ML23261B178

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
NRC-2021-000105 - Interim 1 - Released Set
ML23261B178
Person / Time
Issue date: 04/30/2021
From:
NRC/OCIO
To:
- No Known Affiliation
Shared Package
ML23261B174 List:
References
NRC-2021-000105, FOIA
Download: ML23261B178 (111)
v • d • e


Text

TERRESTRIAL ENERGY USA March 26th, 2020 Project Number: 99902076 TEUSA Letter #: TEUSA200331 US Nuclear Regulatory Commission ATTN: Document Control Desk Washington, DC 20555-0001

Subject:

Terrestrial Energy USA, Inc. Report #200331: TEUSA Regulatory Engagement Plan, Version 2 Terrestrial Energy USA (TEUSA) is submitting to the NRC an updated TEUSA Regulatory Engagement Plan (REP) as discussed during recent conversations with NRC staff. Please no te t hat this REP, Enclosure 1 to this letter, is commercially sensitive informat ion and we are requesting that it be withheld from public disclosure in its entirety in accordance with 10 CFR 2.390 "Public inspections, exemptions, request for withholding," paragraph (a)(4).

Each page of Enclosure 1 is marked as "Confidential and Proprietary" and an affidavit providing the basis for this confidentiality request is provided in Enclosure 2. Please feel free to contact Robin Rickman, V.P.

ofTEUSA, at {646) 687-8212 ext. 531 or at rrickman@terrestrialusa.com if you have any questions.

This updated REP is being provided for purposes of budgeting and planning and no technical billable review of it is requested.

Sincerely, Simon Irish Chief Executive Officer, Terrestrial Energy USA

Enclosures:

TEUSA Regulatory Engagement Plan, Version 2 : Affidavit Supporting Request for Wit hholding from Public Disclosure Terrestrial Energy USA, Inc.

150 East 58th Street

  • Suite 2413
  • New York* NY* 10155
  • USA WWW.TerrestrialUSA.com

Enclosure 2 to TEUSA Letter 200331 Terrestrial Energy USA Affidavit for Enclosure 1

TERRESTRIAL ENERGY USA AFFIDAVIT I, Simon lrish, state as follows:

(1) Tam the Chief Executive Officer ofTerrestriaJ Energy USA ("TEUSA") and have reviewed the information described in paragraph (2) which is sought to be withheld, and 1 am the authorizing official for TEUSA lo apply for its withholdi ng.

(2) The information sought to be withheld is contained in Enclosure 1 ofTEUSA Letter 200331, "integral Molten Salt ReactorRegulato,y Engagement Plan." The disclaimer included in the header of each page of the Regulatory Engagement Plan refers to paragraph (3) of this affidavit, which provides the basis for the commercially sensitive determination.

(3) In making this application for withholding of commercially sensitive information of which it is the owner or licensee, TEUSA relies upon the exemption from disclosure set forth in the Freedom ofInformation Act ("FOJA"), 5 U.S.C. Sec. 552(b)(4), and the Trade Secrets Act, 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1905, and NRC regulations IO CFR 9. l 7(a)(4), and 2.390(a)(4) for trade secrets (Exemption 4). The material for which exemption from disclosure is here sought also qualifies under the narrower definition of trade secret, within the meanings assigned to those terms for purposes of FOIA Exemption 4 in, respectively, Critical Mass Energy Project v. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 975 F.2d 87 1 (D.C. Cir. 1992), and Public Citizen Health Research Group v. FDA, 704 F.2d 1280 (D.C. Cir. 1983).

(4) The information sought to be withheld is considered commercially sensitive for the reasons set forth in paragraphs (4)b and (4)c shown below. Some examples of categories of information that fit into the definition of commercially sensitive information are:

a. Tnformation that discloses a process, method, or apparatus, including supporting data and analyses, where prevention of its use by TEUSA's competitors without license from TEUSA constitutes a competitive economic advantage over other companies;
b. lnformation tl1at, if used by a competitor, would reduce their expenditure of resources or improve their competitive position in the design, manufacture, shipment, installation, assurance of quality, or licensing of a similar product;
c. Jnformation that reveals aspects of past, present. or future TEUSA development plans and programs, resulting in potential products to TEUSA;
d. Information that disdoses trade secrets or potentially patentable subject matter, or both, for which it may be desirable to obtain patent protection.

(5) To address 10 CFR 2.390(b)(4), the information sought to be withheld is being submitted to NRC in confidence. The information is of a sort customarily held in confidence by TEUSA, and is in fact so held. The information sought to be withheld has, to the best of my knowledge and belief, consistently been held in confidence by TEUSA, not been disclosed publicly, and not been made available in public sources. All disclosures to third TE USA Affidavit for Enclosure 1 Page 1 of 2

parties, including any required transmittals to the NRC, have been made, or must be made, pursuant to regulatory provisions, or to proprietary or confidentiality agreements that provide for maintaining the information in confidence. The in itial designation of this information as commercially sensitive, and the subsequent steps taken to prevent its unauthorized disclosure, are as set forth in the following paragraphs (6) and (7).

(6) Initial approval of commercially sensitive treatment of a document is made by the manager of the originating component, who is the person most likely to be acquainted with the value and sensitivity of the information in relation to industry knowledge, or who is the person most likely to be subj ect to the terms under which it was licensed to TEUSA. Access to such documents within TEUSA is limited to a "need to know" basis.

(7) The procedure for approval of external release of such a document typically requires review by a vice president for technical content, competitive effect, and determination of the accuracy of the commercially sensitive designation. Disclosures o utside TEUSA are limited to regulatory bodies, customers, and potential customers, and U1eir agents, suppliers, and licensees, and others with a legitimate need for the information, and then only in accordance with appropriate regulatory provisions or proprietary or confidentiality agreements, or both.

(8) The information identified in paragraph (2), above, is classified as commercially sensitive because it contains detailed information regarding TEUSA's licensing plans.

(9) Public disclosure of the information sought to be withheld is likely to cause substantial harm to TEUSA's competitive position and foreclose or reduce the availability of profitmaking opportunities. The information is part of TEUSA's licensing strategy. The development of TEUSA's ch osen licensing path comprises a substantial investment of time and money by TEUSA. The precise value of the expertise to use in devising this licensing path is difficult to quantify, but it clearly is substantial. TEUSA's competitive advantage will be lost if its competitors are able to use the results of the TEUSA 's experience to normalize or verify their own process or if they are able to claim an equivalent understanding by demonstrating that they can arrive at the same or sin1ilar conclusions. The value of this information to TEUSA would be lost if the information were disclosed to the public. Making such information available to competitors without them having been required to undertake a similar expenditure of resources would unfairly provide competitors with a windfall, and deprive TEUSA of the opportunity to exercise its competitive advantage to seek an adequate return on its large investment in developing its licensing strategy.

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing affidavit and the matters stated therein are ct to the best of my knowledge, information, and belief.

e March 26th , 2020 n rr*

Chief Executive Officer Terrestrial Energy USA, lnc.

TEUSA Affidavit for Enclosure 1 Page 2 of2

Conf1dentlal and Proprietary - VV1ttitlold From public disclosure under 10 CFR2.390 TERR STRIAL ENERGY USA Terrestrial Energy USA, Inc.

150 East 58th Street

  • Suite 2413
  • NY
  • 10155
  • USA www.TerrestrialUSA.com Caofideorial aod Propcieta*y - withhold from public discosure under 10 CFR 2.390

Co11fide11t1al a11d P1op11eta1 y Withlwld f10111 public disclosure under 10 CFR '2.390 TEUSA IMSR" Regulatory Engagement Plan Eef1fidrntial af1d Prepfietary W ithhold froffi puslie disclosure under 10 CJ;R 2.390 Page I 2 of 23

Cm1Fide11tial a11d Prnp, ieca, v -

IAiithhold from public diselosdre m ,de, 10 CFR 2.390 TEU5A IMSR" Regulatory Engagement P.lan fb*.f Cortf1dent1al and Propnetary-W1th11old fforn poolfc d isclosure m1de1 10 CFR 2.390 Page I 3 of23

Confidential and ProprietaF)1 Withhold from public disclosure 1mder10 EFR 2.390 TEUSA IMSR" Regulatory Engagement P.lan Confidentl.il .ind Propriet.iry - Withhold from puct*c disdoswe 11 odec 1Q CEB 1 390 Page I 4 of23

Ccrnfide11tial a11d P, oplietarv -

1" 1ithhold from pYbllc disclostir@ y:,declO CFR 1390 TEUSA IMSR" Regulatory Engagement Plan I

Confidentlal and Proprietary - Withhold from p11bl1c disclosure under 10 CFR 2390 Page I 5 of 23

Confid~nt:iill end Propri~til"'/ -

0 Withhold from pYbllc disclOSllre !Hider lQ UR 2.390 TEU5A IMSR Regolatory Engagement Plan Confide1 ,tial a11d P1 op1 ieta1 y - Witl1l1old fio111 public disclosme 011der 10 cm 2.390 Page I 6 of 23

Confidential and Proprieta, v -

Withhold from p 11 btlc: dlsdoSllr@ 1u1der 10 CFR 2.390 TEU5A IMSR" Regulatory Engagement P.lan Co, ,fide, ,tial a11d Pr up, ieta, y - Witl1l1Uld from public disclosure under 10 CFR 2.390 Page I 7 of 23

Confidenti;i! and Propcietal)! -

Withhold from p11bllc dlscloSl,Jre under 10 CFR 1.390 TEUSA IMSR" Regulatory Engagement P.lan Confidential and Proprietary - Withhold from public disclosme 1JOdec 1Q CFB 2 390 Page I 8 of 23

Confidential and Proprietarv

  • Withhold from public dlsci:JStJr@ Ynder lQ CFR 2.398 TELJ-SA IMSR" Regulatory Engagement Plan Confidential aod Proprietary - Withhold from public disclosure under 10 CFR 2.390 Page I 9 of 23

Co, ,Fidential and Proprietary -

Withlmld f;rn1, public disdos.ure tlftdEF~O CFR 2.390 TEU5A IMSR" RegUlatory Engagement P.lan J , 1)11Hl CoRfideritla l a11d Proprfetaf)' 1N1thho-ld froffl pub!,c discloS!:Jre URder 10 CFR 2.390 Page I 10 of 23

Co11fide11tial a11d P.opFietaf\l V,tithhold from pYbllc disclosure lclnde,-~D CFR 2.390 TEUSA IMSR" Regulatory Engagement P*lan Confidential and Proprietary - Witl1l1old f,0111 public disclosure under 10 cm 2.390 Page I 11 of 23

Confidential and Proprieta(\* -

Withhold from pYblic disclowrn Y;ideclO CFR 1390 TEUSA IMSR" Regulatory Engagement P.lan Conf1dent1al and p ropr .1e tai Y - .vvi

