Document: NUREG-0800
Document ID: 7916b088-fb90-4163-84fe-027bd315bcc5
Document Type: srp
Title: REVIEW OF RISK INFORMATION USED TO SUPPORT PERMANENT PLANT-
Source: NUREG-0800
Source URL: https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML0717/ML071700658.pdf
Revision Date: 2023-06
Chapter: 19
Section ID: 19.2
CFR Part: 
CFR Title: 

Content:
e’s failure to submit requested information could also be a basis for rejection pursuant to 10 CFR 2.108. 19.2-84 June 2007 Evaluation Findings The numerical guidance for CDF and LERF and the safety principles provided in Regulatory Guide 1.174 are intended to provide a basis for finding that there is reasonable assurance of adequate protection. Therefore, situations that exceed these values or violate the other principles would constitute a trigger point at which questions are raised as to whether the proposed change provides reasonable assurance of adequate protection. A more in-depth assessment of the special circumstances, the safety principles, and the issues identified for management attention in Section 2.2.6 of Regulatory Guide 1.174 should then be made in order to reach a conclusion regarding the level of safety associated with the requested change. In making this assessment, the reviewers should be mindful to clearly differentiate the concept of adequate protection from the numerical risk acceptance guidelines. The guidelines in themselves do not constitute a definition of adequate protection but provide an appropriate set of criteria to be used in the process for evaluating adequate protection. As discussed in Regulatory Guide 1.174, the uncertainty in the analyses must be considered in any finding that adequate protection is achieved. The final acceptability of the proposed change should be based on a consideration of current regulatory requirements, as well as on adherence to the safety principles, and not solely on the basis of a comparison of quantitative probabilistic risk assessment results with numerical acceptance guidelines. The decision to reject a non-risk-informed license amendment request on the basis of risk should be supported by the RILP and would be expected to be elevated to officelevel management for a final decision. The authority provided by the Atomic Energy Act and current regulations requires rejection of a license amendment