Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 33 / Friday, February 16, 2001 / Notices 10753

13. The required voltage during the

diesel generator surveillance tests (CTS

4.9.A.2.c, 4.9.A.7, 4.9.A.8.b.2,

4.9.A.8.d.2, 4.9.A.8.e, 4.9.A.8.f.2, and

4.9.A.8.h) is changed from 4160 plus or

minus 420 volts to 4160 plus or minus

208 volts.

Before issuance of the proposed

license amendment, the Commission

will have made findings required by the

Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended

(the Act) and the Commission’s

regulations.

By March 19, 2001, the licensee may

file a request for a hearing with respect

to issuance of the amendment to the

subject facility operating license and

any person whose interest may be

affected by this proceeding and who

wishes to participate as a party in the

proceeding must file a written request

for a hearing and a petition for leave to

intervene. Requests for a hearing and a

petition for leave to intervene shall be

filed in accordance with the

Commission’s ‘‘Rules of Practice for

Domestic Licensing Proceedings’’ in 10

CFR Part 2. Interested persons should

consult a current copy of 10 CFR 2.714

which is available at the Commission’s

Public Document Room, located at One

White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike

(first floor), Rockville, Maryland and

accessible electronically through the

ADAMS Public Electronic Reading

Room link at the NRC Web site (http:/

/www.nrc.gov). If a request for a hearing

or petition for leave to intervene is filed

by the above date, the Commission or an

Atomic Safety and Licensing Board,

designated by the Commission or by the

Chairman of the Atomic Safety and

Licensing Board Panel, will rule on the

request and/or petition; and the

Secretary or the designated Atomic

Safety and Licensing Board will issue a

notice of hearing or an appropriate

order.

As required by 10 CFR 2.714, a

petition for leave to intervene shall set

forth with particularity the interest of

the petitioner in the proceeding, and

how that interest may be affected by the

results of the proceeding. The petition

should specifically explain the reasons

why intervention should be permitted

with particular reference to the

following factors: (1) The nature of the

petitioner’s right under the Act to be

made a party to the proceeding; (2) the

nature and extent of the petitioner’s

property, financial, or other interest in

the proceeding; and (3) the possible

effect of any order which may be

entered in the proceeding on the

petitioner’s interest. The petition should

also identify the specific aspect(s) of the

subject matter of the proceeding as to

which petitioner wishes to intervene.

Any person who has filed a petition for

leave to intervene or who has been

admitted as a party may amend the

petition without requesting leave of the

Board up to 15 days prior to the first

prehearing conference scheduled in the

proceeding, but such an amended

petition must satisfy the specificity

requirements described above.

Not later than 15 days prior to the first

prehearing conference scheduled in the

proceeding, a petitioner shall file a

supplement to the petition to intervene

which must include a list of the

contentions which are sought to be

litigated in the matter. Each contention

must consist of a specific statement of

the issue of law or fact to be raised or

controverted. In addition, the petitioner

shall provide a brief explanation of the

bases of the contention and a concise

statement of the alleged facts or expert

opinion which support the contention

and on which the petitioner intends to

rely in proving the contention at the

hearing. The petitioner must also

provide references to those specific

sources and documents of which the

petitioner is aware and on which the

petitioner intends to rely to establish

those facts or expert opinion. Petitioner

must provide sufficient information to

show that a genuine dispute exists with

the applicant on a material issue of law

or fact. Contentions shall be limited to

matters within the scope of the

amendment under consideration. The

contention must be one which, if

proven, would entitle the petitioner to

relief. A petitioner who fails to file such

a supplement which satisfies these

requirements with respect to at least one

contention will not be permitted to

participate as a party.

Those permitted to intervene become

parties to the proceeding, subject to any

limitations in the order granting leave to

intervene, and have the opportunity to

participate fully in the conduct of the

hearing, including the opportunity to

present evidence and cross-examine

witnesses.

A request for a hearing or a petition

for leave to intervene must be filed with

the Secretary of the Commission, U.S.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission,

Washington, DC 20555–0001, Attention:

Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff, or

may be delivered to the Commission’s

Public Document Room, located at One

White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike

(first floor), Rockville, Maryland, by the

above date. A copy of the petition

should also be sent to the Office of the

General Counsel, U.S. Nuclear

Regulatory Commission, Washington,

DC 20555–0001, and to Mr. Edward J.

