Document: NUREG-0800
Document ID: a650b8f2-b0fa-4f0f-bc8f-55bb3f6ec603
Document Type: srp
Title: INADVERTENT OPENING OF A PWR PRESSURIZER PRESSURE RELIEF VALVE
Source: NUREG-0800
Source URL: https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML0708/ML070820094.pdf
Revision Date: 2023-06
Chapter: 15
Section ID: 15.6.1
CFR Part: 
CFR Title: 

Content:
icable). Values of the more important of these parameters for the transient caused by the inadvertent pressure relief valve opening are compared to those predicted for other similar plants for whether they are within the expected range. Upon request from the reviewer, other responsible organizations provide input for the areas of review stated in subsection I of this SRP section. The reviewer uses the input requested as required to complete the review procedure. 2Minimum CPR for a BWR. 15.6.1-9 Revision 2 - March 2007 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 applicant evaluated this transient using a mathematical model previously reviewed and found acceptable by the staff. The input parameters for this model were reviewed and found suitably conservative. The results showed specified acceptable fuel design limits maintained by a minimum DNBR2 not below and a