Document: NUREG-0800
Document ID: 41723229-6e99-476f-9bae-0cad73a92dca
Document Type: srp
Title: HUMAN FACTORS ENGINEERING
Source: NUREG-0800
Source URL: https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML0236/ML023650383.pdf
Revision Date: 2023-06
Chapter: 18
Section ID: 18.0
CFR Part: 
CFR Title: 

Content:
ttals for the staffs review of an applicant's human performance monitoring program should be made on a case-by-case basis. 8. ITAAC. For standard design certification reviews under 10 CFR Part 52, the procedures above should be followed, as modified by the procedure- in SRP Section 14.3 and its subsections. SRP Section-14.3-containrf rocedures for the review of certified design material (CDM) for the standard design, including the site parameters, interface criteria, and inspections, tests, analyses, and acceptance criteria (ITAAC). IV. EVALUATION FINDINGS Acceptability of an individual area of review may be based on: 1. Satisfying all associated review criteria. 2. Demonstrating by alternative means that all review criteria have been satisfied. Alternative analysis methods proposed by the applicant must be-acceptable to the NRC. In addition, the req'uired amount of evidence may be reduced for some areas of review if it can be shown that the' new design does not significantly differ from an accepted predecessor design and that no unresolved human factors issues exist. 3. Providing an acceptable justification for deviations from review criteria. Depending upon the review area -and the nature of the deviation from review criteria, these justifications may be based upon such evidence as analyses of recent literature, analyses of current practices and operational experienrce, tradeoff studies, and the results of engineering experiments and evaluations. An overall review conclusion is determined by comparing the goals of the HFE review, which are based on the type and purpose of the HFE review, to the evidence provided in the applicant's submittals. Important considerations include: 1. Were all relevant areas of review examined? 2. Was each area of review reviewed at the appropriate level (e.g., program description level, implementation plan level, and completed-area-of-review level)? 3. Were the findings for each area of review acceptable? If the evidence provided by