ML19161A252

NRC Staff'S Answer to Fpl'S Motions to Dismiss

ML19161A252
Person / Time
Site:	Turkey Point
Issue date:	06/10/2019
From:	Jeremy Wachutka NRC/OGC
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
SECY RAS
References
50-250-SLR, 50-251-SLR, ASLBP 18-957-01-SLR-BD01, RAS 55028
Download: ML19161A252 (14)

Text

June 10, 2019 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY Docket Nos. 50-250-SLR 50-251-SLR (Turkey Point Nuclear Generating Units 3 and 4)

NRC STAFFS ANSWER TO FPLS MOTIONS TO DISMISS INTRODUCTION In accordance with 10 C.F.R. § 2.323(c) and the Atomic Safety and Licensing Boards Order of April 2, 2019, 1 the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Staff files this answer to Florida Power & Light Companys (FPL or the Applicant) motions to dismiss as moot Contentions 1-E and 5-E filed by Friends of the Earth, Inc., Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., and Miami Waterkeeper, Inc. (collectively, Joint Petitioners). 2 As stated in detail below, the Staff supports the Applicants motions because these contentions, as admitted by the Board, are contentions of omission that have been rendered moot. Specifically, the information that these contentions assert was omitted from FPLs environmental report (ER) 3 has since been 1 Order (Granting in Part Intervenors Joint Motion for Partial Reconsideration of Initial Scheduling Order)

(ADAMS Accession No. ML19092A386).

2 FPLs Motion to Dismiss Joint Petitioners Contention 1-E as Moot (May 20, 2019) (ML19140A355)

(Motion to Dismiss Contention 1-E); FPLs Motion to Dismiss Joint Petitioners Contention 5-E as Moot (May 20, 2019) (ML19140A356) (Motion to Dismiss Contention 5-E).

3 Applicants Environmental Report, Subsequent Operating License Renewal Stage, Turkey Point Nuclear Plant Units 3 and 4 (Jan. 2018) (ML18113A145) (ER). FPL subsequently supplemented the ER. See letter from William Maher, FPL, to NRC Document Control Desk (Apr. 10, 2018) (ML18102A521).

provided in the Staffs draft supplemental environmental impact statement (DSEIS). 4 Accordingly, the contentions are now moot and should be dismissed by the Board.

BACKGROUND This proceeding concerns the subsequent license renewal application (SLRA) submitted by FPL on January 30, 2018, as supplemented and revised, to permit an additional 20 years of operation for Turkey Point Nuclear Generating Unit Nos. 3 and 4 (Turkey Point). 5 Timely requests for hearing were filed by Joint Petitioners and Southern Alliance for Clean Energy (SACE). 6 On March 7, 2019, the Board, in part, granted the hearing requests of Joint Petitioners and SACE and admitted Joint Petitioners Contention 1-E, Joint Petitioners Contention 5-E, SACEs Contention 1A, and SACEs Contention 2, as reframed by the Board. 7 On April 1, 2019, the Staff issued its DSEIS8 and, on April 9, 2019, SACE withdrew from the proceeding. 9 Subsequently, based on the DSEIS, FPL filed its motions to dismiss Joint 4 NUREG-1437, Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, Supplement 5, Second Renewal, Regarding Subsequent License Renewal for Turkey Point Nuclear Generating Unit Nos. 3 and 4, Draft Report for Comment (Mar. 2019) (ML19078A330) (DSEIS).

5 See (1) Letter from Mano K. Nazar, FPL, to NRC Document Control Desk (Jan. 30, 2018)

(ML18037A812); (2) Letter from William D. Maher, FPL, to NRC Document Control Desk (Feb. 9, 2018)

(ML18044A653); (3) Letter from William D. Maher, FPL, to NRC Document Control Desk (Feb. 16, 2018)

(ML18053A123); (4) Letter from William D. Maher, FPL, to NRC Document Control Desk (Mar. 1, 2018)

(ML18072A224); and (5) Letter from William D. Maher, FPL, to NRC Document Control Desk (Apr. 10, 2018) (ML18102A521 and ML18113A132) (transmitting a revised SLRA).