      • ti 1I 1old from public disclosure under 10 CFB 2 39D Page I 12 of 23

CoAfidential and Pi 0µ1 ietarv -

Withhold from public disclost.irn YAdff10 CFR 2.39{1 TEUSA IMSR" RegUlatory Engagement Plan Confidential and PrnpcietaD/ - Withhold from public disclosure under 10 EFR 2.390 Page I 13 of 23

Confid~nt:iill and P.roprietarv 1/i/itbbold frcrn pub'lc dlsdo£:Yrn Yndff10 CfR 2.390 TEU5A IMSR" Regolatory Engagement P.lan Co11fide11tial a11d Pr opr ietar y - Vu'itl ,I ,old f, 0111 public disclosm e 011de, 10 CFR 2.390 Page I 14 of 23

CoRfidefltial a, ,d P, up, ,ieta, v-W ith I ,old frnm public disclosJre under 10 UR 2.390 TEUSA IMSH" Regu la ory Engagement Plan Conf,dent,al and Proprietary - W ithhold from public disclosure under 10 CFR 2.390 Page I 15 of 23

confident1al and Proprietary- W1thl'\o!d from public disclosure 011de1 10 CFR 2.390 TEUSA IMSR* Regulatory Engagement Plan

\UX"I IIWll Confidential and Proprietary - Withhold from public disclosure under 10 CFR 2.390 Page I 16 of 23

Co1 1fide11tial a11d ~,op,ietar v- Witl,liold from public dlstlosore under 10 CFR 2.390 TEUSA IMSR* Regulatory Engagement Plan Confidential and Proprietary - Witbbold frgm public sisclosure ur;der 10 CFR 2.390 Page I 17 of 23

Co11flde11tial a11d P1 op,ieta, v - Witlrliold fl om public disclosm e 011de1 rn cm :u~e TEUSA IMSR* Regulatory Engagement Plan Confidential and Proprietary Withho,d from public disclosure 1:1nder 1Q CFR 2.390 Page I 18 of 23

ConHdentioi l <ind Proprietary - Witbho!d from p1 ib!fc disclosure under l OCFR 1390 TEUSA ,1MSR' Regulatory Engagement Plan

,11111**1 Confidential and Proprietary - Witbbold frtlr:i:i publit disdosure t:lflder 10 EFR 2.390 Page I 19 of 23

Confidential and Propr1et;iry Withhofd from public disclosure, iodec 10 CFB 2 390 TEUSA IMSR* Regulatory Engagement Plan (1))(11)

Conhdent1al and Proprietary - Will ii 1old f10111 public disclostire tinder 1Q CF~ 2 :il90 Page I 20 of 23

Con fide11tial a11d P1oµ,ietai v v'vitl 1ho~d from publie disclosuFe uAder 10 CFR 2.390 TEUSA IMSR' Regulatory Engagement Plan CGAAdential and Proprietary Withne,d frem publie disclosure under 10 CFR 2.390 Page I 21 of 23

Coqfidential and Proprietary Witbbotd from public disclosure under 10 CFR 2 390 TEUSA IMSR* Regulatory Engagement Plan Cenfidential and Proprietary Withhold from public di,clo,ure Ynder 1Q CF~ 2 ~9Q Page I 22 of 23

Confidential and Proprietary Withbo~d from public cHsclo3ure u, ,de, 10 cm B90 TE USA IMSR' Regulatory Engagement Plan Conf,dent,al and Proprieta1 y - Witl 11 ,old F, 0111 public disclosure uridcr 10 CFR 2.390 Page I 23 of 23

From: Roach, Kevin Sent: 8 Dec 2020 20:51 :43 +0000 To: Weisman, Robert

Subject:

~_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ____.I If this time doesn't work, I'll be on until about 6 or available tomorrow afternoon .

Microsoft Teams meeting Join on your computer or mobile app Click here to join the meeting Or call in (audio only)

_+~1~3~0~

1-~5~7~

6-~2=9~

78='=

'8,7;;;;;

61~7;;;;;3;;;;;3;;;;

3;;;;

7#;;;.......:..

U...:..

ni...:..

te:...:d:....;States, Si Iver Spring d(bX6)

Phone Conference I .__ _ _ _ _ __.

I Find a local number I Reset PIN

-- U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission --

Learn More I Meeting options

From: Roach, Kevin Sent: 28 Oct 2020 16:40:32 +0000 To : Carpentier, Marcia Cc: Spencer, Michael

Subject:

advance discussion of Staff QA question Marcia and Michael,

Thanks, Kevin Join Microsoft Teams Meetin

+ 1 30 1-576-2978 United States, Silver Spring (Toll)

Conference ID:r...X

_6)_____.

Local numbers I Reset PIN I Learn more about Teams I Meeting options

-- U.S. Nuclear Regul at ory Co mmissi on - -

From: Roach, Kevin Sent: 4 Dec 2020 18:29:43 +0000 To: Weisman, Robert;Carpentier, Marcia

Subject:

FW: NRC f eedback on Terrestrial's Exemption White Paper Bob and Marcia, Thanks for your feedback.

Kevin From: Hayes, M ichelle <M ichelle.Hayes@nrc.gov>

Sent: Friday, December 04, 2020 10:15 AM To: Muniz, Adrian <Adrian.MunizGonzalez@nrc.gov>

Cc: Travis, Boyce <Boyce.Travis@nrc.gov>; Weisman, Robert <Robert.Weisman@nrc.gov>; Carpentier, M;irci;i <M ;irci;i .C;irpentier@nrc.gov>; Roach, Kevin <Kevin.Roach@nrc.gov>

Subject:

RE: NRC f eedback on Terrestrial's Exemption White Paper

Adrian, Thanks, Michelle From: Muniz, Adrian <Adrian.MunizGonzalez@nrc.gov>

Sent: Wednesday, December 02, 2020 1:24 PM To: Hayes, M ichelle <Michelle.Hayes@nrc.gov>

Cc: Travis, Boyce <Boyce.Travis@nrc.gov>

Subject:

FW: NRC feedback on Terrestrial's Exemption White Paper Michelle:

View ADAMS Properties ML20302A488 Open ADAMS Package (NRC f eedback on Terrestrial's Exemption White Paper)

Thanks, Adrian

OFFICIAiL USE ONLY PROPRIETARY INFORMATION UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555-0001 January 27, 2021 Mr. Simon Irish Chief Executive Officer Terrestrial Energy USA, Inc.

537 Steamboat Road , Suite 200 Greenwich, CT 06830

SUBJECT:

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION FEEDBACK REGARDING TERRESTRIAL ENERGY USA WHITE PAPER - EXAMINATION OF REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS TO DETERMINE EXEMPTION NEEDS FOR THE IMSR CORE-UNIT (EPID NO. L-2020-LRO-0052)

Dear Mr. Irish:

By letter dated August 25, 2020 (Agencywide Documents Access and Management System Accession No. ML20262H163), Terrestrial Energy USA (TEUSA), submitted for U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff review a white paper titled "Examination of Regulatory Requirements to Determine Exemption Needs for the IMSR Core-Unit."

The white paper contains TEUSA's determinations related to the potential need for exemptions for the IMSR Core-unit from applicable technical requirements contained in Parts 50 and 52 of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations. Terrestrial requested that the N RC staff review the white paper and provide written comments on Terrestrial's determinations of (1) the applicability of requirements, and (2) the potential exemption topic areas for a Standard Design Approval application for the IMSR Core-unit. The NRC staff has completed its assessment of the white paper. The proprietary and non-proprietary versions of the document containing NRC staff's observations are in Enclosures 1 and 2 of this document, respectively. to this letter contains Proprietary information. When separated from Enclosure 1, this document is DECONTROLLED.

OFFICIAL USE ONLY PROPRIETARY INFORMATION

OFFICIAL USE ONLY PROPRIETARY INFORMATION S. Irish If you have any questions about this matter, please contact Adrian Muniz at (301) 415-4093 or by e-mail at Adrian.Muniz@mc.gov.

Sincerely, IRA/

Benjamin G. Beasley, Chief Advanced Reactor Licensing Branch Division of Advanced Reactors and Non-Power Production and Utilization Facilities Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Project No.: 99902076

Enclosures:

As stated OFFICIAL USE ONLY PROPRIETARY INFORMATION

Package: ML20302A488 Cover Letter: ML20302A481 Enclosure 1: ML20302A485 (Non-Public)

Enclosure 2: ML20302A487 (Public-Redacted\

  • via e-mail NRR-106 OFFICE NRR/DANU/UARUPM* NRR/DANU/UARLILA' NRR/DANU/UART/BC* OGC' NRR/DANU/UARLIBC' NAME AMuniz $Lent MHaves KRoach BBeaslev DATE 1/22/2021 1/19/2021 1/13/2021 1/20/2021 1/27/2021 OFFICIAL USE ONLY PROPRIETARY INFORMATION U.S Nuclear Regulatory Commission Staff Observations on Examination of Regulatory Requirements to Determine Exemption Needs for the IMSR Core-unit White Paper Note: (()) denotes proprietary information.
1. General
a. The NRC staff notes that the review of this document was limited to the items identified in the white paper, based on the scope of the request and the nature of the white paper. No observations regarding the regulatory applicability of items that were not listed are provided as part of this evaluation.
b. Terrestrial Energy USA (TEUSA) notes that an applicant's ability to seek approval of "major portions" of a design in developing an application for a Standard Design Approval (SDA) provides substantial flexibility in standardization. TEUSA also states that "[d]epending on the maturity of the design and engineering, an SDA could be developed for selected SSCs

[systems, structures and components] or larger integrated portions of the design at a level of detail analogous to that of a design certification application." The NRC staff agrees with this characterization, but notes that a subsequent submittal referencing a "major portions" SDA (such as a combined license (COL) application) would be required to address items not covered in the scope of the SDA.

c. TEUSA addresses regulations at the subpart level (e.g. Section 50.34) in its white paper. The NRC staff evaluated the statements provided at this level, however certain complex regulations have different applicability statements among their provisions (e.g., Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations ( 10 CFR) Sections 50.34 or 52.137) and, therefore, not all portions of a given regulatory subpart may apply to the IMSR Core-unit SDA application. In certain cases, regulations include applicability differences between Part 50 and Part 52 applications. Examples include 10 CFR Sections 50.60 and 50.61 , which are not applicable if applying under Part 50, but are cited as requirements in 52.137(a)(14) without specifying applicability to only water-cooled nuclear reactors. The NRC staff believes an exemption to these requirements would be needed; however, the NRC staff's review of an exemption request for relief from an applicable requirement that has no technical justification would likely be straightforward and efficient and would minimize unnecessary burden.
2. Regulatory Analysis Methodology
a. The white paper classifies regulations into three categories: applicable, not applicable, and exemption. The NRC staff takes no issue with the categorization, but disagrees with the characterization associated with "not applicable." TEUSA states that regulations are not applicable if they are not "technically relevant,"

which staff considers to be an overly broad characterization. While some regulations refer to technical relevance, the technical relevance of a regulation does not necessarily determine its applicability. Depending on the specific regulation , a regulation that is not technically relevant may or may not require an exemption if an applicant seeks to not meet that regulation. As noted above, the NRC staff's evaluation of an exemption from a regulation that is truly not technically relevant to the review of the design would likely be straightforward and efficient. Based on its review of the white paper, the NRC staff does not Enclosure 1 OFFICIAL USE ONLY PROPRIETARY INFORMATION

