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:
d that the change improves safety or the risk increase is very small. One way for a licensee to demonstrate reasonable assurance of PRA technical adequacy in their base PRA model is by implementing RG 1.200 for those aspects of the PRA for which the NRC has endorsed PRA standards. When licensees use RG 1.200 in support of an 19.2-16 June 2007 application, it should obviate the need for an in-depth review of the base PRA by NRC reviewers for those PRA aspects addressed, allowing the staff to focus their review on the application-specific impacts, key assumptions, and areas identified by peer reviewers and self-assessments as being of concern that are relevant to the application. Aspects of the licensee’s PRA for which there are not endorsed PRA standards may require more in-depth staff review, commensurate with their potential impacts on the PRA results. Guidance for the staff review of the technical adequacy of the licensee’s base PRA is provided in SRP Section 19.1, with implementation guidance provided in Regulatory Issue Summary (RIS) 2007-06, “Regulatory Guide 1.200 Implementation.” In assessing the acceptability of a PRA for an application, reviewers should evaluate the licensee's process to ensure quality. In addition, reviewers should reach specific findings regarding the 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 section 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