Document: NUREG-0800
Document ID: 05908428-2f08-4a4f-8512-996c29c86da8
Document Type: srp
Title: have been revised to address Addendum B of the ASME standard and the revised NEI
Source: NUREG-0800
Source URL: https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML0717/ML071700657.pdf
Revision Date: 2023-06
Chapter: 19
Section ID: 19.1
CFR Part: 
CFR Title: 

Content:
) to the results that differ from those seen at other, similar plants, and for which no plant specific design features can be identified that would explain the differences. • Results that seem to be counterintuitive, e.g., a decrease in CDF when equipment is taken out of service. • Estimates of CDF or LERF that differ significantly from those in prior submittals from the same licensee, without a sufficient explanation. 19.1-8 Revision 2 - June 2007 It is expected that a licensee using a PRA standard or standards, and/or the industry peer review process has taken account of the exceptions and clarifications found in the appendices of Regulatory Guide 1.200 and has documented the comparison with the relevant documents as endorsed. The reviewer should determine that the peer review and self-assessment have been performed in conformance with the relevant documents with the exceptions and clarifications found in the Appendices to Regulatory Guide 1.200. The reviewer is to focus on the elements that have deviations from, or discrepancies with, the technical requirements of the endorsed documents. The reviewer may make a judgment that the deviation or discrepancy leads to an acceptable equivalent to the requirements of the endorsed documents. Alternatively, the reviewer may determine that the issue has been addressed adequately if the licensee has given reasons as to why the discrepancies are not important, or provided a demonstration that the discrepancy has no significant impact on the results used in the decision. III.2.3 Assessment of Engineering Analyses, Assumptions, and Approximations Since the standards and industry PRA programs are not (or are not expected to be) prescriptive, there is some freedom on how to model certain issues in the PRA, so that different analysts may make different assumptions regarding these issues, yet the issues still meet the requirements of the standard or have been accepted by the peer review. The choice of a specific assumption or a