37414 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 115 / Wednesday, June 14, 2000 / Notices

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, the Gelman

Building, 2120 L Street, NW.,

Washington, DC, 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

Mark Wetterhahn, Esq., Winston &

Strawn, 1400 L. Street, NW,

Washington, DC, 20005–3502, 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 July 30, 1999, as

supplemented by letters dated April 3

and May 9, 2000, which is available for

public inspection at the Commission’s

Public Document Room, the Gelman

Building, 2120 L Street, NW.,

Washington, DC, 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 5th day

of June 2000.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Stuart A. Richards,

Director, Project Directorate IV and

Decommissioning, Division of Licensing

Project Management, Office of Nuclear

Reactor Regulation

[FR Doc. 00–15003 Filed 6–13–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

[Docket No. 50–440]

FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating

Company; Notice of Consideration of

Issuance of Amendment to Facility

Operating License, Proposed No

Significant Hazards Consideration

Determination, and Opportunity for a

Hearing

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission (the Commission) is

considering issuance of an amendment

to Facility Operating License No. NPF–

58, issued to FirstEnergy Nuclear

Operating Company (the licensee), for

operation of the Perry Nuclear Power

Plant, Unit 1, located in Lake County,

Ohio.

The proposed amendment would

permit changes to the Perry Nuclear

Power Plant Updated Safety Analysis

Report (USAR) to incorporate

descriptions (in the form of text, tables,

and drawings) of modifications to the

Emergency Service Water (ESW)

alternate intake sluice gate. The

modifications will include: (1)

Installation of a safety-related Class 1E

selector switch that will be used to

disable the automatic opening function

of the sluice gate during warm weather

and (2) installation of a non-safety

inflatable sealing device on the gates

between the ESW forebay and the

alternate intake tunnel. The

modifications are designed to increase

overall reliability of the ESW system

and to eliminate undesired operation of

the ESW pumps.

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.

The Commission has made a

proposed determination that the

amendment request involves no

significant hazards consideration. Under

the Commission’s regulations in 10 CFR

50.92, this means that operation of the

facility in accordance with the proposed

amendment would not: (1) Involve a

significant increase in the probability or

consequences of an accident previously

evaluated; or (2) create the possibility of

a new or different kind of accident from

any accident previously evaluated; or

(3) involve a significant reduction in a

margin of safety. As required by 10 CFR

50.91(a), the licensee has provided its

analysis of the issue of no significant

hazards consideration, which is

presented below:

1. The proposed change does not involve

a significant increase in the probability or

consequences of an accident previously

evaluated.

The new selector switch is procured as

safety-related Class 1E, is fully qualified

environmentally and seismically, and is also

qualified in regard to mechanical and

electrical operational cycles. Based on these

characteristics, the switch is deemed to be

highly reliable and will not introduce any

new failure modes to the gate control circuit.

In addition, the key operated feature of the

selector switch ensures that inadvertent

positioning of the switch, i.e., an operator

error, is not possible. Re-positioning of the

switch will be procedurally controlled and

will require conscious operator action along

with use of a key. Therefore, it is concluded

that addition of the new selector switch will

not introduce any new failure modes and it

will not cause or create any malfunctions of

equipment.

The new inflatable seal and supporting

mechanical equipment was procured as nonsafety. The frequent verification of sluice gate

seal integrity assures that the seals will be

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 115 / Wednesday, June 14, 2000 / Notices 37415

functional during accident and transient

mitigation. This is supported by the

probabilistic analysis that determined that

the inflatable seal use results in a negligible

increase in the Core Damage Frequency (7.4

E–8). Therefore, it is concluded that the new

inflatable seals will not introduce any new

failure modes and it will not cause or create

any malfunctions of equipment.

The effect of disabling the automatic

opening of the sluice gates with the proposed

selector switch was evaluated and

determined that the requirements of

Regulatory Guide (RG) 1.27, Ultimate Heat

Sink For Nuclear Power Plants, are met

which ensures compliance with General

Design Criteria (GDC) 44, Cooling Water.

Analyzed events are initiated by the failure

of plant structures, systems or components.

The ESW system is an accident mitigating

system that provides a reliable source of

cooling water during accident conditions and

is not an accident initiator. The proposed

change does not have a detrimental impact

on the integrity of any plant structure, system

or component that initiates an analyzed

event. The proposed change will not alter the

operation of, or otherwise increase the failure

probability of any plant equipment that

initiates an analyzed accident. As a result,

the probability of any accident previously

evaluated is not significantly increased.

