate name has changed from Duke Power Company to Duke Energy Corporation. The proposed changes contained in this LAR bring.the titles of these

' documents up to date with the current status as submitted to the-NRC. The " Nuclear Security and Contingency Plan" was submitted to the NRC on April 18, 1996. The " Nuclear

. Security Training and Qualif. cation Plan" was submitted to

-the NRC on April 19, 1996.

42-

l Description of Proposed Changes and Technical Justification Revision numbers and dates are continually being made l

outdated since these specific documents do undergo change.

j The results of these changes cause the FOL to become outdated and in need of an amendment. Processing administrative amendments to the FOL just to update revision numbers or submittal dates for reference documents i

causes an unwarranted administrative burden on the part of j

the licensee and the NRC Staff. Also, see Item 3 for l

'further discussion of the deletion of reference documents i

amendment / revision / supplement numbers from the FOLs.

46. This proposed change applies to FOL Section 2.F which ist i

F..

Reporting to the Commission l

Except as otherwise provided in the Technical Specifications or Er,vironmental Protection Plan, Duke Energy Corporation shall report any violations of the requirements contained in Section 2.C of this license in the following manners initial notification shall be made within twenty-four (24) hours to the NRC Operations Center via the Emergency Notification System with written follow-up within 30 days in accordance i

with the procedures described in 10 CFR 50.73 (b), (c),

and (e).

Proposed Change:

The requirements for reportability contained in Section 2.F of the FOL, are being rewritten.

Section 2.F references by numerical and alphabetical order reportable items contained in Section 2.C of the FOL. This proposed change revises these references to be consistent with-the revisions this LAR makes to the numerical and alphabetical order of the remaining license conditions.

Also, an. exception to items contained in the station Technical specifications is clarified.

Justification for Proposed Change:

This administrative

. change-provides consistency with the revisions this LAR makes to the numerical order of the-temaining license conditions and clarifies the distinction of Technical Specifications reporting requirements. Also,-this change-provides consistency between the Units l'and 2 FOLs.

t 43 a

Description of-Proposed Changes and Technical Justification

-47. This proposed change applies to the-list of Enclosures for the FOL.

Proposed Change The list of enclosures for the FOL is revised to be consistent with the changes proposed in this LAR. Specifically: 1) Attachment 1 is being deleted, 2)

Appendix B is being deleted, and 3) the listed order of the remaining Appendices (Appendix A, Appendix C, and-Appendix D) is being renumbered.

Justification for Proposed change:

This change is purely administrative and provides consistency with the revisions-this LAR makes to the numerical order of the remaining appendices.

48. This proposed change applies to_FOL NPF-52 Attachment 1, which ist ATTACHMENT 1 TO-LICENSE NPF-52 TDI DIESEL ENGINES REQUIREMENTS Duke Energy Corporation shall comply with the following requirements related to the TDI diesel engines for Catawba Unit 2.

1.

Changes-to the maintenance / surveillance program for the TDI diesel engines, as identified in the licensee's submittals of August 1 and September il, 1986, shall be subject to the-provisions of 10 CFR 50.59.

The frequency of the major engine ovo-Sauls referred to in the license conditions below shail be consistent with Section IV.1. " Overhaul Frequency," in Revision 2 of Appendix Il of the Design Review / Quality Revalidation Report which was transmitted by letter dated May 1, 1986,-from J.B. George, owners Groups, to H.R. Denton, NRC.

2.

. Connecting rod assemblies shall'be subjected to the following inspections at each major-engine overhaul:

(a)

'The surfaces of the rack teeth should be inspected for signs of fretting. 'If fretting has

.occusred, it.should be subject to an engineering evaluation for appropriate corrective action, a

44 Description of Proposed Changes and Technical Justification (b)

All connecting rod bolts should be lubricated in accordance with the engine manufacturer's instructions and torqued to the specifications of the manufacturer.

The lengths of the two pairs of bolts above the crankpin should be measured ultrasonically before and after tensioning.