Cullen, Vice President, General Counsel,

300 Exelon Way, Kennett Square,

Pennsylvania 19348, attorney for the

licensee.

Nontimely filings of petitions for

leave to intervene, amended petitions,

supplemental petitions and/or requests

for hearing will not be entertained

absent a determination by the

Commission, the presiding officer or the

presiding Atomic Safety and Licensing

Board that the petition and/or request

should be granted based upon a

balancing of the factors specified in 10

CFR 2.714(a)(1)(i)–(v) and 2.714(d).

If a request for a hearing is received,

the Commission’s staff may issue the

amendment after it completes its

technical review and prior to the

completion of any required hearing if it

publishes a further notice for public

comment of its proposed finding of no

significant hazards consideration in

accordance with 10 CFR 50.91 and

50.92.

For further details with respect to this

action, see the application for

amendment dated March 3, 2000, as

supplemented by letters dated March

24, June 5, July 18, July 31, September

1, September 22, October 5, October 9,

November 20, November 30, and

December 18, 2000, which is available

for public inspection at the

Commission’s Public Document Room,

located at One White Flint North, 11555

Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville,

Maryland, and accessible electronically

through the ADAMS Public Electronic

Reading Room link at the NRC Web site

(http://www.nrc.gov).

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 13th day

of February, 2001.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Stewart N. Bailey,

Project Manager, Section 2, Project

Directorate III, Division of Licensing Project

Management; Office of Nuclear Reactor

Regulation.

[FR Doc. 01–3949 Filed 2–15–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

[Docket Nos. 50–373 and 50–374]

Exelon Generation Company, LLC;

Notice of Consideration of Issuance of

Amendment to Facility Operating

License and Opportunity for a Hearing

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission (the Commission) is

considering issuance of an amendment

to Facility Operating License No. DPR–

11 and DPR–18, issued to Exelon

Generation Company, LLC, (EGC, or the

licensee, formerly Commonwealth

Edison Company), for operation of the

10754 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 33 / Friday, February 16, 2001 / Notices

LaSalle County Station, Units 1 and 2

(LaSalle), respectively, located in

LaSalle County, Illinois.

The proposed amendment, requested

by application dated March 3, 2000, as

supplemented by letters dated March

24, June 5, July 18, July 31, September

1, September 22, October 5, October 9,

November 20, November 30, and

December 18, 2000, would be a full

conversion from the current Technical

Specifications (CTS) to a set of

improved Technical Specifications (ITS)

based on NUREG–1434, ‘‘Standard

Technical Specifications—General

Electric Plants, BWR/6,’’ Revision 1,

dated April 1995, and NUREG–1433,

‘‘Standard Technical Specifications—

General Electric Plants, BWR/4,’’

Revision 1, dated April 1995. NUREG–

1434 and NUREG–1433 have been

developed by the Commission’s staff

through working groups composed of

both Nuclear Regulatory Commission

(NRC) staff members and industry

representatives, and has been endorsed

by the staff as part of an industry-wide

initiative to standardize and improve

the Technical Specifications (TS) for

nuclear power plants. As part of this

submittal, the licensee has applied the

criteria contained in the Commission’s

‘‘Final Policy Statement on Technical

Specification Improvements for Nuclear

Power Reactors (Final Policy

Statement),’’ published in the Federal

Register on July 22, 1993 (58 FR 39132),

to the CTS, and, using NUREG–1434

and NUREG–1433 as a basis, proposed

a conversion to ITS for LaSalle. The

criteria in the Final Policy Statement

were subsequently added to 10 CFR

50.36, ‘‘Technical Specifications,’’ in a

rule change that was published in the

Federal Register on July 19, 1995 (60 FR

36953). The rule change became

effective on August 18, 1995.

The March 3, 2000, application, as

supplemented, requested the conversion

to ITS of six EGC stations, Dresden

Nuclear Power Station, Units 2 and 3,

LaSalle County Station, Units 1 and 2,

and Quad Cities Nuclear Power Station,

Units 1 and 2. Attachment 1 to the

March 3, 2000, application describes the

structure of the application, and

Enclosure B contains the LaSallespecific changes.

The licensee has categorized the

proposed changes to the CTS into four

general groupings. These groupings are

characterized as administrative changes,

relocation changes, more restrictive

changes, and less restrictive changes.