OFFICIAL USE ONLY - PROPRIETARY INFORMATION believe this characterization led to any misclassification of regulations , but provides this discussion for context regarding any future characterizations.

b. The white paper states that the scope of the evaluations was limited to the IMSR Core-unit. This review was performed with that understanding and does not include an evaluation of any regulations beyond that stated scope.
3. Regulatory Analysis Results
a. For regulations discussed in this section, the NRC staff provides no additional feedback if it agrees with the characterization provided in the white paper-that is, if no comment below exists, the NRC staff agrees with the initial characterization of applicability. The positions expressed in the staffs feedback are not final and could change based on new or additional information and potential design or operation changes as the design evolves.
b. TEUSA states that certain regulations are applicable to CPs/OLs/COLs, but not SDAs (or vice versa). In some cases, this may not be accurate. Specifically, TEUSA states that [fbX*> UJ is not applicable to SDAs, but subsection OtbX4>  !) re uires SDAs to include analysis in accordance with the re uirements of (bX*>
  • Other exam les include: x*)

C. SA states that . The NRC staff The information

._p __r__o-v"'"'

1 ,- e_,......in--.,,--e--...,...,.,........-w ....,....1t,....e-p-a.....p--e-r..,.c.....o-u--p"T"e--.-__,.,--...,...,.,,...,_.

onal design details) could partially address this requirement.

d. For 10 CFR 50.48, the white paper r b)(*) I Kb)(4) fo)(-O I]
e. For 10 CFR 50.55a, the white paper states that fX4'

~D)ll )

I l<*i ll In cases where the standards are not

....r_e_q_u-1re-fO........

T1o_r_a_n_o_n__.... ..........,-n-o_e_x_e_m_p...,.

L.VVK ,t-1 on would be needed, However, the use of codes and standards that are not required In order to justify the capability and pedigree of certain SSCs would likely need to be the subject of a future engagement to ensure there is an adequate basis to apply the codes and standards for a given purpose.

OFFICIAL USE QNI Y PROPRIETARY INFORMATION-2

OFFICIAL USE ONLY PROPRIETARY INFORMATION

f. For 10 CFR 50.68, 1Jl1'~**

I))

I 11

g. For 10 CFR 50.70 and 50.71 the white oaoer states 1r.*X*) I (D)(>)

II 4

In reference to 10 CFR 50.72 and 50. 73 the white a er states that ""' ' '

I. In reference to 10 CFR 50 A endix E, the white a er states that XJJ X')

n m The white paper states that 10 CFR 50 Appendix I r

~ )(*)

t""J) I))

n. For 10 CFR 50 Aooendix J the white paper states wx4> I ICbX41 l]il(AJ pi

~FICIAL USE-GM..¥ PROPRIETARY INFORMATION 3

QFFIGIOL' '*E Q~lb>G PRQPRIETOR>< l~IFQRP10TIQ~I U.S Nuclear Regulatory Commission Staff Observations on Examination of Regulatory Requirements to Determine Exemption Needs for the IMSR Core-unit White Paper Note: (()) denotes proprietary information.

1. General
a. The NRC staff notes that the review of this document was limited to the items identified in the white paper, based on the scope of the request and the nature of the white paper. No observations regarding the regulatory applicability of items that were not listed are provided as part of this evaluation.
b. Terrestrial Energy USA (TEUSA) notes that an applicant's ability to seek approval of "major portions" of a design in developing an application for a Standard Design Approval (SDA) provides substantial flexibility in standardization. TEUSA also states that "[d]epending on the maturity of the design and engineering, an SDA could be developed for selected SSCs

[systems, structures and components] or larger integrated portions of the design at a level of detail analogous to that of a design certification application." The NRC staff agrees with this characterization, but notes that a subsequent submittal referencing a "major portions" SDA (such as a combined license (COL) application) would be required to address items not covered in the scope of the SDA.

c. TEUSA addresses regulations at the subpart level (e.g. Section 50.34) in its white paper. The NRC staff evaluated the statements provided at this level, however certain complex regulations have different applicability statements among their provisions (e.g., Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations ( 10 CFR) Sections 50.34 or 52.137) and, therefore, not all portions of a given regulatory subpart may apply to the IMSR Core-unit SDA application. In certain cases, regulations include applicability differences between Part 50 and Part 52 applications. Examples include 10 CFR Sections 50.60 and 50.61 , which are not applicable if applying under Part 50, but are cited as requirements in 52.137(a)(14) without specifying applicability to only water-cooled nuclear reactors. The NRC staff believes an exemption to these requirements would be needed; however, the NRC staff's review of an exemption request for relief from an applicable requirement that has no technical justification would likely be straightforward and efficient and would minimize unnecessary burden.
2. Regulatory Analysis Methodology
a. The white paper classifies regulations into three categories: applicable, not applicable, and exemption. The NRC staff takes no issue with the categorization, but disagrees with the characterization associated with "not applicable." TEUSA states that regulations are not applicable if they are not "technically relevant,"

which staff considers to be an overly broad characterization. While some regulations refer to technical relevance, the technical relevance of a regulation does not necessarily determine its applicability. Depending on the specific regulation , a regulation that is not technically relevant may or may not require an exemption if an applicant seeks to not meet that regulation. As noted above, the NRC staff's evaluation of an exemption from a regulation that is truly not technically relevant to the review of the design would likely be straightforward and efficient. Based on its review of the white paper, the NRC staff does not Enclosure 2 QFFIGIOL' '*E Q~IL>< PRQPRIETOR>< l~IFQRP10TIQ~I

8FFIOl/tt ~BE e,4tY PRBPRIEiifihR1:' llff8FUe1,*,iifi1B,d believe this characterization led to any misclassification of regulations, but provides this discussion for context regarding any future characterizations.

b. The white paper states that the scope of the evaluations was limited to the IMSR Core-unit. This review was performed with that understanding and does not include an evaluation of any regulations beyond that stated scope.
3. Regulatory Analysis Results
a. For regulations discussed in this section, the NRC staff provides no additional feedback if it agrees with the characterization provided in the white paper-that is, if no comment below exists, the NRC staff agrees with the initial characterization of applicability. The positions expressed in the staffs feedback are not final and could change based on new or additional information and potential design or operation changes as the design evolves.
b. TEUSA states that certain regulations are applicable to CPs/OLs/COLs, but not SDAs (or vice versa). In some cases, this may not be accurate. Specifically, TEUSA states that [I 11 is not applicable to SDAs, but subsection

[I )) requires SDAs to include analysis in accordance with the requirements of [I 11. Other examples include: [I

)).

c. TEUSA states that [I )). The NRC staff disagrees;[(

11 The information provided in the TEUSA white paper (coupled with additional design details) could partially address this requirement.

d. For 10 CFR 50.48, the white paper [I

.))

e. For 10 CFR 50.55a, the white paper states that [I

)). In cases where the standards are not required for a non-LWR, no exemption would be needed. However, the use of codes and standards that are not required in order to justify the capability and pedigree of certain SSCs would likely need to be the subject of a future engagement to ensure there is an adequate basis to apply the codes and standards for a given purpose.

©FFl©h11L ~©E ©,4t\f PR©PRIEiifi,t,mc llff©Rh1,\ifl8'4 2

9FFIGli9tL "GE 9PjLY PA9PRIEiifi.O:A~:< IPW9APM,ifl9Pj

f. For 10 CFR 50.68, [

11

[I 11

g. For 10 CFR 50.70 and 50.71 the white paper states [I

))

h. In reference to 10 CFR 50.72 and 50.73, the white paper states that [I 11
i. For 10 CFR 50.100, the white paper states [I

))

j. For 10 CFR 50.110 and 50.111 , the white paper states [I

))

k. For 10 CFR 50, Appendix B, the white paper states [I

))

I. In reference to 10 CFR 50 Appendix E, the white paper states that [I 11

m. The white paper states that 10 CFR 50, Appendix I [I 11
n. For 10 CFR 50, Appendix J, the white paper states [I OFFl©h11L el©E ©Pjl\f PAOPAIEiiJis8tf'l1/ IPW©Ah11\ifl©PJ 3

From: Muniz, Adrian Sent: 29 Oct 2020 15:18:09 +0000 To: Spencer, Michael

Subject:

FW: QA Program Approval Requirement

Original Appointment-----

From: Muniz, Adrian <Adrian .MunizGonzalez@nrc.gov>

Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2020 8:17 AM To: Muniz, Adrian ; Roach, Kevin; Carpentier, Marcia; Kavanagh, Ke rri; Beasley, Benjamin

Subject:

QA Program Approval Requ irement When: Wednesday, November 04, 2020 2:30 PM-3:00 PM (UTC-05:00) Eastern Time (US & Canada) .

Where: Microsoft Teams Meeting (bX5)

Join Microsoft Teams Meeting

+ 1 301-576-2978 United States, Silver Spring (Toll) 6 Conference ID:[._X

- )_ _ _ _ ___,

Local numbers I Reset PIN I Learn more about Teams I Meeting options

-- U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission --

From: Roach. Kevin To: Muniz. Adrjan

Subject:

RE: Action: NLO Review - TEUSA White Paper Examination of Regulatory Requirements To Determine Exemptions Needs Date: Wednesday, January 20, 2021 9:12:00 AM Hi Adrian, (b)(5)

Thanks, Kevin From: Muni z, Adrian <Adrian .M unizGonzalez@nrc.gov>

Sent: Friday, January 15, 2021 8 :55 AM To: Roach, Kevin <Kevin.Roach@nrc.gov>

Subject:

Act ion: NLO Review - TE USA Wh ite Paper Examination of Regu lat ory Req uirements To Determine Exemptions Needs The subject document is in the link below.

