Document: NUREG-0800
Document ID: ddaa3c7d-ce79-4a3f-aaae-4e4436ab7bc1
Document Type: srp
Title: NUCLEAR DESIGN
Source: NUREG-0800
Source URL: https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML0707/ML070740003.pdf
Revision Date: 2023-06
Chapter: 4
Section ID: 4.3
CFR Part: 
CFR Title: 

Content:
Part 52, the level of information reviewed should be consistent with that of a FSAR submitted in an OL application. However, verification that the as-built facility conforms to the approved design is performed through the ITAAC process. 1. The reviewer confirms, as part of the review of specific areas of the nuclear design outlined below, that the design bases, design features, and design limits are established in conformance with the GDCs listed in Subsection II of this SRP section. 2. The reviewer examines the information presented in the SAR to determine that the core power distributions for the reactor can reasonably be expected to fall within the design limits throughout all normal (steady-state and load-follow) operations, and that the instrument systems employed, along with the information processing systems and alarms, will reasonably assure the maintenance of the distributions within these limits for normal operation. The review examines the calculation of effective delayed neutron fraction (βeff) and prompt neutron lifetime (1*) and verifies that appropriate values are used in the reactivity accidents reviewed under SRP Sections 15.4.8 and 15.4.9. Regulatory Guide 1.77 provides guidance for calculating effective delayed neutron fraction and prompt neutron 4.3-13 Revision 3 - March 2007 lifetime values. The applicant should use spatially dependent methods. It is necessary to ensure that the methods are appropriate and that the cross-section date and other parameters used as input are appropriately parameterized. RG 1.206 provides further guidance and additional relevant information to the applicant. For a normal review, many areas related to core power distribution will have been examined in generic reviews or earlier reviews of reactors with generally similar core characteristics and instrument systems. A large part of the review on a particular case may then involve comparisons with information from previous application reviews. The comparisons may