Administrative changes are those that

involve restructuring, renumbering,

rewording, interpretation, and complex

rearranging of requirements and other

changes not affecting technical content

or substantially revising an operating

requirement. The reformatting,

renumbering and rewording process

reflects the attributes of NUREG–1434

and NUREG–1433 and does not involve

technical changes to the existing TS.

The proposed changes include: (a)

Identifying plant-specific wording for

system names, etc., (b) changing the

wording of specification titles in the

CTS to conform to STS, (c) splitting up

requirements that are currently grouped,

or combining requirements that are

currently in separate specifications, (d)

deleting specifications whose

applicability has expired, and (e)

wording changes that are consistent

with the CTS but that more clearly or

explicitly state existing requirements.

Such changes are administrative in

nature and do not impact initiators of

analyzed events or assumed mitigation

of accident or transient events.

Relocation changes are those

involving relocation of requirements

and surveillances for structures,

systems, components, or variables that

do not meet the criteria for inclusion in

TS. Relocated changes are those CTS

requirements that do not satisfy or fall

within any of the four criteria specified

in the Commission’s policy statement

and may be relocated to appropriate

licensee-controlled documents.

The licensee’s application of the

screening criteria to LaSalle is described

in Volume 1 of Enclosure B to the

March 3, 2000, submittal. The affected

structures, systems, components, or

variables are not assumed to be

initiators of analyzed events and are not

assumed to mitigate accident or

transient events. The requirements and

surveillances for these affected

structures, systems, components, or

variables will be relocated from the TS

to administratively controlled

documents such as the Quality

Assurance Program, the Updated Final

Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR), the

ITS Bases, the Technical Requirements

Manual (TRM) (that is incorporated by

reference in the UFSAR), the Core

Operating Limits Report (COLR), the

Offsite Dose Calculation Manual

(ODCM), the Inservice Testing (IST)

Program, the Inservice Inspection (ISI)

Program, or other licensee-controlled

documents. Changes made to these

documents will be made pursuant to 10

CFR 50.59 or other appropriate control

mechanisms, and may be made without

prior NRC review and approval. In

addition, the affected structures,

systems, components, or variables are

addressed in existing surveillance

procedures that are also subject to 10

CFR 50.59. These proposed changes will

not impose or eliminate any

requirements.

More restrictive changes are those

involving more stringent requirements

compared to the CTS for operation of

the facility. These more stringent

requirements do not result in operation

that will alter assumptions relative to

the mitigation of an accident or

transient event. The more restrictive

requirements will not alter the operation

of process variables, structures, systems,

and components described in the safety

analyses.

Less restrictive changes are those

where CTS requirements are relaxed,

relocated or eliminated, or new plant

operational flexibility is provided. The

more significant ‘‘less restrictive’’

requirements are justified on a case-bycase basis. When requirements have

been shown to provide little or no safety

benefit, their removal from the TS may

be appropriate. In most cases,

relaxations previously granted to

individual plants on a plant-specific

basis were the result of (a) generic NRC

actions, (b) new NRC staff positions that

have evolved from technological

advancements and operating

experience, or (c) resolution of the

Owners Groups’ comments on the

Improved Standard Technical

Specifications. Generic relaxations

contained in NUREG–1434 and

NUREG–1433 were reviewed by the staff

and found to be acceptable because they

are consistent with current licensing

practices and NRC regulations. The

licensee’s design will be reviewed to

determine if the specific design basis

and licensing basis are consistent with

the technical basis for the model

requirements in NUREG–1434 and

NUREG–1433, thus, providing a basis

for these revised TS, or if relaxation of

the requirements in the CTS is

warranted based on the justification

provided by the licensee.

These administrative, relocation,

more restrictive, and less restrictive

changes to the requirements of the CTS

do not result in operations that will alter

assumptions relative to mitigation of an

analyzed accident or transient event.

In addition to the proposed changes

solely involving the conversion, there

are also changes proposed that are

differences to the requirements in both

the CTS and the Standard Technical

Specifications (NUREG–1434 and

NUREG–1433), and changes that are in

addition to those changes that are

needed to meet the overall purpose of

the conversion. These proposed changes

are as follows:

1. The test interval of certain

surveillance requirements is changed

from 18 months to 24 months to permit

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 33 / Friday, February 16, 2001 / Notices 10755

a longer fuel cycle. Justification for the

proposed change follows the guidance

of Generic Letter 91–04, ‘‘Changes in

Technical Specification Surveillance

Intervals to Accommodate a 24-Month

Fuel Cycle,’’ and includes a revision to

the instrument setpoint methodology.

