Issue Date: 10/27/10 1 90001 

NRC INSPECTION MANUAL CAEB 

INSPECTION PROCEDURE 90001 

CONSTRUCTION REGULATORY RESPONSE COLUMN INSPECTIONS 

PROGRAM APPLICABILITY: 2505 

90001-01 INSPECTION OBJECTIVES 

01.01 To verify that significant violations are fully documented and that the 

documentation includes details of prior opportunities for the licensee to have identified 

the findings. 

01.02 To verify that the root causes and contributing causes of significant violations 

are understood. 

01.03 To verify that the extent of condition and extent of cause of significant violations 

are identified. 

01.04 To verify that licensee corrective actions are sufficient to address the root 

causes and contributing causes, and to preclude repetition. 

90001-02 INSPECTION REQUIREMENTS AND GUIDANCE 

02.01 Background. The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s (NRC=s) construction 

inspection program includes three parts: construction inspections, special inspections, 

and construction supplemental inspections performed as a result of significant 

performance issues. The construction supplemental inspection program is designed to 

apply NRC inspection assets in an increasing manner when significant violations are 

identified. The NRC Center for Construction Inspection (CCI) will perform this 

construction supplemental inspection for those significant violations that result in 

licensee performance in the Regulatory Response column of the Construction Action 

Matrix (CAM). The scope and breadth of these inspections will be based on the 

guidance provided in Inspection Manual Chapter (IMC) 2505, “Periodic Assessment of 

Construction Inspection Program Results.” The construction supplemental inspection 

program is designed to support the NRC=s goals of ensuring safety and security. 

The guidance provided in this inspection procedure (IP) was developed with 

consideration of the following boundary conditions: 
Issue Date: 10/27/10 2 90001 

• Performance of periodic inspections of the licensee’s corrective action program 

(CAP) in accordance with IP 35007, “Quality Assurance Program 

Implementation During Construction,” is independent of the construction 

supplemental inspection program; 

• The construction supplemental inspection requirements contained in this IP will 

be completed for each significant violation that results in licensee performance 

in the “Regulatory Response” column in the CAM; and 

• New examples of issues identified as a result of construction supplemental 

inspections will be evaluated and categorized in accordance with IMC 0613. 

02.02 General Requirements. In order to adequately protect the health and safety of 

the public, once a significant violation is identified, the NRC staff must ensure that a 

licensee identifies the causes and implements actions to preclude repetition of the 

significant violation. The most effective and efficient way for the NRC to accomplish this 

objective is to allow the licensee the opportunity to perform its own evaluation of the 

significant violation, and then for the NRC to review the licensee’s evaluation. These 

reviews by the NRC are expected to be sufficient, provided the licensee has 

demonstrated an effective CAP or other documented process. 

Licensee evaluations of significant violations reviewed by the NRC during the 

implementation of this IP may be related to significant violations of 10 CFR Part 50, 

Appendix B, “Quality Assurance Criteria for Nuclear Power Plants and Fuel Processing 

Plants.” These significant violations will be significant conditions adverse to quality 

(SCAQs) and will be entered into the licensee CAP. Other evaluations of significant 

violations reviewed by the NRC may include those not related to Appendix B, such as 

an order or technical specification. The licensee may choose to include non-Appendix 

B significant violations in the CAP or to document these other significant violations in 

accordance with separate processes. 

These construction supplemental inspection requirements represent a comprehensive 

set of attributes related to identification of the significant violation, root cause analysis, 

and establishment of corrective actions. The licensee=s evaluation generally will need to 

address each of the inspection requirements in order to ensure that the causes of the 

significant violations are identified and effective corrective actions are taken to preclude 

repetition. However, the depth of the NRC’s review may vary, depending upon the 

significance and complexity of the significant violation. In some cases, the answers to 

specific inspection requirements will be self-evident with little additional review or 

analysis required. 

It is not the intent for NRC inspectors to perform an independent evaluation of the 

significant violation, nor to merely verify that an evaluation has been performed without 

assessing its adequacy. Rather, inspectors should sufficiently challenge aspects of the 

licensee’s evaluation, as necessary, to ensure that the cause(s) of the significant 

violation has been identified and appropriate corrective actions have been planned or 
Issue Date: 10/27/10 3 90001 

taken to preclude repetition. Inspectors may use information previously obtained from 

other inspections to develop the construction supplemental inspection conclusions. 

