ML26012A340

Order (Transmitting Hearing Questions)

ML26012A340
Person / Time
Site:	Kemmerer File:TerraPower icon.png
Issue date:	01/12/2026
From:	Carrie Safford NRC/SECY
To:	NRC/OGC, US SFR Owner
SECY RAS
References
RAS 57572, 50-613-CP
Download: ML26012A340 (0)

Text

In the Matter of UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION US SFR OWNER, LLC (Kemmerer Power Station, Unit 1)

Docket No. 50-613-CP ORDER (Transmitting Hearing Questions)

On December 23, 2025, the Commission issued a notice that it is holding a hearing pursuant to section 189a. of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, to receive written evidence in the form of testimony and exhibits in the uncontested portion of the captioned proceeding. 1 In connection with that hearing, pursuant to my authority under 10 C.F.R.

§ 2.346(a) and U), US SFR Owner, LLC (USO) and the NRC Staff should file written responses to the questions provided in the table below. Responses should be filed by January 26, 2026.

By the same date, the Staff should also E-file the documents listed in the Federal Register notice to add them to the docket for this hearing. 2 1 See US SFR Owner, LLC; Notice of Hearing, 90 Fed. Reg. 60,132 (Dec. 23, 2025).

2 See id. at 60,133.

Table of Questions No.

Category Reference Directed To Question 1

General "Staff's Statement in Staff The Staff's Information Paper notes that the Staff Support of the implemented "an expedited and risk-informed legal review" of Uncontested Hearing for this application.

the Issuance of a Construction Permit for

a. Discuss how the approach to the legal review for this the USO Kemmerer application differs from previous construction permit Power Station, Unit 1,"

or combined license applications.

Commission Paper SECY-25-0102 (Dec. 18,

b. Describe how the Staff consulted with the Office of 2025), at 2 the General Counsel in determining the risk levels (ML25324A368 (pkg))

posed by different areas of review and what level of (Information Paper) legal review would be given to various areas or chapters of the safety evaluation (SE) and the environmental review.

C. Has the Staff identified any efficiencies or challenges with this approach at this time?

d. Does the Staff intend to continue a limited legal review approach at the operating license stage?

2 General Information Paper at 2 Staff In SECY-25-0102, the Staff identified areas of the review-that it believed posed the greatest risk and requested OGC review of those aspects of the Staff's review. What were the areas of risk that were identified and how were those addressed in the construction permit (CP)?

3 Safety-Nuclear Energy Institute, Staff USO has elected to use the Licensing Modernization Project Licensing "Risk-Informed (LMP) method, as described in NEI 18-04, Rev. 1, and Modernization Performance-Based Applicant corresponding use of a probabilistic risk assessment (PRA)

Project Technology Inclusive to support the licensing basis development. In reviewing the No.

Category Reference Directed To Question Guidance for Non-Light application of the LMP method, the Staff has generally found Water Reactor Licensing that the information provided adequately supports the Basis Development,"

issuance of a construction permit; however, there are many NEI 18-04, rev. 1 (Aug.

areas identified that would need to be reevaluated at the 2019) (ML19242D560) operating license application stage. For example, there are (NEI 18-04, Rev. 1) uses of conservative assumptions to select mechanistic source terms for some event sequences, rather than developing event specific mechanistic source terms. Further, while a hazards screening was performed based on the Staff's guidance on PRA acceptability in Regulatory Guide (RG) 1.247, the Staff's SE stated that USO will revise the justifications and update the PRA self-assessment to support the operating license (OL) application. As the safety and licensing bases analyses are refined and revised, the outcomes of the LMP process, including the safety classification designations, could change. Systems performing safety-related functions (e.g., Reactor Air Cooling (RAC)) and safety-related barriers serving as functional containment against radionuclide releases (e.g., Ex-Vessel Handling Machine (EVHM) cask barrier and Pin Removal Cell (PRC) hot cell barrier) could be classified at lower safety classification levels. On the other hand, SSCs that are currently classified as either non-safety related or non-safety related with special treatment (NSRST) can be reclassified as higher safety classification levels, including being identified as safety-related. Such changes to SSC classifications are expected to impact their quality assurance and construction.

a. What is the process for reclassification, including identification and finalization, of structures, systems,

• and components during the construction phase?

No.

Category Reference Directed To Question

b. How will potential impacts from the refinement of safety and licensing basis information on the principal architectural and engineering criteria for the design or major features and components that are identified for protection of the health and safety of the public in accordance with the regulations of 10 C.F.R. § 50.35 be reflected in the licensing bases and construction activities?

