Document: NUREG-0800
Document ID: 18897384-49d0-41ca-b285-0b1201052b03
Document Type: srp
Title: CONTROL ROD MISOPERATION (SYSTEM MALFUNCTION OR OPERATOR ERROR)
Source: NUREG-0800
Source URL: https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML0523/ML052350372.pdf
Revision Date: 2023-06
Chapter: 15
Section ID: 15.4.3
CFR Part: 
CFR Title: 

Content:
ation) provided adequate alarm or scram signals. d. Nuclear conditions that interact with this event (e.g., Doppler coefficient, void coefficient) have been calculated as described in SRP Section 4.3. IV. EVALUATION FINDINGS If the reviewer's evaluation shows that the applicant's analyses are acceptable, the following kinds of statements should be included in the staff's safety evaluation report: The possibilities for single failures of the reactor control system which could result in a movement or malposition of control rods beyond normal limits have been reviewed. The scope of the review has included investigations of possible rod malposition configurations, the course of the resulting transients or steady-state conditions, and the instru- mentation response to the transient or power maldistribution. The methods used to determine the peak fuel rod response, and the input to that analysis, such as power distribution changes, rod reactivities, 15.4.3-3 Rev. 2 - July 1981 and reactivity feedback effects due to moderator and fuel temperature changes, have been examined-. (If audit calculations have been done, they should be summarized.) The staff concludes that the requirements of General Design Criteria 10, 20, and 25 have been met. This conclusion is based on the following: The applicant has met'the requirements of GDC 10 that the specified acceptable fuel design limits are not exceeded, GDC 20 that the reactivity control systems are automatically initiated so that specified acceptable fuel design limits are not exceeded, and .GDC 25 that single malfunctions in the reactivity control system will not cause the specified acceptable fuel design limits to be exceeded. These require- ments have been met by comparing the resulting extreme opera- ting conditions and response for the fuel (i.e., fuel duty) with the acceptance criteria for fuel damage (e.g., critical heat flux, fuel temperatures and clad strain limits should not be exceeded), to assure that fuel rod failure