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:
engineering and probabilistic considerations to form the basis for acceptance. In order for this decisionmaking process to be effective in rendering accurate representations of plant safety and risk, the staff anticipates that licensees will have documented guidance to ensure consistent and defensible results. Such guidance would also allow staff reviewers to reconstruct the logic and events involved in the integration process. This appendix discusses issues that the staff reviewers should address during reviews of the licensees’ integrated decisionmaking process (sometimes referred to as the “expert panel” process). a. Areas of Review Reviewers are expected to evaluate proposed changes to the LB by taking into account both traditional and probabilistic engineering considerations. For each change, reviewers should evaluate the licensee’s justification for the change and the process by which the results were obtained. In many pilot risk-informed applications, licensees have justified changes to the LB through the use of integrated decisionmaking panels (or expert panels) especially in cases where there are broad applications of PRA and traditional engineering results over a large number of plant elements (SSCs, operator actions, etc.). A review of the licensee’s integrated decisionmaking process would ensure a better understanding of the reasons, assumptions, approaches, and information used to justify these changes. b. Review Guidance and Procedures Since the licensee’s integrated decisionmaking process is responsible for justifying the acceptability of the proposed changes to the LB, the staff anticipates that licensees will document the process in a relatively formal fashion. The staff may not routinely audit all of the licensee’s findings or recommendations, but the documentation should exist to support such a review, and should be maintained for the life of the plant or until such time at which the recommendations are invalidated by later changes.