Document: NUREG-0800
Document ID: ac43f632-9db1-4857-9f56-bfba45965456
Document Type: srp
Title: * These are modifications to a plant’s design, operations, or other activities that require NRC approval. These modifica
Source: NUREG-0800
Source URL: https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML0232/ML023250195.pdf
Revision Date: 2023-06
Chapter: 19
Section ID: 19
CFR Part: 
CFR Title: 

Content:
of this Standard Review Plan chapter may endorse this certification process for this purpose. SRP 19-17 quality of the PRA for each application. At a minimum, reviewers should reach these findings on the basis of a "focused-scope" evaluation that concentrates on application-specific attributes of the PRA and on the assumptions and elements of the PRA model that drive the results and conclusions. Appendix A to this SRP chapter provides more detailed guidance regarding several issues that are important to the application-specific reviews of probabilistic evaluations performed as part of risk-informed regulation. The robustness of the results can be determined by developing an understanding of the contributors and the sources of uncertainty that impact the results. For the proposed risk change, reviewers should identify the elements that increase risk and those that decrease risk, and then identify the contributors to both the risk increase and decrease. A review of the basic events, assumptions, and uncertainties involved in the increase and decrease in risk will help reviewers understand the elements that are important in determining the risk change, and thus ensure that the conclusions are robust with respect to the results obtained. In addition to the focused-scope review, reviewers should consider the following factors in determining the need for a more detailed and larger scope staff review of the PRA: • The PRA results play a relatively significant role in the decisionmaking process, coupled with the finding that the proposed change in risk and/or the baseline risk is close to the decision guidelines as defined in Section 2.2.4 of Regulatory Guide 1.174. • Staff audits of the licensee's process for conducting a PRA have identified practices that could detrimentally affect the quality of the technical analysis. • Results of the licensee's analysis submitted in support of a licensing action are in some way counter-intuitive or inconsistent with results for