6 See (1) Request for Hearing and Petition to Intervene Submitted by Friends of the Earth, Natural Resources Defense Council, and Miami Waterkeeper (Aug. 1, 2018) (ML18213A417) and (2) Southern Alliance for Clean Energys Request for Hearing and Petition to Intervene (Aug. 1, 2018) (ML18213A528).

7 Fla. Power & Light Co. (Turkey Point Nuclear Generating Units 3 & 4), LBP-19-3, 89 NRC __, __ (Mar.

7, 2019) (slip op. at 63).

8 See Letter from Sherwin E. Turk to the Board (Apr. 3, 2019) (ML19093B846). The document date of the DSEIS in ADAMS is March 31, 2019.

9 Southern Alliance for Clean Energys Notice of Withdrawal (Apr. 9, 2019) (ML19099A314). As FPL stated in its Notice Regarding SACE Withdrawal (Apr. 11, 2019) (ML19101A296), SACEs withdrawal from the proceeding effectively extinguished its pending contentions. Id. at 1 (citing Houston Lighting &

Power Co. (South Texas Project, Units 1 & 2), ALAB-799, 21 NRC 360, 382 (1985)).

Petitioners Contentions 1-E and 5-E as moot. 10 DISCUSSION As discussed in detail below, the Staff agrees with the Applicant that the Board should dismiss as moot Joint Petitioners Contentions 1-E and 5-E because the information that these contentions assert is missing from the Applicants ER has been provided by the Staffs DSEIS.

I. Legal Standards In general, contentions are of two, broad typescontentions of omission and contentions of adequacy. 11 Contentions that claim a failure to include particular information or an issue in an application are considered contentions of omission, while contentions that challenge substantively and specifically how particular information has been discussed in [an]

application are considered contentions of adequacy. 12 The resolution of a contention of omission requires no more than a formal finding by the Board that the information alleged by the contention to be missing from the application has been supplied by the applicant in a revision to its application or by the Staff in an environmental impact statement. 13 When such a finding is made, the contention is moot and should be dismissed. 14 In order to raise specific challenges regarding the new information, intervenors must file new or amended contentions. 15 If a 10 See Motion to Dismiss Contention 1-E at 1-2; Motion to Dismiss Contention 5-E at 1-2.

11 See Pacific Gas & Elec. Co. (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2), CLI-16-11, 83 NRC 524, 534 (2016).

12 Id. at 534, n. 60; Duke Energy Corp. (McGuire Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2; Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2), CLI-02-28, 56 NRC 373, 382-84 (2002).

13 McGuire, CLI-02-28, 56 NRC at 384. Information supplied in a subsequently issued Staff environmental impact statement can moot a contention of omission on the environmental section of an application because the contention migrates to a challenge to the environmental impact statement without the petitioner amending the contention. See Crow Butte Resources, Inc. (In Situ Leach Facility, Crawford, Nebraska), CLI-15-17, 82 NRC 33, 42 n. 58 (2015).

14 McGuire, CLI-02-28, 56 NRC at 383.

15 Id.

contention of omission were allowed to be transformed into a contention of adequacy without the filing of new or amended contentions, the NRCs contention pleading standards would be circumvented. 16 II. FPLs Motion to Dismiss Joint Petitioners Contention 1-E Should Be Granted As admitted, Joint Petitioners Contention 1-E states:

In light of the adverse impact of continued [cooling canal system (CCS)] operations on the threatened American crocodile and its critical seagrass habitat, the ER is deficient for failing to consider mechanical draft cooling towers as a reasonable alternative to the CCS in connection with the license renewal of Turkey Point Units 3 and 4. 17 As indicated by its use of the language failing to consider, this contention is a contention of omission. 18 The Board made this explicit in its Memorandum and Order admitting the contention, stating that SACEs Contention 2, which is identical to Joint Petitioners Contention 1-E, 19 is an admissible contention of omission. 20 Joint Petitioners agree that SACEs Contention 2 is a contention of omission. 21 16 Diablo Canyon, CLI-16-11, 83 NRC at 539 (quoting McGuire, CLI-02-28, 56 NRC at 383).

