Issue Date: 10/28/14 1 90003

NRC INSPECTION MANUAL CIPB

INSPECTION PROCEDURE 90003

CONSTRUCTION SUPPLEMENTAL INSPECTION FOR REPETITIVE DEGRADED 

CORNERSTONES, MULTIPLE DEGRADED CORNERSTONES, MULTIPLE YELLOW INPUTS 

OR ONE RED INPUT

PROGRAM APPLICABILITY: 2505, 2506

CORNERSTONES: ALL

INSPECTION BASIS: This procedure provides the supplemental response for repetitive 

degraded cornerstones, multiple degraded cornerstones, multiple yellow inputs, or one red input 

to the assessment Construction Action Matrix as described in Inspection Manual Chapter 

(IMC) 2505, “Periodic Assessment of Construction Inspection Program Results.” The intent of 

this procedure is to provide the NRC with supplemental information regarding licensee 

performance, as necessary to determine the breadth and depth of safety, organizational, and 

programmatic issues. As such, this procedure is more diagnostic than indicative, and includes 

reviews of programs and processes not inspected as part of the baseline inspection program. 

While the procedure allows for focus to be applied to areas where performance issues have 

been previously identified, the procedure requires that some sample reviews be performed for 

all key attributes of the affected strategic performance areas. The rationale behind this is that 

additional NRC assurance is required to ensure public health and safety, and security beyond 

that provided by the baseline inspection program at those facilities where significant 

performance issues have been identified. The results of this inspection will aid the NRC in 

deciding whether additional regulatory actions are necessary to assure public health and safety. 

These additional regulatory actions could include orders, confirmatory action letters, or 

additional supplemental inspections, as necessary to confirm that corrective actions to the 

identified performance concerns have been effective.

This procedure was developed with consideration of the following boundary conditions:

a. The NRC is performing the inspection, which involves a graded approach to assessing 

the licensee’s safety culture. The scope of the inspection requirements related to safety 

culture will be based on the results of the validation of the licensee’s third party safety 

culture assessment and root cause evaluation.

b. The procedure is not intended to be used for event response.

c. New issues identified by the team will be evaluated using the significance determination 

process during the course of the inspection; other process issues will be documented in 

the inspection report.
Issue Date: 10/28/14 2 90003

d. The procedure is intended to provide insight into the root and contributing causes of 

performance deficiencies, but is not intended to be a substitute for a more focused root 

cause analysis (or self-assessment) of specific performance issues to be performed by 

the licensee or by a third party.

e. In most cases the licensee will have completed a root-cause, extent-of-cause, and 

extent-of-condition investigation(s) of the performance deficiencies which prompted this 

inspection and an independent third-party assessment of their safety culture before the 

NRC begin this inspection. In some cases NRC inspection of these activities can be 

deferred when warranted to accommodate a longer time required for the licensee to 

complete them. Flexibility is afforded to perform inspections and safety culture 

evaluations in parallel with the conduct of the licensee’s root cause evaluation and thirdparty safety culture assessment. A third party assessment is conducted by individuals 

who are not employees of the plant or the utility operators of the plant.

f. Refer to Inspection Procedure (IP) 95003, “Supplemental Inspection For Repetitive 

Degraded Cornerstones, Multiple Degraded Cornerstones, Multiple Yellow Inputs Or

One Red Input,” to review significance performance degradation in operational 

programs that have been implemented by the licensee prior to the transition to the 

Reactor Oversight Process (ROP).

90003-01 INSPECTION OBJECTIVES

01.01 To provide the NRC additional information to be used in deciding whether the continued 

construction activities of the licensed facility are acceptable and whether additional regulatory 

actions are necessary to change and correct declining performance.

01.02 To provide an independent assessment of the extent of safety-significant issues to aid 

in the determination of whether an unacceptable margin of safety or security exists.

01.03 To independently assess the adequacy of the programs and processes used by the 

licensee to identify, evaluate, and correct performance issues.

01.04 To independently evaluate the adequacy of programs and processes in the affected 

strategic performance areas.

01.05 To provide insight into the overall root and contributing causes of identified performance

deficiencies.

01.06 To determine if the NRC oversight process provided sufficient warning to significant 

reductions in the quality of construction.