View ADAMS Properties ML20302A488 Open ADAMS Package (NRC feedback on Terrestrial's Exemption White Paper\

Tha nks, Adrian

From: Roach, Kevin Sent: 20 Jul 2020 20;26:59 +0000 To: Carpentier, Marcia;Vrahoretis, Susan;Ezell, Julie;Spencer, Michael;Wright, Megan;Gamin, Kayla

Subject:

RE: Discussion: Staff reviews of advanced reactor white papers l(l>Xl)

Thank you all for meeting today for this discussion. 1 I r~) I Among the many good points made were these takeaways (feel free to reply with any others):

Thanks, Kevin

Original Appointment-----

From: Roach, Kevin Sent: Wednesday, July 15, 2020 3:59 PM To: Roach, Kevin; Carpentier, Marcia; Vrahoretis, Susan; Ezell, Julie; Michael Spencer; Wright, Megan Cc: Gamin, Kayla

Subject:

Discussion: Staff reviews of advanced reactor white papers When: Monday, July 20, 2020 3:00 PM-3:45 PM (UTC-05:00) Eastern Time (US & Canada).

Where: Skype Meeting Good afternoon, (bXl)

Thanks, Kevin Join Skype Meeting

Trouble Joining? Try Skype Web App Join by phone 301-415-0333,,203683# (HQ) English {Un ited States)

Find a loca l number e_6)_ _ __.

Conference ID:...

Forgot your dial-in Pl N? I!::!filQ

1. Use the first link if you are an NRC user
2. Use the second link if you are not an NRC user
3. Users who dial-in only via phone will not be able to join the meeting until another attendee has joined by completing step 1 above .
4. If using Skype over Citrix (which is not as optimal a service as VPN), choose the 3rd option "Don't join audio" and dial into the meeting from a phone. You will be able to see the video presentation over the Skype and audio via the phone.

From: Roach. Kevin To: Muniz. Adrian

Subject:

RE: Enclosure 1 - NRC feedback on Terrestrial"s Exemptions Wh1te Paper KCR comments Date: Monday, November 30, 2020 4: 10:00 PM

Adrian, Thanks, Kevin From: Muniz, Adrian <Adrian.M unizGonzalez@ nrc.gov>

Se nt: Monday, November 30, 2020 4:04 PM To: Roach, Kevin <Kevin.Roach@nrc.gov>

Subject:

FW: Enclosure 1 - NRC feedback on Terrestrial's Exemptions White Paper KCR comments

Thanks, Adrian From: Muniz, Adrian Sent : Thursday, November 19, 2020 1:49 PM To: Travis, Boyce <Boyce.Travfs@nrc.gov>; Roach, Kevi n <Kevin.Roach@nrc.gov>

Subject:

Enclosure 1 - NRC feedback ::m Terrestria l's Exemptions White Paper KCR comments Th is is the version that includes edits during our discussion today.

Adrian

From: Roach, Kevin Sent: 18 Jun 2020 21:19:53 +0000 To: Vrahoiretis, Susan

Subject:

RE: Looking for the OGC contact for Terrestrial Hi Susan, It was nice seeing you today too. _ r b)(6)

This sounds like an interesting project. I can ask Adrian to add me to the meeting scheduler.

have a few other meetings next week, but a good bit of unclaimed time.

Thanks, Kevin From: Vrahoretis, Susan <Susan.Vrahoretis@nrc.gov>

Sent: Thursday, June 18, 2020 5:11 PM To: Roach, Kevin <Kevin.Roach@nrc.gov>

Subject:

FW: Looking for the OGC contact for Terrestrial Hi, Kevin, It was nice to see you today at

[l>)(l)

Please let me know if you're available to attend the meeting next week. Thanks and I hope you're having a great day.

Susan From: Carpent ier, M arcia <Ma rcia.Carpentier@nrc.gov>

Sent: Thursday, June 18, 2020 4:13 PM To: Vrahoretis, Susan <Susan.Vrahoretis@ nrc.gov>; Gamin, Kayla <Kayla .Gamin @nrc.gov>

Subject:

Looking for t he OGC contact for Terrest rial Hi,

Also, if one of you wants to participate In that meeting , let me know. We're trying to schedule it next week.

Marcia

From: Roach, Kevin Sent: 8 Dec 2020 21:27:13 +0000 To: Weisman, Robert

Subject:

RE: meeting l(b)(l )

From: Weisman, Robert <Robert.Weisman@nrc.gov>

Sent: Tuesday, December 08, 2020 4:12 PM To: Roach, Kevin <Kevin.Roach@nrc.gov>

Subject:

meeting My other task is taking longer than I hoped; OK to call you around 5:30?

Thanks, Bob RobertM. Weisman Special Counsel for New Reactor Licensing, New Reactor Programs Office of the General Counsel, USNRC Mail Stop O 14 A-44 (301) 287.9177 (301) 415.3725 (FAX)

NOTE: 17=ff:Q-..l<'-J\/~ =-

INFORMATI ONO RK PRODUCT-DO NOT RELEASE E COMMISSION DETERMI NOTE: REQUESTS FOR OGC REVIEW OF DOCUMENTS MUST BE SENT TO THE OGC MAILROOM AT THE FOLLOWING EMAIL

ADDRESS: RidsOgcMailCenter.Resource@nrc.gov. FAILURE TO SEND YOUR DOCUMENT TO THE OGC MAJLROOM MAY MEAN THE OGC REVIEW WILL BE DELAYED.

From: Roach, Kevin Sent: 5 Jan 202118:04:39 +0000 To: Muniz, Adrian

Subject:

RE: NRC feedback on Terrestrial's Exemption White Paper Adrian, I have a meeting at 1 :30, but can touch base with you afterwards, around 2. I just tried to call you but missed you.

Kevin From: Muniz, Adrian <Adrian.MunizGonzalez@nrc.gov>

Sent: Tuesday, January 05, 2021 12:54 PM To: Roach, Kevin <Kevin.Roach@nrc.gov>

Subject:

RE: NRC f eedback on Terrestrial's Exemption White Pa per Are you available this afternoon?

Adrian From: Roach, Kevin <Kevi n.Roach@nrc.gov>

Sent: Monday, January 4, 2021 8:43 AM To: Muniz, Adrian <Adrian .MunizGonzalez@nrc.gov>

Subject:

RE: NRC feedback on Terrestrial 's Exemption White Paper Adrian, I will need to call you this afternoon. I have a meeting I'm preparing for this morning, and I will want to read through what you sent me before we have a discussion.

Thanks, Kevin From: Muniz, Adrian <Adrian .MunizGonzalez@nrc.gov>

Sent: Monday, January 04, 20218:21 AM To: Roach, Kevin <Kevin.Roach@nrc.gov>

Subject:

RE: NRC feedback on Terrestrial's Exemption White Paper Hi Kevin, j6Xl) e,i Can you please call me when you get a momentrl 1and would like to discuss it with ._

y_o_

u _m ltg--h

'""'t""'B

...o""'"b-.-

s""'e"--m

a""'

1i._____________________.

Adrian From: Muniz, Adrian Sent: M onday, January 4, 2021 8:12 AM

To: Roach, Kevin <Kevin.Roach@nrc.gov>

Subject:

FW: NRC feedback on Terrestrial's Exemption White Paper View ADAMS Properties Ml20302A488 Open ADAMS Package (NRC feedback on Terrestri al's Exemption White Paper)

Thanks, Adrian

From: Roach, Kevin Sent: 4 Dec 2020 22:18:59 +0000 To: Weisman, Robert

Subject:

RE: NRC feedback on Terrestrial's Exemption White Paper Bob, Understood. Thanks for the overviewJMil>

Thanks, Kevin From: Weisman, Robert <Robert.Weisman@nrc.gov>

Sent: Friday, December 04, 2020 3:31 PM To: Roach, Kevin <Kevin.Roach@nrc.gov>; Carpentier, Marcia <Marcia.Carpentier@nrc.gov>

Subject:

RE: NRC feedback on Terrestrial's Exemption White Paper Kevin, (b)(l )

Please hold your fire on this one until we have an answer, which we hope will be next week.

Have a great weekend, Bob Robert M. Weisman Special Counsel for New Reactor Licensing, New Reactor Programs Office of the General Counsel, USNRC Mail Stop O 14 A-44

(301) 287.9177 (301) 415.3725 (FAX)

NOTE: MAY CONTAIN ATTORNEY-C INFORMATION OR ATTO DUCT- DO NOT RELEASE ISSION DETERMINES OT NOTE: REQUESTS FOR OGC REVIEW OF DOCUMENTS MUST BE SENT TO THE OGC MAILROOM AT THE FOLLOWING EMAIL ADDRESS: RidsOgcMailCenter.Resource@nrc.gov. FAILURE TO SEND YOUR DOCUMENT TO THE OGC MAILROOM MAY MEAN THE OGC REVIEW WILL BE DELAYED.

From: Roach, Kevin <Kevin.Roach@nrc.gov>

Sent: Friday, December 04, 2020 1:30 PM To: Weisman, Robert <Robert.Weisman@nrc.gov>; Carpentier, Marcia <Marcia.Carpentier@nrc.gov>

Subject:

FW: NRC feedback on Terrestr ial's Exemption White Paper Bob and Marcia, Thanks for your feedback.

Kevin From: Hayes, Michelle <Michelle.Hayes@nrc.gov>

Sent: Friday, December 04, 2020 10:15 AM To: Muniz, Adrian <Adrian.MunizGonzalez@nrc.gov>

Cc: Travis, Boyce <Boyce.Travis@nrc.gov>; Weisman, Robert <Robert.Weisman@nrc.gov>; Carpentier, Marcia <Marcia .Carpentier@nrc.gov>; Roach, Kevin <Kevin.Roach@nrc.gov>

Subject:

RE: NRC feedback on Terrestrial's Exemption White Paper

Thanks, Michelle

From: Muniz, Adrian <Adrian .MunizGonzalez@nrc.gov>

Sent: Wednesday, December 02, 2020 1:24 PM To: Hayes, Michelle <Michelle.Hayes@nrc.gov>

Cc: Travis, Boyce <Boyce.Travis@nrc.gov>

Subject:

FW: NRC feedback on Terrestrial's Exemption White Paper Michelle:

ib)(l )

View ADAMS Properties ML20302A488 Open ADAMS Package (NRC feedback on Terrestrial 's Exemption White Paper)

Thanks, Adrian

From: Roach, Kevin Sent: 9 Dec 2020 14:12:24 +0000 To: Muniz, Adrian

Subject:

RE: NRC feedback on Terrestrial's Exemption White Paper No, Bob needed to move the discussion to today From: Muniz, Adrian <Adrian.MunizGonzalez@nrc.gov>

Sent: Wednesday, December 09, 2020 9:12 AM To: Roach, Kevin <Kevin.Roach@nrc.gov>

Subject:

RE: NRC feedback on Terrestrial's Exemption White Paper Were you able to discuss with Bob?

