Document: NUREG-0800
Document ID: 817bb0ad-6fd7-433e-aa2b-b4b3e1166f9c
Document Type: srp
Title: PROBABILISTIC RISK ASSESSMENT AND SEVERE ACCIDENT EVALUATION FOR
Source: NUREG-0800
Source URL: https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML0717/ML071700652.pdf
Revision Date: 2023-06
Chapter: 19
Section ID: 19.0
CFR Part: 
CFR Title: 

Content:
iled modeling does not provide significant additional information, it is acceptable to make bounding-type assumptions consistent with the guidelines in Regulatory Guide 1.200. However, the risk models should still be able to identify vulnerabilities as well as design and operational requirements such as ITAAC and COL action items. In addition, the bounding assumptions should not mask any risk-significant information about the design and its operation. 3. Consistent with the guidance in Section 2.5 of Regulatory Guide 1.174 regarding QA, the staff expects that the applicant will have subjected its PRA to quality control. The following methods are acceptable to the NRC staff to ensure that the pertinent QA requirements of Appendix B to 10 CFR Part 50 are met and that the PRA is sufficient: A. Use of personnel qualified for the analysis B. Use of procedures that ensure control of documentation, including revisions, and provide for independent review, verification, or checking of calculations and information used in the analyses C. Documentation and maintenance of records, including archival documentation as well as submittal documentation D. Use of procedures that ensure that appropriate attention and corrective actions are taken if assumptions, analyses, or information used previously are changed or determined to be in error Toward this end, the applicant’s PRA submittal should be consistent with prevailing PRA standards, guidance, and good practices as needed to support its uses and applications and as endorsed by the NRC (e.g., Regulatory Guide 1.200 and SRP Section 19.1).4 In addressing the technical adequacy of the PRA, the applicant should include (1) a discussion of prior NRC staff review of the PRA (e.g., during the DC process), findings (i.e., facts and observations) from that review, disposition of those findings, and the relevance of that review to the technical adequacy of the current plant-specific PRA, (2) a discussion of the scope, level of detail, and