4 Safety-NEI 18-04, Rev. 1 Staff The Staff notes two deviations from the NEI 18-04 I RG Licensing 1.233 licensing basis event (LBE) methodology (SER pages Modernization "Guidance for a 3-74 to 3-77). Explain the deviations in plain English and Project Technology-Inclusive, their impacts to the CP and a subsequent OL review.

Risk-Informed, and Performance-Based Methodology to Inform the Licensing Basis and Content of Applications for Licenses, Certifications, and Approvals for Non-Light-Water Reactors,"

Regulatory Guide 1.233, rev. 0 (June 2020)

(ML20091L698)

(RG 1.233) 5 Safety-Information Paper at 11 Staff The Staff notes that fuel handling events represent the Licensing Basis greatest risk for radionuclide release. Besides fuel handling Events events, which KU1 LBEs are closest to or most significant to the Frequency-Consequence target line? For these events, No.

Category Reference Directed To Question please explain the key uncertainties and how information in the CP would inform the subsequent OL review.

6 Safety - Fire PSAR § 8.2 Staff The Natrium sodium fast reactor design considers the needs Protection for protection from sodium fires that could result from liquid "Fire Protection for Applicant sodium interactions with air, concrete, and water. Section 8.2 Nuclear Power Plants,"

of PSAR describes the Applicant's approach for fire Regulatory Guide 1.189, protection. This includes following the guidance in RG 1.189 rev. 5 (Oct. 2023) in the fire protection design strategy and performance of a (ML23214A287) fire PRA using NUREG/CR-6850, which the Staff will (RG 1.189) evaluate as part of the operating license application. At the preliminary design stage, the risk significance has not yet "EPRI/NRC-RES Fire been determined for sodium fire events and the structures, PRA Methodology for systems, and components used for prevention and Nuclear Power mitigation.

Facilities," NUREG/CR-6850, vol. 1 (Sep. 2005)

Considering the potential for significant sodium fires that (ML15167A401) could progress to result in radionuclide releases, and noting (NUREG/CR-6850) that RG 1.189 and NUREG/CR-6850 have been developed for LWR plants, have the staff and applicant assessed the availability of design standards for detection, suppression, and support systems that would be applicable to Kemmerer Power Station? Given that fire protection features may impact the design and construction of SSCs, how will development of the fire protection strategy be coordinated with construction activities?

7 Safety-Draft Construction Staff License conditions 4.G, 4.H, and 4.1 require reports to be Construction Permit License submitted for research and development (R&D) activities.

Permit Conditions 4.G, 4.H, and How will the Staff use these reports prior to the OL Conditions 4.1 application review? Are there other mechanisms to obtain the information? Is it possible to modify the license conditions to No.

Category Reference Directed To Question allow for more flexibility or to reduce the burden of the submitted reports?

8 Safety-10 C.F.R. § 50.35(b)

Staff Pursuant to 1 O C.F.R. § 50.35(b), the Staff has included Construction license conditions 4.G and 4.H requiring annual reporting of Permit Draft Construction Applicant R&D activities for the Intermediate Heat Transport System Conditions Permit License Sodium-Salt Heat Exchanger Interaction (SHX) and the Conditions 4.G and 4.H Reliability and Integrity Management (RIM) program. It appears that due to the importance of these R&D activities, clarity on the outcome of the R&D is desired to support the Staff's determination on the readiness and acceptance of the OL application. However, given the stated purpose of the relevant license conditions and the NRC's regulatory footprint after issuance of the CP, it is unclear whether annual tracking of the R&D provides additional benefit commensurate with the regulatory burden compared to obtaining a summary report after the completion of the R&D program that identifies any major changes compared to the CP.

Please consider the example below for an alternative to the current license condition 4.G:

Prior to the completion of construction and after the completion of research and development (R&D) activities associated with the sodium-salt heat exchanger design and sodium-salt reactions, USO shall submit a summary report to the NRC that provides an overview of the completed R&D program, including, (i) key activities to characterize the sodium-salt reaction, mature and develop the SHX design, develop appropriate design features and controls needed to prevent and mitigate sodium-salt reactions, and materials testing, to improve understanding of the effects of high temperature and exposure to the No.

Category Reference Directed To Question sodium and salt environment on SHX materials, including weld metals and diffusion bonded material, (ii) the key results from the activities identified in item (i), and (iii) any differences or changes in behavior and design due to the R&D activities compared to the information presented in the PSAR, Revision 1.

For the Staff:

a. Would the alternative license condition achieve the Staff's intent? If not, please explain why. If the alternative license condition is acceptable, please submit a revised License Condition 4.G for the Commission's consideration.

b. Would a similar alternative approach achieve the Staff's intent for License Condition 4.H? If not, please explain why. If so, please submit a revised License Condition 4.H for the Commission's consideration.

