Issue Date: 10/28/14 1 90002

NRC INSPECTION MANUAL CIPB

INSPECTION PROCEDURE 90002

CONSTRUCTION DEGRADED PERFORMANCE COLUMN INSPECTIONS

PROGRAM APPLICABILITY: 2505

CORNERSTONES: ALL

INSPECTION BASIS: This procedure provides guidance for the supplemental 

response described in the Construction Action Matrix in 

Inspection Manual Chapter (IMC) 2505, “Periodic Assessment 

of Construction Inspection Program Results.” This inspection 

procedure will be completed when a degraded cornerstone or 

three white findings in a strategic performance area are 

identified. In addition,

 Supplemental inspections will not be done for single or 

multiple green issues;

 The baseline inspection procedure (IP) 35007, “Quality 

Assurance Program Implementation During Construction 

and Pre-Construction Activities” is independent of the 

supplemental response;

 New examples of performance issues resulting from 

supplemental inspections will be evaluated and 

categorized in a similar manner to that of the baseline 

inspection program using the construction significance 

determination process (SDP).

90002-01 INSPECTION OBJECTIVES

01.01 To provide assurance that the root and contributing causes of individual and collective 

(multiple white inputs) safety significant performance issues are understood.

01.02 To independently assess and provide assurance that the extent of condition and the 

extent of cause of individual and collective (multiple white inputs) safety significant performance

issues are identified.

01.03 To independently determine if a weakness in safety culture traits caused or significantly 

contributed to the individual and collective (multiple white inputs) safety significant performance

issues. 
Issue Date: 10/28/14 2 90002

01.04 To provide assurance that a licensee’s corrective actions for the safety significant 

performance issues are sufficient to address the root and contributing causes and prevent 

recurrence.

90002-02 INSPECTION REQUIREMENTS

The following inspection requirements relate to the minimum set of information that the NRC will 

generally need to acquire in order to ensure that the causes of safety significant performance 

issues are identified and that appropriate corrective actions are planned or taken to prevent 

recurrence. While the inspection requirements are generally written to address individual 

performance issues, this IP may also be used to assess the adequacy of the licensee’s 

evaluations associated with multiple performance issues. 

While these inspection requirements do not necessarily represent NRC requirements for the 

licensee, the licensee’s evaluation will generally need to address each of the inspection 

requirements in order to ensure that the causes of the performance issue are identified and 

effective corrective actions are taken to prevent recurrence. It is recognized that the depth of 

the licensee’s evaluation may vary depending on the significance and complexity of the issues. 

In some cases, the answers to specific inspection requirements will be self-evident with little 

additional review or analysis required by the inspectors. This procedure also requires an 

independent NRC inspection of the adequacy of the licensee’s extent of condition and extent of 

cause determination. 

The inspection report associated with a construction supplemental inspection performed in 

accordance with this IP should contain the NRC’s assessment of the licensee’s evaluation for 

each inspection requirement. The results of a construction supplemental inspection should be 

documented in accordance with the guidance contained in IMC 0613, “Power Reactor 

Construction Inspection Reports.”

Significant weaknesses in the licensee’s actions to address the performance issues, including 

the failure to identify weaknesses in the safety culture traits described in IMC 0613, Appendix F,

or the failure to perform an adequate evaluation of the performance issues may be subject to 

additional agency actions, including: (1) those specified in IMC 2505; (2) additional 

enforcement actions; or (3) an expansion of this procedure as necessary to independently 

acquire the information necessary to satisfy the inspection objectives defined in Section 90002-

01. An expansion of this IP may be necessary if inspectors need to independently evaluate the 

performance issue(s) or safety culture traits as a result of the licensee not performing its own 

analysis. It is not expected for inspectors to perform this evaluation as a separate construction 

supplemental inspection.

In general, a failure to satisfy this IP’s inspection objectives as defined in Section 95002-01 

should result in an expansion of this IP through continued or follow-up inspections. When the 

licensee’s performance indicates the need to hold open a finding past two quarters in the 

Construction Action Matrix, an inspection report should be issued which describes specific 

licensee deficiencies and clearly states the necessary licensee actions required to meet all 
Issue Date: 10/28/14 3 90002

supplemental inspections objectives. Refer to IMC 2505 for additional guidance on holding 

open findings in the Construction Action Matrix. When continued and follow-up inspections are 

performed, the inspection scope should normally be limited to verifying only the licensee’s 

actions necessary to meet the remaining unmet supplemental inspections objectives from the 

previous inspection efforts. Additionally, the licensee should be given an opportunity to correct 

any identified deficiencies prior to re-inspection. A final supplemental inspection report should 

be issued when all inspection objectives are met. 

Significant weaknesses in the licensee’s actions to address a performance issue associated 

with an inspection finding, including a substantial inadequacy in the licensee’s evaluation of the 

root causes of the original performance issue do not provide the assurance level required to 

meet the inspection objectives defined in Section 95002-01. General weaknesses associated 

with the licensee’s evaluation of the performance issue shall be briefly described in the 

transmittal letter and documented as observations in the summary of findings and details 

sections in the inspection report. New or additional examples of performance issues that are 

identified during this supplemental inspection or by the licensee during their evaluation should 

be inspected under the applicable baseline procedure and screened in accordance with IMC 

0613, Appendix B, “Issue Screening.”

