Document: NUREG-0800
Document ID: b6b57a00-5b85-4f0c-965c-ca89ef4265e7
Document Type: srp
Title: DETERMINATION OF RUPTURE LOCATIONS AND DYNAMIC EFFECTS
Source: NUREG-0800
Source URL: https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML1608/ML16088A041.pdf
Revision Date: 2023-06
Chapter: 3
Section ID: 3.6.2
CFR Part: 
CFR Title: 

Content:
e criteria, as applicable. V. IMPLEMENTATION The staff will use this SRP section in performing safety evaluations of DC applications, COL applications, and license applications submitted by applicants pursuant to 10 CFR Part 50, or 10 CFR Part 52. The staff will use the method described herein to evaluate conformance with Commission regulations. 3.6.2-13 Revision 3 – December 2016 NRC regulations state, in part, that the DC, COL, or ESP application must contain an evaluation (of the design, facility, or site, respectively) against the SRP revision in effect 6 months before the docket date of the application. The content of this SRP section has been accepted as an alternative method for complying with those regulations (10 CFR 52.47(a)(9), 10 CFR 52.79(a)(41), or 10 CFR 52.17(a)(1)(xii), as applicable) as long as the DCD/FSAR does not deviate significantly from the design/facility/site assumptions made by the NRC staff while preparing this SRP section. The plants for which construction permit applications were tendered before July 1, 1973, may use design criteria for protection against postulated pipe ruptures outside containment as described in the A. Giambosso letter of December 1972 (Appendix B to BTP 3-3). The J. F. O’Leary letter of July 12, 1973 (BTP 3-3, Appendix C) emphasizes design criteria for protection against postulated pipe ruptures outside containment via plant arrangement and layouts utilizing the concept of physical separation to the extent practical for those plants for which construction permit applications were tendered after July 1, 1973, and before July 1, 1975. For a DC application, the application must identify and describe all differences between the standard plant design and this SRP section, and discuss how the proposed alternative provides an acceptable method of complying with the regulations that underlie the SRP acceptance criteria. If the design assumptions in the DC application deviate significantly from the SRP, the staff will