Document: NUREG-0800
Document ID: 8dd882f4-a34f-4415-acd1-ebb441c72786
Document Type: srp
Title: PROBABILISTIC RISK ASSESSMENT AND SEVERE ACCIDENT
Source: NUREG-0800
Source URL: https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML1213/ML12132A481.pdf
Revision Date: 2023-06
Chapter: 19
Section ID: 19.0
CFR Part: 
CFR Title: 

Content:
or independent review, verification, or checking of calculations and information used in the analyses C. Documentation and maintenance of records, including archival documentation as well as submittal documentation D. Use of procedures that ensure that appropriate attention and corrective actions are taken if assumptions, analyses, or information used previously are changed or determined to be in error E. Peer Review1 10. The staff will determine that the technical adequacy of the PRA is sufficient to justify the specific results and risk insights that are used to support the DC or COL application. Toward this end, the applicant’s PRA submittal should be consistent with prevailing PRA standards, guidance, and good practices as needed to support its uses and applications and as endorsed by the NRC (e.g., RG 1.200 and SRP Section 19.1). As discussed in RGs 1.174 and 1.200, the quality of a PRA is measured in terms of its appropriateness with respect to scope, level of detail, and technical adequacy. The applicant’s adherence to the recommendations provided in RGs 1.174 and 1.200 pertaining to quality and technical adequacy will result in a more efficient and consistent NRC staff review process. With respect to PRA quality, the following items are noted: A. There are no regulatory requirements in 10 CFR Part 52 that specifically pertain to PRA quality with respect to DC or COL applications. 1 Peer review of the DC PRA is not required prior to application. However, if a peer review was conducted prior to the application; the staff should examine the peer review report. If a certain aspect of the PRA deviates from accepted good practices, the applicant/holder should justify that this deficiency does not impact the PRA results or risk insights. Otherwise, applicants/holders need to correct the deficiency and resubmit the PRA results and risk insights. If a peer review has not been performed, the applicants/holders should justify why their PRAs are adequate in terms of