Document: NRC Regulatory Guide
Document ID: a5ee4c78-1135-4bb6-8d54-e974a3402f87
Document Type: regulatory_guide
Title: An Approach for Plant-Specific, Risk-Informed Decisionmaking: Graded Quality Assurance
Source: NRC Regulatory Guide Division 1
Source URL: https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML1221/ML12216A017.pdf
Revision Date: 2023-06
Chapter: 
Section ID: RG-1.176
CFR Part: 
CFR Title: 

Content:
design. Organization and Content Limited data are available to define the impact of QA programs on SSC performance. Consequently, this regulatory guide emphasizes the classification of equipment into safety-significance categories as discussed in Section 2.2 and Appendix A of Regulatory Guide 1.174 (Ref. 3). Regulatory Guide 1. 174 describes a general four-element process that is elaborated upon in the context of GQA in the Discussion section of this regulatory guide. The Regulatory Positions in this regulatory guide discuss Element 1, a definition of proposed changes to QA applications; Element 2, which addresses engineering evaluations applicable to GQA programs; Element 3, which provides specific guidance for an acceptable approach for implementing GQA controls and for developing performance monitoring strategies; and Element 4, documentation and submittal aspects related to the change. PROCESS OVERVIEW As the nuclear industry incorporates risk insights into its QA programs, it is anticipated that the industry will build upon its existing risk-informed activities, including the individual plant examination program. To provide the industry with the NRC's expectations for risk-informed decisionmaking, Regulatory Guide 1.174 (Ref. 3) was developed. This guide establishes five safety principles and describes a four-element 1.176-3 process for evaluating risk-informed regulatory changes consistent with those principles, as illustrated in Figure 1. Regulatory Guide 1.174 provides additional quantitative acceptance guidelines, discus- sion of defense in depth, and safety margins. The principles are: I. The proposed change meets the current regulations unless it is explicitly related to a requested exemption or rule change. 2. The proposed change is consistent with the defense-in-depth philosophy. 3. The proposed change maintains sufficient safety margins. 4. When the proposed changes result in an increase in core damage frequency or risk, the increases should be small