17 Turkey Point, LBP-19-3, 89 NRC at __ (slip op. at 63, n. 82).

18 See Diablo Canyon, CLI-16-11, 83 NRC at 534 (Contentions that claim a failure to include an entire subject matter or study might be considered contentions of omission.) (emphasis added); Entergy Operations, Inc. (River Bend Station, Unit 1), LBP-18-1, 87 NRC 1, 10 (2018) (stating that a contention alleging that an environmental report fails to consider renewable energy and energy efficiency as alternatives to license renewal is, [o]n its face, framed as a contention of omission); Fla. Power & Light Co. (Turkey Point Units 6 & 7), Memorandum and Order (Granting FPLs Motions to Dismiss Joint Intervenors Contention 2.1 and CASEs Contention 6 as Moot), at 3-5 (Jan. 26, 2012) (ML12026A438)

(rejecting the argument that a contention regarding a failure to analyze impacts was a contention of adequacy).

19 Turkey Point, LBP-19-3, 89 NRC at __ (slip op. at 63, n. 82).

20 Id. at __ (slip op. at 40). See also id. at __ (slip op. at 41, n. 59) ([SACEs] Contention 2 satisfies the admissibility criteria as a contention of omission.).

21 See Intervenors Joint Motion for Partial Reconsideration of Initial Scheduling Order, at 2 (Mar. 26, 2019) (ML19085A331) (This is especially true for contentions of omission (such as SACEs Contention 2).).

Joint Petitioners Contention 1-E faults the ER for failing to consider mechanical draft cooling towers as a reasonable alternative to the CCS. The subsequently issued DSEIS cures this omission by discussing, at length, mechanical draft cooling towers as an alternative to the CCS. Specifically, the DSEIS discusses, as an alternative to Turkey Point Units 3 and 4 continuing to use the existing CCS, the use of three closed-cycle wet-cooling towers for each unit, which would have the same general design, construction, and operating characteristics as the cooling tower system associated with the new nuclear alternative described in the DSEIS. 22 The DSEIS then evaluates the environmental consequences of this alternative with respect to each resource area that would be affected. 23 Therefore, the information alleged by Joint Petitioners Contention 1-E to be missing from the ER has been supplied by the DSEIS.

Accordingly, Joint Petitioners Contention 1-E is moot.

Joint Petitioners Contention 1-E, as admitted by the Board, also alleges that a cooling tower alternative should have been considered in the ER because of the adverse impact of continued CCS operations on the threatened American crocodile and its critical seagrass habitat. 24 To the extent that this language may be interpreted as faulting the ER for failing to discuss both the impacts on the American crocodile and its habitat from the continued use of the CCS and from the CCS no longer being used by Turkey Point Units 3 and 4, the DSEIS also addresses this issue and cures the omission.

First, the DSEIS discusses the impacts of the continued use of the CCS by Turkey Point Units 3 and 4 on the American crocodile and its habitat by incorporating by reference the Staffs 22 DSEIS at 2-12-2-13.

23 See DSEIS Sections 4.2.7, 4.3.7, 4.4.7, 4.5.7, 4.6.7, 4.7.7, 4.9.4, 4.10.7, 4.11.7, 4.12.4, and 4.13.7.

24 Turkey Point, LBP-19-3, 89 NRC at __ (slip op. at 63, n. 82).

Biological Assessment for the proposed subsequent license renewal. 25 The Biological Assessment, in turn, explains how temperature, salinity, and water quality in the CCS affect American crocodile nesting and hatchling survival, American crocodile health, American crocodile prey species, and American crocodile habitat. 26 Further, the Biological Assessment discusses how these factors have been influenced by the past use of the CCS by Turkey Point Units 3 and 4 and how these factors will likely be influenced by reasonably foreseeable future actions if Units 3 and 4 continue to use the CCS for an additional 20 years. 27 The Biological Assessment notes that under a 2016 Consent Order with the State of Florida 28 and a 2015 Consent Agreement with Miami-Dade County 29 FPL is required to, among other things, decrease the salinity in the CCS, develop a nutrient management plan for the CCS, and restore seagrass within portions of the CCS. 30 The Biological Assessment concludes that although current conditions within the CCS are having an adverse impact on the American crocodile and are diminishing the value of its habitat, during the subsequent license renewal period these impacts will likely be decreased as a result of (1) the retirement of Turkey Point Units 1 and 2 and (2) actions that are required by the Consent Order and Consent Agreement. 31 25 DSEIS at 4-60.

