Requirement-by-requirement analysis for nuclear quality standards compliance.
Organizations operating across jurisdictions face multiple nuclear quality standards with different structures, terminology, and philosophies. ASME NQA-1 takes a prescriptive, criterion-based approach rooted in US regulatory practice, while ISO 19443 builds on the process-oriented ISO 9001 framework with nuclear-specific additions. Apollo Plus provides systematic, requirement-by-requirement comparison that maps every normative obligation across both standards, classifies each pairing into one of six categories, and delivers actionable compliance guidance — so your team knows exactly where the gaps, overlaps, and conflicts lie.
Every normative requirement captured and structured for analysis.
Structural alignment and unified taxonomy across both standards.
Each paired requirement classified into one of six categories.
Gap summaries, philosophy comparison, and actionable compliance guidance.
The two requirements express the same obligation in substantively the same way. Complying with one inherently satisfies the other.
The requirements address the same subject and broadly align in intent, but differ in scope, specificity, or emphasis.
The requirements touch on a related domain but regulate distinct aspects or take fundamentally different approaches.
The requirements impose obligations that conflict, where satisfying one could violate the other. Rare but critical for dual-compliance planning.
Standard B contains a requirement with no counterpart in Standard A. The concept is absent entirely or only implicitly addressed.
Standard A contains a requirement with no counterpart in Standard B. The concept is absent entirely or only implicitly addressed.
A real comparison of ASME NQA-1 against ISO 19443 illustrates the six comparison categories in practice. Each example below shows how paired requirements from both standards are classified, revealing the practical differences organizations must address for dual compliance.
NQA-1 vs. ISO 19443 requirement pairings
NQA-1 §4.205 vs. ISO 19443 §8.4.3 — Both require procurement documents to identify the documentation a supplier must submit. ISO 19443 adds a minor detail about documentation present at delivery, but the core obligation is the same. An organization meeting either requirement effectively satisfies both.
NQA-1 §1.201(a) vs. ISO 19443 §5.1.1 — Both emphasize leadership responsibility, but NQA-1 is more specific about establishing expectations and owning outcomes, while ISO 19443 frames it as demonstrating commitment. An organization would need to address both framings explicitly.
NQA-1 §12.301 vs. ISO 19443 §7.1.5.2(a) — NQA-1 requires calibration at prescribed intervals. ISO 19443 adds traceability to international measurement standards plus documentation when no such standards exist. An organization complying only with NQA-1 would need to add traceability and documentation practices.
NQA-1 §3.501.4 vs. ISO 19443 §8.2.1(b) — NQA-1 requires prompt formal confirmation of informally transmitted design information. ISO 19443 addresses handling customer communications. Both relate to information control but regulate entirely different processes. Dual compliance requires addressing both independently.
ISO 19443 §5.1.1(d) — Requires top management to promote the process approach and risk-based thinking. NQA-1 includes risk elements in specific criteria but does not impose a general leadership obligation. Organizations accustomed to NQA-1 alone would need to introduce a systematic risk-based approach.
NQA-1 §2.100 — Requires the quality system to be established at the earliest time consistent with the schedule. ISO 19443 assumes QMS implementation but sets no explicit timing requirement. For nuclear projects with tight early-phase schedules, this timing mandate is significant.
Detailed comparison results are synthesized into higher-level analysis that drives real compliance decisions.
Prescriptive vs. performance-based approach differences between standards.
Consolidated gaps organized by topic with risk prioritization.
Practical dual-compliance priorities and pitfall guidance.
Key statistics and headline findings for management review.
Every normative requirement captured, compared, and accounted for.
Unified taxonomy organized by subject matter, not arbitrary document ordering.
Gap analysis oriented toward practical compliance decisions.
Tell us which standards your organization needs to bridge and we will scope a comparison tailored to your compliance requirements. We respond promptly to all enquiries.