Document: NUREG-0800
Document ID: bfe08773-10ce-45c6-9767-3cbe51c1726f
Document Type: srp
Title: - 12.4
Source: NUREG-0800
Source URL: https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML0707/ML070720019.pdf
Revision Date: 2023-06
Chapter: 12
Section ID: 12.3
CFR Part: 
CFR Title: 

Content:
adequate radiation detection instrumentation is provided for plant monitoring under accident conditions. 3. The health physics staff will evaluate the adequacy of the applicant’s shielding design on the basis of acceptable radiation shielding practices and calculation methods. Based on its review of the plant layout drawings and radiation zoning, the health physics staff may verify, by independent calculations, the adequacy of the shielding design for selected areas of the plant. The review should emphasize areas in the plant that have a potential to become a significant high radiation area (greater than 1 Gy (100 rads) per hour) or a very high radiation area during operations and anticipated operational occurrences. These areas include, but are not limited to, those exposed to gamma shine from steam components in BWR designs (both onsite occupational and offsite public exposure concerns); areas providing access to the spent fuel transfer tube during fuel transfer; the below-vessel reactor cavity, in certain PWR designs, with in-core thimble tubes withdrawn; and the upper drywell, in BWR designs, during fuel movements. Appendix B to Regulatory Guide 8.38 includes guidance on some of these areas. 4. For the OL FSAR, the reviewer will consider any changes in the design that might necessitate changes in operating procedures to accommodate a changed radiation zone or a different location of equipment. 12.3-12.4-16 Revision 3 - March 2007 5. The reviewer will determine whether the applicant has followed the guidance of the referenced regulatory guides and industry standards, both by comparison of the applicant’s methods with the information in the guides and by the applicant’s reference to any such guides or to proposed alternatives. The reviewer will evaluate whether the alternatives are equivalent to, or improvements on, the methods cited in the referenced regulatory guides. Otherwise, alternatives are likely to be disapproved. 6. Based on the review, the health