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:
n-depth philosophy, the proposed license amendment should not result in any substantial change in the effectiveness of the barriers. Consequently, reviewers should consider the following objectives to ensure that the proposed change maintains appropriate safety within the defense-in-depth philosophy: 19.2-9 June 2007 • The change does not result in a significant increase in the existing challenges to the integrity of the barriers. • The proposal does not significantly change the failure probability of any individual barrier. • The proposal does not introduce new or additional failure dependencies among barriers that significantly increase the likelihood of failure compared to the existing conditions. • The overall redundancy and diversity among the barriers is sufficient to ensure compatibility with the risk acceptance guidelines. In evaluating whether a proposed change request fulfills the objectives listed above, the reviewers should establish that the proposed change will meet the following guidelines: • A reasonable balance is preserved among prevention of core damage, prevention of containment failure, and mitigation of consequences. • The proposal avoids over-reliance on programmatic activities to compensate for weaknesses in plant design. • The proposed change preserves system redundancy, independence, and diversity commensurate with the expected frequency of challenges, consequences of failure of the system, and associated uncertainties. • The proposal preserves defenses against potential common cause failures and assesses the potential introduction of new common cause failure mechanisms. • The proposed change does not degrade the independence of barriers. • The proposed change preserves defenses against human errors. • The proposal fulfills the intent of the General Design Criteria of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix A. Reviewers can assess fulfillment of the above guidelines by using qualitative or traditional engineering arguments or by