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:
RP section and that the evaluation supports the following conclusions; these confirmations are to be included in the staff’s safety evaluation. IV.1 General • The proposed change meets the current regulations unless it is explicitly related to a requested exemption, i.e., a "specific exemption" under 10 CFR 50.12. • The proposed change is consistent with the defense-in-depth philosophy. • The proposed change maintains sufficient safety margins. • When proposed changes result in an increase in CDF or risk, the increases are small and are consistent with the intent of the Commission's Safety Goal Policy Statement (51 FR 28044). • The impact of the proposed change is monitored using performance-based strategies. • All safety impacts of the proposed change are evaluated in an integrated manner as part of an overall risk management approach in which the licensee is using risk analysis to improve operational and engineering decisions broadly by identifying and taking advantage of opportunities to reduce risk, not just to eliminate requirements the licensee sees as undesirable. For those cases when risk increases are proposed, the benefits have been described and these benefits are commensurate with the proposed risk increases. The approach used to identify reduced requirements was also used to identify whether there are areas where requirements should be increased. • The scope and quality of the engineering analyses (including traditional and probabilistic analyses) conducted to justify the proposed LB change are appropriate for the nature and scope of the change and are derived on the basis of the as-built, as-operated, and as-maintained plant, including operating experience at the plant. • The plant-specific PRA supporting the licensee’s proposals has been subjected to quality controls such as an independent peer review or certification. • Appropriate consideration of uncertainty has been given to results of the analyses and interpretation of