Document: NUREG-0800
Document ID: 32179098-f78d-4852-9c29-1e5e3abb2705
Document Type: srp
Title: RISK-INFORMED DECISION MAKING:  TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS
Source: NUREG-0800
Source URL: https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML0703/ML070380228.pdf
Revision Date: 2023-06
Chapter: 16
Section ID: 16.1
CFR Part: 
CFR Title: 

Content:
vision 1 - March 2007 • Consistency of the PRA findings as to the plant's design and operational characteristics. • Modeling detail and scope necessary to support the decision-making activity. • Representation of the as-built, as-operated plant. • Discussion of peer review, industry certification, or cross-comparisons presented by the licensee as evidence of PRA quality. (d) The consistency of the TS change with other TSs approved by the NRC. If there is a baseline for approving similar TS changes for similar plants, only differences between previously accepted submissions and that under review need be assessed. The need to validate the PRA independently in the context of the TS proposal is based on the need to establish a defensible probabilistic basis for approving the TS change. The basis depends on the PRA role in the decision-making process (2) PRA Review Considerations. The PRA review covers the areas presented here; therefore, the application must have sufficient detail for evaluation. General review guidance is in SRP Section 19.1. Additional guidance specific to the review of TS changes is here. (a) Quality of the PRA. The reviewer should consider the quality and validity of the PRA during the review of the licensee's submission for the TS change. Has the PRA been reviewed previously by the NRC? Did the NRC safety evaluation report (SER) on the individual plant examination (IPE) or other NRC reviews of the PRA find any shortcomings? Have any shortcomings been addressed and resolved by the licensee if relevant to the proposed TS change? The quality of the PRA must be compatible with the safety implications of the requested TS change and with the PRA role in justifying that request. The greater the potential change in risk, the uncertainty in that risk, or both from the requested TS change, the more rigor must go into 16.1-15 Revision 1 - March 2007 ensuring PRA quality. One approach to ensure quality is a peer review of the PRA. The submission should