Adrian From: Roach, Kevin <Kevin .Roach@nrc.gov>

Sent: Tuesday, December 8, 2020 10:15 AM To: Muniz, Adrian <Adrian.MunizGonzalez@nrc.gov>

Subject:

RE: NRC feedback on Terrestrial's Exemption White Paper

Adrian, I sent a scheduler request to talk with him today. I hope to learn whether the issue is one we can write around.

Kevin From: Muniz, Adrian <Adrian .MunizGonzalez@nrc.gov>

Sent: Tuesday, December 08, 2020 7:52 AM To: Roach, Kevin <Kevin.Roach@nrc.gov>

Subject:

RE: NRC feedback on Terrestrial's Exemption White Paper Do you know when you may be able to talk to Bob?

Adrian From: Roach, Kevin <Kevin .Roach@nrc.gov>

Sent: Friday, December 4, 2020 5:20 PM To: Muniz, Adrian <Adrian .MunizGonzalez@nrc.gov>

Subject:

RE: NRC feedback on Terrestrial's Exemption White Paper

Adrian,
Thanks, Kevin From: Muniz, Adrian <Adrian.MunizGonzalez@nrc.gov>

Sent: Friday, December 04, 2020 1:03 PM To: Roach, Kevin <Kevin.Roach@nrc.gov>

Subject:

RE: NRC feedback on Terrestrial's Exemption White Paper Kevin:

Is this something that you will discuss with Bob and Marcia and then get back to us or do you need me to schedule a meeting?

Adrian From: Hayes, Michelle <Michelle.Hayes@nrc.gov>

Sent: Friday, December 4, 2020 10:15 AM To : Muniz, Adrian <Adrian .MunizGonzalez@nrc.gov>

Cc: Travis, Boyce <Boyce.Travis@nrc.gov>; Weisman, Robert <Robert.Weisman@nrc.gov>; Carpentier, M arcia <M arcia.Carpentier@nrc.gov>; Roach, Kevin <Kevin.Roach@nrc.gov>

Subject:

RE: NRC feedback on Terrestrial's Exemption White Paper

Adrian, Thanks, Michelle From: Muniz, Adrian <Adrian.MunizGonzalez@nrc.gov>

Sent: Wednesday, December 02, 2020 1:24 PM To: Hayes, M ichelle <Michelle.Hayes@nrc.gov>

Cc: Travis, Boyce <Boyce.Travis@nrc.gov>

Subject:

FW: NRC feedback on Terrestrial's Exemption White Paper Michelle:

View ADAMS Properties ML20302A488 Open ADAMS Package (NRC feedback on Terrestrial's Exemption White Paper)

Thanks,

Adrian From: Roach, Kevin Sent: 12 Jan 2021 21:09:40 +0000 To: Weisman, Robert

Subject:

RE: regulatory applicability for SDAs question Bob, Thanks again, Kevin From: Weisman, Robert <Robert.Weisman@nrc.gov>

Sent: Monday, January 11, 2021 7:49 PM To: Roach, Kevin <Kevin.Roach@nrc.gov>

Subject:

RE: regulatory applicability for SDAs question Kevin (bXS)

Sorry I cannot be more helpful. I'm happy to discuss if you wish, but not tonight.

Thanks, Bob Robert M. Weisman Special Counsel for New Reactor Licensing, New Reactor Programs Office of the General Counsel, USNRC Mail Stop O 14 A-44

(301) 287.9177 (301) 415.3725 (FAX)

NO 'E:iffiffi..E~Af LCOlmi~~ T lA]:CORN.tWJWOR:KK_PR T- D N TRELEASE I

NOTE: REQUESTS FOR OGC REVIEW OF DOCUMENTS MUST BE SENT TO THE OGC MAILROOM AT THE FOLLOWING EMAIL ADDRESS: RidsOgcMailCenter.Resource@nrc.gov. FAILURE TO SEND YOUR DOCUMENT TO THE OGC MAILROOM MAY MEAN THE OGC REVIEW WILL BE DELAYED.

From: Roach, Kevin <Kevin.Roach@nrc.gov>

Sent: Monday, January 11, 2021 5:56 PM To: Weisman, Robert <Robert.Weisman@nrc.gov>

Subject:

regulatory applicability for SDAs question

Bob,

I'd be glad to set up a call or if you want to just email me any impressions you have, that would be ok, too. I appreciate your input as always!

Thanks, Kevin Kevin C. Roach U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Senior Attorney Office of the, General Counsel MS 014-A44 11555 Rockville Pike Rockville, MP 20852 Phone: (201)521-2078 Kevin . Roach@ n re .gov

From: Roach, Kevin Sent: 16 Jul 2020 12:55:14 +0000 To: Muniz, Adrian

Subject:

RE: TEUSA PDC White Paper Review Approach for OGC review Hi Adrian, Susan wants to have this discussion among several attorneys in our division, as it relates to questions we're receiving on multiple projects. We're scheduled to meet on Monday, so I will try to get feedback to you following that meeting.

Thanks, Kevin From: Muniz, Adrian <Adrian.MunizGonzalez@nrc.gov>

Sent: Thursday, July 16, 2020 8:23 AM To: Roach, Kevin <Kevin.Roach@nrc.gov>

Cc: Van Wert, Christopher <Christopher.VanWert@nrc.gov>; Hayes, M ichelle

<Michelle.Hayes@nrc.gov>; Beasley, Benjamin <Benjamin.Beasley@nrc.gov>

Subject:

RE: TE USA PDC White Paper Review Approach for OGC review Kevin:

Any update on the request below?

Adrian From: Muniz, Adrian Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2020 3:04 PM To: RidsOgcMailCenter Resource <RidsOgcMailCenter.Resource@nrc.gov>

Cc: Roach, Kevin <Kevin.Roach@nrc.gov>; Carpentier, M arcia <Marcia.Carpentier@nrc.gov>; Van Wert, Christopher <Christopher.VanWert@nrc.gov>; Hayes, M ichelle <Michelle.Hayes@nrc.gov>

Subject:

TEUSA PDC White Paper Review Approach for OGC review Sample technical evaluation for a grouping of PDCs which are identical to the SFR-DCs from RG 1.232:

(b)(l )

Samole technical evaluation of a PDC that differs from the related SFR*DC~

lb(J)

Conclusion sample:

The IInks to be able to access TEUSA's PDC white paper and RG 1.232 are provided below for your convenience.

Thanks,

Adrian Samole technical evaluation for a arouoino of PDCs which are identical to their..'1 I (born RG 1.232:

r*X>) -

~).j)

Conclusion sample:

\ OOJ

Sample technical evaluation for a grouping of PDCs which are identical to the SFR-DCs from RG 1.232~

Conclusion sample:

TERRESTRIAL ENERGY USA Abstract (b)(4)

Terrestrial Energy USA, Inc.

150 East 58th Street *_Suite 2413 *_New York

  • NY
  • 10155_* USA www.TerrestrialUSA.com Confidenti.il .ind Proprii tary - withhold from p, ,blic disclosme 1 1 der 1Q CFR 2 390

TERRESTRIAL IMSR Regulatory Ex.\lmptjons ENERGY USA TEUSA Document .__

4 tbX > __ _,

Page 2 of 20 Co11fide1 ,tial a1 ,d Pfop1ietary vvithhold freffi 19ublic disclosure under 10 CFR 2.390

TERRESTRIAL IMSR Regulato ry Exemptions ENERGY USA TEUSA Document .r_x_4>_ ___,

Page 3 of 20 Co1,fidential a1 ,d P, op1ieta1 y - vvitl ii ,old f1 01 11 public disclosu, e m1de1 10 CFR 2.390

TERRESTRIAL IMSR Regulato,r y Exemptions ENERGY USA TEUSA Documentl._ [bx_*>_____.

Page 4 of 20 Cur1fide1 1tial a1 ,d Pfop1ietary withhold from public disclo~,1m 11nder J a CEB 2 390

TERRESTRIAL IMSR Regulatory Exemptions ENERGY USA TEUSA DocumentpX4>  !

Pages of 20 Conficiential .ind Propri~t.iry - withhold from p1 ibl ic disclosme I mdec 10 CER 2 390

TERRESTRIAL IMSR Regulato,ry Exemntions ENERGY USA TEUSA DocumentrX )

4 I

Page 6 of 20 Conf1dent1al and Proprietary - withhold f rom public disclosure under 10 CFR 2.390

TERRESTRIAL IMSR Regulatoiry Exemptions ENERGY USA TEUSA Documentr4)

(bX4)

Page 7 of 20 Confidential and Praprietary - withhold from p11blic disclosme 11nder JO CER 2 390

TERRESTRIAL IMSR Regulato,ry Et~~~ptions 4

ENERGY USA TEUSA Documen 1

(bX4)

Page 8 of 20 Confider rtial a11d Proprietary - witlrlrold frorrr public disclosure ur rder 10 CFR 2.390

TERRESTRIAL IMSR Regulato,ry Exemptjons 4

ENERGY USA TEUSA Document ._ f<_ l_ __.

Page 9 of 20 Conficiential and Propriete1ry - withhold from p1Jblic disclosme 11nder JO CER 2 390

TERRESTRIAL IM SR Regulatory Exemptions ENERGY USA TEUSA Document E >

4 I

CbX4)

Page 10 of 20 Confidential and Proprietary - withhold from public disclosure under 10 CFR 2.390

TERRESTRIAL IMSR Regulatory Ev 0 Jl*X4)

ENERGY USA TEUSA Documenq I Page 11 of 20 Conf1dent1al and Proprietary - withhold from public disclosure u11de1 10 CFR 2.390

TERRESTRIAL IMSR Regulatory Exemptions ENERGY USA TEUSA Document@>

Page 12 of 20 Conficiential anci Propriet.1ry - withhold from p11blic disclos11re 11nder JO CER 2 390

TERRESTRIAL IMSR Regulatoiry Exemptions ENERGY USA TEUSA Document r X4) I Page 13 of 20 Confidential and Proprietary - withhold from p11blic disclosme 11nder JO CFR 2 390

TERRESTRIAL IM SR Regulat ory Exemptions FNFRC,V IJ ~A TEUSA Document £bX4>

(b)(4)

Page 14 of 20 Co11fidential anel PFOprietary withhold from public ,foclo~11rn 11nder JO CEB 2 390

TERRESTRIAL IMSR Regulato,r y Exemptions ENERGY USA TEUSA Documen~(b)(4)

Page 15 of 20 CUI I fide11tiaI a1 ,d Pfop1ietary with hold from public disclo~ 11m 11nder JO CE 8 2 390

TERRESTRIAL IMSR Regulatory Exemptions ENERGY USA TEUSA Documenq (bX4J Page 16 of 20 Confidential and Pr opr ietar y - vvithholel frem public disclos~.m i 'lnder JO CEB 2 390

TERRESTRIAL rx I IMSR Regulatory Exemptions ENERGY USA TE USA Document 4)