However, the inspection report associated with this inspection should contain the NRC’s 

assessment of the licensee’s evaluation for each inspection requirement described in 

subsection 02.05 of this IP. The results of this inspection will be documented in 

accordance with the specific guidance contained in IMC 0613, “Documenting 10 CFR 

Part 52 Construction and Test Inspections.” 

Significant weaknesses in the licensee’s actions to address the significant violation, 

including weaknesses associated with the failure to identify the safety culture 

components described in IMC 2505, or to perform an adequate evaluation of the 

significant violation, may be subject to additional agency actions, including: (1) those 

specified in IMC 2505; (2) additional enforcement actions; or (3) expansion of the 

implementation of this IP, as necessary, to independently acquire the information 

necessary to satisfy the inspection requirements. Expansion of the implementation may 

be necessary if inspectors need to independently evaluate the significant violation or 

safety culture aspects as a result of the licensee not performing its own analysis. It is 

not expected that inspectors would perform this safety culture evaluation as a separate 

construction supplemental inspection. 

In general, licensees should be given an opportunity to correct any significant violation 

prior to re-inspection. For significant weaknesses in the licensee’s actions to address 

an issue associated with a significant violation, including a substantial inadequacy in the 

licensee’s evaluation of the extent of the condition, root causes, or corrective actions, 

the notice of violation will remain open and will not be removed from the CAM until the 

weaknesses are addressed and corrected. Programmatic weaknesses associated with 

the licensee=s evaluation of the significant violations also will be documented by briefly 

describing the weaknesses in the transmittal letter and the Summary of Findings section 

in the inspection report. An amplified discussion of the weaknesses should be provided 

in the inspection report details. Additional focus will be given to those areas during 

follow-up inspections of the implementation of Criterion XVI, “Corrective Action,” of 

Appendix B to 10 CFR Part 50, performed in accordance with IP 35007. 

If new or additional examples of findings are identified during this inspection or by the 

licensee during its evaluation, then the significance of the new findings will be 

determined, and the corresponding construction supplemental inspection procedure 

(i.e., IP 90001; IP 90002, “Degraded Performance Inspection;” or IP 90003, 

“Unacceptable Performance Inspection”) will be implemented in accordance with IMC 

2505 and the CAM. 

02.03 General Guidance. This IP is used to assess the adequacy of the licensee’s 

evaluation of significant violations that result in licensee performance in the Regulatory 

Response column of the CAM. As such, a reasonable time (generally within 30-60 

days) should be allowed for the licensee to enter the significant violation into its CAP or 

other documented process and to complete its evaluation; however, all corrective 

actions may not be fully completed upon commencement of this construction 
Issue Date: 10/27/10 4 90001 

supplemental inspection. The inspection should not be scheduled until the licensee has 

identified and entered the significant violation into the CAP or other documented 

process, evaluated the significant violation, and developed the corrective action plan. In 

the event that the licensee has not defined its corrective action plan within a reasonable 

time, NRC management should request that the licensee provide the basis for the 

delay. Implementation of the licensee’s corrective actions may be verified during followup inspections, such as Criterion XVI of Appendix B to 10 CFR Part 50, performed in 

accordance with IP 35007. 

It is not intended for the inspector to verify that the licensee’s evaluation of the 

significant violation contains every attribute contained in the inspection guidance 

sections of this IP. The intent is that inspectors use the guidance sections of this IP to 

look for weaknesses in the licensee’s evaluation that might indicate an issue associated 

with one of the inspection requirements. To the extent that additional independent 

follow-up is accomplished by looking for similar issues, the inspector should make the 

selection of other structures, systems, and components (SSCs) from those with 

Inspections, Tests, Analyses, and Acceptance Criteria (ITAAC) associated with them 

whenever possible. 

02.04 Definitions. 

a. Condition Adverse to Quality (CAQ). Failure, malfunction, deficiency, deviation, 

defective material and equipment, or nonconformance that requires prompt 

identification and correction. 

