Document: NUREG-0800
Document ID: dd4f84a9-8976-44c4-b631-d7c0254f4efc
Document Type: srp
Title: PROBABILISTIC RISK ASSESSMENT AND SEVERE ACCIDENT EVALUATION FOR
Source: NUREG-0800
Source URL: https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML1416/ML14161A594.pdf
Revision Date: 2023-06
Chapter: 19
Section ID: 19.0
CFR Part: 
CFR Title: 

Content:
a (ITAAC), COL action items, and other commitments, including any actions identified or proposed to address them. The applicant’s PRA-based insights table should also identify these items. The staff should note any item that cannot be resolved until after the COL application phase and review the commitments and schedule for resolution of the given items, and the proposed method of completion. Design-Specific PRA (Level I PRA Technical Adequacy) 1. The reviewer confirms that the applicant has: (1) identified those high-level requirements or attributes of the applicable PRA standard that the PRA did not embody, (2) addressed the impact on the qualitative and quantitative results of the PRA of excluding those high- level requirements or attributes of the standard that are applicable but have not been incorporated. The PRA is excluded from Tier 2 of the DC and it is not part of the design- basis information. However, the PRA is used to help identify Tier 1 (e.g., ITAAC) and Tier 2 information, including, but not limited to risk insights as described in Section C.II.1 of RG 1.206. 2. RG 1.200 contains the staff's guidance concerning PRA technical adequacy and peer review. Peer review of the DC PRA is not required prior to application, however, if a peer review or self-assessment was conducted prior to the application, the staff should examine the documented results. If a certain aspect of the PRA deviates from accepted good practices, the applicant should justify that this deficiency does not impact the PRA results or risk insights. Otherwise, applicants need to correct the deficiency and resubmit the PRA results and risk insights. If a peer review has not been performed, the applicants should justify why their PRAs are adequate in terms of scope, level of detail, and technical acceptability. If the applicant’s justification fails to provide the staff with an appropriate level of confidence in the models, results, and insights, the staff should conduct an audit of