Document: NUREG-0800
Document ID: 2717fe7f-71fd-4f1e-bd08-7685b24763ba
Document Type: srp
Title: Standard Review Plans are prepared for the guidance of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation staff responsible for th
Source: NUREG-0800
Source URL: https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML0301/ML030160606.pdf
Revision Date: 2023-06
Chapter: 15
Section ID: 15
CFR Part: 
CFR Title: 

Content:
specific event analyses. In order to avoid problems in the review, it is important that the submitted code documentation identify the intended range of applicability of the generic code, including its models and correlations. The “generic” assessment that accompanies the code must support the intended range of applicability of the code. The reviewer must ensure that the code models and assessment support the use of the code over its stated range of applicability. One goal of the review should be that evaluation models that use an approved general purpose transient analysis computer program can efficiently identify the models and assessment that support the analysis of the specific plant and accident types that the evaluation model will be used for in order to streamline future reviews of the evaluation models. 6. Review of Small Changes to Existing Evaluation Models Application of the full review process described in this SRP section may not be needed for all evaluation models submitted for review by the staff. Some evaluation models submitted for review are relatively minor modifications to existing evaluation models. The scope and depth of applying the review process to the evaluation model can be based on a graded approach. The following five attributes of the evaluation model should be considered when determining the extent to which the full review process may be reduced for a specific application. 1. Novelty of the revised evaluation model compared to the currently acceptable model. 2. The complexity of the event being analyzed. 3. The degree of conservatism in the evaluation model. 4. The extent of any plant design or operational changes that would require a reanalysis. Each of these attributes will be discussed in the paragraphs that follow. 14 6.1 Novelty of the evaluation model or changes to the model The level of effort involved in the review process should be commensurate with the extent of the changes made to an evaluation model. Small changes to a