VI. Conclusion Page 17 of 20 Confidentia l and Proprietary - wit hho ld from public disclosure under 10 CFR 2.390

TERRESTRIAL IMSR Regulatory Ex~mptjons 4

ENERGY USA TEUSA Documentl, _x_ >_ __,

Page 18 of 20 Confidential aod Proprietary - withholci from public disclesuFe u1 ,de, 10 CFR 2.390

TERRESTRIAL IMSR Regulato,ry E ~

ENERGY USA TEUSA DocumenL _ j bX4l Page 19 of 20 Co11fide1 1tial a1 ,d P, op1ieta1 y - withhold from public disclosure under 10 CFR 2.390

TERRESTRIAL IMSR Regulatory Exemptions ENERGY USA TEUSA DocumentrX4) I n ,. - - - -

CbX4)

Page 20 of 20 Confidentia l and Proprietary - withho ld from public disclosure under 10 CFR 2.390

From: Roach. Kevin To: Vrahoretjs. Sysan Cc: Wright Megan

Subject:

discussion: Terrestrial exemption wh ite paper evaluation (PROP documents)

Attachments: Enclosure J - l'lftC feeJ!l}ack 011 Terr.e,strial"s_Ex_emo_tiq.ns White_PaoeL KCR comnients_1.:.5-2l~d_o_cx Updating time so Meg-J can allend fb)(5)

Thanks and look forward to speaking with you, Kevin Microsoft Teams meeting Join on your computer or mobile app Click here lo ioi,1 Ina me~tin J (b.)(6) I or call ,n (auu, o only) r l 30 1-576-297iL309056477# <tel:+130 15762978.,309056417#> United Stutes, Silver Spring-Phone Conference ID: r_ ._ x_6l_ _ _ __.

Find a local n11mbcr <htrps://dialln ,tcams.microsol\.wm/b83fc072-a76f-4670-9 I Id-8dcc7ad08a63?id=3090564 77> I Rese t Pl '

<hllps:1/mysettings. lync.com/pst nconlerenci ng>-

- *.s. Nuclear Regulatory Commfs. ion --

Learn Mor~ <hups://ak,1.ms/Join TeamsMecting> I Mee1iag oplio s <hllps://leams.micTOs0.ft.com/mec1 igOp1 ioos/?or~~nimr ld"'C f28c55e-5 d20-4 fa6-92t1)-64 7fe902cecb&tcnanlld~ e8d0 14 75-c3b5-436a-a065-5def4c64f52e&thread ld= 19_ meeting_Nzl3 Y WZjOWl tZDY wMyO0NDV i L WEwMT A tZGEl jLxZDFbNjQx@thrcad,v2&messageld-0& laaguage7: n-U,

OFFICIAL USE ONLY - PROPRIE I ARY INFORMATION U.S Nuclear Regulatory Commission Staff Observations on Examination of Regulatory Requ irements to Determine Exemption Needs for the IMSR Core-unit White Paper Note: (()) denotes proprietary information.

1. General
a. The NRC staff notes that the review of this document was limited to the items identified in the white paper, based on the scope of the request and the nature of the white paper. No observations regarding the regulatory applicability of items that were not listed are provided as part of this evaluation.
b. Terrestrial Energy USA (TEUSA) notes that an applicant's ability to seek approval of "major portions" of a design in developing an application for a Standard Design Approval (SDA) provides substantial flexibility in standardization. TE USA also states that "[d]epending on the maturity of the design and engineering, an SDA could be developed for selected SSCs

[systems, structures and components] or larger integrated portions of the design at a level of detail analogous to that of a design certification application ." The NRC staff agrees with this characterization, but notes that a subsequent submittal referencing a "major portions" SDA (such as a combined license (COL) application) would be required to address items not covered in the scope of the SDA.

c. TEUSA addresses regulations at the subpart level (e.g. Section 50.34) in its white paper. The NRC staff evaluated the statements provided at this level, however certain complex regulations have different applicability statements among their provisions (e.g., Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) Sections 50.34 or 52.137) and, therefore, not all portions of a given regulatory subpart may apply to the IMSR Core-unit SDA application. In certain cases, regulations include applicability differences between Part 50 and Part 52 applications. Examples include 10 CFR Sections 50.60 and 50.61, which are not applicable if applying under Part 50, but are cited as requirements in 52.137(a)(14) without specifying applicability to only water-cooled nuclear reactors. The NRC staff believes an exemption to these requirements would be needed; however, the NRC staffs review of an exemption request for relief from an applicable requirement that has no technical justification would likely be straightforward and efficient and would minimize unnecessary burden.
2. Regulatory Analysis Methodology
a. The white paper classifies regulations into three categories~, applicable, not applicable, and exemption. The NRC staff takes no issue with the categorization, but disagrees with the characterization associated with "not applicable". TE USA states that regL1lations are not applicable if they are not "technically relevant,"

which staff considers to be an overly broad characterization. While some regulations refer to technical relevance, the technical relevance of a regulation does not necessarily determine its applicability. Depending on the specific regulation, a regulation that is not technically relevant may or may not require an exemption if an applicant seeks to not meet that regulation. As noted above, the NRC staffs evaluation of an exemption from a regulation that is truly not technically relevant to the review of the design would likely be straightforward and efficient. Based on its review of the white paper, the NRC staff does not

-OFF1CIAL USE ONLY PROPRIETARY INFORMATION

OFFICIAL USE ONLY - PROPRIETARY INFORMATION believe this characterization led to any misclassification of regulations, but provides this discussion for context regarding any future characterizations.

b. The white paper states that the scope of the evaluations was limited to the IMSR Core-unit. This review was performed with that understanding and does not include an evaluation of any regulations beyond that stated scope.
3. Regulatory Analysis Results a . For regulations discussed in this section, the NRC staff provides no additional feedback if it agrees with the characterization provided in the white paper-that is, if no comment below exists, the NRC staff agrees with the initial characterization of applicability. The positions expressed in the staffs feedback are not final and could change based on new or additional information and potential design or operation changes as the design evolves.
b. TEUSA states that certain regulations are applicable to CPs/OLs/COLs, but not SDAs (or vice versa . In some cases, this may not be accurate. Specifically, TEUSA states that )'} s not applicable to SDAs, but subsection rx) I requires s to inc ude analysis in accordance with the uirements of x*> Other exam les include: x*>
c. he NRC staff I e paper

].______________

rx*>

__________.))

e. For 10 CFR 50.55a the white oaoer states that KbX4> I f 0)(4/

!i'oX*l bl In cases where the standards are not

,.)(4)

I ~loX5> I 1tbX4) U loX)) r I I

I I

f. r-or 1u l.Jr-~ :::,u.oo, . .... ) I rx*) nir)(4 I

0,)(4)

OFFICIA:L USE m~LY PROPRIETARY INFORMATION

OFFICIAL USE ONLY PROPRIETARY INFORMATION

..I)

g. In reference to 10 CFR 50.72 and 50.73, the white paper states that [
j. The white paper states that 10 CFR 50, Appendix I ti;r.J)

)(4)

k. for 10 CFR 50, Appendix J, the white paper states *X*>

)(4}

OFFICIAi I ISE ONI Y PROPRIETARY INFQRMAJIQN

From: Roach. Kevin To: Muniz. Adrian

Subject:

draft terrestrial evaluation w/ proposed 50.55a paragraph revision Date: Monday, December 14, 2020 2:31 :00 PM Attachments: Enclosure_l - NRC_feec!__back on Terrestrial"s E)(emoJ:iQQs White_Paoer KCR cornments_12*9*20.docx.

Kevin C. Roa ch U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commi ssi on Sen ior Attorney Office of the Genera l Counsel MS 014-A44 11555 Rockville Pike Rockville, MD 20852 Phone: (201)52 1-2078 kevio Roacb@orc gov

OFFICIAL USE ONLl' PROPRIE I ARY INFORMATION U.S Nuclear Regulatory Commission Staff Observations on Examination of Regulatory Requ irements to Determine Exemption Needs for the IMSR Core-unit White Paper Note: (()) denotes proprietary information.

1. General
a. The NRC staff notes that the review of this document was limited to the items identified in the white paper, based on the scope of the request and the nature of the white paper. No observations regarding the regulatory applicability of items that were not listed are provided as part of this evaluation.
b. Terrestrial Energy USA (TEUSA) notes that an applicant's ability to seek approval of "major portions" of a design in developing an application for a Standard Design Approval (SDA) provides substantial flexibility in standardization. TE USA also states that "[d]epending on the maturity of the design and engineering, an SDA could be developed for selected SSCs

[systems, structures and components] or larger integrated portions of the design at a level of detail analogous to that of a design certification application." The NRC staff agrees with this characterization, but notes that a subsequent submittal referencing a "major portions" SDA (such as a combined license (COL) application) would be required to address items not covered in the scope of the SDA.

c. TEUSA addresses regulations at the subpart level (e.g. Section 50.34) in its white paper. The NRC staff evaluated the statements provided at this level, however certain complex regulations have different applicability statements among their provisions (e.g., Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) Sections 50.34 or 52.137) and, therefore, not all portions of a given regulatory subpart may apply to the IMSR Core-unit SDA application. In certain cases, regulations include applicability differences between Part 50 and Part 52 applications. Examples include 10 CFR Sections 50.60 and 50.61, which are not applicable if applying under Part 50, but are cited as requirements in 52.137(a)(14) without specifying applicability to only water-cooled nuclear reactors. The NRC staff believes an exemption to these requirements would be needed; however, the NRC staffs review of an exemption request for relief from an applicable requirement that has no technical justification would likely be straightforward and efficient and would minimize unnecessary burden.
2. Regulatory Analysis Methodology
a. The white paper classifies regulations into three categories, applicable, not applicable, and exemption. The NRC staff takes no issue with the categorization, but disagrees with the characterization associated with "not applicable". TEUSA states that regulations are not applicable if they are not "technically relevant,"

which staff considers to be an overly broad characterization. While some regulations refer to technical relevance, the technical relevance of a regulation does not necessarily determine its applicability. Depending on the specific regulation, a regulation that is not technically relevant may or may not require an exemption if an applicant seeks to not meet that regulation. As noted above, the NRC staffs evaluation of an exemption from a regulation that is truly not technically relevant to the review of the design would likely be straightforward and efficient. Based on its review of the white paper, the NRC staff does not OFFICIAL USE ONLY PROPRIETARY II\IFORMA I ION

OFFICIAL USE ONLY - PROPRIETARY INFORMATION believe this characterization led to any misclassification of regulations, but provides this discussion for context regarding any future characterizations.