(c)

The lengths of the two pairs of bolts above the crankpin should be remeasured ultrasonically before detensioning and disassembly of the bolts.

If bolt tension is less than 93% of the value at the value at installation, the cause should be determined, appropriate corrective action should be taken, and the interval between checks of bolt tension should be reevaluated.

(d)

All connecting rod bolts should be visually inspected for thread damage (e.g., galling), and the two pairs of connecting rod bolts above the crankpin should be inspected by magnetic particle testing to verify-the continued absence of cracking.

All washers used with the bolts should be examined visually for signs of galling or cracking, and replaced if damaged.

(e)

A visual inspection should be performed of all external surfaces of the link rod box to verify the absence of any signs of service-induced stress.

(f)

All of the bolt holes in the link rod box should be inspected for thread damage (e.g.,

galling) or other signs of abnormalities.

In addition, the bolt holes subject to the highest stresses (e. g.,

the pair immediately above the crankpin) should be examined with an appropriate nondestructive method to verify the continued absence of cracking.

Any indications should be recorded for engineering evaluation and appropriate corrective action.

3.

(a)

Cylinder blocks shall be inspected for " ligament" cracks, " stud-to-stud" cracks and " stud-to-end" cracks as defined in a report by Failure Analysis Associates, Inc. (FaAA) entitled " Design Review of TDI R-4 and RV-4 Series Emergency Diesel 45 G

I Description of Proposed Changes and Technical Justification Generator Cylinder Blocks" (FaAA report no. FaAA-4 84-9-11.1) and dated December 1984.

(Note that the FaAA report specifies additional inspections to be performed for blocks with "known" or

" assumed" ligament cracks.)

The inspection intervals (i.e., f requency) shall not exceed the intervals calculated using the cumulative damage index model in the subject FaAA report.

In addition, inspection methods shall be consistent with or equivalent to those identified in the subject FaAA report.

(b)

In addition co inspections specified in the aforementioned FaAA report, blocks with "known" or " assumed" ligament cracks (as defined in the FaAA report) should be inspected at each refueling outage to determine whether or not cracks have initiated on the top surface, which was exposed beccuse of the removal of two or more cylinder heads.

This process should be repeated over several refueling outages until the entire block has been inspected.

Liquid penetrate testing or a similarly sensitive non-destructive testing technique should be used to detect cracking, and eddy current testing should be used as appropriate to determine the depth of any cracks discovered.

I.c )

If inspection reveals cracks in the cylinder blocks between stud holes of adjacent cylinders

(" stud-to-stud" cracks) or " stud-to-end" cracks, this condition shall be reported promptly to the NRC staff and the affected engine shall be considered inoperable.

The engine shall not be restored to " operable status" until the proposed disposition and/or corrective actions have been approved by the NRC staff.

4.

The following air-roll test shall be performed as specified below, except when the plant is already in an Action Statement of Technical Specification 3/4.8.1,

" Electric Power Systems, A.C. Sources":

The engines.shall be rolled over with the airstart system and with the cylinder stopcocks open b3 fore each planned start, unless that start occurs within 4 hours4.62963e-5 days 0.00111 hours 6.613757e-6 weeks 1.522e-6 months of a shutdown.

The engines shall also be rolled over 46 1

A v

Attacnment 3

/2 Description of Proposed Changes and Technical Justification

' j[t 9C )

t ~

with the airstart system and with the cylinder stopcockr. open after 4 hours4.62963e-5 days 0.00111 hours 6.613757e-6 weeks 1.522e-6 months , but no more than 8 hours9.259259e-5 days 0.00222 hours 1.322751e-5 weeks 3.044e-6 months , atter engine shutdown and then rolled over once again approximately 24 hours2.777778e-4 days 0.00667 hours 3.968254e-5 weeks 9.132e-6 months after each shutdown.

