Document: NUREG-0800
Document ID: 145ec0f9-012b-4669-9627-ed1b1d0cce95
Document Type: srp
Title: THERMAL AND HYDRAULIC DESIGN
Source: NUREG-0800
Source URL: https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML0520/ML052070412.pdf
Revision Date: 2023-06
Chapter: 4
Section ID: 4.4
CFR Part: 
CFR Title: 

Content:
g safety system settings and limiting conditions for operation, as they relate to the reactor coolant system, do not permit operation with any expected combination of parameters that would not satisfy specific acceptance criterion 1 of section II. 90 For example, the limiting condition of operation must assure that the reactor coolant pumps have adequate net positive suction head for all expected modes of operation. For standard design certification reviews under 10 CFR Part 52, the procedures above should be followed, as modified by the procedures in SRP Section 14.3 (proposed), to verify that the design set forth in the standard safety analysis report, including inspections, tests, analysis, and acceptance criteria (ITAAC), site interface requirements and combined license action items, meet the acceptance criteria given in subsection II. SRP Section 14.3 (proposed) contains procedures for the review of certified design material (CDM) for the standard design, including the site parameters, interface criteria, and ITAAC.91 For an OL review this sentence should be modified to include the implementation of the * design criteria as represented by the final core design. DRAFT Rev. 2 - April 1996 4.4-12 IV. EVALUATION FINDINGS The reviewer verifies that the SAR contains sufficient information and his review supports the following kinds of statements and conclusions, which should be included in the staff's safety evaluation report. The following paragraph is applicable to both a CP, design certification (DC), and OL: 92 The thermal-hydraulic design of the core for the __________ plant was reviewed. The scope of review included the design criteria, preliminary core design, and the steady state analysis of the core thermal-hydraulic performance. The review concentrated on the * differences between the proposed core design (and criteria) and those designs and criteria that have been previously reviewed and found acceptable by the staff. It was found that all such differences