01.07 To evaluate the licensee’s third-party safety culture assessment and conduct a graded

assessment of the licensee’s safety culture based on the results of the evaluation.
Issue Date: 10/28/14 3 90003

90003-02 INSPECTION REQUIREMENTS

The intent of this procedure is to allow the NRC to obtain a comprehensive understanding of the 

depth and breadth of safety, organizational, and performance issues at facilities where data 

indicates the potential for serious performance degradation. Considerable leeway has been 

built into the procedure to allow it to be customized to better reflect the specific nature of the 

previously identified performance issues.

This procedure was written with the assumption that supplemental inspections (either Inspection 

Procedure (IP) 90001 or IP 90002) have been conducted to evaluate the licensee’s root cause,

extent-of-cause, and extent-of-condition evaluations and associated corrective actions for 

greater than “green” inspection findings. If such supplemental inspections have not been 

conducted, the scope of this inspection should include inspection of the licensee’s evaluation of 

those issues.

02.01 Identification of Strategic Performance Areas Affected.

a. Using the information contained in the Construction Action Matrix, identify the strategic 

performance areas for which performance has significantly declined (i.e. Construction 

Reactor Safety, Safeguards Programs, or Operational Readiness). The scope of this 

inspection will generally include attributes of the degraded strategic performance

area(s). Specific inspection requirements pertaining to each strategic performance area 

are contained in Sections 02.03, 02.04, and 02.05 of this procedure.

b. Inspection Requirements 02.02, and 02.06 - 02.11 should always be performed 

regardless of the strategic performance areas selected for review. 

02.02 Review of Licensee Programs for Identifying, Assessing, and Correcting Performance 

Deficiencies. Once significant performance concerns have been identified in the Construction 

Action Matrix, the NRC must ensure that licensee programs for identifying, assessing, and 

correcting performance deficiencies are sufficient to prevent further performance degradation. 

The following inspection requirements evaluate whether licensee programs are sufficient to 

prevent further decline in the quality of construction that could result in a plant not being built in 

accordance with the approved design.

a. Determine whether licensee evaluations of, and corrective actions to, significant 

performance deficiencies have been sufficient to correct the deficiencies and prevent 

recurrence.

b. Evaluate the effectiveness of audits and assessments performed by the quality 

assurance group, line organizations, and external organizations. Focus on how the 

performance data is integrated with other data to arrest declining performance.

c. Determine whether the process for allocating resources provides for appropriate 

consideration of safety and compliance, and whether appropriate consideration is given 

to the management of ITAAC maintenance, design change backlogs and work-around 

corrections.
Issue Date: 10/28/14 4 90003

d. Evaluate whether licensee performance goals are congruent with those corrective 

actions needed to address the documented performance issues.

e. By reviewing selected aspects of the employee concerns program and the results of 

surveys or other workplace environment evaluations, ensure that employees are not 

hesitant to raise safety concerns and that safety significant concerns entered into the 

employee concern program receive an appropriate level of attention.

f. Determine whether there is a mechanism for all members of the workforce to suggest 

improvements and explain their disagreements with technical resolutions of identified 

deficiencies. Determine whether there is a feedback mechanism in which the 

evaluation of deficiencies and follow-up corrective actions are reported back to the 

identifying workers.

g. Evaluate the effectiveness of the organization’s use of industry information for 

previously documented performance issues.

02.03 Assessment of Performance in the Construction Reactor Safety Strategic Performance 

Area (Design/Engineering, Procurement/Fabrication, Construction/Installation,

Inspection/Testing)

a. Inspection Preparation

1. Develop an information base to allow the review of the effectiveness of corrective 

actions.

2. Select an area of construction or work process (i.e. piping, cabling, concrete, 

module installation, testing, etc.) for focus using the issues identified as part of 

the performance information developed above.

3. Perform the following inspection requirements for each key attribute focusing on 

the area of construction or work process selected above. While the inspectors 

should focus on the selected area, other construction or work process areas may 

be reviewed as necessary to assess licensee performance for the following key 

attributes.

b. Key Attribute – Process Control.

Complete the following inspection requirements as they apply to the significant 

performance concerns identified in the Construction Action Matrix:

1. Review a sample of procurement or fabrication documents and changes to those 

documents against the requirements of the licensed design. Determine that the 

documents accurately state design requirements and that the change process is 

adequate in correcting identified deficiencies and maintaining plant design

requirements. Assess the effectiveness of corrective actions for deficiencies 

impacting procurement documents or fabrication records.
Issue Date: 10/28/14 5 90003

2. Select several design change packages and determine whether or not the 

changes meet regulatory requirements, and that the affected SSC(s) is/are

capable of meeting its design function and that specified safety margins were 

maintained.