The following inspection requirements are generally applicable for both single and multiple 

inspection findings. The scope of this inspection should include all white or yellow inspection 

findings in the associated degraded cornerstone or strategic performance area. For example, if 

this procedure is being performed due to a yellow finding in the construction/installation systems 

cornerstone, the inspection scope should also include any white inspection findings in that 

cornerstone. If the procedure is being performed due to three white findings in the construction 

reactor safety strategic performance area, then the inspection scope should include all white 

findings in the construction reactor safety strategic performance area.

If evaluations of multiple performance issues are performed, then it is expected that the 

licensee’s evaluation should address each of the events or occurrences collectively, as well as 

individually. In those instances where the licensee’s evaluation was previously reviewed as part 

of a supplemental inspection performed in accordance with IP 90001, “Construction Regulatory 

Response Column Inspections,” a re-review of the evaluation during this procedure is not 

required; however, a review of the licensee’s collective evaluation for multiple performance 

issues would generally need to be performed.

02.01 Problem Identification

a. Determine that the evaluation documented who identified the issue (i.e. licenseeidentified, self-revealing, or NRC-identified) and under what conditions the issue was 

identified.

b. Determine that the evaluation documented how long the issue existed and prior 

opportunities for identification.

c. Determine that the evaluation documented the impact on the quality of construction (i.e. 

structure, system, component, etc.) and if applicable, any compliance concerns 

associated with the issue(s) both individually and collectively.
Issue Date: 10/28/14 4 90002

02.02 Root Cause, Extent of Condition, and Extent of Cause Evaluation

a. Determine that the problem 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 problem.

c. Determine that the root cause evaluation included a consideration of prior occurrences 

of the problem and knowledge of prior construction experience.

d. Determine that the root cause evaluation addresses the extent of condition and the 

extent of cause of the problem.

02.03 Corrective Actions

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 risk 

significance and regulatory compliance.

c. Determine that a schedule has been established for implementing and completing the 

corrective actions.

d. Determine that quantitative or qualitative measures of success have been developed for 

determining the effectiveness of the corrective actions to prevent recurrence.

e. Determine that the corrective actions planned or taken adequately address the finding

that was the basis for the construction supplemental inspection, if applicable.

02.04 Independent Assessment of Extent of Condition and Extent of Cause.

Perform a focused inspection(s) to independently assess the validity of the licensee’s 

conclusions regarding the extent of condition and extent of cause of the issues. In order to 

accomplish this objective, the inspection team leader should develop a customized inspection 

plan using the applicable portions of the IP(s) listed in IMC 2501, IMC 2502, IMC 2503, and IMC

2504. The objective should be to independently sample performance, as necessary, to provide 

assurance that the licensee’s evaluation regarding extent of condition and extent of cause is 

sufficiently comprehensive. The intent is to assess the validity of the licensee’s evaluation by 

independently sampling performance within the key attributes of the cornerstone(s) that are 

related to the subject performance issue(s); not to re-perform the licensee’s evaluation. The 

results of this review should be documented in the construction supplemental inspection report, 

including the NRC’s assessment of the licensee’s evaluation in this area.
Issue Date: 10/28/14 5 90002

02.05 Safety Culture Consideration

Perform a focused inspection to independently determine that the root cause evaluation 

appropriately considered whether any safety culture trait caused or significantly contributed to 

any safety significant performance issue. If a weakness in any safety culture trait did cause or 

significantly contributed to such an issue, and the licensee’s evaluation did not recognize that 

cause or contribution, then refer to IMC 2505.

90002-03 INSPECTION GUIDANCE

General Guidance

This IP is used to assess the adequacy of the licensee’s evaluation of safety significant 

performance issues. As such, a reasonable time (generally within 30-60 days) should be 

allowed for the licensee staff to complete their evaluation (or self assessment for multiple 

performance issues); however, all corrective actions may not be fully completed upon 

commencement of the construction supplemental inspection. The inspection should not be 

scheduled until the licensee has completed its problem identification, evaluation, and corrective 

action plan. In the event that the licensee has not defined their corrective action plan within a 

reasonable time, regional management should prompt the licensee to provide the basis for the 

delay. Implementation of the licensee’s corrective actions may be verified during subsequent 

baseline inspections, such as the annual corrective action program inspection performed in 

accordance with IP 35007.

The following guidance is provided to help the inspector fulfill the specific inspection 

requirements contained in Section 90002-02. It is not intended that the inspector verify that the 

licensee’s evaluation of the performance issues addresses every attribute contained in the 

inspection guidance section. The intent is that the inspector uses the guidance sections of the 

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

associated with one of the inspection requirements.

Specific Guidance

Sections 03.01 through 03.03 apply to the licensee’s evaluation of both individual and collective 

issues.