Sufficient water is available to the ESW

pumps to satisfy requirements for all modes

of operation, accounting for minimum lake

levels. The alternate intake tunnel that

branches from the main discharge tunnel is

isolated from the ESW pumphouse by the

normally closed sluice gates. The alternate

intake tunnel and sluice gates are not relied

upon for mitigation of a Loss of Coolant

Accident (LOCA) or other accidents with

radiological consequences analyzed in the

Updated Safety Analysis Report (USAR). The

probabilistic analysis demonstrates that the

unavailability of the alternate intake tunnel

is acceptable during the time period that the

sluice gate manual open/close circuit and the

automatic opening signal is defeated, due to

the extremely low probability of normal

intake failure. The modifications do not

result in changes to initial conditions of an

accident nor alter assumptions used in any

consequence determinations. This activity

cannot increase the dose to the public nor onsite radiation doses such that actions to

mitigate the radiological consequences of an

accident would be impeded; nor does this

modification directly or indirectly affect the

ability of any other plant system to mitigate

the radiological consequences of an accident.

The proposed change will not alter the

operation of any plant equipment assumed to

function in response to the aforementioned

analyzed events. Therefore, the probability of

occurrence or the consequences of an

accident previously evaluated remains

unchanged.

2. The proposed change would not create

the possibility of a new or different kind of

accident from any previously evaluated.

The proposed modification of the opening

circuit has been designed, and will be

procured and installed in accordance with

the original ESW system design codes and

standards. ESW system functions as required

by GDC 44 and RG 1.27, have not been

impacted by the change. Systems supporting

the operation of the ESW system have not

been affected. Failure of the modification to

perform its design function due to electrical

or mechanical failure would be identical to

the current ESW system performance.

Inflating the seals and defeating the

automatic gate-opening signal results in the

availability of only one intake path from the

ultimate heat sink. Availability of only one

intake during the time that the automatic

opening function is disabled has been

demonstrated to be acceptable because a

water supply from the normal intake to the

ESW pumps will be available. Cooling water

supply from only one intake path cannot

initiate an accident of a different type than

previously evaluated because the cooling

water supply paths cannot create or initiate

an accident.

The ESW system is an accident mitigating

system and is not an accident initiator.

Consequently, the alternate intake tunnel, the

sluice gates, the sluice gate seals, and the

sealing system are all components contained

in the ESW system and are therefore not

accident initiators. The operational change to

the sluice gates, i.e., inflation of the seals and

disabling of the sluice gate automatic

opening feature, does not result in any

interactions or interfaces with other plant

systems, structures, or components that

could create the possibility of an accident of

a different type. The operational change

prevents leakage past the sluice gates.

Similarly, the sluice gates in the closed

position does not result in any interactions

or interfaces with other plant systems,

structures, or components that could create

the possibility of an accident of a different

type. Performance of these isolation

functions cannot initiate an accident.

This change will not affect any known

accident initiators or contributors; therefore,

it will not increase the probability of an

accident previously thought to be incredible.

The proposed modifications do not affect any

system or component that could initiate an

accident. Therefore, this change will not

create any different type of accident than

previously evaluated in the USAR. Therefore,

the probability of occurrence or the

consequences of an accident previously

evaluated remains unchanged.

3. The proposed change will not involve a

significant reduction in the margin of safety.

The design of the ESW system

includes suitable redundancy and

reliability to assure that an adequate

supply of cooling water is provided and

that no single failure will prevent safe

shutdown of the unit. The normal

cooling water supply to the ESW pump

house is provided by a branch tunnel

from the main intake tunnel, while a

backup supply is available by means of

a branch tunnel (alternate intake) from

the main discharge tunnel. Currently,

the sluice gates automatically open

upon receipt of a signal from low water

level switches in the ESW pump house

forebay. Opening of a sluice gate

ensures the necessary cooling water is

available to the ESW pumps from the

alternate intake tunnel. The licensing

basis assumes that two supply paths are

available and that automatic initiation

would restore the cooling supply from

the alternate path if the normal cooling

supply were lost. The proposed

modification will disable the manual/

automatic-opening feature of the sluice

gates during the summer months and

will thus isolate the alternate supply

path. A probabilistic study has

demonstrated compliance with the

requirements of RG 1.27. The study

determined that an alternate source is

not required due to having

demonstrated that there is extremely

low probability that a single aqueduct

can functionally fail as the result of

natural or site-related phenomena.

Therefore, the proposed modification

does not involve a significant reduction

in the margin of safety.