3. Determine if the licensee has effectively implemented programs for document 

control. Verify that procedures or installation instructions in use have been 

officially released by the licensee, and the proper level of management is 

providing oversight for each work process task.

4. Review a sample of quality control records applicable to the work process being 

inspected (i.e. electrical, piping, concrete, module installation, etc.) to determine 

the effectiveness of the licensee’s quality control program.

5. Assess the decision-making process for identification of problems and verify that

the licensee is correctly identifying conditions adverse to quality per the 

established criteria (i.e. whether conservative decisions were made, the CAP 

was effectively used, and decisions supported the construction of the plant in 

accordance with the design).

6. Determine whether inadequate resources were a cause or contributed to any 

inappropriate delay in resolving significant performance deficiencies.

7. Ensure the licensee’s stop-work order process can be implemented without 

hindrance from management or poorly established thresholds.

8. Select a sample of inspections and tests to determine if the scope of their

adequately ensures that the acceptance criteria for the ITAAC associated with 

the applicable SSC are met.

9. Review the ITAAC maintenance program to ensure it is properly implemented 

and ITAAC maintenance requirements are met.

10. Evaluate the interfaces between management, engineering, quality assurance, 

ITAAC maintenance, vendors and plant support groups.

c. Key Attribute - Procedure Quality. Inadequate procedures can lead to plant 

construction outside of the current licensing basis. To the extent that there are

procedure deficiencies associated with the above noted activities, they should be 

identified as causes of problems in other key attributes.

Determine the technical adequacy of procedures by verifying that they are consistent 

with desired actions by completing the following inspection requirements:

1. Assess the effectiveness of corrective actions for deficiencies involving 

procedure quality.
Issue Date: 10/28/14 6 90003

2. Evaluate the quality of procedures and, as applicable, determine the adequacy of 

the procedure development and revision processes.

02.04 Assessment of Performance in the Safeguards Programs Strategic Performance Area

(Security Programs for Construction Inspection and Operations)

Refer to IP 95003, Section 02.06, “Assessment of Performance in the Safeguards Strategic 

Performance Area (Security Cornerstone),” for inspection requirements in the Safeguards 

Programs strategic performance area.

02.05 Assessment of Performance in the Operational Readiness Strategic Performance Area 

(Operational Programs)

Refer to IP 95003, Section 02.03, “Assessment of Performance in the Reactor Safety Strategic 

Performance Area (Initiating Events, Mitigation Systems, Barrier Integrity, and Emergency 

Preparedness Cornerstones);” 02.04, “Assessment of Performance in the Radiation Safety 

Strategic Performance Area - Occupational Radiation Safety;” or 02.05, “Assessment of 

Performance in the Radiation Safety Strategic Performance Area - Public Radiation Safety 

(Radiological Effluent Monitoring, Radioactive Material Control, and Transportation of 

Radioactive Material),” as they apply to the performance degradation in operational programs 

that have been implemented by the licensee prior to the transition to the ROP.

02.06 Evaluate the Licensee’s Third-Party Safety Culture Assessment.

Refer to IP 95003, Section 02.07, “Evaluate the Licensee’s Third-Party Safety Culture 

Assessment,” for inspection requirements for the evaluation of the licensee’s third-party safety 

culture assessment.

02.07 Determine Scope of and Plan for NRC Graded Safety Culture Assessment.

Refer to IP 95003, Section 02.08, “Determine Scope of and Plan for NRC Graded Safety 

Culture Assessment,” for inspection requirements for the scope and plan for the NRC graded 

safety culture assessment.

02.08 Perform NRC’s Graded Safety Culture Assessment.

Refer to IP 95003, Section 02.09, “Perform NRC’s Graded Safety Culture Assessment,” for 

inspection requirements for the performance of the NRC’s grades safety culture assessment.

02.09 Performance Deficiency Cause Analysis.

Refer to IP 95003, Section 02.10, “Performance Deficiency Cause Analysis,” for inspection 

requirements for the performance deficiency cause analysis.

