Document: NUREG-0800
Document ID: 0a8f3dad-b3bb-46ae-9305-576e9973cdb9
Document Type: srp
Title: Design Criteria and Analyses.  In meeting the requirements of 10 CFR Parts 50 and 100,
Source: NUREG-0800
Source URL: https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML1006/ML100610529.pdf
Revision Date: 2023-06
Chapter: 2
Section ID: 2.5.5.2
CFR Part: 
CFR Title: 

Content:
bed in subsection 2.5.5.3 have been completely and conservatively incorporated into the design. When marginal factors of safety are indicated by the independent analyses performed by the staff and its consultants, additional substantiation and refinement is required or the applicant must use more conservative assumptions. No single method of analysis is entirely acceptable for all stability assessments; thus, no single method of analysis can be recommended. Relevant manuals issued by public agencies (such as the U.S. Navy Department, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and U.S. Bureau of Reclamation) are often used in reviews to ascertain whether the analyses performed by the applicant are reasonable (Refs. 14, 15, 16, and 17). Many of the important interaction effects cannot be included in current analyses and must be treated in some approximate fashion. Engineering judgment is an important factor in the staff's review of the analyses and in assessing the adequacy of the resulting safety factors. If the staff review indicates that questionable assumptions have been made by the applicant or some nonstandard or inappropriate method of analysis has been used, then the staff or its consultant may model the dam or slope in a manner which it feels is more consistent with the data and perform an independent analysis employing both deterministic and probabilistic methods as appropriate.