ML18337A419

Applicants Joint Answer to Township of Lacey

ML18337A419
Person / Time
Site:	Oyster Creek
Issue date:	12/03/2018
From:	Connolly E, Domeyer T, Eskelsen G, Leidich A, Matthews J, Silberg J, Walsh T Exelon Generation Co, Holtec, Morgan, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, LLP, Pillsbury, Winthrop, Shaw, Pittman, LLP
To:	NRC/OCM
SECY RAS
References
50-219-LT, 72-15-LT, License Transfer, RAS 54669
Download: ML18337A419 (14)

Text

4825-1155-9291.v4 December 3, 2018 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Before the Commission In the Matter of

)

)

Docket No. 50-219-LT Exelon Generation Company, LLC

)

72-15-LT

)

(Oyster Creek License Transfer)

)

)

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Oyster Creek Environmental Protection, LLC and Holtec Decommissioning International, LLCs Answer Opposing the Township of Laceys Petition for Leave to Intervene and Request for a Hearing on the Proposed License Transfer of the Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station I.

INTRODUCTION Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(i)(1), Exelon Generation Company, LLC (Exelon Generation), Oyster Creek Environmental Protection, LLC (OCEP), and Holtec Decommissioning International. LLC (HDI), (collectively, Applicants) hereby answer and oppose the Petition for Leave to Intervene and Request for a Hearing (Petition) filed by Lacey Township (Petitioner or the Township) on November 8, 2018, in the Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station (Oyster Creek) license transfer proceeding. Petitioner seeks to have a public hearing for residents to voice concerns and to intervene in this proceeding. Petitioner requests that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (Commission or NRC) conduct a hearing regarding the License Transfer Application for Oyster Creek. The Petition should be denied because Petitioner has failed to propose an admissible contention.

The Commissions regulations and case law clearly set forth the requirements that a petitioner must satisfy in order to propose an admissible contention. Petitioner bears the burden

2 4825-1155-9291.v4 of pleading contentions that meet the Commissions heightened threshold for the admission of contentions. In its Petition, the Township fails to meet this standard. Accordingly, the Petition should be denied.

II.

BACKGROUND On August 31, 2018, Applicants submitted a license transfer application (the Application) requesting that the Commission approve the direct transfer of the Oyster Creek Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-16 and the general license for the Oyster Creek Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation (ISFSI) from Exelon Generation to OCEP as the licensed owner and to HDI as the licensed operator.1 Applicants also requested that the NRC approve a conforming amendment to the Operating License to reflect this transfer.

The transfer is sought as part of a transaction in which OCEP, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Holtec International (Holtec), is purchasing Oyster Creek, including the ISFSI, in an asset sale. HDI, another wholly-owned subsidiary of Holtec, will be the decommissioning operator of Oyster Creek with licensed responsibility for maintaining and decommissioning the facility.

Oyster Creek has already permanently ceased operations,2 and OCEP is acquiring Oyster Creek for the purpose of decommissioning the facility. If the proposed transaction is approved and consummated, HDIs licensed activities will involve possessing and disposing of radioactive material, maintaining the facility in a safe condition (including handling, storing, controlling, and 1 J.B. Fewell (Exelon Generation) to Document Control Desk, Application for Order Approving Direct Transfer of Renewed Facility Operating License and General License and Proposed Conforming License Amendment, Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station (Aug. 31, 2018) (ADAMS Accession No. ML18243A489) (Application).

2 M.P. Gallagher (Exelon Generation) to Document Control Desk, Certification of Permanent Removal of Fuel from the Reactor Vessel for Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station (Sept. 25, 2018) (ADAMS Accession No. ML18268A258).

3 4825-1155-9291.v4 protecting the spent fuel), decommissioning and decontaminating the facility, and maintaining the ISFSI until it can be decommissioned, each in accordance with the licenses and NRC regulations.

On October 19, 2018, the NRC published a notice in the Federal Register regarding the Application.3 In the Notice, the Commission provided an opportunity to any person whose interest may be affected to request a hearing and file a petition for leave to intervene in the direct transfer proceeding. Such petitions were required to be filed within 20 days from the date of publication of the Notice. The Notice stated that any such petitions should be filed in accordance with the Commissions Agency Rules of Practice and Procedure set forth in 10 C.F.R. Part 2 and laid out the standards for pleading admissible contentions and establishing standing. Because of Petitioners status as the local governmental body in which Oyster Creek is located, Applicants do not question Petitioners standing. However, because of its failure to submit an admissible contention, Applicants respectfully submit that the Petition should be denied.