(If an y

engine is removed from scrvice for any reason other than the rolling-over procedure before expiration of the 8-hour or 24-hour periods noted above, that engine need not be rolled over thile it is out of service.

The licensee shall air-roll the engine over with the stopcocks open at the time it is returned to service.)

l The origin of any water detected in the cylinder must

~4 be determined, and any cylinder head that leaks because of a crack shall be replaced.

The above air-roll test lll may be discontinued following the first refueling outage subject to the following conditions:

(a)

All cylinder heads 6 e Group III heads (i.e.,

cast after Septembar 1980).

(b)

Quality revalidation inspections, as entified in the Design Review / Quality Revalit

,on report, have been completed for all cylinder headr.

(c)

Group III heads continue to demonstrate leak-free performance.

This should be confirmed with TDI before air-roli tests are discontinued.

E.

Periodic inspections of the turbochargers shall include the followi:.g:

(a)

The turbocharger thrust bearingc should be visually inspected for excessive wear after 40 non-prelubed starts since the previous visual inspection.

(b)

Turbocharger rotor axial clearance should be measured at each refuelirg outage to verify compliance with TDI/Elliott spacifications.

In addition, thrust bearing measurements should be compared with measurements taken previously to determine a need for further incpection or corrective action.

(c)

Spectrographic and ferre caphic engine oil analysis shall be pc: formed quartarly to provide early evidence of bearing degradation.

Particular attention should be paid to copper 47

i Description of Proposed Changes and Technical Justification level and particulate size, which could signify thrust bearing degradation.

(d)

The nozzle ring components and inlet guide vanes should ce visually ir.spected at each refueling outage for misning parts or parts showing distress on a one-turbocharger-per refueling-I outage basis.

In addition, these inspectione shoulu be performed for all turbochargers at each turbocharger overhaul (i.e.,

at approximately 5-year intervals).

If any missing parts or distress is noted, the entire ring assembly should be replaced and the subject turbocharger should be reinspected at the next refueling outage.

6.

Deleted Proposed Change: of the FOL is being deleted.

Justification for Deletien:

Attechment 1 should have been previously deleted from the Catawba Unit 2 FOL.

Attachmer.t I was originally related to, or referenced by, former license condition 2.C.(11). However, this license condition was deleted by FOL Amendment No. 113.

This amendment was approved by the NRC on June 2, 1994.

In this amendment, which Duke ~ubmitted on April 29, 1993, the transition from the triginal FOL requirements (contained in Attacament 1) to the present diesel generator testing program was justified. This justification was primarily based upon the generic submittal made by the TDI Owners Group. Following NRC approval, the implementation of Amendment 113 did not result in the deletion of Attachment 1 from the FOL.

48

Description of Proposed Cnanges and Technical Justification

49. This proposed char.ge applies to FDL NPF-52 Appendix D, which is:

APPENDIX D ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. NPF-52 Duke Energy Corporation shall comply with the following conditions on the schedules noted below:

Amendment Implementation Nurucer Additional Conditions Date 151 This amendment requires the licensee Next update to incorporate in the Updated Final of the UFSAR Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR) certain changes to the description of the facility. Implementation of this amendment is the incorporation of these changes as described in the 11cer.see's application dated March 7, 1997, as supplemented by letters dated Apri]

2, 10, 16, 22, and 28, 1997, and evaluated in the staff's Safety Evaluation dated April 29, 1997 151 This amendment requires the licensee Immediate.ly to use adminjstrative controls, as upon issuance described in the licensee's letter of the of March ?,

1997, and evaluated in amendmert the staff's safety evaluation dated April 29, 1997, to restrict the dose-equivalent iodine levels to 0.46 microcurie per gram (in lieu of the limit in TS Section 3.4.8.a), and to 25 microcurie per gram (in lieu of the limit of TS Figure 3.4-1), until this ljcense condition is removed by a future amendment.