 

b. Consequences. Actual or potential outcome of an identified issue or condition. 

c. Contributing Cause. Cause that, by itself, would not create the finding, but is 

important enough to be recognized as needing corrective action. Contributing 

causes are sometimes referred to as causal factors. Causal factors are those 

actions, conditions, or events that directly or indirectly influence the outcome of a 

situation or issue. 

d. Extent of Cause. Extent to which the root cause(s) of a finding has impacted 

other plant processes, equipment, or human performance. 

e. Extent of Condition. Extent to which the actual condition exists within other 

plants, processes, equipment, or human performance. 

f. Finding. Violation of regulatory requirements that has greater-than-minor 

significance. Examples of findings include a Construction Finding, an ITAACRelated Construction Finding, or an ITAAC Finding (see definitions and guidance 

in Inspection Manual Chapter 0613). 
Issue Date: 10/27/10 5 90001 

g. Repeat Occurrence. Two or more independent conditions that are the result of 

the same basic causes. 

h. Root Cause. Basic reason (e.g., hardware, process, human performance) for a 

finding which, if corrected, will preclude repetition of that finding. 

i. Significant Condition Adverse to Quality (SCAQ). CAQ of such significance that 

adequate corrective actions shall be taken to assure that the cause of the 

condition is determined and the condition is prevented from recurring. 

j. Significant violation. Inspection finding resulting in a greater-than-minor violation 

with escalated enforcement. 

02.05 Specific Requirements and Guidance. 

a. Identification of Significant Violation. 

1. Requirements. 

(a) Determine that the evaluation documents how the finding was 

identified (e.g., licensee-identified, self-revealing, NRC-identified) 

and under what conditions the finding was identified. 

(b) Determine that the evaluation documents how long the significant 

violation existed and prior opportunities for identification. 

(c) Determine that the evaluation documents the plant-specific 

(including ITAAC-related) consequences (as applicable) and 

compliance concerns associated with the significant violation. 

2. Guidance. 

(a) The evaluation should state how and by whom the finding was 

identified. When appropriate, the licensee’s failure to identify the 

finding at a precursor level should be evaluated. Specifically, the 

licensee’s failure to identify a finding before it becomes significant 

may indicate a more substantial issue. Examples include the 

licensee’s failure to: 

(1) enter a recognized finding into its CAP or other documented 

process 

(2) raise quality concerns to management; or 
Issue Date: 10/27/10 6 90001 

(3) complete corrective actions for a previously identified finding 

that resulted in additional findings. 

If the NRC identified the finding, the licensee’s evaluation should 

address why licensee processes, such as peer review, supervisory 

oversight, inspection, testing, self assessments, or quality activities, 

did not identify the finding. 

(b) The evaluation should state when the significant violation was 

identified, how long the significant violation existed, and whether 

there were prior opportunities for correction. For example, a 

construction activity may have resulted in a component not 

functioning correctly and that failure to function correctly was not 

detected by testing or by quality assurance oversight. The reasons 

that the testing and quality assurance oversight did not detect the 

error should be included in the significance identification statement 

and addressed in the root cause evaluation. 

(c) The evaluation should state how the licensee determined the 

significance of the finding (e.g., based upon potential 

consequences), the priority for resolving the significant violation, the 

schedule for timely resolution of the significant violation, and the 

individuals or organizations responsible for implementing the 

corrective actions. 

b. Root Cause, Extent of Condition, and Extent of Cause Evaluation of Significant 

Violation. 

1. Requirements. 

(a) Determine that the significant violation was evaluated using a 

systematic methodology to identify the root and contributing causes. 

(b) Determine that the root cause evaluation was conducted to a level of 

detail commensurate with the significance of the finding. 

(c) Determine that the root cause evaluation included a consideration of 

prior occurrences of the finding and knowledge of any prior 

construction experience (at the facility or other facilities). 

(d) Determine that the root cause evaluation addresses the extent of 

condition and the extent of cause of the significant violation. 

(e) Determine that the root cause, extent of condition, and extent of 

cause evaluations appropriately considered the safety culture 

components as described in IMC 2505. 
Issue Date: 10/27/10 7 90001 

2. Guidance. 

(a) The licensee’s evaluation should generally make use of systematic 

methods to identify root and contributing causes. Some root cause 

evaluation methods that are commonly used in nuclear facilities 

include: 

(1) Events and causal factors analysis - to identify the events and 

conditions that led up to the finding; 

(2) Fault tree analysis - to identify relationships among events and 

the probability of event occurrence; 

(3) Barrier analysis - to identify the barriers that, if present or 

strengthened, would have prevented the event from occurring; 

(4) Change analysis - to identify changes in the work environment 

since the activity was last performed successfully that may 

have caused or contributed to the event; 

 

(5) Management Oversight and Risk Tree (MORT) analysis - to 

systematically check that all possible causes of findings have 

been considered; 

(6) Critical incident techniques - to identify critical actions that, if 

performed correctly, would have prevented the event from 

occurring or would have significantly reduced its 

consequences; 

(7) Why Staircase - to produce a linear set of causal relationships 

and use the experience of the finding owner to determine the 

root cause and corresponding solutions; and 

(8) Pareto Analysis - to use a statistical approach to problem 

solving to determine where to start an analysis. 

