Document: NUREG-0800
Document ID: 504a24fe-9056-495a-8541-0e278016ce80
Document Type: srp
Title: in that offsite AC power remains available to operate the station
Source: NUREG-0800
Source URL: https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML0703/ML070300702.pdf
Revision Date: 2023-06
Chapter: 15
Section ID: 15.2.6
CFR Part: 
CFR Title: 

Content:
r volume (PWR); J. pressure safety and relief valve flow rates; and K. flow rate from the reactor coolant system to the containment system (if applicable). 15.2.1-15.2.5-10 Revision 2 - March 2007 The more important parameters for the limiting transient are compared to those predicted for similar plants for whether they are within expected range. 7. For review of a DC application, the reviewer should follow the above procedures to verify that the design, including requirements and restrictions (e.g., interface requirements and site parameters), set forth in the final safety analysis report (FSAR) meets the acceptance criteria. DCs have referred to the FSAR as the design control document (DCD). The reviewer should also consider the appropriateness of identified COL action items. The reviewer may identify additional COL action items; however, to ensure these COL action items are addressed during a COL application, they should be added to the DC FSAR. For review of a COL application, the scope of the review is dependent on whether the COL applicant references a DC, an early site permit (ESP) or other NRC approvals (e.g., manufacturing license, site suitability report or topical report). IV. EVALUATION FINDINGS The reviewer verifies that the applicant has provided sufficient information and that the review and calculations (if applicable) support conclusions of the following type to be included in the staff's safety evaluation report. The reviewer also states the bases for those conclusions. The staff concludes that the plant design is acceptable as to transients resulting in unplanned decreases in heat removal by the secondary system, transients expected with moderate frequency, and transients where the predicted response meets the requirements of GDCs 10, 13, 15, 17, and 26. This conclusion is based on the following findings: 1. The applicant meets the requirements of GDCs 10 and 26 by demonstrating that SAFDLs are not exceeded for this event. The applicant also meets