| Refer to Appendix C for an example of validation of a calculational method. |
|
| There are many calculational methods suitable for determining the subcritical state of a system. |
|
| Make allowances for bias on the calculational method at approximately 95 percent confidence instead of the mean. |
|
| A measure of the systematic differences between calculational method results and experimental data. |
|
| Accepted methodologies, such as that contained in CSA Standard CSA-N288.1, shall be used for calculational purposes. |
|
| Consideration should be given to the precision and any bias in the calculational technique used in determining that keff of 0.95 is not exceeded, as described in Appendix B to this document. |
|
| A calculational technique that has been validated in conformance with Section 2, Nuclear Criticality Safety in Operations with Fissionable Materials Outside Reactors. |
|
| Suitable calculational methods for determining the subcritical state of a system shall be selected and justified in accordance with an applicable quality assurance standard. |
|
| Bias shall be established by correlating the results of critical and exponential experiments with results obtained for these same systems by the calculational method being validated. |
|
| When no experimental data are available, establishment of the bias for a calculational method is not possible and the requirements of this Subsection cannot be satisfied. |
|
| If the calculational method involves a computer program, checks shall be performed to confirm that the mathematical operations are performed as intended. |
|
| Criteria are stated for establishing the validity and areas of applicability of any calculational method used in assessing nuclear criticality safety. |
|