b. The white paper states that the scope of the evaluations was limited to the IMSR Core-unit. This review was performed with that understanding and does not include an evaluation of any regulations beyond that stated scope.
3. Regulatory Analysis Results a . For regulations discussed in this section, the NRC staff provides no additional feedback if it agrees with the characterization provided in the white paper-that is, if no comment below exists, the NRC staff agrees with the initial characterization of applicability. The positions expressed in the staffs feedback are not final and could change based on new or additional information and potential design or operation changes as the design evolves.
b. TEUSA states that certain regulations are applicable to CPs/OLs/COLs, but not SDAs (or vice versf. In some cases, this may not be accurate. Specifically, 4

TEUSA states that _ Y. ) hs not applicable to SDAs, but subsection px 4

> !requires SDAs to include analysis in accordance with the requirements of Sectio b)(* J Other examples include: p:ii4) px*)

d. For 10 CFR 50.48, the white paper u-- x*>- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

)(4 (bX*>

e.....- Fo _r_1_0_C

_ F_

R_5_0_.5_,5~. the white a er states that (bX*)

X4)

OFFICIAL USE ONLY PROPRIETARY INFORMATION

OFFICIAL USE ONLY PROPRIETARY INFORMATION

g. In reference to 10 CFR 50.72 and 50.73, the white a er states that bXJI X*
h. f _x*_)___________,

ite paper states ...

e*) n i In reference to 10 CFR 50 Appendix E the white paper states that px 4 r 11.J) lll(bl(*l I fbX*>

l(bX*J I

j. The white paper states that 10 CFR 50, Appendix I r l<*l I ibX*)

(b)(4) ~))

k. r-or 1u 1..,r-1"( ou, Appenoix J, me wnne paper smres u,"x~> I

\o)(*l r )(-~)_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _....1

._ -n OFFICIAL USE m~LY PROPRIETARY INFORMATION

From: Roach. Kevin To: Muniz. Adrian

Subject:

RE: NRC feedback on Terrestrial"s Exemption White Paper Date: Tuesday, January OS, 20211:02:00 PM Attachments: Enclosure 1 - NRC feedj)ack oo Terrestri.-il"s Exemotions White Pacer KCR comments 1-5-21.JlQcx Adrian ,

In the attached I made an a couple of editorial and clarifying revisions. I am going to call you in a moment to discuss the draft.

Thanks, Kevin From: Muniz, Adrian <Adrlan.Mun izGonzalez@nrc.gov>

Sent: Monday, January 04, 20218:12 AM To: Roach, Kevin <Kevin.Roach@nrc .gov>

Subject:

FW: NRC feedback on Terrestrial 's Exemption Wh ite Paper Please see below for your concurrence. The attached file contains the version of Enclosure 1 showing track changes .

View ADAMS Properties ML20302A488 Open ADAMS Package (NRC feedback on Terrestrial 's Exemption White Paper)

Thanks, Adrian

OFFICIAL USE ONLY - PROPRIETARY INFORMA I ION U.S Nuclear Regulatory Commission Staff Observations on Examination of Regulatory Requ irements to Determine Exemption Needs for the IMSR Core-unit White Paper Note: (()) denotes proprietary information.

1. General
a. The NRC staff notes that the review of this document was limited to the items identified in the white paper, based on the scope of the request and the nature of the white paper. No observations regarding the regulatory applicability of items that were not listed are provided as part of this evaluation.
b. Terrestrial Energy USA (TEUSA) notes that an applicant's ability to seek approval of "major portions" of a design in developing an application for a Standard Design Approval (SDA) provides substantial flexibility in standardization. TE USA also states that "[d]epending on the maturity of the design and engineering, an SDA could be developed for selected SSCs

[systems, structures and components] or larger integrated portions of the design at a level of detail analogous to that of a design certification application ." The NRC staff agrees with this characterization, but notes that a subsequent submittal referencing a "major portions" SDA (such as a combined license (COL) application) would be required to address items not covered in the scope of the SDA.

c. TEUSA addresses regulations at the subpart level (e.g. Section 50.34) in its white paper. The NRC staff evaluated the statements provided at this level, however certain complex regulations have different applicability statements among their provisions (e.g ., Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) Sections 50.34 or 52.137) and, therefore, not all portions of a given regulatory subpart may apply to the IMSR Core-unit SDA application. In certain cases, regulations include applicability differences between Part 50 and Part 52 applications. Examples include 10 CFR Sections 50.60 and 50.61, which are not applicable if applying under Part 50, but are cited as requirements in 52.137(a)(14) without specifying applicability to only water-cooled nuclear reactors. The NRC staff believes an exemption to these requirements would be needed; however, the NRC staffs review of an exemption request for relief from an applicable requirement that has no technical justification would likely be straightforward and efficient and would minimize unnecessary burden.
2. Regulatory Analysis Methodology
a. The white paper classifies regulations into three categories~, applicable, not applicable, and exemption. The NRC staff takes no issue with the categorization, but disagrees with the characterization associated with "not applicable". TE USA states that regL1lations are not applicable if they are not "technically relevant,"

which staff considers to be an overly broad characterization. While some regulations refer to technical relevance, the technical relevance of a regulation does not necessarily determine its applicability. Depending on the specific regulation, a regulation that is not technically relevant may or may not require an exemption if an applicant seeks to not meet that regulation. As noted above, the NRC staffs evaluation of an exemption from a regulation that is truly not technically relevant to the review of the design would likely be straightforward and efficient. Based on its review of the white paper, the NRC staff does not

  • OFFICIAL USE ONLY - PROPRiE I ARY INFORMATION

OFFICIAL USE ONLY - PROPRIETARY INFORMATION believe this characterization led to any misclassification of regulations, but provides this discussion for context regarding any future characterizations.

b. The white paper states that the scope of the evaluations was limited to the IMSR Core-unit. This review was performed with that understanding and does not include an evaluation of any regulations beyond that stated scope.
3. Regulatory Analysis Results a . For regulations discussed in this section, the NRC staff provides no additional feedback if it agrees with the characterization provided in the white paper-that is, if no comment below exists, the NRC staff agrees with the initial characterization of applicability. The positions expressed in the staffs feedback are not final and could change based on new or additional information and potential design or operation changes as the design evolves.
b. TEUSA states that certain regulations are applicable to CPs/OLs/COLs, but not SDAs (or vice versai. In some cases, this may not be accurate. Specifically, TEUSA states thatfs' Us not applicable to SDAs, but subsection rx 0 I requires SDAs to include analysis in accorda~~e with the requirements of Sectionrx*) I Other examples include: _ *> I w I

=~- -----------------------,

c. TEUSA states that~0 )

disagreesr~*l 1 The NRC staff I

I I

I r x4, o. ...,.,,, - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ,

d. For 10 CFR 50.48, the white paper - Mb ~

4)

e. For 10 CFR 50.55a, the white paper states that

µ>l(~l r"

{0)(4)

a. In cases where the standards are not

)(5) f For 10 CFR 50.68, lf'"'1 I

-OFFICIAL USE rn~L'r' PROPRIE-~A-RY INFORMATION

OFFICIAL USE ONLY - PROPRIETARY INFORMATION 4

g. In reference to 10 CFR 50.72 and 50.73, the white paper states that lbX )

)(*)

lbX4) l]

~ For 10 CFR so Appendix 6 the white oaper states px~ >

rx 4

) 01

i. In reference to 10 CFR 50 Appendix E, the white paper states that lb)(4)
j. The white paper states that 10 CFR 50, Appendix I [ X4 )

)(l\

k.

])

OFFICIAL OSE ONLY PROPRIETARY lt->IFQRMATION

From: Roach Kevin To: Muniz. Adrian

Subject:

RE: NRC Staff Feedback - Terrestrial Exemptions White Paper Date: Tuesday, November 17, 2020 10:40:00 PM Attachments: Enclosure 1 - NRC feedback on Terrestrlal"s Exemotlons White Paoer KCR comments.docx

Adrian, eres a
Thanks, Kevin From: Muniz, Adrian <Ad rlan.Mu nlzGonzalez@ nrc.gov>

Sent: Friday, November 13, 2020 1:18 PM To: Roach, Kevin <Kevin.Roach@nrc.gov>

Subject:

RE: NRC Staff Feed back - Terrestria l Exemptions White Paper Hi Kevin; Can you please provide a status update on the request below?

Thanks, Adrian From: Muniz, Adrian Se nt: Monday, November 2, 2020 8:36 AM To: Roach, Kevin <Kevin.Roach@nrc.gov>

Subject:

RE: NRC Staff Feedback - Terrestria l Exemptions White Paper Attachments contain Proprietary Information. As discussed, see attached Terrestrial's submittal associated with the action below.

Thanks, Adrian From: Muniz, Adrian Se nt: Friday, October 30, 2020 2:33 PM To: RidsOgcMai lCenter Resource <RidsOgcMa ilCenter.Resource@nrc.gov>

Cc: Roach, Kevin <Kevin.Roach@nrc gov>

Subject:

NRC Staff Feedback - Terrestrial Exemptions White Paper You may access for review the cover letter and proposed feedback by clicking on the following link:

Open ADAMS Package /NRC feedback on Terrestrial 's Exemption White Paper\ - ML20202A488 Th is has been discussed with Kevin Roach from OGC.

Than ks, Adrian

OFFICIAL USE. ONLY PROPRIETARY ll~FO~MATIDl"I (bXl)

U.S Nuclear Regulator~ Commission Staff Observations on Examination of Regulato[i'.

Regulremenls to Determine Exemglion Needs for the IMSR Core-unit White Pager Note: (( ]) denotes propr i etar y lnformati om.

(bX4) jebX4) fbX4), CbX3) l(bX4) r* 4), \DX,)

1bX4) fDX4)

I I

b. :b)(l) ** *X4) ll'"A4), \DX,) I

~o)(4), (b)(l ) f DX4J I II ) A.) . .~- " .,. \1,/J\,IJ ,*X*i

  • DN4),lD , ,*A*J I l(D)(4) 1(1>)(4), (b)(l ) I

,o)(4J, (ox,, o ox4)

    • .~: I \DX4) I (b)(4J s
c. Kb)(4), (b)(l) fo)(4)
~('"'* w 1t0>X*l 1Ct'X4), ( O)(J) wx*) l\~I t *X4) r n,4) 11.b )(JJ,(b)(l) I X4l, (b)(,)

b)(4), (b)(l) H"bXJJ I lb)(4/ 11(o)(l) lb)(4)

I I

~*><-4) f DX4) 10)(4 l\°/\4), \ D/V)

  • n*4

,x4)

I l(bX*), (b)(l) l l'o)(4), (o)(,)

n b)(4) I '

(b)(4), (b)(l )

C.

