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:
ed to submit supplemental risk information or traditional engineering information if such information is not already included as part of the original submittals. If risk information on the proposed LB changes is not provided, the staff will determine if the application can be approved on the basis of the information provided using traditional methods and will either approve or reject the application based upon this information. For those licensee-initiated LB changes that a licensee chooses (or is requested by the staff) to support with risk information, this SRP chapter describes the scope and content of the staff’s review by considering engineering issues and applying risk insights. Licensees submitting risk information to support changes to their LB (whether on their own initiative or at the request of the staff) should address each of the principles of risk-informed regulation discussed in Regulatory Guide 1.174. The staff should then determine if the licensees’ selected approaches and methods (whether quantitative or qualitative, and traditional or probabilistic), data, and criteria for considering risk are appropriate for the decision to be made. For each risk-informed application, reviewers should ensure that the proposed changes meet the following principles. (Sections of this SRP chapter dealing with review guidance for each principle are identified in brackets.) 1. The proposed change meets the current regulations unless it is explicitly related to a requested exemption or rule change, i.e., a "specific exemption" under 10 CFR 50.12 or a "petition for rulemaking" under 10 CFR 2.802. [Section III.2.1]. 2. The proposed change is consistent with the defense-in-depth philosophy. [Section III.2.1] 3. The proposed change maintains sufficient safety margins. [Section III.2.1] 4. When proposed changes result in an increase in core damage frequency or risk, the increases should be small and consistent with the intent of the Commission’s Safety Goal Policy