2. The required minimum

temperature of the standby liquid

control system pump suction piping

(CTS 4.1.5.1.2) is increased from 60 °F

to 68 °F, which is consistent with the

temperature/concentration limits (in

CTS Figure 3.1.5–2) at the maximum

allowed sodium pentaborate

concentration.

3. The requirements in CTS 4.3.7.5 are

changed to allow 6 hours to perform

surveillance testing of the post-accident

monitoring instrumentation channels

prior to entering action statements.

4. The requirements in CTS 4.3.7.4 are

changed to allow 6 hours to perform

surveillance testing of the remote

shutdown monitoring system

instrumentation channels prior to

entering action statements.

5. The detailed list of the remote

shutdown monitoring system

instrumentation that is required to be

operable (CTS 3.3.7.4) is relocated to the

TRM.

6. The frequency for determining

reactor coolant system leakage (CTS

4.4.3.2.1) is changed from 8 to 12 hours,

which is consistent with the Generic

Letter 88–01, Supplement 1,

requirements to perform the

surveillance once every shift, not to

exceed 12 hours.

7. The requirements in CTS 4.4.3.1 are

changed to allow a channel of leakage

detection system to be inoperable for up

to 6 hours for the performance of

required surveillances provided the

other leakage detection system

instrumentation is operable.

8. The minimum pressure at which

the automatic depressurization system

is required to be operable (CTS 3.5.1) is

increased from 122 psig to 150 psig.

9. The requirements (CTS 4.6.1.1) are

changed to allow administrative means

of verifying air lock door position in

areas that are inaccessible due to high

radiation or inerting.

10. The CTS 4.6.1.1 requirement that

the excess flow check valves must

‘‘check flow’’ is changed to require that

the valves ‘‘actuate to their isolation

position.’’

11. The requirements in CTS 3.8.1.1

are changed to impose a maximum

restoration time of ‘‘10 days from

discovery of failure to meet LCO’’ for

multiple concurrent inoperable AC

sources.

12. The required frequency for

performing diesel generator fuel oil

transfer pump testing (CTS 4.8.1.1.2.a.3)

is changed from 31 days to 92 days,

consistent with the American Society of

Mechanical Engineers Boiler and

Pressure Vessel Code, Section XI,

requirements for similar pumps.

13. The required battery voltage for

the 250 volt battery (CTS 4.7.3.d.1.d) is

increased from 250 volts to 256 volts,

which is consistent with the 2.2 volts/

cell requirement for the 125-volt battery.

14. The CTS 4.8.2.3.2 requirements

will be modified to allow a modified

performance discharge test to be used

instead of a service test or a

performance discharge test, which is

consistent with IEEE–450.

15. The duration of the battery charger

capacity test (CTS 4.8.2.3.2.c.4) is

reduced from 8 hours to 4 hours.

Before issuance of the proposed

license amendment, the Commission

will have made findings required by the

Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended

(the Act) and the Commission’s

regulations.

By March 19, 2001, the licensee may

file a request for a hearing with respect

to issuance of the amendment to the

subject facility operating license and

any person whose interest may be

affected by this proceeding and who

wishes to participate as a party in the

proceeding must file a written request

for a hearing and a petition for leave to

intervene. Requests for a hearing and a

petition for leave to intervene shall be

filed in accordance with the

Commission’s ‘‘Rules of Practice for

Domestic Licensing Proceedings’’ in 10

CFR Part 2. Interested persons should

consult a current copy of 10 CFR Part

2.714 which is available at the

Commission’s Public Document Room,

located at One White Flint North, 11555

Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville,

Maryland and accessible electronically

through the ADAMS Public Electronic

Reading Room link at the NRC Web site

(http://www.nrc.gov). If a request for a

hearing or petition for leave to intervene

is filed by the above date, the

Commission or an Atomic Safety and

Licensing Board, designated by the

Commission or by the Chairman of the

Atomic Safety and Licensing Board

Panel, will rule on the request and/or

petition; and the Secretary or the

designated Atomic Safety and Licensing

Board will issue a notice of hearing or

an appropriate order.