2. Regulatory Analysis Methodology

)(4)

X-0 X4)

OEFICl4L IJS5 O~JLY PROPRIETARY INFORMATION

OFFICIAL USE ONLY - PROPRIETARY INFORMATION r xs) ibX~l jpX4) tl(l>Xl)

I

' \DJ\) ) 1px~J f'X5) I ibXl )

p Xl) fp X4) I lb)(4) b.

(bXl) ~ (bl(4) r b)(l) rx*> I

[

OFFICIAL USE ONLY PROPRIETARY INFORMATION

OFFICIAL I ISE ONLY PROPRIETARY INFORMATION (b)(j)

3. D--,,1~*--- 1\--1 .._,_ ~

pxi>

l(b)\4) r lllb)(4) fbX4) p l\,)

1(0)(5) l!I'"-"' llbX5) I l(O)(J) ,,~4) I p X-0 Hll>X4), (b)(l) I (b)(4), (b)(,)

I b) J (b)(5) l(b)(4) _J(b)(l)

I

~ ""

(b)(l) L~*X4J mbXl)

  • n*4) r fbX' l ll(bX4) 1lbX5) 11lbX4) I (b* )

)>)(5)

. l):'. 1110)(4) lfbXll I 1!! ~

11 l lbX4)

I ,I.

.,1, 1(0,1\J) i *J<"I , n,y,i

. (b)(4)

UlbX5) r.:;,1 jll l l(b)(5) jij:

I( I .:.I If[] (b)(: ) ftl(b)(4) I LflbX4) r X5) W X4)

I , 11 1 (bl\~) ll(b)(l) llb)(4)

I :HI

)(4) l b) 10)(4)  ::::

.OJ\4/  :!ii ic*X41 ,,,/\,) 1\01\4) I iii, 1 111 px*>  !:i!

!'i1 l(b)(4) 1(b)(l) I :Hi (b)(5) n lbX*l

ilI r ico)(4) IC°-" rl,,r,4 n (b)(l) lb)(4) I f;i:

llbXl) 1:I :

Il l I r x4) ':, l lfb)(4) 11 * )(5) r*/\*. "',

I,'II l(b)(4_1 ,, '

(b)(4) :q ii:

/

r:' '

f 0/\4)

I'""  ::J (b)(4), *J>Xl) "'

  • )(4) ,. I L...J :I

,)>)(l ) 5 r b)(al) 1 an exemption wou1a De requirea1CbX > ( /

f O/\>) ... (b)()) r-"*> ----, j l(b)(4) *:

(b)(4) i r o(4)

It __________________________________.1 I

" **- 111.lr---*.A A-rl,"\11. I

OFFICIAL USE:: ONLV PROPRIETARY INFORMATION

_bX))

E (bX4), (bXl )

/

llb)(4) r X*) l (bXl)

I )(l t I

l:l>X)l l\*X4)

(bX4) ll(bXl) l(bX*> 11:bXl)

I

,/

l))(j )

(b)(l) f bK4) l(b)(ll 1

IIF'lll j ) I p X*l ~bK4) ~* Xl)

(b)(4) (b)(l ) I llbXJJ llbX4J . ,.,__,

I I I I

(b)(l )

1/

r /\*l l\"/\4) " "" )

I /

f b) '.ll p X4) J b)(l)

I lib)()\ ,I l(bXl ) = - l l(bXl ) l (bX4) I r/\*)

fbX4) llri, X4J I

KbX4) fbX4)

- - i(b)(4J p ,v, 1(b)(4) r- I

.,..* px*: l lb)(l) ltb)(4) I I

~*X*l l ~ l) I l(b)(4)

X*) I OFFICIAL USE ONLY - PROPRIE I ARY INFORMA I ION

From: Roach. Kevio To: Muniz. Adnan Cc: Carpentier Marcja

Subject:

RE: TEUSA PDC White Paper Review Approach for OGC review Date: Tuesday, July 21, 2020 10:31:00 AM Attachments: OGC comments Sample technical evaluation for a arouolna of eoes which are 1dentical to the SER z-21-20.docx Hi Adrian, Attached are some comments and proposed edits intendecf°)('l) I Thanks, Kevin From: Muniz, Adrian <Ad rian.M unizGonzalez@ nrc.gov>

Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2020 3:04 PM To: RidsOgcMailCenter Resource <RidsOgcMailCenter.Resource@nrc.gov>

Cc: Roach, Kevi n <Kevin.Roach@nrc.gov>; Carpentier, Marcia <Marcia.Carpentler@nrc.gov>; Van Wert, Christopher <Christopher.VanWert@nrc.gov>; Hayes, Michelle <Michelle.Hayes@nrc.gov>

Subject:

TE USA PDC White Paper Review Approach for OGC review Sample technical evaluation for a grouping of PDCs which are identical to the SFR-DCs from RG 1.232:

(bXl)

Conclusion sample:

Thanks, Adrian

W,(ll

!r}:l1 Sa mole technical evaluation for a orouoino of PDCs which are identical to the Rr.:: 1 n?* I 01(5, I

Conclusion sample:

From: Roach. Kevin To: Muniz, Adrjan

Subject:

TEUSA reg applicability Date: Wednesday, January 13, 2021 3:40:00 PM Attachments: Enclosur:.e_l - lljfil:_fee_dj}ack_oo Ien:estrial"s_E~ moJiq_Qs White_Paoer KCR comments 1.:JJ-21 (002).dOQC

Adrian, Thanks, Kevin Kevin C. Roach U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Sen ior Attorney Office of the Genera l Counse l MS O1 4-A44 11555 Rockville Pike Rockville, MD 20852 Phone: (201)52 1-2078 Kevin Roach@ nrc gov

OFFICIAL USE ONLY PROPRIETARY INFORMATION U.S Nuclear Regulatory Commission Staff Observations on Examination of Regulatory Requ irements to Determine Exemption Needs for the IMSR Core-unit White Paper Note: (()) denotes proprietary information.

1. General
a. The NRC staff notes that the review of this document was limited to the items identified in the white paper, based on the scope of the request and the nature of the white paper. No observations regarding the regulatory applicability of items that were not listed are provided as part of this evaluation.
b. Terrestrial Energy USA (TEUSA) notes that an applicant's ability to seek approval of "major portions" of a design in developing an application for a Standard Design Approval (SDA) provides substantial flexibility in standardization. TE USA also states that "[d]epending on the maturity of the design and engineering, an SDA could be developed for selected SSCs

[systems, structures and components] or larger integrated portions of the design at a level of detail analogous to that of a design certification application ." The NRC staff agrees with this characterization, but notes that a subsequent submittal referencing a "major portions" SDA (such as a combined license (COL) application) would be required to address items not covered in the scope of the SDA.

c. TEUSA addresses regulations at the subpart level (e.g. Section 50.34) in its white paper. The NRC staff evaluated the statements provided at this level, however certain complex regulations have different applicability statements among their provisions (e.g., Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) Sections 50.34 or 52.137) and, therefore, not all portions of a given regulatory subpart may apply to the IMSR Core-unit SDA application. In certain cases, regulations include applicability differences between Part 50 and Part 52 applications. Examples include 10 CFR Sections 50.60 and 50.61, which are not applicable if applying under Part 50, but are cited as requirements in 52.137(a)(14) without specifying applicability to only water-cooled nuclear reactors. The NRC staff believes an exemption to these requirements would be needed; however, the NRC staffs review of an exemption request for relief from an applicable requirement that has no technical justification would likely be straightforward and efficient and would minimize unnecessary burden.
2. Regulatory Analysis Methodology
a. The white paper classifies regulations into three categories: applicable, not applicable, and exemption. The NRC staff takes no issue with the categorization, but disagrees with the characterization associated with "not applicable". TEUSA states that regulations are not applicable if they are not "technically relevant,"

which staff considers to be an overly broad characterization. While some regulations refer to technical relevance, the technical relevance of a regulation does not necessarily determine its applicability. Depending on the specific regulation, a regulation that is not technically relevant may or may not require an exemption if an applicant seeks to not meet that regulation. As noted above, the NRC staffs evaluation of an exemption from a regulation that is truly not technically relevant to the review of the design would likely be straightforward OFFICIAL USE ONLY - PROPRIETARY INFORMATION

OFFICIAL USE ONLY - PROPRIETARY INFORMATION and efficient. Based on its review of the white paper, the NRC staff does not believe this characterization led to any misclassification of regulations, but provides this discussion for context regarding any future characterizations.

b. The white paper states that the scope of the evaluations was limited to the IMSR Core-unit. This review was performed with that understanding and does not include an evaluation of any regulations beyond that stated scope.
3. Regulatory Analysis Results
a. For regulations discussed in this section, the NRC staff provides no additional feedback if it agrees with the characterization provided in the white paper-that is, if no comment below exists, the NRC staff agrees with the initial characterization of applicability. The positions expressed in the staff's feedback are not final and could change based on new or additional information and potential des1ign or operation changes as the design evolves.
b. TEUSA states that certain regulations are applicable to CPs/OLs/COLs, but not SDAs (or vice versa). In some cases, this may not be accurate. Specifically, TEUSA states thaUCbl<41 foX4) I requires requirements of Sectio _*x*i rAs !is not applicable to SDAs, but subsection to irclude analysis in accordance with the

~ Other examples include: X4>

x*

-_; :. .::..:....:~=============-..:..:.:.:::..:..:.:..:.:...:..:.:;

c. TEUSA states tha The NRC staff

[ (b)(Jl

))

e . ._F_o_r_1_0_C

_FR_5_0_.5.....5a, the white paper states that ._f_)(*_l _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ____.

(b)(J l r l(JI U* In cases where the standards are not required for a non-LVVR, no exemption would be needed. However, the use of codes and standards that are not required in order to to justify the capability and pedigree of certain SSCs would likely need to be the subject of a future engagement to ensure there is an adequate basis to apply the codes and standards for a given purpose.

2 OFFICIAL USE ONLY - PROPRIETARY INFORMATION

OFFICIAL USE ONLY PROPRIETARY INFORMATION

f. For 10 CFR 50.68, [rr X4> I 1*X*r b~*J, (b)(j)
h. In reference to 10 CFR 50.72 and 50.73 the white oaoer states that u, X-'1 0 I

(b)(J) I (b)(4) 1.11 1~)(4), (b)())

k, For 10 CFR 50 Annendtx B the white oaoer states """)(4' I 1(1,)(4)

I

~bX-'l 11 I. In reference to 10 CFR 50 Appendix E, the white paper states that lfhX'l) rx*l jn The NRC staff notes that proposed rules have, in the past, been part of the basis for granting exemptions.

m The white paper states that 10 CFR 50 Appendix I te><4l (b)(4}

rm> Ill n For 10 CFR 50, Appendix J, the white paper states r 11*l I

Kb)(J}

1~ )(4) _____.,1 3

OFFICIAL USE ONLY PROPRIETARY INFORMATION

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML23261B178&oldid=3617961"