III.

THE PETITION MUST BE DENIED A.

Contention Admissibility Standards All contentions must meet the admissibility standards set forth in 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(f)(1).

Specifically, contentions must:

(i) Provide a specific statement of the issue of law or fact to be raised or controverted; (ii) Provide a brief explanation of the basis for the contention; (iii) Demonstrate that the issue raised in the contention is within the scope of the proceeding; (iv) Demonstrate that the issue raised in the contention is material to the findings the NRC must make to support the action that is involved in the proceeding; 3 Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station; Consideration of Approval of Transfer of License and Conforming Amendment, 83 Fed. Reg. 53,119 - 53,122 (Oct. 19, 2018) (Notice).

4 4825-1155-9291.v4 (v) Provide a concise statement of the alleged facts or expert opinions which support the requestors/petitioners position on the issue and on which the petitioner intends to rely at hearing, together with references to the specific sources and documents on which the requestor/petitioner intends to rely to support its position on the issue; (vi) In a proceeding other than one under 10 CFR 52.103, provide sufficient information to show that a genuine dispute exists with the applicant/licensee on a material issue of law or fact. This information must include references to specific portions of the application (including the applicants environmental report and safety report) that the petitioner disputes and the supporting reasons for each dispute, or, if the petitioner believes that the application fails to contain information on a relevant matter as required by law, the identification of each failure and the supporting reasons for the petitioners belief.

10 C.F.R. § 2.309(f)(1)(i)-(vi). These standards are enforced rigorously. If any one... is not met, a contention must be rejected.4 A Presiding Officer may not to overlook a deficiency in a contention or assume the existence of missing information.5 Under these standards, a petitioner is obligated to provide the

[technical] analyses and expert opinion showing why its bases support its contention.6 Where a petitioner has failed to do so, the Presiding Officer may not make factual inferences on [the]

petitioners behalf.7 4 Arizona Public Service Co. (Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1, 2, and 3), CLI-91-12, 34 N.R.C.

149, 155 (1991) (citation omitted); USEC, Inc. (American Centrifuge Plant), CLI-06-9, 63 N.R.C. 433, 437 (2006) (These requirements are deliberately strict, and we will reject any contention that does not satisfy the requirements. (footnotes omitted)).

5 See, e.g., Palo Verde, CLI-91-12, 34 N.R.C. at 155; AmerGen Energy Co., LLC (Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station), CLI-09-7, 69 N.R.C. 235, 260 (2009) (noting that the contention admissibility rules require the petitioner (not the board) to supply all of the required elements for a valid intervention petition (emphasis added) (footnote omitted)).

6 Georgia Inst. of Tech. (Georgia Tech Research Reactor, Atlanta, Georgia), LBP-95-6, 41 N.R.C. 281, 305, vacated in part and remanded on other grounds, CLI-95-10, 42 N.R.C. 1, affd in part, CLI-95-12, 42 N.R.C. 111 (1995).

7 Id. (citing Palo Verde, CLI-91-12, 34 N.R.C. 149). See also Private Fuel Storage, L.L.C. (Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation), LBP-98-7, 47 N.R.C. 142, 180 (1998) (explaining that a bald assertion that a matter ought to be considered or that a factual dispute exists... is not sufficient; rather, a petitioner must provide documents or other factual information or expert opinion to show why the proffered bases support [a]

contention (citations omitted)).

5 4825-1155-9291.v4 Further, admissible contentions must explain, with specificity, particular safety or legal reasons requiring rejection of the contested [application].8 In particular, this explanation must demonstrate that the contention is material to the NRCs findings and that a genuine dispute on a material issue of law or fact exists. 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(f)(1)(iv), (vi). The Commission has defined a material issue as meaning one where resolution of the dispute would make a difference in the outcome of the licensing proceeding.9 As the Commission has observed, this threshold requirement is consistent with judicial decisions, such as Connecticut Bankers Association v. Board of Governors, 627 F.2d 245 (D.C.