As required by 10 CFR Part 2.714, a

petition for leave to intervene shall set

forth with particularity the interest of

the petitioner in the proceeding, and

how that interest may be affected by the

results of the proceeding. The petition

should specifically explain the reasons

why intervention should be permitted

with particular reference to the

following factors: (1) The nature of the

petitioner’s right under the Act to be

made a party to the proceeding; (2) the

nature and extent of the petitioner’s

property, financial, or other interest in

the proceeding; and (3) the possible

effect of any order which may be

entered in the proceeding on the

petitioner’s interest. The petition should

also identify the specific aspect(s) of the

subject matter of the proceeding as to

which petitioner wishes to intervene.

Any person who has filed a petition for

leave to intervene or who has been

admitted as a party may amend the

petition without requesting leave of the

Board up to 15 days prior to the first

prehearing conference scheduled in the

proceeding, but such an amended

petition must satisfy the specificity

requirements described above.

Not later than 15 days prior to the first

prehearing conference scheduled in the

proceeding, a petitioner shall file a

supplement to the petition to intervene

which must include a list of the

contentions which are sought to be

litigated in the matter. Each contention

must consist of a specific statement of

the issue of law or fact to be raised or

controverted. In addition, the petitioner

shall provide a brief explanation of the

bases of the contention and a concise

statement of the alleged facts or expert

opinion which support the contention

and on which the petitioner intends to

rely in proving the contention at the

hearing. The petitioner must also

provide references to those specific

sources and documents of which the

petitioner is aware and on which the

petitioner intends to rely to establish

those facts or expert opinion. Petitioner

must provide sufficient information to

show that a genuine dispute exists with

the applicant on a material issue of law

or fact. Contentions shall be limited to

matters within the scope of the

amendment under consideration. The

contention must be one which, if

proven, would entitle the petitioner to

relief. A petitioner who fails to file such

a supplement which satisfies these

requirements with respect to at least one

contention will not be permitted to

participate as a party.

Those permitted to intervene become

parties to the proceeding, subject to any

limitations in the order granting leave to

intervene, and have the opportunity to

participate fully in the conduct of the

hearing, including the opportunity to

present evidence and cross-examine

witnesses.

A request for a hearing or a petition

for leave to intervene must be filed with

the Secretary of the Commission, U.S.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission,

10756 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 33 / Friday, February 16, 2001 / Notices

Washington, DC 20555–0001, Attention:

Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff, or

may be delivered to the Commission’s

Public Document Room, located at One

White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike

(first floor), Rockville, Maryland, by the

above date. A copy of the petition

should also be sent to the Office of the

General Counsel, U.S. Nuclear

Regulatory Commission, Washington,

DC 20555–0001, and to Mr. Edward J.

Cullen, Vice President, General Council,

300 Exelon Way, Kennett Square,

Pennsylvania 19348, attorney for the

licensee.

Nontimely filings of petitions for

leave to intervene, amended petitions,

supplemental petitions and/or requests

for hearing will not be entertained

absent a determination by the

Commission, the presiding officer or the

presiding Atomic Safety and Licensing

Board that the petition and/or request

should be granted based upon a

balancing of the factors specified in 10

CFR Parts 2.714(a)(1)(i)–(v) and

2.714(d).

If a request for a hearing is received,

the Commission’s staff may issue the

amendment after it completes its

technical review and prior to the

completion of any required hearing if it

publishes a further notice for public

comment of its proposed finding of no

significant hazards consideration in

accordance with 10 CFR 50.91 and

50.92.

For further details with respect to this

action, see the application for

amendment dated March 3, 2000, as

supplemented by letters dated March

24, June 5, July 18, July 31, September

1, September 22, October 5, October 9,

November 20, November 30, and

December 18, 2000, which is available

for public inspection at the

Commission’s Public Document Room,

located at One White Flint North, 11555

Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville,

Maryland, and accessible electronically

through the ADAMS Public Electronic

Reading Room link at the NRC Web site

(http://www.nrc.gov).

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 13th day

of February, 2001.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Jon B. Hopkins,

Senior Project Manager, Section 2, Project

Directorate III, Division of Licensing Project

Management, Office of Nuclear Reactor

Regulation.