02.10 NRC Assessment.

Refer to IP 95003, Section 02.11, “NRC Assessment,” for inspection requirements for the NRC 

assessment.
Issue Date: 10/28/14 7 90003

02.11 Document Inspection Results.

Refer to IP 95003, Section 02.12, “Document Inspection Results,” for documentation 

requirements.

90003-03 INSPECTION GUIDANCE

General Guidance.

Refer to IP 95003, Section 03 for general guidance for this inspection. 

Specific Guidance.

03.01 Strategic Performance Area(s) Identification. No additional guidance provided.

03.02 Review of Licensee Programs for Identifying, Assessing, and Correcting Performance 

Deficiencies.

a. The inspectors should evaluate whether licensee evaluations of significant deficiencies 

are of a depth commensurate with the significance of the issue. Evaluations should 

ensure that the root and contributing causes of safety significant deficiencies are 

identified. Corrective actions should be taken to correct immediate problems and to 

prevent recurrence. Include in the sample to be reviewed the licensee’s evaluations 

associated with “white” or greater inspection findings that were not previously 

inspected. Use the guidance contained in supplemental IP 90001 to help in evaluating 

the adequacy of the licensee’s evaluations.

 

To the extent possible, include in the sample licensee evaluations and assessments 

associated with construction programs, any implemented operational programs, and 

organizational deficiencies, as well as those related to specific performance 

deficiencies. Consider the results of NRC’s evaluation of licensee root cause analyses 

performed as part of Appendix 16 to IP 35007, “Inspection Guide for Criterion XVI -

Corrective Action” 

b. Line organization, quality assurance, and external audits and assessments should be 

reviewed to determine whether the licensee has demonstrated the capability to identify 

performance issues before they result in actual degradation in the quality of 

construction. The findings of these audits and assessments should be integrated with 

more quantitative performance metrics and compared to those findings identified during 

this and other NRC inspections. The inspectors should evaluate management’s 

support for the audit and assessment process, as evidenced by staffing of the quality 

organization, responsiveness to audit and assessment findings, and contributions of the 

quality organization to improvements in licensee activities.
Issue Date: 10/28/14 8 90003

c. Processes for authorizing changes and allocating resources for completing work should 

give adequate consideration to the impact on the design features of the affected SSC 

and the need for abiding by regulatory requirements. The authorization and allocation 

processes should provide for a manageable construction backlogs and prevent the 

need for multiple work-arounds that could increase the likelihood of deviating from the 

design requirements. 

d. The inspectors should ensure that licensee performance goals are not in conflict with 

the actions needed to correct performance issues and are in alignment throughout the 

organization. To complete this requirement, a review should be performed of corporate, 

site, and organizational strategic plans, as well as other associated licensee 

documents.

e. Using the guidance contained in IP 40001, “Resolution of Employee Concerns,” perform 

a limited review of the licensee’s program for the resolution of employee concerns. In 

selecting samples for review, focus on those concerns and programs specifically 

applicable to the construction areas which are the subject of this inspection. The intent 

of this review is to determine: (1) whether weaknesses in the employee concerns 

program have contributed to previously identified deficiencies; (2) whether additional 

construction quality issues exist that have not been adequately captured by the 

corrective action program; and, (3) whether weaknesses in the employee concerns 

program have resulted in issues associated with the maintenance of a safety conscious 

work environment.

f. No specific guidance provided.

g. The team’s review of licensee industry information programs should be limited to those 

problems that might have contributed to the previously identified performance concerns. 

Determine whether the licensee has adequately implemented actions as necessary to 

address the issue. For example, weaknesses in licensee programs to review and 

assess vendor information may have contributed to the installation of SSC not meeting 

the design requirements.

03.03 Assessment of Performance in the Construction Reactor Safety Area.

a. Inspection Preparation

1. Compile performance information from the licensee’s corrective action program, 

audits, self-assessments, construction deficiency reports, and the inspection 

report record for the time period determined by the team manager. To the extent 

possible keeping in mind the needs of the inspection team, maximize the use of 

electronic data from the licensee and minimize the impact of the data request on 

the licensee.

Review the compiled information and sort the issues by the key attributes listed 

below. Licensee corrective actions for the issues should be assessed as part of 

the following key attribute reviews. 
Issue Date: 10/28/14 9 90003

2. During the planning process, the team leader should select a work process(es)

based on the plant construction schedule, past construction inspections that may 

have already been performed on a work process(es) by the licensee or by other 

NRC teams, and through review of issues contained in the Construction Action 

Matrix.