(b) The licensee may use other methods to conduct the root cause 

evaluations. A systematic evaluation of a significant violation using 

one of the above methods should normally include: 

(1) Clear identification of the significant violation and the 

assumptions made as a part of the root cause evaluation. 
Issue Date: 10/27/10 8 90001 

For example, the evaluation should describe the initial 

conditions of the system or component identified, staffing 

levels, and training requirements as applicable. 

(2) Timely collection of data, verification of data, and preservation 

of evidence to ensure that the information and circumstances 

surrounding the finding are fully understood. The analysis 

should be documented such that the progression of the finding 

is clearly understood, any missing information or 

inconsistencies are identified, and the finding can be easily 

explained and/or understood by others. 

(3) Determination of cause and effect relationships resulting in an 

identification of root and contributing causes that consider 

potential hardware, process, and human performance issues. 

For example: 

• Hardware issues could include design, materials, 

damage during installation, and environmental 

conditions; 

• Process issues could include procedures, work practices, 

construction policies, supervision and oversight, 

preventive and corrective maintenance programs, and 

quality control methods; and 

• Human performance issues could include training, 

communications, human system interface, and fitness for 

duty (if applicable). 

(c) The root cause evaluation should be conducted to a level of detail 

that is adequate for the complexity of the significant violation. 

Different root cause evaluation methods provide different 

perspectives on the finding. In some instances, using a combination 

of methods helps ensure that the analysis is thorough. Therefore, 

the root cause evaluation should consider evaluating complex 

significant violations, which could result in significant consequences, 

using multi-disciplinary teams and/or different and complementary 

methods appropriate to the circumstances. For example, significant 

violations that involve hardware issues could be evaluated using 

barrier analysis, change analysis, or fault trees. 

The depth of a root cause evaluation is normally achieved by 

completely and systematically applying the methods of analysis 

described in subsection 02.05.b.2 of this IP and by repeatedly 

asking the question “Why?” about the occurrences and 
Issue Date: 10/27/10 9 90001 

circumstances that caused or contributed to the significant violation. 

Once the analysis has developed all of the causes for the finding 

(i.e., root, contributing, and programmatic), the evaluation should 

also look for any relationships among the different causes. The 

depth of the root cause evaluation may be assessed by: 

(1) Determining that the questioning process appeared to have 

been conducted until the causes were beyond the licensee’s 

control. 

For example, findings that were initiated by an act of nature, 

such as a lightning strike or tornado, could have the act of 

nature as one of the causes of the significant violation. The 

act of nature would not be a candidate root cause, in part, 

because the licensee could not prevent it from happening 

again. However, a licensee’s failure to plan for, or respond 

properly to, acts of nature would be under management 

control and could be root causes for the significant violation. 

(2) Determining that the significant violation was evaluated to 

ensure that other root and contributing causes were not 

inappropriately ruled out because of assumptions made as a 

part of the analysis. 

For example, a root cause evaluation may not consider the 

adequacy of the design or process controls for a system if the 

significant violation appears to be primarily humanperformance focused. Consideration of the technical 

appropriateness of the evaluation assumptions used in the 

root cause evaluation and their impact on the root causes also 

would be appropriate. 

(3) Determining that the evaluation collectively reviewed all root 

and contributory causes for indications of more fundamental 

issues with a process or system. 

For example, a significant violation that involved a number of 

procedural inadequacies or errors may indicate a more 

fundamental or higher level inadequacy in the processes for 

procedural development, control, review, and approval. 

Significant violations associated with personnel failing to follow 

procedures may also be indicative of inadequate supervisory 

oversight and communication of standards. 

(4) Determining that the root cause evaluation properly ensured 

that correcting the causes would preclude repetition of the 
Issue Date: 10/27/10 10 90001 

same or similar significant violation. Complex significant 

violations may have more than one root cause, as well as 

several contributing causes. The evaluation should include a 

process to verify that corrective actions for the identified root 

causes do not rely on unstated assumptions or conditions that 

are not controlled or ensured. 