26 Biological Assessment for the Turkey Point Nuclear Generating Unit Nos. 3 and 4 Proposed Subsequent License Renewal, at 32-44 (Dec. 2018) (ML18344A008) (BA).

27 Id.

28 State of Florida Department of Environmental Protection v. FPL, OGC File No. 16-0241, Consent Order (Jun. 20, 2016) (ML16216A216) (Consent Order).

29 Miami-Dade County, Department of Regulatory and Economic Resources, Division of Environmental Resources Management v. FPL, Consent Agreement (Oct. 7, 2015) (ML15286A366) (Consent Agreement).

30 BA at 36.

31 Id. at 44.

Second, the DSEIS discusses the impacts on the American crocodile and its habitat from Turkey Point Units 3 and 4 no longer using the CCS. 32 In this regard, the DSEIS states that although Turkey Point Units 1 and 2 would continue to withdraw water from the CCS and Unit 5 would continue to discharge blowdown to the CCS, Turkey Point Units 3 and 4 no longer using the CCS would cause (1) less heat to be discharged to the CCS, which could cause the water in the CCS to become less saline and, thus, more hospitable for threatened species and (2) less flow within the CCS, which could cause the water in the CCS to become stagnant and, thus, less hospitable for threatened species. 33 The DSEIS notes, however, that regardless of whether Turkey Point Units 3 and 4 use the CCS, FPL is still required to take the actions required by the Consent Order and Consent Agreement, which would help to ensure that the CCS continues to provide habitat for threatened species. 34 Also, the DSEIS observes that future changed conditions may require reinitiated consultations between the NRC and the U.S.

Fish and Wildlife Service, which would ensure that the operation of the CCS is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the American crocodile. 35 In sum, the DSEIS discusses mechanical draft cooling towers as a reasonable alternative to the CCS as well as both the impacts on the American crocodile and its habitat from the continued use of the CCS and from the CCS no longer being used by Turkey Point Units 3 and 4. Therefore, Joint Petitioners Contention 1-E is moot and should be dismissed.

32 DSEIS at 4-68.

33 Id.

34 Id.

35 Id.

III. FPLs Motion to Dismiss Joint Petitioners Contention 5-E Should Be Granted As admitted, Joint Petitioners Contention 5-E states:

The ER is deficient in its failure to recognize Turkey Point as a source of ammonia in freshwater wetlands surrounding the site, and in its failure to analyze the potential impacts of ammonia releases during the renewal period on threatened and endangered species and their critical habitat. 36 As with Joint Petitioners Contention 1-E, this contention alleges failure to include information in the ER and is, therefore, a contention of omission. 37 Specifically, Joint Petitioners Contention 5-E identifies two omissions. First, the contention alleges that the ER is deficient because it does not recognize that Turkey Point is a source of ammonia in surrounding wetlands. Second, the contention alleges that the ER is deficient because it does not analyze the potential impacts that ammonia from Turkey Point may have on threatened and endangered species and their critical habitat. The DSEIS cures both of these omissions.

With respect to the first omissionthat the ER is deficient because it does not recognize that Turkey Point is a source of ammonia in surrounding wetlandsthe DSEIS cures this omission by describing the impacts of ammonia from Turkey Point on surrounding wetlands.

The DSEIS discusses ammonia concentrations within the CCS 38 and states that ammonia may be removed from the CCS by the outflow of water from the CCS into groundwater 39 and that water from the CCS can travel via groundwater to adjacent surface water bodies. 40 The DSEIS notes that the Miami-Dade County Division of Environmental Resource Management (DERM) 36 Turkey Point, LBP-19-3, 89 NRC at __ (slip op. at 63, n. 82) (emphasis added).

