Document: NUREG-0800
Document ID: 496b5bd8-c9a2-4cf6-a703-e41c51e155ec
Document Type: srp
Title: CHANNEL MIGRATION OR DIVERSION
Source: NUREG-0800
Source URL: https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML1819/ML18190A201.pdf
Revision Date: 2023-06
Chapter: 2
Section ID: 2.4.9
CFR Part: 
CFR Title: 

Content:
e plant site is not vulnerable to flooding or to loss of cooling water that could be caused by the diversion, 2.4.9-9 Draft Revision 4 – September 2018 migration, or realignment of natural waterways resulting from severe natural phenomena. III. REVIEW PROCEDURES The reviewer will select material from the procedures described below, as may be appropriate for a particular case. The procedures outlined below are used to review CP and ESP applications to determine whether data and analyses for the proposed site meet the acceptance criteria given in Subsection II of this SRP. For OL and COL applications, these review procedures are used to verify that the data and analyses previously described (in either the CP or ESP, respectively) remain valid and that the facility’s design specifications are consistent with these data. Reviews of OLs and COLs are to also include a determination as to technical specifications bearing on the site characteristic flood reflect consideration of any newly-identified conditions that might now be considered unique to the site and not previously considered in either the CP or the ESP. These review procedures also apply to COL applications that do not reference an existing ESP. These review procedures are based on the acceptance criteria identified in Subsection II of this SRP. For deviations from these acceptance criteria, the staff should review the applicant’s evaluation of how the proposed alternatives provide an acceptable method of complying with the applicable NRC regulatory requirements identified in Subsection II. The staff’s review in the first instance should consist of a hierarchical bounding analysis. If the staff’s preliminary assessment of channel migration or diversion effects is comparable to the licensee’s preliminary analysis, the staff should concur with the applicant’s findings. If the staff’s preliminary bounding analysis indicates that its analysis and that prepared by the applicant are not comparable and