For example, root causes based on the work practices of a 

contractor or vendor may not apply to other contractors and 

vendors, even though they provide a similar service or item. 

(5) Determining that the evaluation appropriately considered other 

possible root causes. Providing a rationale for ruling out 

alternative possible root causes helps to ensure the validity of 

the specific root causes that are identified. 

(d) The root cause evaluation should include appropriate consideration 

of repeat occurrences of the same or similar significant finding at the 

facility and knowledge of prior construction experience. Prior 

construction experience includes experience at other facilities that 

the licensee should reasonably have been aware of through NRC 

generic communications and through information from other industry 

sources. This review is necessary to help in developing the specific 

root and contributing causes and also to provide indication as to 

whether the significant violation is a result of a more fundamental 

concern involving weaknesses in the licensee’s CAP or other 

documented process. 

 The licensee’s root cause evaluation should: 

(1) Broadly question the applicability of other similar events or 

issues with related root or contributing causes. 

For example, root cause evaluations associated with work 

activities by one contractor at the site (including remote 

fabrication sites) or by one vendor may be applicable to other 

contractors or vendors. 

(2) Determine if previous root cause evaluations and/or corrective 

actions missed or inappropriately characterized the issues. 

Determine those aspects of the corrective actions that did not 

preclude repetition of the significant violation. 

For example, the evaluation should review the implementation 

of the previously specified corrective actions and reassess the 
Issue Date: 10/27/10 11 90001 

identified root causes to determine process or performance 

errors that may have contributed to the repeat occurrence. 

(3) Determine if the root cause evaluation for the current 

significant violation specifically addresses those aspects of the 

prior root cause evaluations or corrective actions that were not 

successfully addressed. 

For example, if during the review of a tagging error that 

resulted in a misaligned valve during pre-operational testing 

the licensee determines that a previous similar significant 

violation occurred and the corrective actions only focused on 

individual training, then the root cause evaluation for the 

repeat occurrence should document why the previous 

corrective actions were inadequate. 

(4) Include a review of prior documentation of findings and their 

associated corrective actions to determine if similar incidents 

have occurred previously. 

For example, the licensee staff should consider the following 

during its review of prior construction experience: internal 

self-assessments, maintenance history, condition reports, and 

external databases developed to identify and track 

construction experience issues. Examples of external 

databases may include NRC Information Notices, NRC 

Generic Letters, Part 21 Reports, and vendor/industry generic 

communications. 

The inspectors should discuss the significant violation and 

associated root causes with other resident, regional, or 

headquarters personnel to assess whether other similar 

findings or root causes should have been considered. 

(e) The root cause evaluation should include a proper consideration of 

the extent of condition and the extent of cause of the significant 

violation and whether other systems, equipment, programs, or 

conditions could be affected. 

The extent of condition review differs from the extent of cause 

review. The extent of condition review focuses on the actual 

condition and its existence in other places. The extent of cause 

review focuses more on the actual root causes of the condition and 

on the degree that these root causes have resulted in additional 

weaknesses. 
Issue Date: 10/27/10 12 90001 

(1) The extent of condition review should assess the degree that 

the actual finding (e.g., failed valve, inadequate procedure, 

improper human action) may exist in other plant equipment, 

processes, or human performance. 

 

(2) The extent of cause review should assess the applicability of 

the root causes across disciplines or departments, 

contractors, or vendors for different programmatic activities, 

human performance, or different types of equipment. 

For example, if a root cause for the misalignment of a valve 

during a test was determined to be a lack of quality control 

verification, then the adequacy of the verification should be 

assessed in other processes beyond valve alignments. 

(f) The root cause evaluation should include a proper consideration of 

whether a weakness in any safety culture component was a root 

cause or significant contributing cause of the significant violation, 

and, if so, that weakness should be addressed through adequate 

corrective actions. Therefore, for each significant violation that 

prompted this inspection, consider whether the significant violation, 

the licensee’s evaluation methodology, the set of results obtained 

using that methodology, or any related circumstance indicates that a 

weakness in any safety culture component could reasonably have 

been a root cause or significant contributing cause of the significant 

violation. If so, then for each such weakness, determine if the 

licensee considered in its evaluation if the weakness was a root 

cause or significant contributing cause of the significant violation and 

documented that consideration in its evaluation. 

c. Corrective Actions for Significant Violations. 