37 See supra n. 18.

38 DSEIS at 3-42.

39 Id. at 3-44.

40 Id. at 3-41.

found that the CCS is a contributing source of ammonia to surface water bodies. 41 The DSEIS also notes that FPL monitors surface water bodies surrounding Turkey Point, including those of marsh and mangrove areas, for ammonia 42 and that the monitoring program has not detected evidence in marsh and mangrove areas of any impacts of ammonia from the CCS on soil porewater quality via the groundwater pathway. 43 Finally, the DSEIS notes that in accordance with the Consent Order and Consent Agreement, FPL is implementing programs to control ammonia within the CCS. 44 In consideration of this and other information, the DSEIS concludes that impacts on adjacent surface water bodies via the groundwater pathway from the CCS during the subsequent license renewal term would be SMALL. 45 In sum, while Contention 5-E asserts that the ER omitted a discussion of these matters, the DSEIS does consider and characterize the impacts that ammonia from Turkey Point would have on surrounding wetlands during the subsequent license renewal period. Therefore, the first omission of Joint Petitioners Contention 5-E is moot.

With respect to the second omissionthat the ER does not analyze the potential impacts that ammonia from Turkey Point may have on threatened and endangered species and their critical habitatthe DSEIS likewise cures this omission.

41 DSEIS at 3-52 (citing letter from Wilbur Mayorga, DERM, to Matthew J. Raffenberg, FPL, RE: Site Assessment Report (SAR) dated March 17, 2017 and the SAR Supplemental Information dated November 11, 2017, submitted pursuant to Addendum 1 dated August 15, 2016 of the Consent Agreement between Florida Power & Light (FPL) and Miami-Dade County, Division of Environmental Resources Management for FPLs Turkey Point facility located at, near, or in the vicinity of 9700 SW 344 Street, Unincorporated Miami-Dade County, Florida (DERM IW-3, IW-16, IW5-6229, DWO-10, CLI-2014-0312, CLI-2016-0303, HWR-851 (July 10, 2018)).

42 DSEIS at 3-41 (citing Turkey Point Plant Annual Monitoring Report (Sept. 2017) (discussing the sampling of marsh and mangrove porewater for ammonia)).

43 DSEIS at 3-53, 4-23, 4-65.

44 Id. at 4-23.

45 Id.

The DSEIS discusses threatened and endangered species and their critical habitat under the jurisdiction of the National Marine Fisheries Service. 46 The DSEIS explains why ammonia in the CCS would not affect surface water quality through the groundwater pathway in a way that would affect these species. 47 Specifically, the DSEIS discusses the potential pathway by which ammonia from the CCS could reach these species; 48 describes FPLs monitoring of the CCS and surrounding waterbodies for ammonia; 49 states that FPL has identified no evidence of ecological impacts on surrounding areas from ammonia originating in the CCS; 50 discusses the DERMs requirement that FPL develop and implement an ammonia mitigation plan 51 and other requirements of the Consent Order and Consent Agreement; 52 and explains the potential effects of elevated ammonia levels on species. 53 In consideration of this and other information, the DSEIS concludes that water quality effects from the continued operation of Turkey Point would result in insignificant impacts on these species. 54 The DSEIS also discusses threatened and endangered species and their critical habitat under the jurisdiction of the Fish and Wildlife Service through its incorporation by reference of 46 DSEIS at 4-62-4-67. The DSEIS did not identify any critical habitat under the jurisdiction of the National Marine Fisheries Service.

47 DSEIS at 4-64-4-67.

48 Id. at 4-64-4-65.

49 Id. at 4-65.

50 Id.

51 Id.

52 Id. at 4-66.

53 Id. at 4-65-4-67.

54 Id. at 4-66-4-67.

the Staffs Biological Assessment. 55 The Biological Assessment discusses the impacts of ammonia and other nutrients, as well as the impacts of water quality, which is affected by nutrients, on these species and habitat. 56 For instance, the Biological Assessment notes that due in part to a decrease in water quality in the CCS, there has been a reduction in American crocodile nesting and hatchling abundance. 57 The Biological Assessment also observes that because of, among other things, an increase in nutrients within the CCS, the number of prey species within the CCS available to the American crocodile has been limited. 58 These adverse impacts are expected to lessen as a result of the requirements of the Consent Order and Consent Agreement, including the requirement that FPL develop and implement a nutrient management plan. 59 Additionally, wetlands immediately surrounding Turkey Point exhibit similar growth patterns as wetlands further from Turkey Point. 60 In consideration of this and other information, the Biological Assessment concludes that the continued operation of Turkey Point would not alter the quality of nearby wetlands in any measurable way as a foraging habitat for the American crocodile. 61 The Biological Assessment also discusses the West Indian manatee and its critical habitat. 62 Here, the Biological Assessment finds that the manatee and its habitat may be impacted by ammonia from the CCS via the groundwater pathway, but concludes that the 55 DSEIS at 4-60.