The team should select a number of electrical, mechanical, and instrumentation 

and control components for detailed review. The majority of these components

should be from the principal system or structure with the remainder from support 

systems or structures which are necessary for meeting the design function of the 

principal system or from interfacing safety systems served by the principal 

system. 

3. No additional guidance provided.

b. Key Attribute – Process Control. The failure to assure that the applicable regulatory 

requirements, design bases, and other requirements which are necessary to assure 

adequate quality are suitably included or referenced in the documents for procurement 

of material, equipment, and service, and the failure to properly fabricate SSCs can 

result in the plant being constructed outside of the approved design. 

Inadequacies in the design change process can cause SSCs to be in nonconformance 

with the approved design and can affect the design function or the margin of design 

safety of the respective SSC(s).

An inadequate process for construction and installation can result in a degradation of 

construction quality and the as-built plant not meeting the approved design. Poor 

construction quality can be identified by assessing the effectiveness of the different 

work processes in place by the licensee. Work processes should have established 

programs for identifying problems, an effective corrective action program, and a 

procedure change process. These programs should be capable of addressing adverse 

impacts on the ITAAC, design changes, and procedure revisions, and should provide 

for effective communication between the work processes. Communications between 

the work processes should ensure each group is informed of lessons learned, impacts 

to their construction area due to work being done by other construction groups, design 

or procedure changes that could impact their area, and proper turnover of construction 

activities when a vendor has completed its contract.

Inadequate inspection and testing can lead to the failure to verify that the plant was 

constructed in accordance with the approved design. Verifying that SSCs are installed 

and maintained in the proper configuration and ensuring that SSCs are capable to 

perform satisfactorily in service should be a priority of an effective inspection and 

testing program. 

The process control portion of the inspection should be performed by inspectors (or 

technical staff/contractors) with extensive nuclear plant design experience. It is also 

important that the inspectors performing the process control portion of the inspection
Issue Date: 10/28/14 10 90003

have a good understanding of plant construction, testing, and quality assurance so that 

they are able to relate their findings to the other areas being inspected.

The inspectors should focus their review on the area of construction or work process 

selected in paragraph 02.03.a.2. Prior to evaluating the selected area or specific SSC, 

the inspectors should review the design basis documents such as calculations and 

analyses. The review should provide the inspectors an understanding of the functional 

requirements for each applicable SSC. The intent is to focus on the quality aspects of 

proper design and engineering actions that could contribute to the degradation of 

construction quality. The inspection is not intended to be a re-validation of the original 

design.

Appendix B to 10 CFR Part 50 contains 18 criteria that must be a part of the licensee’s 

quality assurance program for safety-related SSCs. The licensee’s QA program and 

implementing procedures comprise all those planned and systematic actions necessary 

to provide adequate confidence that a structure, system or component will perform 

satisfactorily in service. QA programmatic deficiencies, inadequate procedures, and/or 

improper implementation have all resulted in major problems relating to the quality of 

design and/or construction. 

1. Refer to applicable guidance in IP 35007, Appendix 4, and “Inspection Guide for 

Criterion IV - Procurement Document Control.” 

2. Refer to applicable guidance in IP 35007, Appendix 3, and “Inspection Guide for 

Criterion III - Design Control.” Also, in selecting a sample of design changes to 

be reviewed, the inspectors should concentrate on those changes with the 

potential to significantly alter the applicable SSC(s). The sample should include 

changes involving vendor supplied products or services where practicable, since 

the licensee’s ability to oversee vendor supplied services is an important aspect 

of design control. Inspectors should consider expanding the sample of changes 

if significant problems are found. This expansion should consider other similar 

changes and should not be limited to the initially selected SSC(s).

(a) Verify that the design and licensing input and output information has been 

properly controlled.

(b) Check the adequacy of design calculations for the selected changes. As 

an example an inspector could consider the following when evaluating the 

calculation design parameters of the following components:

(1) For valves: Were interlocks changed? Are there new differential 

pressures for valve strokes? What is the source of control and 

indication power? Was there an impact on the control logic? Were

the specified manual actions required to back up and restore a 

degraded function changed? Could the change subject to the 

valves to pressure locking? Are the valves addressed in emergency 

or abnormal operating procedures? If so, can the valves still 

function as specified in these procedures?
Issue Date: 10/28/14 11 90003

(2) For pumps: Did the flow paths the pump will experience during 

accident scenarios change? Where there changes to the

permissive interlock and control logic? What suction and discharge 

pressure is the pump expected to experience during accident 

conditions with the new design? Do vendor data and specifications 

support the new parameters of the design?