Proposed Change: The first condition of Appendix D is being deleted. This condition required Duke to incorporate in the 49

I Description of Proposed Changes and Technical Justification UFSAR certain changes to the description of the facility as described in a Duke letter to the NRC dated March 7,

1997, and supplemented by letters dated April 2, 10, 16, 22, and 28, 1997, and evaluated in the NRC Staff's Safety Evaluation dated April 29, 1997

. Justification for Deletion: The requirements of this additional licenso condition have been included in the 1997 UFSAR Update. This update was submitted to the NRC by Duke letter dated September 25, 1997. The requirements of this license condition (credit is taken for local operation of the steam line PORVs in the event that remote operation is unavailable during a steam generator tube rupture accident situation) are addressed in Section 15.6.3 of the update.

i l

l 1

50

No Significant Hazards Consideration Msaluation Pursuant to 10CFR50.92, Duke Energy Corporation has determined that the proposed amendment involves No Significant Hazards Considerations. The changes contained in this LAR are administrative in nature and affect only license requirements which have been superseded by current regulations or license conditions which have now been fulfilled by Duke Energy Corporation. The proposed amendment will update the FOLs and make them more useful, since they will now reflect current NRC license requirements.

The determination of no significant hazards was made by applying the NRC standards contained in regulation 10CFR50.92. These standards aseare that any changes co the operation of Catawba Nuclear Station in accordance with the proposed amendment consider the following:

1) Will the change involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?

No.

The proposed amendment to the FOL involves administrative changes only. No actual plant equipment, operating practices, or accident analyses are affected by this proposed amendment. Therefore, the propor-- amendment has no impact on the possibility of any type o' accident:

new, different, or previously evaluated.

2) Will the change create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from sny accident previously evaluated?

No.

The proposed amendment to the Catawba FOL involves administrative changes only. No actual plant equipment, operating practices, or accident analyses are affected by this proposed ameadment anu no failure modes not bounded by previously evaluated accidents are created. Therefore, the proposed amendment has no impact on the possibility of any type of accident: new, different, or previously evaluated.

1

If.

l.

--Attachment _ 4 NoLSignificant. Hazards Consideration-Evaluation

- 3) Will' the _ ohange involve _ a significant reduction in a marginfnfJsafety?

No.-; Margin of safety'is associated with1 confidence in_the ability of the fission product barriers - (i.e., fueliand _ fuel cladding, Reactor. Coolant: System pressure boundary, and.

containment structure)-to limit the level of radiation dose-to-the public _The'propossd license amendment is-1 administrative in nature and only updates the_ Catawba FOL to

. eliminate outdated-or completed requirements;-therefore, no reduction in any existing margin of safety is involved.

4

\\

2

. ~

Environmental? Assessment

' Pursuant to 10CFR51.22(b),:anievaluation of1this LAR has 8

been performed to_determinetwhether or not it meets the criteria'for' categorical exclusion set forth in 10CFR51.22 (c) (9).and - (10) of the regulations.

This-LAR for-the: Catawba FOLs proposes administrative changes which update tlus FOLs such-that the contents are consistent-with current. plant status and-the current regulatory requirements applicable to the plant. Therefore, this LAR meets :the criteria of 10CFR51.22 (c) (10) for categotical j

exclusion from an environmental assessment / impact-statement.

- This LAR'will-have no adverse radiation impact upon the environment, since it only applies to FOL requirements or conditions which have been completed or otherwise are not-currently applicable to Catawba Nuclear Station. It has been 4

determined that this LAR involves:

4

1) No significant hazards consideration, i

2)-No significant change in the types, - or significant increase in the amount'. of any effluents that may be released offsite, and

3) No significant increase in individual or cumulative occupational radiation exposures.

F Therefore, this requested amendment-to Catawba Facility Operating License meets the' criteria of 10CFR51,22 (c) (9) for categorical exclusion ~from an environmental assessment / impact statement.

E-4 4

i

ML20197G155

Contents

Text

SUBJECT:

Enclosures:

Enclosures:

Enclosures:

Background

Navigation menu