Document: NUREG-0800
Document ID: e32f0820-4e33-476e-aa36-4ca8c2c64af0
Document Type: srp
Title: Use of Probabilistic Risk Assessment in Plant-Specific, Risk-Informed Decisionmaking:
Source: NUREG-0800
Source URL: https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML0119/ML011940192.pdf
Revision Date: 2023-06
Chapter: 19
Section ID: 19.0
CFR Part: 
CFR Title: 

Content:
ciently assessed the risk implications to determine that there is reasonable assurance that the public health and safety will be adequately protected if the amendment request is approved. A licensee's decision not to submit requested information could impede the staff's review and could also prevent the reviewers from reaching a finding that there is reasonable assurance of adequate protection. A licensee's failure to submit requested information could also be a basis for rejection pursuant to 10 CFR 2.108. Evaluation Findings The numerical guidance for CDF and LERF and the safety principles provided in RG 1. 174 are intended to provide a basis for finding that there is reasonable assurance of adequate protection. Therefore, situations that exceed these values or violate the other principles would constitute a trigger point at which questions are raised as to whether the proposed change provides reasonable assurance of adequate protection. A more in-depth assessment of the special circumstances, the safety principles, and the issues identified for management attention in Section 2.2.6 of RG 1.174 should then be made in order to reach a conclusion regarding the level of safety associated with the requested change. In making this assessment, the reviewers should be mindful to clearly differentiate the concept of adequate protection from the numerical risk acceptance guidelines. The guidelines in themselves do not constitute a definition of adequate protection but provide an appropriate set of criteria to be used in the process for evaluating adequate protection. As discussed in RG 1.174, the uncertainty in the analyses must be considered in any finding that adequate protection is achieved. The final acceptability of the proposed change should be based on a consideration of current regulatory requirements, as well as on adherence to the safety principles, and not solely on the basis of a comparison of quantitative probabilistic risk assessment results with numerical