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:
P and would be expected to be elevated to officelevel management for a final decision. The authority provided by the Atomic Energy Act and current regulations requires rejection of a license amendment request if the NRC is unable to find that adequate protection is provided. 19.2-85 June 2007 Figure 1 - Process and Logic for Considering Risk in License Amendment Reviews Request raises issues that could rebut presumption of adequate protection – “special circumstance” believed to exist (see Note) Management agreement regarding special circumstances and obtaining risk information RG 1.174 safety principles are not met (quantitative and qualitative assessments) Cannot find reasonable assurance of adequate protection when risk and all other factors are considered Questions raised regarding adequate protection; perform in-depth reassessment of all factors ? Inform/engage licensee regarding risk concern ? Inform management of risk concern “Special circumstance” exists; request and evaluate risk information Application acceptable Application acceptable Application acceptable Application acceptable N N N N Y Y Y Reject application on the basis of inadequate protection Y Non-risk-informed submittal that meets deterministic requirements Note: “Special circumstances” may exist if 1. The situation was not identified or addressed in development of regulations, and could be important enough to warrant a new regulation if encountered on a widespread basis. 2. The reviewer has knowledge that the risk impact is not reflected by the licensing basis analysis, and has reason to believe that the risk increase would warrant denial if the request were evaluated as a risk-informed application. Request raises issues that could rebut presumption of adequate protection – “special circumstance” believed to exist (see Note) Management agreement regarding special circumstances and obtaining risk information RG 1.174 safety principles are not met (quantitative and qualitative