Cir. 1980), which held that:

[A] protestant does not become entitled to an evidentiary hearing merely on request, or on a bald or conclusory allegation that... a dispute exists. The protestant must make a minimal showing that material facts are in dispute, thereby demonstrating that an inquiry in depth is appropriate.10 A contention, therefore, is not to be admitted where an intervenor has no facts to support its position and where the intervenor contemplates using discovery or cross-examination as a fishing expedition which might produce relevant supporting facts.11 As the Commission has emphasized, the NRC rules bar contentions where petitioners have what amounts only to 8 Dominion Nuclear Connecticut, Inc. (Millstone Nuclear Power Station, Units 2 and 3), CLI-01-24, 54 N.R.C.

349, 359-60 (2001).

9 Final Rule, Rules of Practice for Domestic Licensing ProceedingsProcedural Changes in the Hearing Process, 54 Fed. Reg. 33,168, 33,172 (Aug. 11, 1989) (emphasis added).

10 Id. at 33,171 (Aug. 11, 1989) (quoting Conn. Bankers Assn, 627 F.2d at 251); see also Baltimore Gas & Electric Co. (Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2), CLI-98-14, 48 N.R.C. 39, 41, motion to vacate denied, CLI-98-15, 48 N.R.C. 45, 56 (1998) (It is the responsibility of the Petitioner to provide the necessary information to satisfy the basis requirement for the admission of its contentions.).

11 54 Fed. Reg. at 33,171. See also Duke Power Co., et al. (Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-687, 16 N.R.C. 460, 468 (1982), vacated in part on other grounds, CLI-83-19, 17 N.R.C. 1041 (1983) ([A]n intervention petitioner has an ironclad obligation to examine the publicly available documentary material pertaining to the facility in question with sufficient care to enable [the petitioner] to uncover any information that could serve as the foundation for a specific contention. Stated otherwise, neither Section 189a of the [Atomic Energy] Act nor Section 2.714 [now 2.309] of the Rules of Practice permits the filing of a vague, unparticularized contention, followed by an endeavor to flesh it out through discovery against the applicant or staff.).

6 4825-1155-9291.v4 generalized suspicions, hoping to substantiate them later, or simply a desire for more time and more information in order to identify a genuine material dispute for litigation.12 Rather, NRCs pleading standards require a petitioner to read the pertinent portions of the license application, state the applicants position and the petitioners opposing view, and explain why it has a disagreement with the applicant.13 If the petitioner does not believe these materials address a relevant issue, the petitioner is to explain why the application is deficient.14 A contention that does not directly controvert a position taken by the applicant in the license application is subject to dismissal.15 Furthermore, an allegation that some aspect of a license application is inadequate or unacceptable does not give rise to a genuine dispute unless it is supported by facts and a reasoned statement of why the application is unacceptable in some material respect.16 B.

The Township Has Failed to Put Forth an Admissible Contention.

1.

Contention 1 (Decommissioning Funding) Is Inadmissible.

In Contention 1, Petitioner asserts that there will be a decommissioning funding shortfall because by the NRCs own account decommissioning at Oyster Creek is projected to cost approximately $1.4 billion. Pet. at 2. According to Petitioner, as of July 2018, the decommissioning fund at Oyster Creek was only $945 million, resulting in a significant shortfall in funding. Id. Petitioner states that it will have to assume the shortfall associated with 12 Duke Energy Corp. (McGuire Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2; Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2), CLI 17, 58 N.R.C. 419, 424 (2003).

13 54 Fed. Reg. at 33,170-71; Millstone, CLI-01-24, 54 N.R.C. at 358.

14 54 Fed. Reg. at 33,170. See also Palo Verde, CLI-91-12, 34 N.R.C. at 156.

15 See Texas Utilities Electric Co. (Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station, Unit 2), LBP-92-37, 36 N.R.C. 370, 384 (1992), vacated as moot and appeal dismissed, CLI-93-10, 37 N.R.C. 192, stay denied, CLI-93-11, 37 N.R.C. 251 (1993).

16 Entergy Nuclear Generation Co. (Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station), LBP-06-23, 64 N.R.C. 257, 358 (2005) (citing Florida Power & Light Co. (Turkey Point Nuclear Generating Plant, Units 3 and 4), LBP-90-16, 31 N.R.C. 509, 521 & n.12 (1990)).

7 4825-1155-9291.v4 decommissioning and demands more information and a public hearing, because there is little publicly available information on this matter. Id. Petitioner asserts that it deserves a full and detailed accounting and plan to show how funds will be used and generated. Id.

Contention 1 is inadmissible because Petitioners claims that there is or will be a decommissioning funding shortfall is unsupported by facts or expert opinions, contrary to 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(f)(1)(v), and the Petitioner fails to show that a genuine dispute has been presented with the application, contrary to 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(f)(1)(vi).

