Document: NUREG-0800
Document ID: 2ebe86ae-db20-4a1e-a55b-ccc9f5acefd0
Document Type: srp
Title: - 15.3.4-10
Source: NUREG-0800
Source URL: https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML0705/ML070550012.pdf
Revision Date: 2023-06
Chapter: 15
Section ID: 15.3.3
CFR Part: 
CFR Title: 

Content:
Revision 3 - March 2007 The more important of these parameters (as listed in subsection I of this SRP section) are compared to those predicted for other similar plants to confirm that they are within the expected range. The percentage of fuel rods that experience failure is reviewed and the staff is notified regarding the extent of fuel failures predicted by the analysis. 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 consequences of postulated rotor seizure or broken shaft events meet the requirements set forth in the General Design Criteria 17, 27, 28, and 31 regarding the ability to insert control rods and to cool the core, and 10 CFR Part 100 guidelines regarding radiological dose at the site boundary. This conclusion is based upon the following: 1. The applicant has demonstrated that the resultant fuel damage was limited such that the