[FR Doc. 01–3950 Filed 2–15–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

[Docket Nos. 50–237 and 50–249]

Exelon Generation Company, LLC;

Notice of Consideration of Issuance of

Amendment to Facility Operating

License and Opportunity for a Hearing

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission (the Commission) is

considering issuance of an amendment

to Facility Operating License No. DPR–

19 and DPR–25, issued to Exelon

Generation Company, LLC, (EGC, or the

licensee, formerly Commonwealth

Edison Company), for operation of the

Dresden Nuclear Power Station, Units 2

and 3 (Dresden), respectively, located in

Grundy County, Illinois.

The proposed amendment, requested

by application dated March 3, 2000, as

supplemented by letters dated March

24, June 5, July 18, July 31, September

1, September 22, October 5, October 9,

November 20, November 30, and

December 18, 2000, would be a full

conversion from the current Technical

Specifications (CTS) to a set of

improved Technical Specifications (ITS)

based on NUREG–1433, ‘‘Standard

Technical Specifications—General

Electric Plants, BWR/4,’’ Revision 1,

dated April 1995. NUREG–1433 has

been developed by the Commission’s

staff through working groups composed

of both Nuclear Regulatory Commission

(NRC) staff members and industry

representatives, and has been endorsed

by the staff as part of an industry-wide

initiative to standardize and improve

the Technical Specifications (TS) for

nuclear power plants. As part of this

submittal, the licensee has applied the

criteria contained in the Commission’s

‘‘Final Policy Statement on Technical

Specification Improvements for Nuclear

Power Reactors (Final Policy

Statement),’’ published in the Federal

Register on July 22, 1993 (58 FR 39132),

to the CTS, and, using NUREG–1433 as

a basis, proposed a conversion to ITS for

Dresden. The criteria in the Final Policy

Statement were subsequently added to

10 CFR 50.36, ‘‘Technical

Specifications,’’ in a rule change that

was published in the Federal Register

on July 19, 1995 (60 FR 36953). The rule

change became effective on August 18,

1995.

The March 3, 2000, application, as

supplemented, requested the conversion

to ITS of six EGC stations, Dresden

Nuclear Power Station, Units 2 and 3,

LaSalle County Station, Units 1 and 2,

and Quad Cities Nuclear Power Station,

Units 1 and 2. Attachment 1 to the

March 3, 2000, application describes the

structure of the application, and

Enclosure A contains the Dresdenspecific changes.

The licensee has categorized the

proposed changes to the CTS into four

general groupings. These groupings are

characterized as administrative changes,

relocation changes, more restrictive

changes, and less restrictive changes.

Administrative changes are those that

involve restructuring, renumbering,

rewording, interpretation, and complex

rearranging of requirements and other

changes not affecting technical content

or substantially revising an operating

requirement. The reformatting,

renumbering and rewording process

reflects the attributes of NUREG–1433

and does not involve technical changes

to the existing TS. The proposed

changes include: (a) identifying plantspecific wording for system names, etc.,

(b) changing the wording of

specification titles in the CTS to

conform to STS, (c) splitting up

requirements that are currently grouped,

or combining requirements that are

currently in separate specifications, (d)

deleting specifications whose

applicability has expired, and (e)

wording changes that are consistent

with the CTS but that more clearly or

explicitly state existing requirements.

Such changes are administrative in

nature and do not impact initiators of

analyzed events or assumed mitigation

of accident or transient events.

Relocation changes are those

involving relocation of requirements

and surveillances for structures,

systems, components, or variables that

do not meet the criteria for inclusion in

TS. Relocated changes are those CTS

requirements that do not satisfy or fall

within any of the four criteria specified

in the Commission’s policy statement

and may be relocated to appropriate

licensee-controlled documents.

The licensee’s application of the

screening criteria to Dresden is

described in Volume 1 of Enclosure A

to the March 3, 2000, submittal. The

affected structures, systems,

components, or variables are not

assumed to be initiators of analyzed

events and are not assumed to mitigate

accident or transient events. The

requirements and surveillances for these

affected structures, systems,

components, or variables will be

relocated from the TS to

administratively controlled documents

such as the Quality Assurance Program,

the Updated Final Safety Analysis

Report (UFSAR), the ITS Bases, the

Technical Requirements Manual (TRM)

(that is incorporated by reference in the

UFSAR), the Core Operating Limits

Report (COLR), the Offsite Dose

Calculation Manual (ODCM), the