Contention 1 hinges on the claim that there exists a decommissioning funding shortfall based on projected costs of $1.4 billion. However, Petitioner provides neither citation nor reference to support the $1.4 billion decommissioning cost estimate, and, in fact, the estimate provided in the license transfer application is much lower. While Petitioner fails to provide any support for their $1.4 billion estimated decommissioning cost, it is likely that Petitioner took the estimate from the Exelon Generations Oyster Creek Post-Shutdown Decommission Activities Report (PSDAR) from May 21, 2018.17 This PSDAR assumes that the plant will be placed into SAFSTOR for an extended period of time before decommissioning is started in 2073. As Exelon Generations PSDAR indicates, approximately $400 million of this decommissioning cost estimate relates to the dormancy periods of SAFSTOR and $50 million in reactivation costs following dormancy. May 2018 PSDAR at 9.

However, Petitioner ignores the revised decommissioning estimate provided in the license transfer application, Application at Encl. 4, and HDIs more recent PSDAR,18 both of which are based on a prompt DECON approach and the more efficient accelerated decommissioning, i.e.,

17 Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station - Post-Shutdown Decommissioning Activities Report at 9, Table 2.2 (May 21, 2018) (ADAMS Accession No. ML18141A775) (May 2018 PSDAR).

18 Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station - Revised Post-Shutdown Decommissioning Activities Report at 19, Table 4-1 (Sept. 28, 2018) (ADAMS Accession No. ML18275A116) (Sept. 2018 PSDAR).

8 4825-1155-9291.v4 decommissioning, that would start in 2019, Sept. 2018 PSDAR at 17, Fig. 3-1, and not SAFSTOR with decommissioning starting in 2073. As the Application clearly states, HDI estimates the total cost to decommission Oyster Creek to be $885 million in 2018 dollars.19 This estimate, based on DECON decommissioning, is well below the $980 million approximate market value of the decommissioning trusts.20 Thus, contrary to Petitioners claims, the Application demonstrates that there is no shortfall in funding, much less a significant shortfall.

Any contention that fails directly to controvert the application or that mistakenly asserts the application does not address a relevant issue can be dismissed.21 Because Petitioner has failed to even address the relevant discussion in the Application, Contention 1 fails to raise a genuine dispute with the Application on a material issue of law or fact and should be dismissed. Petitioner also fails to provide any fact or expert support for its claim that the decommissioning will be underfunded, rendering Contention 1 inadmissible according 10 C.F.R § 2.309(f)(1)(v).

To the extent that Petitioner attempts to remediate Contention 1 by claiming that the contention simply alleges that more information on decommissioning costs should be included in the Application because [t]here is little publicly available information on this matter, Pet. at 3, Contention 1 is still inadmissible. Even in a contention of omission, the petitioner must include references to specific portions of the application... that the petitioner disputes and the supporting reasons for each dispute. 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(f)(1)(vi). Petitioner is ignoring relevant information referenced in the Application. As explained in the Application, HDI plans to submit a revised 19 Application at Encl. 4.

20 Application at 18 (As of June 30, 2018, the assets in the Oyster Creek NDT had an approximate market value of

$980 million.).

21 See Dominion Nuclear Connecticut, Inc. (Millstone Nuclear Power Station, Unit 3), LBP-08-9, 67 N.R.C. 421, 433 (2008) (citing Sacramento Mun. Util. Dist. (Rancho Seco Nuclear Generating Station), LBP-93-23, 38 N.R.C. 200, 247-48 (1993), review declined, CLI-94-2, 39 N.R.C. 91 (1994)).

9 4825-1155-9291.v4 PSDAR..., reflecting OCEP's and HDIs plans for implementing [DECON].22 This PSDAR was subsequently submitted in September, including an explanation of the costs underlying the

$885 million estimate for decommissioning.23 As such, Petitioners erroneous assertion of an omission is inadmissible under 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(f)(1)(vi).24 For these reasons, the Board should reject Contention 1.

2.

Contention 2 (SNC-Lavalin) Is Inadmissible.

In Contention 2, Petitioner raises concerns regarding SNC-Lavalin, one of the two ultimate parent companies of Comprehensive Decommissioning International, LLC (CDI)25 which will provide subcontracted decommissioning services to HDI and OCEP. Pet. at 3-4. Specifically, Contention 2 alleges trustworthiness concerns regarding SNC-Lavalins involvement in the project and requests a hearing for SNC-Lavalin to convince the NRC and public of its innocence.