1. Requirements. 

(a) Determine that appropriate corrective actions are specified for each 

root and contributing cause or that the licensee has an adequate 

evaluation for why no corrective actions are necessary. 

(b) Determine that the corrective actions have been prioritized with 

consideration of the significance and regulatory compliance. 

(c) Determine that a schedule has been established for implementing 

and completing the corrective actions and that the corrective actions 

are planned to be taken or have been taken in a reasonable amount 

of time, considering the complexity and significance of the finding. 
Issue Date: 10/27/10 13 90001 

(d) Determine that quantitative or qualitative measures of success have 

been developed for determining the effectiveness of the corrective 

actions to preclude repetition. 

(e) Determine that the corrective actions planned or taken adequately 

address the significant violation that was the basis for the 

construction supplemental inspection. 

2. Guidance. 

The proposed corrective actions to the root and contributing causes 

should: 

(a) Address each of the root and contributing causes and any weakness 

associated with the extent of condition and extent of cause of the 

significant violation. The corrective actions should be clearly defined 

and should have been taken or planned to be taken in a timely 

manner commensurate with the complexity and significance of the 

finding. Examples of corrective actions may include, but are not 

limited to: modifications, inspections, tests, process or procedure 

changes, and training. The proposed corrective actions should not 

create new or different issues as a result of the corrective actions. If 

the licensee determines that no corrective actions are necessary, 

then the basis for this decision should be documented in the 

evaluation. 

(b) Include consideration of the results of the licensee’s significance 

determination of the finding in prioritizing the type of corrective 

action(s) chosen. Attention should be given to solutions that involve 

only changing procedures or providing training, because these 

solutions are sometimes overused and may be inadequate. In such 

cases, consideration should be given to more comprehensive 

corrective actions, such as design modifications. The corrective 

action plan should also include a review of the regulations to ensure 

that the corrective actions result in compliance. 

(c) Be assigned to the appropriate individuals or organizations to 

ensure that the actions are planned and taken in a timely manner. 

The licensee should also establish a formal tracking mechanism for 

each of the specific corrective actions. 

(d) Establish a method to validate the effectiveness of the overall 

corrective action plan. Specifically, a method should be established 

to quantitatively or qualitatively measure the effectiveness of the 

corrective actions. Effective methods would include, but are not 
Issue Date: 10/27/10 14 90001 

limited to: assessments, audits, inspections, tests, trending of data, 

and/or follow-up discussions with plant staff. 

The licensee’s response to a significant violation that was the basis for the 

construction supplemental inspection should address: 

(e) The reason for the significant violation 

(f) Corrective actions that have been taken and the achieved results 

(g) Corrective actions that will be taken (if applicable), and 

(h) The date when full compliance was or will be achieved. The 

adequacy of the corrective actions should be reviewed in 

accordance with the guidance above to determine if they address 

the significant finding. 

90001-03 RESOURCE ESTIMATE 

It is estimated that a construction supplemental inspection in accordance with this IP will 

take between 16 and 80 inspection hours to complete for each finding. The inspector(s) 

assigned should be familiar with the discipline associated with the subject of the 

licensee’s evaluation. For planning purposes, a resource estimate near the lower end 

of the scale should be used for licensees with CAPs that have been determined to be 

effective during Criterion XVI inspections conducted in accordance with IP 35007. This 

lower resource estimate also applies to licensees with separate processes for 

documenting non-Appendix B significant violation and that have been inspected in 

accordance with other IPs. For licensees with CAPs or other separate processes that 

have been previously determined to be ineffective, a resource estimate near the higher 

end of the scale should be used. 

90001-04 PROCEDURE COMPLETION 

Implementation of this IP is considered complete for a specific site when an affirmative 

10 CFR 52.103 (g) finding occurs, at which time regulatory oversight transitions to the 

Reactor Oversight Process. 

END 

Attachment: 

1. Revision History for IP 90001 
Issue Date: 10/27/10 Att1-1 

Attachment 1: Revision History Sheet for IP 90001 

Construction Regulatory Response Column Inspections 

Commitment 

Tracking 

Number Issue Date Description of Change Training Needed Training Completion Date Co

Ac

N/A 10/27/10 

CN 10-022 

Original issue to support new reactor construction assessment programs described in IMC 2505. This is the initial issue of this document; therefore, a 4-year search of Historical Changes Notices is not applicable 

No N/A