The closed sluice gates and the nonsafety sluice gate seals prevent

recirculation of plant discharge water to

the ESW forebay and therefore maintain

the forebay at or below its design

temperature limit. The ESW system

must be capable of providing cooling

water at a temperature such that the

heat exchangers serviced by ESW can

remove their design heat loads for safe

plant shutdown and for accident and

transient mitigation. In order to prevent

a reduction in the margin of safety

associated with the ESW inlet

temperature, the ESW forebay must not

exceed 85°F. With the seals inflated, the

closed sluice gates will prevent

recirculation and subsequent increase of

the forebay temperature above 85°F and

therefore the closed sluice gates do not

reduce the margin of safety associated

with the ESW inlet temperature. The

back-up air supply for the sluice gate

seals, the frequent verification of the

integrity of the sluice gate seals

provided via administrative controls,

and the functional and leak testing of

the air system isolation check valves

provides assurance that the inflated

non-safety sluice gate seals can be

credited during accident and transient

mitigation and normal plant operation.

Therefore, the margin of safety

associated with ESW inlet temperature

will not be reduced since the seals will

be available to prevent leakage and

subsequent increase of the forebay

temperature above 85°F. Further, a

probabilistic study supports this

conclusion by demonstrating that seal

failure, when needed, is highly

improbable and would result in a

negligible increase to core damage

frequency. Therefore, it is concluded

that inflation of the non-safety seals and

37416 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 115 / Wednesday, June 14, 2000 / Notices

reliance on them to prevent sluice gate

leakage during all modes of operation

does not represent a reduction to the

margin of safety.

The NRC staff has reviewed the

licensee’s analysis and, based on this

review, it appears that the three

standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are

satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff

proposes to determine that the

amendment request involves no

significant hazards consideration.

The Commission is seeking public

comments on this proposed

determination. Any comments received

within 30 days after the date of

publication of this notice will be

considered in making any final

determination.

Normally, the Commission will not

issue the amendment until the

expiration of the 30-day notice period.

However, should circumstances change

during the notice period such that

failure to act in a timely way would

result, for example, in derating or

shutdown of the facility, the

Commission may issue the license

amendment before the expiration of the

30-day notice period, provided that its

final determination is that the

amendment involves no significant

hazards consideration. The final

determination will consider all public

and State comments received. Should

the Commission take this action, it will

publish in the Federal Register a notice

of issuance and provide for opportunity

for a hearing after issuance. The

Commission expects that the need to

take this action will occur very

infrequently.

Written comments may be submitted

by mail to the Chief, Rules and

Directives Branch, Division of

Administrative Services, Office of

Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission, Washington, DC 20555–

0001, and should cite the publication

date and page number of this Federal

Register notice. Written comments may

also be delivered to Room 6D59, Two

White Flint North, 11545 Rockville

Pike, Rockville, Maryland, from 7:30

a.m. to 4:15 p.m. Federal workdays.

Copies of written comments received

may be examined at the NRC Public

Document Room, the Gelman Building,

2120 L Street, NW., Washington, DC.

The filing of requests for hearing and

petitions for leave to intervene is

discussed below.

By July 14, 2000, 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, the Gelman

Building, 2120 L Street, NW.,

Washington, DC, 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 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.

If a hearing is requested, the

Commission will make a final

determination on the issue of no

significant hazards consideration. The

final determination will serve to decide

when the hearing is held.

If the final determination is that the

amendment request involves no

significant hazards consideration, the

Commission may issue the amendment

and make it immediately effective,

notwithstanding the request for a

hearing. Any hearing held would take

place after issuance of the amendment.

If the final determination is that the

amendment request involves a

significant hazards consideration, any

hearing held would take place before

the issuance of any amendment.

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, the Gelman

Building, 2120 L Street, NW.,

Washington, DC, 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

Mary E. O’Reilly, FirstEnergy

Corporation, 76 South Main St., Akron,

OH 44308, attorney for the licensee.

Nontimely filings of petitions for

leave to intervene, amended petitions,

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 115 / Wednesday, June 14, 2000 / Notices 37417

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).

For further details with respect to this

action, see the application for

amendment dated June 1, 2000, which

is available for public inspection at the

Commission’s Public Document Room,

the Gelman Building, 2120 L Street,

NW., Washington, DC, 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 7th day

of June, 2000.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Anthony J. Mendiola,

Chief, Section 2, Project Directorate III,

Division of Licensing Project Management,

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.

[FR Doc. 00–15001 Filed 6–13–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

[Docket No. 50–219]

In the Matter of GPU Nuclear, Inc., and

Jersey Central Power & Light

Company (Oyster Creek Nuclear

Generating Station); Order Approving

Transfer of License and Conforming

Amendment

I

GPU Nuclear, Inc. (GPUN) and Jersey

Central Power & Light Company (JCP&L)

are the holders of Facility Operating

License No. DPR–16, which authorizes

operation of the Oyster Creek Nuclear

Generating Station (Oyster Creek or the

facility) at steady-state power levels not

in excess of 1930 megawatts thermal.