Id. The contention fails to meet the contention pleading requirements and is therefore inadmissible. A statement that simply alleges that some matter ought to be considered does not provide a sufficient basis for a contention.26 Moreover, the Contention lacks an adequate basis as required by 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(f)(1)(ii), fails to demonstrate that the concern raised is within the scope of the proceeding in accordance with 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(f)(1)(iii), fails to demonstrate the issue raised in the contention is material to the findings the NRC must make to support the action that is involved pursuant to 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(f)(1)(iv), fails to provide a concise statement or 22 Application, Cover Letter at 4.

23 Sept. 2018 PSDAR at 18-19 (ADAMS Accession No. ML18275A116).

24 Progress Energy Carolinas, Inc. (Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant, Units 2 and 3), LBP-09-8, 69 N.R.C. 736, 743 (2009) (finding that information in an existing design certification rule that is incorporated by reference into the application is not an omission, thus the contention of omission is inadmissible under 10 C.F.R.

§ 2.309(f)(1)(vi)).

25 CDI is jointly owned by Holtec International (through its subsidiary, HDI), and SNC-Lavalin (through its subsidiary, Kentz USA). Application at 12.

26 Sacramento Mun. Util. Dist. (Rancho Seco Nuclear Generating Station), LBP-93-23, 38 N.R.C. 200, 246 (1993),

review declined, CLI-94-2, 39 N.R.C. 91 (1994).

10 4825-1155-9291.v4 expert opinions which support the issue per 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(f)(1)(v), and fails to provide sufficient information to demonstrate a genuine dispute exists as required by 10 C.F.R.

§ 2.309(f)(1)(vi).

The Township alleges that SNC-Lavalin has been charged in Canada with corruption, fraud, and bribery, Pet. at 3, but provides no further information with respect to the charges or their relation to this proceeding. Nor does Petitioner provide any basis to connect these charges against an indirect co-parent of a decommissioning subcontractor with any issue that is relevant to the license transfer application, or any connection between the personnel who will be performing the decommissioning services and anyone who has been charged. [N]o genuine dispute with regard to any issue of material fact or law is raised where an intervenor relies on the existence of past violations, but then fails to present[] any information indicating that any person or procedure[s] associated with [those] past violations will be employed at, or involved with, the

[proposed facility].27 Petitioner also focuses solely on an entity that is not a party to this proceeding. The Township has made no effort to link the Applicants financial qualifications to those of SNC-Lavalin, but simply alleges that [d]ecommissioning... is a billion-dollar business that will be affected by a reputation such as SNCs. Pet. at 4. These allegations are vague, unsupported, and unparticularized. Contention 2 makes no effort to demonstrate how concerns regarding the trustworthiness of SNC-Lavalin fall within the scope of this license transfer proceeding. As the Commission has held, neither [t]he filing of a vague, unparticularized issue, nor the submission of general assertions or conclusions, suffices to trigger a license transfer hearing.28 27 USEC, Inc. (American Centrifuge Plant), LBP-05-28, 62 N.R.C. 585, 617-19 (2005).

28 Northeast Nuclear Energy Co., et al. (Millstone Nuclear Power Station, Unit No. 1, 2, and 3), CLI-00-18, 52 N.R.C. 129, 132 (2000) (citing GPU Nuclear Inc. (Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station), CLI-00-6, 51

11 4825-1155-9291.v4 In sum, Contention 2 is vague and unsupported, and fails to demonstrate any genuine material dispute with the Application. For these reasons, the Board should reject Contention 2.

3.

Contention 3 (Environmental Review) Is Inadmissible.

In Contention 3, Petitioner alleges that the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires an environmental review, particularly because of the Barnegat Bay ecological system.

Pet. at 4. Petitioner also claims that it has interest and concerns in the spent fuel storage on site, and that HDI should be held accountable for the use of faulty casks at San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station (San Onofre). Id.

As an initial matter, Petitioners demand for an environmental review in Contention 3 is an impermissible challenge to NRC rules. License transfer proceedings fall within a categorical exclusion and therefore do not require an environmental review. 10 C.F.R. § 51.22(c)(21).

