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:
and diverse plant response capability is maintained for significant initiators in these modes, and sufficient elements of the plant response capability are subject to programmatic activities to ensure suitable performance Level of Detail of Risk Analysis The PRA is detailed enough to account for important system and operator dependencies. Risk insights are consistent with the level of detail modeled in the PRA. Quality of the PRA There is reasonable assurance that the PRA is of sufficient quality to support the conclusions as they impact the decision, as shown by the licensee's process to ensure quality, including an independent peer review, and by a focused-scope application-specific review by the staff. Results are robust in terms of uncertainties and sensitivities to the key modeling parameters. Key performance elements for the application have been appropriately classified and performance is backed up by licensee actions. Evaluation of Risk Impact If the risk-informed application assesses whether it meets Principle 4 by evaluating the change to risk quantitatively, then the following applies: The application either decreases plant risk, or if an application increases risk, the increase is within the guidelines defined in RG 1.174. The cumulative and synergistic effects on risk from the present and previous applications have been addressed. Licensee risk management practices are being followed to minimize the risk from plant operations. SRP 19-37 An appropriate consideration of uncertainties is provided in support of the proposed application. The licensee showed that even taking into account the uncertainties in the analysis, the evaluation of the change in risk was robust in that there can be confidence in the conclusions drawn with respect to nature of the change compared with the acceptance guidelines. This argument was supported either by explicit propagation or by a qualitative and/or sensitivity analysis showing that no event contributing to the change in