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:
A-based seismic margins), the PRA staff review should ensure that the scope of the applicant’s analyses is appropriate for their identified uses and applications, which may involve a scope, level of detail, and/or technical adequacy for the affected areas that is greater than that needed for a COL application. 2. The level of detail of the applicant’s PRA should be commensurate with the identified uses and applications of the PRA (e.g., sufficient to gain risk-informed insights and use such insights, in conjunction with assumptions made in the PRA, to identify and support requirements important to the design and plant operation). The PRA should reasonably 4 The applicant’s adherence to the recommendations provided in Regulatory Guides 1.174 and 1.200 pertaining to quality and technical adequacy will result in a more efficient and consistent NRC staff review process. Alternatively, the applicant may identify, and justify the acceptability of, alternative measures for addressing PRA quality and technical adequacy, and the staff should specifically review the acceptability of these alternative measures in the context of the specific uses and applications of the PRA. 19.0-9 Revision 2 - June 2007 reflect the actual plant design, construction, operational practices, and relevant operational experience of the applicant and the industry. The burden is on the applicant to justify that the PRA approach, methods, and data, as well as the requisite level of detail necessary for the NRC staff’s review and assessment, are appropriate. Regulatory Guides 1.174 and 1.200 provide additional guidance on the level of detail that should be included in the PRA. If detailed design information (e.g., regarding cable and pipe routing) is not available or if it can be shown that detailed 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