The facility, which is owned by JCP&L,

is located in Lacey Township, Ocean

County, New Jersey. The license

authorizes GPUN to possess, use, and

operate the facility, and JCP&L to

possess the facility.

II

Under cover of a letter dated

November 5, 1999, GPUN, acting for

itself and on behalf of JCP&L, and

AmerGen Energy Company, LLC

(AmerGen), jointly submitted an

application requesting approval of the

proposed transfer of the Oyster Creek

operating license to AmerGen. GPUN

and AmerGen also jointly requested

approval of a conforming amendment to

reflect the transfer. The application was

supplemented by two letters dated April

6, 2000, and another letter dated April

13, 2000, collectively referred to as the

application herein unless otherwise

indicated.

AmerGen is a limited liability

company that was formed to acquire

and operate nuclear power plants in the

United States. PECO Energy Company

(PECO) and British Energy, Inc., each

own a 50-percent interest in AmerGen.

British Energy, Inc., is a wholly owned

subsidiary of British Energy, plc. After

completion of the proposed transfer,

AmerGen would be the sole owner and

operator of Oyster Creek. The

conforming amendment would remove

the current licensees from the facility

operating license and would add

AmerGen in their place.

Approval of the transfer of the facility

operating license and the conforming

license amendment was requested by

GPUN and AmerGen pursuant to 10

CFR 50.80 and 50.90. Notice of the

request for approval and an opportunity

for a hearing was published in the

Federal Register on December 16, 1999

(64 FR 70292). Pursuant to such notice,

the Commission received a request for a

hearing dated January 5, 2000, from the

Nuclear Information and Resource

Service (NIRS). On May 3, 2000, the

Commission denied the request for a

hearing, and terminated the associated

proceeding. GPU Nuclear, Inc., et al.

(Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating

Station), CLI–00–06, 51 NCR llll,

slip op. (May 3, 2000).

Under 10 CFR 50.80, no license, or

any right thereunder, shall be

transferred, directly or indirectly,

through transfer of control of the

license, unless the Commission shall

give its consent in writing. After

reviewing the information in the

application and other information

before the Commission, and relying

upon the representations and

agreements contained in the

application, the NRC staff has

determined that AmerGen is qualified to

be the holder of the license, and that the

transfer of the license to AmerGen is

otherwise consistent with applicable

provisions of law, regulations, and

orders issued by the Commission,

subject to the conditions set forth below.

The NRC staff has further found that the

application for the proposed license

amendment complies with the

standards and requirements of the

Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended,

and the Commission’s rules and

regulations set forth in 10 CFR Chapter

1; that the facility will operate in

conformity with the application, the

provisions of the Act and the rules and

regulations of the Commission; that

there is reasonable assurance the

activities authorized by the proposed

license amendment can be conducted

without endangering the health and

safety of the public and that such

activities will be conducted in

compliance with the Commission’s

regulations; the issuance of the

proposed license amendment will not

be inimical to the common defense and

security or to the health and safety of

the public; that the issuance of the

proposed license amendment will be in

accordance with 10 CFR Part 51 of the

Commission’s regulations; and that all

applicable requirements have been

satisfied. The findings set forth above

are supported by the staff’s safety

evaluation dated June 6, 2000.

III

Accordingly, pursuant to Sections

161b, 161i, and 184 of the Atomic

Energy Act of 1954, as amended, 42

U.S.C. §§ 2201(b), 2201(i), and 2234,

and 10 CFR 50.80, it is hereby ordered

that the transfer of the license as

described herein to AmerGen is

approved, subject to the following

conditions:

(1) The AmerGen Limited Liability

Company Agreement dated August 18,

1997, and any subsequent amendments

thereto as of the date of this Order, may

not be modified in any material respect

concerning decision-making authority

over ‘‘safety issues’’ as defined therein

without the prior written consent of the

Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor

Regulation.

(2) At least half of the members of

AmerGen’s Management Committee

shall be appointed by a nonforeign

member group, all of which appointees

shall be U.S. citizens.

(3) The Chief Executive Officer (CEO),

Chief Nuclear Officer (CNO) (if someone

other than the CEO), and Chairman of

AmerGen’s Management Committee

shall be U.S. citizens. They shall have

the responsibility and exclusive

authority to ensure, and shall ensure,

that the business and activities of

AmerGen with respect to the Oyster

Creek operating license are at all times

conducted in a manner consistent with

the protection of the public health and

safety and common defense and security

of the United States.

(4) AmerGen shall cause to be

transmitted to the Director, Office of

Nuclear Reactor Regulation, within 30

days of filing with the U.S. Securities

and Exchange Commission, any

Schedules 13D or 13G filed pursuant to

the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 that

disclose beneficial ownership of any

registered class of stock of PECO or any