Document: NRC Regulatory Guide
Document ID: c7a40fcc-fc9d-4eb2-ad86-f9f5b0f04c82
Document Type: regulatory_guide
Title: Plant-Specific, Risk-Informed Decisionmaking:  Technical Specifications (Rev. 2)
Source: NRC Regulatory Guide Division 1
Source URL: https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML1920/ML19206A489.pdf
Revision Date: 2023-06
Chapter: 
Section ID: RG-1.177
CFR Part: 
CFR Title: 

Content:
cal considerations judge the acceptability of implementing the change, lessons learned from past experience ensure that mistakes are not repeated, and monitoring ensures the TS change does not degrade operational safety over time. RG 1.174, Section C.2.6, provides additional guidance on the integrated decisionmaking process. 3. Element 3: Define Implementation and Monitoring Program 3.1 Three-Tiered Implementation Approach As described in Regulatory Position C.2.3, the licensee should use a three-tiered approach in implementing the proposed TS CT changes. Application of the three-tiered approach is consistent with the fundamental principle that the proposed change is consistent with the defense-in-depth philosophy. Application of the three-tiered approach provides assurance that the proposed change will not significantly impact defense in depth. 3.2 Technical Specification Change Monitored Using Performance Measurement Strategies (Principle 5) Consistent with Principle 5 in RG 1.174, extension of a TS CT or reduction of a TS SF should not degrade operational safety over time. The licensee should ensure, as part of its Maintenance Rule program (10 CFR 50.65, “Requirements for Monitoring the Effectiveness of Maintenance at Nuclear Power Plants”), that when equipment does not meet its performance criteria, the evaluation required under the Maintenance Rule includes prior related TS changes in its scope. If the licensee concludes that the DG-1287, Page 24 performance or condition of TS equipment affected by a TS change does not meet established performance criteria, the licensee should take appropriate corrective action, in accordance with the Maintenance Rule. Such corrective action could consider another TS change to shorten the revised CT or increase the revised SF, or impose a more restrictive administrative limit if the licensee determines this to be an important factor in reversing the negative trend. 4. Element 4: Submit Proposed Change The evaluations