(c) Compare the as-built configuration with the current design basis and the 

licensing requirements for the selected SSC and consider the following:

(1) Verify that the changes do not invalidate assumptions made as part 

of the original design and the accident analyses, including interfaces 

with supporting SSCs. For example, are service water flow 

capacities sufficient with the minimum number of pumps available 

under accident conditions? Are the voltage studies accurate and 

will the required motor operated valves (MOVs) and relays operate 

under end-of-life battery conditions and degraded grid voltages? 

Are fuses and thermal overloads properly sized? Are current loads 

within the capacity of the station batteries? Are test results for the 

SSC consistent with the design assumptions?

(2) Do the changes invalidate design input parameters provided to 

accident analyses vendors? 

(3) Have modified structures surrounding safety equipment, 

components, or structures been evaluated for seismic 2-over-1 

considerations? Has modified equipment or components under the 

scope of 10 CFR 50.49 been thoroughly evaluated for 

environmental equipment qualification considerations such as 

temperature, radiation, and humidity?

(d) Verify whether the selected changes have introduced an unreviewed 

safety question.

(e) For the selected SSC(s), review that the changes have not introduced new 

design parameters that could adversely impact the developed

maintenance procedures and operating procedures. Confirm that any 

such design changes have been subjected to the formal design change 

process in accordance with 10 CFR 52.

(f) Ensure that verification and validation of computer programs used for 

design and engineering calculations has been adequately accomplished.

3. Refer to applicable guidance in IP 35007, Appendix 6, and “Inspection Guide for 

Criterion VI - Document Control.”
Issue Date: 10/28/14 12 90003

4. Refer to applicable guidance in IP 35007, Appendix 17, and “Inspection Guide for 

Criterion XVII - Quality Assurance Records.”

5. Refer to applicable guidance in IP 35007, Appendix 16, and “Inspection Guide for 

Criterion XVI - Corrective Action.”

6. No additional guidance provided.

7. No additional guidance provided.

8. Refer to applicable guidance in IP 35007, Appendix 11, and “Inspection Guide for 

Criterion XI - Test Control.”

9. Refer to applicable guidance in IP 40600, “Licensee Program for Inspections, 

Tests, Analyses, and Acceptance Criteria (ITAAC) Management.”

10. Evaluate the interfaces between management, engineering, quality assurance, 

ITAAC maintenance, vendors and plant support groups.

(a) Assess the ability to communicate accurate information on the status of 

design changes. Plant policies on updating design related material may 

not support timely documentation of design changes. Verify that 

provisions are in place and being followed to assure the accurate 

recording of the as-designed and as-built conditions during the interim 

period between change implementation and incorporation into the plant 

design basis documents.

(b) Verify that applicable management, engineering, quality assurance, ITAAC 

maintenance, vendors and affected work process groups are involved in 

the evaluation and concurrence process for approving:

(1) Performance of non-routine maintenance activities

(2) Temporary changes

(3) Field change requests

(c) Review the licensee’s control of vendor supplied services and products 

including the evaluation for technical adequacy and quality assurance. 

The licensee’s evaluation and control of vendor supplied services and 

products should be multi-disciplinary in its approach.

(d) Verify that self-revealing deficiencies and those identified by the licensee’s 

vendor control process are properly communicated to the vendor.
Issue Date: 10/28/14 13 90003

c. Key Attribute – Procedure Quality.

1. Evaluate to what extent procedure quality has contributed to previously identified 

construction issues. In performing this evaluation, select a sample of documents

which reflect instances where problems with a procedure have been documented 

in construction deficiency reports, NRC inspection reports, or licensee 

assessments or audits. Focus on the technical adequacy of the documents

using the following guidance as applicable. Evaluate the licensee’s actions to 

address the identified inadequacies. 

2. Development and review of procedures. 

(a) When reviewing procedures, the inspector should assess the technical 

adequacy of the procedures and determine if the procedural steps or 

information being communicated in procurement documents will ensure

that applicable SSCs meet their design specifications. 

