Document: NUREG-0800
Document ID: 4f0d611c-d3fb-43e5-ab91-e7f7b4de3511
Document Type: srp
Title: Determining the Technical Adequacy of Probabilistic Risk
Source: NUREG-0800
Source URL: https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML0406/ML040630300.pdf
Revision Date: 2023-06
Chapter: 19
Section ID: 19.1
CFR Part: 
CFR Title: 

Content:
ertain issues in the PRA, so that different analysts may make different assumptions regarding these issues, yet the issues still meet the requirements of the standard or have been accepted by the peer review. The choice of a specific assumption or a particular approximation may, however, influence the results of the PRA. The NRC staff needs to be confident that the conclusions drawn from the PRA are not invalidated by the use of specific assumptions. This is addressed primarily in the application-specific assessment through the use of sensitivity analyses. The identification of the important assumptions is addressed in the application-specific regulatory guides and SRP chapters. However, the staff should review the licensee’s basis for those assumptions and their justification, taking into account the peer reviewers’ assessment. The staff’s focus should be on determining that the assumptions have been characterized appropriately so that there is sufficient information to conclude that the sensitivity studies performed to test the robustness of the conclusions are reasonable with respect to what is seen in industry practice. 7 IV. EVALUATION OF FINDINGS The reviewer should provide documentation to conclude that the elements of the PRA required to produce the results have been performed in such a way that the PRA results are fully supportable. IV.1 Assessment of PRA Against Industry Good Practice The PRA elements are assessed to determine that they have been performed in a technically correct manner that conforms with industry good practices. This can be determined by an assessment that the PRA elements are performed consistently with the standard or peer review process as endorsed in the appendices to Regulatory Guide 1.200, or that, where a discrepancy exists, the approach used is equivalent to, or is superior to that referenced in the standard or peer review process document. Alternatively, the reviewer may rely on a demonstration that the impact on the