Document: NRC Regulatory Guide
Document ID: cde52d5a-adf9-49be-9d1f-59449dfca895
Document Type: regulatory_guide
Title: TRIAL - Acceptability of Probabilistic Risk Assessment Results for Non-Light Water Reactor Risk-Informed Activities
Source: NRC Regulatory Guide Division 1
Source URL: https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML2123/ML21235A008.pdf
Revision Date: 2023-05
Chapter: 
Section ID: RG-1.247
CFR Part: 
CFR Title: 

Content:
ophy based on the design and operating guidance available for that stage of the plant life cycle. Chapter 4 of NEI 20-09, Revision 1, and Section 6.2 of the ASME/ANS NLWR PRA standard provide specific qualifications that peer review team should meet. The staff acknowledges that a requirement of absolute independence coupled with the need for adequate technical expertise can be difficult to achieve in some situations. However, the staff emphasizes that a peer review team should have the following attributes, which are listed in Section 4.4 of NEI 20-09: • independent of the PRA being reviewed (e.g., team members should be prohibited from peer reviewing any portion of the PRA for which they have performed or supervised work), • experienced in the stage of plant life cycle (i.e., phases as referred to in NEI 20-09 of the PRA being reviewed), • knowledgeable about the specific reactor technology and its design used for the development of the PRA under review, and • familiar with relevant regulatory guidance for the regulatory activity under consideration. RG 1.247, Page 58 The staff agrees with the discussion in NEI 20-09, Revision 1, that because of the unique design and safety features of NLWRs, host user personnel with detailed knowledge of reactor design and analysis should support the peer review process. Peer review documentation is essential for providing the necessary information to ensure that the peer review and the results of the peer review are traceable, and the bases of the results of the peer review are defensible. Descriptions of the qualifications of the peer review team members and the peer review process should be documented. The results of the peer review for each PRA element and the PRA update process should be described. This should include an assessment of the importance of any identified deficiencies in the PRA and its results and how these deficiencies should be addressed and resolved. A peer review of a PRA evaluates the PRA models for