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:
with risk-informed applications. Therefore, when risk increases are proposed, reviewers should consider plant performance and past changes to the LB to ensure that there is no pattern for a systematic increase in risk. Insights on the licensee’s operational practices, management controls, risk management programs, plant configuration control programs, or performance monitoring programs from previous applications can be obtained from the NRC project managers, the NRC regional offices, or documentation of NRC inspection activities. III.2.3 Integrated Decisionmaking Process The acceptability of the proposed changes should be reviewed and determined in an integrated fashion. Reviewers should verify that the licensee has used the results of the traditional engineering analyses and the risk assessment to ensure that the submittal fulfills the principles 19.2-23 June 2007 listed in Subsection II of this SRP section. Since the roles played by the traditional analyses and the risk analyses in the decisionmaking process determine the scope, quality, and robustness required of those analyses, examination of the appropriate inputs and assumptions in the analyses may be necessary for reviewers to conclude with reasonable assurance that the proposal fulfills the stated principles. When appropriate, the integrated decisionmaking process should include implementation and monitoring strategies that are used to provide confidence that the results of the underlying engineering analyses remain valid. In addition, licensees can take compensatory measures that reduce risk to offset incompleteness or uncertainties in the analysis. Compensatory measures can also be used to offset a quantifiable increase in risk with nonquantifiable but expected improvements in safety. In addition, the reviewer should ensure that the scope of the proposed changes is commensurate with, and fully supported by, the results of the analyses. That is, the scope of the change should be dependent on the degree of