Petitioner has not sought a waiver of that rule in this proceeding, nor demonstrated by affidavit (or otherwise) that special circumstances exist such that the application of the rule... would not serve the purposes for which the rule or regulation was adopted. 10 C.F.R. § 2.335(b). Thus, Petitioners demand for an environmental review serves as an impermissible challenge to the Commissions regulation that establish a categorical exclusion. Nor has Petitioner even alleged a link between an issue relevant to the license transfer application and the Barnegat Bay ecological system. Petitioner has also failed to provide any expert or factual support for its assertion that such an environmental review is made necessary because of the Barnegat Bay ecological system.

10 C.F.R. § 2.309(f)(1)(v).

N.R.C. 193, 202-03 (2000); Northern States Power Co. (Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant; Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant, Units 1 and 2; Prairie Island Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation), CLI-00-14, 52 N.R.C. 37, 47 (2000)).

12 4825-1155-9291.v4 Petitioners bare claims regarding the faulty casks at San Onofre also lack a basis and any factual or expert support, particularly linking the Petitioners claims to the proposed license transfer. Again, simply asserting that a matter ought to be considered is insufficient to establish an admissible contention. 29 Petitioners Contention 3 is inadmissible as an impermissible challenge to the NRC rules and as lacking an adequate basis and factual or expert support. For these reasons, the Board should reject Contention 3.

IV.

CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, the Commission should determine that Petitioner has failed to put forward an admissible contention and should therefore deny the Townships Hearing Request and Petition to Intervene.30 29 Sacramento Mun. Util. Dist. (Rancho Seco Nuclear Generating Station), LBP-93-23, 38 N.R.C. 200, 246 (1993),

review declined, CLI-94-2, 39 N.R.C. 91 (1994).

30 If the Board were to consider this Petition as a request to participate as an interested local governmental body under 10 C.F.R. § 2.315(c), the request should be also denied. Participation by an interested local governmental body under 10 C.F.R. § 2.315(c) is not reason alone for hearing. There must be an admitted contention giving rise to a hearing for the interested local government body to be entitled to participate. See Niagara Mohawk Power Corp. (Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station, Unit 2), LBP-83-45, 18 N.R.C. 213, 216 (1983). The only other submittal to arguably request a hearing in this proceeding is the November 1, 2018 letter submitted by the New Jersey Sierra Club. As set forth in Applicants Answer Opposing Sierra Clubs Letter Requesting a Hearing on the Proposed License Transfer of the Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station, filed November 26, 2018, the Sierra Club has not submitted an admissible contention nor demonstrated that it was standing in this proceeding.

13 4825-1155-9291.v4 Tamra S. Domeyer Exelon Generation Company, LLC 4300 Winfield Road, 5th Floor Warrenville, IL 60555 Telephone: 630-657-3753 Facsimile: 630-657-4323 tamra.domeyer@exeloncorp.com Counsel for EXELON GENERATION COMPANY, LLC AND Respectfully submitted, Executed in accord with 10 C.F.R. § 2.304(d)

MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS John E. Matthews Grant W. Eskelsen 1111 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20004 Telephone: 202-739-5524 Facsimile: 202-739-3001 john.matthews@morganlewis.com grant.eskelsen@morganlewis.com Erin E. Connolly Corporate Counsel Holtec International Krishna P. Singh Technology Campus 1 Holtec Boulevard Camden, NJ 08104 Telephone: (856) 797-0900 x 3712 e-mail: e.connolly@holtec.com December 3, 2018 Jay E. Silberg Timothy J. V. Walsh Anne R. Leidich PILLSBURY WINTHROP SHAW PITTMAN LLP 1200 Seventeenth Street, NW Washington, DC 20036 Telephone: 202-663-8063 Facsimile: 202-663-8007 jay.silberg@pillsburylaw.com timothy.walsh@pillsburylaw.com anne.leidich@pillsburylaw.com Counsel for HOLTEC INTERNATIONAL

4825-1155-9291.v4 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Before the Commission In the Matter of

)

)

Docket No. 50-219-LT Exelon Generation Company, LLC

)

72-15-LT

)

(Oyster Creek License Transfer)

)

)

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of the foregoing Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Oyster Creek Environmental Protection, LLC and Holtec Decommissioning International, LLCs Answer Opposing the Township of Laceys Petition for Leave to Intervene and Request for a Hearing on the Proposed License Transfer of the Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station has been served through the E-Filing system on the participants in the above-captioned proceeding this 3rd day of December, 2018.

/signed electronically by Anne R. Leidich/

Anne R. Leidich