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:
re modeled as part of the calculation of human error probabilities (HEPs) in recovery actions, risk insights from the PRA can be applied if the effects of the application can be mapped onto the events (e.g., modules, HEPs) in question. In these cases it should be noted that the mapping is relatively simple if the event is under the same "OR gate" with the other module or HEP events. However, if the logic involves "AND gates," the mapping is more complicated. 19.2-15 June 2007 • If the SSCs are omitted from the model because of inherent reliability, or if they are not modeled at all, risk insights for these components should be obtained through an integrated decisionmaking process (such as an Expert Panel) that revisits the assumptions or screening criteria used to support the initial omission. III.2.2.4 Quality of a PRA for Use in Risk-Informed Regulation The baseline risk profile is used to model the plant's licensing basis and operating practices that are important to safe operation. As such, the profile may provide insights into areas in which existing requirements can be relaxed without unacceptable safety consequences. It is therefore essential that the PRA adequately represent the risk profile. To complement this requirement, it is necessary to identify those elements of the plant that are responsible for reducing the risk to acceptable levels and to adequately address those elements in the licensee's programmatic activities. Therefore, the following criteria should be satisfied in risk-informed regulation. • A reasonable assurance exists with regard to the adequacy of the PRA. That is, the PRA model properly reflects the actual design, construction, operating practices, and operating experience of the plant and its owner. This should include plant changes arising from the licensee's voluntary actions, regulatory requirements, or previous changes made to the LB. • The results and conclusions are "robust" and, where appropriate, the licensee has conducted