Document: NRC Regulatory Guide
Document ID: 22ccfd5e-c5d8-4615-a02c-32369aa9f533
Document Type: regulatory_guide
Title: Acceptability of Probabilistic Risk Assessment Results for Risk-Informed Activities (Rev. 3)
Source: NRC Regulatory Guide Division 1
Source URL: https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML1930/ML19308B636.pdf
Revision Date: 2023-06
Chapter: 
Section ID: RG-1.200
CFR Part: 
CFR Title: 

Content:
at least 90% 95% of CDF/LERF for the hazard group …. DG-1362, Appendix A, Page A-3 Table A-1. Staff Position on ASME/ANS RA-Sa-2009 Part 1, General Requirements for an At-Power Level 1 and LERF PRA Index No Issue Position Resolution Figure 1-3-1 See staff proposed resolution for Section 1- 1.4.2, text in Box 4 of Figure 1-3.1-1 needs to be modified be consistent with the text. Clarification Section 1-4 1-4.1 thru 1- 4.3.2, 1-4.3.4 thru 1-4.5 -------------------- No objection -------------------- 1-4.3.3, 2nd paragraph The intent of this statement/requirement is for the use of outside expert, as such the use of the word “should” does not provide a minimum requirement. Clarification …The PRA analysis team shall should use outside experts, even when…. Section 1-5 1-5.1 thru 1-5.7 -------------------- No objection -------------------- For each relevant Hazard Group, 4 Determine the relative importance to the application, identify the portions of the HG PRA relevant to the application, and for each relevant portion of the hazard group, determine the Capability Category for each SR needed for each potion of PRA to support application 5 PRA scope and risk metrics sufficient to evaluate plant change? DG-1362, Appendix A, Page A-4 Table A-1. Staff Position on ASME/ANS RA-Sa-2009 Part 1, General Requirements for an At-Power Level 1 and LERF PRA Index No Issue Position Resolution Section 1-6 1-6.1.1, 1-6.1.2, 1-6.2, 1-6.4, 1-6.5, 1-6.6.2 -------------------- No objection -------------------- 1-6.1 The purpose, as written, implies that it is solely an audit against the requirements of Section 4. A key objective of the peer review is to ensure when evaluating the PRA against the technical requirements, the “quality” (i.e., strengths and weaknesses) of the PRA; this goal is to be clearly understood by the peer review team. Further, the statement that “the peer review need not assess all aspects of the PRA against all requirements” could be taken to imply that