For the Applicant:

a. Does the alternative license condition present any obstacles compared to the current License Condition 4.G?

b. Does an alternative license condition with a similar approach present any obstacles compared to the current license condition 4.H?

9 Environmental -

10 C.F.R. § 51.105(a)(1),

Staff Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. § 51.105(a)(1), the Commission must Commission (4) determine in this proceeding whether the requirements of Findings NEPA section 102(2)(C) have been met. Pursuant to National Environmental section 51.105(a)(4), the Commission must also determine Policy Act (NEPA), as No.

Category Reference Directed To Question

amended, whether the NEPA review conducted by the Staff has been

§ 102(2)(C)(v),

adequate.

42 U.S.C. § 4332(C)(v)

NEPA section 102(2)(C)(v), as amended by the Fiscal Memorandum from Responsibility Act of 2023 (FRA), requires an agency's Katherine R. Scarlett, environmental review to consider "any irreversible and Council on irretrievable commitments of Federal resources which would Environmental Quality be involved in the proposed agency action should it be (CEQ), to Heads of implemented." In February 2025, CEQ stated that until Federal Departments agencies complete appropriate revisions to their NEPA-and Agencies, implementing procedures, "agencies should apply their "Implementation of the current NEPA implementing procedures with any adjustments National Environmental needed to be consistent with the NEPA statute as revised by Policy Act" (Feb. 19, the FRA." CEQ reiterated this guidance in a September 2025 2025), at 1, 4 memorandum.

Memorandum from In SECY-24-0046, the Staff affirmed that it planned to limit Katherine R. Scarlett, the discussion of irreversible and irretrievable commitments CEQ, to Heads of of resources in EISs to Federal resources.

Federal Departments and Agencies, However, it is not clear that the EIS or Staff's Information "Implementation of the Paper discuss this specific topic. For example, FEIS National Environmental section 6.3.3 only discusses irreversible and irretrievable Policy Act" (Sept. 29, commitments of resources; it does not identify which, if any, 2025), at 3 of these are "Federal resources." Likewise, the Staff's Information Paper simply states that the FEIS addresses "Implementation of the "any irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources Fiscal Responsibility Act that would be involved in the proposed action."

of 2023 National Environmental Policy

a. Please clarify:

Act Amendments,"

Commission Paper

1) Whether the Staff has identified any irreversible SECY-24-0046 (May 30, and irretrievable commitments of Federal 2024), Encl. 1 at 5 n.10, No.

Category Reference Directed To Question 6 (ML24078A010) resources that would be involved in implementing (SECY-24-0046) the proposed agency action.

"Environmental Impact

2) If any such Federal resources have been Statement for the identified, how they have been addressed in the Construction Permit FEIS.

Application for Kemmerer Power

b. If necessary, consistent with NEPA Station Unit 1" (Final section 102(2)(C)(v), as amended by the FRA, the Report) (Oct. 2025),

Staff should supplement the FEIS by responding to

§ 6.3.3 (ML25287A017) this question with a summary of any irreversible and (FEIS) irretrievable commitments of Federal resources which would be involved in the proposed agency action. For Information Paper at 19, example, such resources may include those 21 expended by the Staff in its review of the project or the expenditure of funds from the U.S. Department of Energy to support the proposed action.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 12th day of January 2026. For the Commission

~kl Carrie M. Safford ~

Secretary of the Commission

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION In the Matter of

)

)

US SFR OWNER, LLC

)

Docket No. 50-613-CP

)

(Kemmerer Power Station Unit 1)

)

)

(Mandatory Hearing)

)

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of the foregoing ORDER (Transmitting Hearing Questions) have been served upon the following persons by Electronic Information Exchange.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Commission Appellate Adjudication Mail Stop: O-16B33 Washington, DC 20555-0001 E-mail: ocaamail.resource@nrc.gov U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of the Secretary of the Commission Mail Stop: O-16B33 Washington, DC 20555-0001 E-mail: hearingdocket@nrc.gov U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of the General Counsel Mail Stop - O-14A44 Washington, DC 20555-0001 Julie Ezell Nicolas Mertz David Roth Susan Vrahoretis Mary Woods E-mail: julie.ezell@nrc.gov nicholas.mertz@nrc.gov david.roth@nrc.gov susan.vrahoretis@nrc.gov mary.woods@nrc.gov Counsel for Kairos Power, LLC Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, LLC 1111 Pennsylvania Ave NW Washington, DC 20004 Ryan Lighty Alex Polonsky E-mail: ryan.lighty@morganlewis.com alex.polonsky@morganlewis.com Office of the Secretary of the Commission Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 12th day of January 2026.

CLARA SOLA Digitally signed by CLARA SOLA Date: 2026.01.12 13:38:25 -05'00'