Document: NUREG-0800
Document ID: f813a982-efc9-4295-a0ff-eb6a289f39ba
Document Type: srp
Title: BOILING WATER REACTOR STABILITY
Source: NUREG-0800
Source URL: https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML0705/ML070550017.pdf
Revision Date: 2023-06
Chapter: 15
Section ID: 15.9
CFR Part: 
CFR Title: 

Content:
kup system is required in this situation. 4. There is a third acceptance option for instability modes other than density-wave stability. Criteria in this SRP specify that the GDC 12 intent is that the reactor may be designed to operate with any such oscillations if they cannot violate SAFDLs. III. REVIEW PROCEDURES The reviewer will select material from the procedures described below, as may be appropriate for a particular case. For each area of review specified in subsection I of this SRP section, the review procedure is identified below. These review procedures are based on the identified SRP acceptance criteria. For deviations from these specific acceptance criteria, the staff should review the applicant’s evaluation of how the proposed alternatives to the SRP criteria provide an acceptable method of complying with the relevant NRC requirements identified in subsection II. Portions of the review may be done generically for aspects common to a class of plant designs or by adoption of the results of previous reviews of plants of similar design. The areas for attention and emphasis are based on whether the information in the applicant's safety analysis report (SAR) is similar to that reviewed for other similar plant designs, whether it refers to previously accepted evaluations and/or nuclear steam supply system vendor topical reports, whether it proposes new or unique features affecting the stability risk, and whether the areas involve items of special safety significance. The evaluation of compliance with acceptance criteria may be based on referenced approved designs, analyses, and/or assessments including topical reports, standard design approvals, and designs of systems previously reviewed and approved by the staff. If there is any aspect of a design not identical to the referenced design, an evaluation should address the differences and the conclusions on such differences should be included in the safety evaluation report (SER). The reviewer evaluates the