(b) Determine whether the procedures will accomplish the activity within the 

design characteristics and regulatory requirements. During this 

evaluation, the review may include UFSAR descriptions, vendor manuals, 

design information, piping and instrumentation drawings (P&IDs), and 

instrumentation and electrical wiring and control diagrams. 

(c) Review receipt documentation to assess the licensee’s effectiveness to 

ensure the SSC received meets the design requirements. Determine if the 

procedures allows for the identification and evaluation of SSC deficiencies. 

Verify the use of quality verification of important attributes. Verify that 

important vendor manuals are complete and up-to-date. Documents, such 

as vendor manuals, equipment operating and maintenance instructions, or 

approved drawings with acceptance criteria, may by reference be part of a 

procedure. If these documents are so used, the documents (or applicable 

portions) require the same level of review and approval as the procedure 

that references it.

(d) Verify that personnel have the ability to reference an up-to-date and 

accurate copy of procedures. This is necessary because design changes 

may not be reflected immediately in the documentation upon completion of 

the design review. In such situations, the inspector should verify that 

design changes are captured in a timely manner following the changes in 

the procurement system.

(e) Procedure changes should be in accordance with licensee processes and 

regulatory requirements. Verify the adequacy of all procedure changes 

which resulted from recent (within the last year) license change(s).
Issue Date: 10/28/14 14 90003

(f) Verify procedure changes are in conformance with a 10 CFR 50.59-like 

change process. This item applies only to changes to procedures which 

are described or summarized in the UFSAR, normally a small portion of 

the procedures in use at the facility. General guidance and contrasting 

examples relating to the procedure changes which can be made by the 

licensee are described in NRC Inspection Manual Part 9900, "Guidance on 

10 CFR 50.59 Changes to Facilities, Procedures, and Tests (or 

Experiments)."

(g) Through discussions with personnel and a review of approved procedures, 

determine if skilled craft, engineering, and technical support personnel 

contribute to the development, review, and approval of procedures. Are

special or complex procedures “dry run” and discussed with all 

participating workers in a pre-job brief prior to use?

(h) Incorporating accepted human factors principles about format and writing 

style into procedures increases the likelihood that the procedures will be 

easier to use and follow, and decreases the likelihood of human error 

while executing the procedure. Standards for format and writing style can 

usually be found in the licensee's writer's guide. Usability should be 

determined by evaluating the degree to which procedures follow the 

guidance outlined in the writer's guide.

(i) When a writer's guide is not available or if the quality of the writer's guide 

is in question, procedure usability can be determined by evaluating the 

elements of writing style, format, and organization described in IP 42700, 

“Plant Procedures.”

(j) Verify temporary procedures were properly approved and did not conflict 

with regulatory requirements. Review a sample of temporary procedures 

and temporary procedure changes issued during the past year to 

determine if the approval and subsequent review requirements are being 

followed. Determine whether the licensee has procedural limitations on 

how long a temporary procedure or a temporary procedure change can be 

in effect, and compare this with observed practices. Verify that temporary 

procedure changes disseminated through night orders, standing orders, or 

work orders have been reviewed and approved per the licensee’s 

procedures by the proper level of licensee supervision/management. 

03.04 Assessment of Performance in the Safeguards Programs Strategic Performance Area

(Security Programs for Construction Inspection and Operations)

Refer to the specific guidance specified in IP 95003, Section 03.06, and “Assessment of 

Performance in the Safeguards Strategic Performance Area.”
Issue Date: 10/28/14 15 90003

03.05 Assessment of Performance in the Operational Readiness Strategic Performance Area 

(Operational Programs)

Refer to the specific guidance in IP 95003, Section 03.03, “Assessment of Performance in the 

Reactor Safety Strategic Performance Area (Initiating Events, Mitigation Systems, Barrier 

Integrity, and Emergency Preparedness Cornerstones);” 03.04, “Assessment of Performance in 

the Radiation Safety Strategic Performance Area - Occupational Radiation Safety;” or 03.05, 

“Assessment of Performance in the Radiation Safety Strategic Performance Area - Public 

Radiation Safety (Radiological Effluent Monitoring, Radioactive Material Control, and 

Transportation of Radioactive Material),” as they apply to the performance degradation in 

operational programs that have been implemented by the licensee prior to the transition to the 

ROP.

