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:
sidering risk are appropriate for the decision to be made. For each risk-informed application, reviewers should ensure that the proposed changes meet the following principles. (Subsections of this SRP section dealing with review guidance for each principle are identified in brackets.) 1. The proposed change meets the current regulations unless it is explicitly related to a requested exemption, i.e., a "specific exemption" under 10 CFR 50.12. [Subsection III.2.1]. 2. The proposed change is consistent with the defense-in-depth philosophy. [Subsection III.2.1] 3. The proposed change maintains sufficient safety margins. [Subsection III.2.1] 4. When proposed changes result in an increase in core damage frequency or risk, the increases should be small and consistent with the intent of the Commission’s Safety Goal Policy Statement (60 FR 42622). [Subsections III.2.2 and III.2.3] 5. The impact of the proposed change should be monitored using performance measurement strategies. [Subsection III.3] In demonstrating adherence to the above principles, reviewers should ensure that licensees address the following issues as part of their submittals: • All safety impacts of the proposed change are evaluated in an integrated manner as part of an overall risk management approach in which the licensee is using risk analysis to improve operational and engineering decisions broadly by identifying and taking advantage of opportunities to reduce risk, and not just to eliminate requirements the licensee sees as desirable. For those cases when risk increases are proposed, the benefits should be described and should be commensurate with the proposed risk increases. The approach used to identify changes in requirements was used to identify areas where requirements should be increased as well as where they could be reduced. [Subsection III.2.3] • The scope, level of detail, and quality of the engineering analyses (including traditional and probabilistic analyses) conducted to justify the