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:
decisionmaking process. IV.3 Evaluations of Defense-In-Depth Attributes and Safety Margins • Defense in depth is preserved (for example, system redundancy, diversity, and independence are maintained commensurate with the expected frequency and consequence of challenges to the system; defenses against potential common cause failures are maintained and the introduction of new common cause failure mechanisms is assessed; and defenses against human errors are maintained). • Sufficient safety margins are maintained (for example, NRC-approved codes and standards are met or deviations justified; and safety analysis acceptance criteria in the LB are met, or proposed revisions provide sufficient margin to account for analysis and data uncertainty). • Current regulations have been met, or the proposed exemption is acceptable. IV.4 Scope of Risk Analysis • The licensee's risk analysis satisfactorily addresses all mode/initiator combinations or • The licensee's risk analysis does not analyze all mode/initiator type combinations. However, in each instance, the licensee has demonstrated that 19.2-37 June 2007 < suitably redundant and diverse plant response capability is maintained for significant initiators in these modes and < sufficient elements of the plant response capability are subject to programmatic activities to ensure suitable performance. IV.5 Level of Detail of Risk Analysis • The PRA is detailed enough to account for important system and operator dependencies. • Risk insights are consistent with the level of detail modeled in the PRA. IV.6 Quality of the PRA • There is reasonable assurance that the PRA is of sufficient quality to support the conclusions as they impact the decision, as shown by the licensee's process to ensure quality, including an independent peer review, and by a focused-scope application-specific review by the staff. • Results are robust in terms of uncertainties and sensitivities to the key modeling parameters. • Key