03.06 Evaluate the Licensee’s Third-Party Safety Culture Assessment.

Refer to IP 95003, Section 03.07, “Evaluate the Licensee’s Third-Party Safety Culture 

Assessment,” for inspection requirements for the evaluation of the licensee’s third-party safety 

culture assessment.

03.07 Determine Scope of and Plan for NRC Graded Safety Culture Assessment.

Refer to IP 95003, Section 03.08, “Determine Scope of and Plan for NRC Graded Safety 

Culture Assessment,” for inspection requirements for the scope and plan for the NRC graded 

safety culture assessment.

03.08 Perform NRC’s Graded Safety Culture Assessment.

Refer to IP 95003, Section 03.09, “Perform NRC’s Graded Safety Culture Assessment,” for 

inspection requirements for the performance of the NRC’s grades safety culture assessment.

03.09 Performance Deficiency Cause Analysis.

Refer to IP 95003, Section 03.10, “Performance Deficiency Cause Analysis,” for inspection 

requirements for the performance deficiency cause analysis. 

03.10 NRC Assessment.

Refer to IP 95003, Section 03.11, “NRC Assessment,” for inspection requirements for the NRC 

assessment.

03.11 Document Inspection Results.

Refer to IP 95003, Section 03.12, “Document Inspection Results,” for documentation 

requirements.
Issue Date: 10/28/14 16 90003

95003-04 RESOURCE ESTIMATE

The resource estimates provided are for direct inspection only, based on a three week on-site 

inspection. Not all areas will be performed during each inspection and the hours required to 

compete each area may be less for construction sites where previously identified performance 

issues were isolated. The hours required to complete each area could also be greater based on 

site-specific circumstances. The resource estimates are not requirements and inspection 

staffing needs are based upon site-specific circumstances.

Position/Inspected Area Hours

Team Leader ................................................................................. 120

Assistant Team Leader .................................................................. 120

Corrective Action Program....................................................240

Licensee’s Safety Culture Assessment ................................... 120-160

Safety Culture Assessment Activities ........................................ 80-360

Process Control ............................................................................. 120

Procedure Quality .......................................................................... 120

Human Performance...................................................................... 120

Safeguards ................................................................................... TBD

Review of Assessment Process ....................................................... 40 (not direct inspection)

90003-05 PROCEDURE COMPLETION

Meeting the inspection objectives defined in Section 90003-01 of this IP will constitute

completion. Refer to IMC 2505 for additional regulatory actions and considerations.

90003-06 REFERENCES

IMC 2503, “Construction Inspection Program: Inspections of Inspections, Tests, Analyses, and 

Acceptance Criteria (ITAAC)”

IMC 2504, “Construction Inspection Program - Inspection of Construction and Operational 

Programs”

IMC 2505, “Periodic Assessment of Construction Inspection Program Results”

IMC 2506, “Construction Reactor Oversight Process General Guidance and Basis Document”

IMC 0613, “Documenting 10 CFR Part 52 Construction and Test Inspections”

IP 35007, “Quality Assurance Program Implementation During Construction and PreConstruction Activities”

IP 40001, “Resolution of Employee Concerns”
Issue Date: 10/28/14 17 90003

IP 71841, “Human Performance”

IP 82001.05, “Procedure Quality”

IP 90001, “Construction Regulatory Response Column Inspections”

IP 90002, “Construction Degraded Response Column Inspections”

IP 95003, “Supplemental Inspection for Repetitive Degraded Cornerstones, Multiple Degraded

Cornerstones, Multiple Yellow Inputs or One Red Input”

10 CFR 52, Section VIII of Appendix A through D, “Processes for Changes and Departures”

END

Attachment: Revision History for IP 90003
Issue Date: 10/28/14 Att1-1 90003

Attachment 1 – Revision History for IP 90003

Commitment 

Tracking 

Number

Accession Number

Issue Date

Change Notice

Description of Change Description of 

Training Required 

and Completion Date

Comment and 

Feedback Resolution 

Accession Number

N/A ML11340A021

02/09/2012

CN 12-001

Initial Issue. N/A ML11340A019

N/A ML14226A900

10/28/14

CN 14-026

Complete revision to include cROP strategic 

performance areas and attributes. Changed 

safety culture terms to be consistent with 

IMC 0613, and the common safety culture 

terms initiative.

N/A N/A