56 See BA at 15-16 (Ammonia is a nutrient.).

57 BA at 32-33.

58 Id. at 34-36, 41-42.

59 Id. at 16-17, 36, 42.

60 Id. at 37-38.

61 Id.

62 Id. at 59-62.

continued operation of Turkey Point is not likely to adversely affect the manatee or adversely modify its critical habitat. 63 This conclusion is based on the low likelihood of exposure to ammonia, the short duration of any such potential exposure, the fact that identified areas of elevated ammonia are limited to localized areas that do not provide preferable habitat for the manatee, and the DERM requirement that FPL develop and implement a nutrient management plan. 64 In sum, the DSEIS discusses the impact of ammonia from Turkey Point on both surrounding wetlands and threatened and endangered species and critical habitats. Therefore, Joint Petitioners Contention 5-E is moot and should be dismissed.

CONCLUSION Joint Petitioners Contentions 1-E and 5-E, as admitted by the Board, challenge the ER for failing to discuss certain specific issues identified in the contentions. Those omissions have now been cured, as the Staffs subsequently issued DSEIS discusses each of these issues. As a result, Joint Petitioners Contentions 1-E and 5-E are moot and should be dismissed by the Board. 65 Respectfully submitted,

/Signed (electronically) by/

Jeremy L. Wachutka Counsel for the NRC Staff 63 BA at 62.

64 Id. at 60-62. For other threatened or endangered species, the Biological Assessment provides, generally, that the continued operation of Turkey Point would not affect these species through an effect on CCS or wetland habitat.

65 See McGuire, CLI-02-28, 56 NRC at 384 (explaining that the resolution of admitted contentions of omission requires no more than a formal finding by the Board that the Staff in its DSEIS has in fact addressed the omissions). In accordance with well-established principles, in order to raise specific challenges regarding new information in the DSEIS, Joint Petitioners must file new or amended contentions. See id. at 383.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mail Stop O14-A44 Washington, DC 20555 Telephone: (301) 287-9188 E-mail: Jeremy.Wachutka@nrc.gov Executed in Accord with 10 CFR 2.304(d)

Sherwin E. Turk Counsel for the NRC Staff U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mail Stop O14-A44 Washington, DC 20555 Telephone: (301) 287-9194 E-mail: Sherwin.Turk@nrc.gov Executed in Accord with 10 CFR 2.304(d)

Esther Houseman Counsel for the NRC Staff U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mail Stop O14-A44 Washington, DC 20555 Telephone: (301) 287-9197 E-mail: Esther.Houseman@nrc.gov Dated at Rockville, Maryland this 10th day of June 2019

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY Docket Nos. 50-250-SLR 50-251-SLR (Turkey Point Nuclear Generating Units 3 and 4)

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. § 2.305, I hereby certify that copies of the foregoing NRC STAFFS ANSWER TO FPLS MOTIONS TO DISMISS, dated June 10, 2019, have been filed through the Electronic Information Exchange, the NRCs E-Filing System, in the above-captioned proceeding, this 10th day of June 2019.

Copies of the foregoing have also been sent by e-mail to Richard E. Ayres, Esq. (for Friends of the Earth, Inc.) at ayresr@ayreslawgroup.com, this 10th day of June 2019.

/Signed (electronically) by/

Jeremy L. Wachutka Counsel for the NRC Staff U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mail Stop O14-A44 Washington, DC 20555 Telephone: (301) 287-9188 E-mail: Jeremy.Wachutka@nrc.gov Dated at Rockville, Maryland this 10th day of June 2019