03.01 Problem Identification

a. The evaluation should state how and by whom the issue was identified. When 

appropriate, the licensee’s failure to identify the problem at a precursor level should be 

evaluated. Specifically, the licensee’s failure to identify a problem before it becomes 

risk-significant may indicate a more substantial problem. Examples include the 

licensee’s failure to: (1) enter a recognized adverse condition into the corrective action 

program; (2) raise safety concerns to management; or (3) complete corrective actions 

for a previously identified problem that resulted in further degradation. If the NRC 
Issue Date: 10/28/14 6 90002

identified the performance issue, the evaluation should address why the licensee’s

processes, such as peer review, supervisory oversight, inspection, testing, 

self-assessments, or quality activities, did not identify the problem.

b. The evaluation should state when the problem was identified, how long the condition(s) 

existed, and whether there were prior opportunities for correction. For example, if in the 

process of closing an ITAAC a significant failure to meet the acceptance criteria is 

identified and the failure should have been detected by post-construction quality 

assurance oversight but it was not, the licensee should state the reasons why the 

testing and quality oversight did not detect the error and the reasons should be included 

in the problem identification statement and addressed in the root cause evaluation. 

03.02 Root Cause, Extent of Condition, and Extent of Cause Evaluation

a. The licensee’s evaluation should generally make use of systematic methods to identify 

root and contributing causes. The 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 an event;

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 problems 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 problem owner to determine the root cause and corresponding 

solutions; and

8. Pareto Analysis – a statistical approach to problem solving to determine where to 

start an analysis.

The licensee may use other methods to perform root cause evaluations. A systematic 

evaluation of a problem should normally include:
Issue Date: 10/28/14 7 90002

1. A clear identification of the problem and the assumptions made as a part of the 

root cause evaluation.

For example, the evaluation should describe the initial status of the particular 

construction activity, level of quality assurance oversight and training 

requirements, as applicable.

2. A timely collection of data, verification of data, and preservation of evidence to 

ensure that the information and circumstances surrounding the problem are fully 

understood. The analysis should be documented such that the progression of 

the problem is clearly understood, any missing information or inconsistencies are 

identified, and the problem can be easily explained or understood by others.

3. A determination of cause and effect relationships resulting in an identification of 

root and contributing causes which consider potential quality of 

component/structure, construction processes, and human performance issues. 

For example:

(a) Quality of the construction component/structure could include design, 

materials, systems integration, and environmental conditions; 

(b) Construction process issues could include procedures, work practices, 

contractor/licensee policies, supervision and oversight, preventive and 

corrective programs, and quality control methods; and

(c) Human performance issues could include training, communications, 

human-system interface, and fitness for duty.

b. The root cause evaluation should be conducted to a level of detail that is adequate for 

the significance of the problem. Different root cause evaluation methods provide 

different perspectives of the problem. In some instances, using a combination of 

methods helps ensure the analysis is thorough. Therefore, the root cause evaluation 

should consider evaluating complex problems, which could result in significant 

consequences, using multi-disciplinary teams and/or different and complimentary 

methods appropriate to the circumstances. For example, problems that involve a family 

of ITAAC may 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 Section 03.02.a and by 

repeatedly asking the question “Why?” about the occurrences and circumstances that 

caused or contributed to the problem. Once the analysis has developed all of the 

causes for the problem (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.
Issue Date: 10/28/14 8 90002

For example, problems 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 

problem. 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 problem.

2. Determining that the problem was evaluated to ensure that other root and 

contributing causes were not inappropriately ruled out due to 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 construction activity if the problem appears to be 

primarily human performance focused. Consideration of the technical adequacy 

of the assumptions used in the root cause evaluation and their impact on the root 

causes would also be appropriate.

3. Determining that the evaluation collectively reviewed all root and contributing 

causes for indications of more fundamental problems with the quality of 

construction activities. This is particularly important when the licensee has

multiple risk-significant performance issues.

For example, a problem that involved a number of procedural inadequacies or 

errors may indicate a more fundamental or higher level problem in the processes 

for procedural development, control, review, and approval. Issues associated 

with personnel failing to follow procedures may also indicate a problem with 

supervisory oversight and communication of standards.

4. Determining that the root cause evaluation properly ensures that correcting the 

causes would prevent recurrence of the same and similar problems. Complex 

problems 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 cause evaluations that are based on specific type of 

construction activity may not be valid for all other work process at the site.

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.

c. The root cause evaluation should include a proper consideration of prior occurrences of 

the same or similar problems at the construction site and knowledge of prior 

construction experience. This review is necessary to help develop the specific root and 

contributing causes and to provide indication as to whether the issue is due to a more 

fundamental concern involving weaknesses in the licensee’s corrective action program.
Issue Date: 10/28/14 9 90002

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 failure of a component to 

pass its acceptance criteria could include a review of prior incidents with the 

supplier, procurement organization, design requirements, unusual system 

installations, and infrequently performed evolutions.

2. Determine if previous root cause evaluations and/or corrective actions missed or 

inappropriately characterized the issues. Determine those aspects of prior 

corrective actions that did not prevent recurrence of the problem.

For example, the evaluation should review the implementation of the previously 

specified corrective actions and a reassessment of the 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 problem specifically 

addresses those aspects of the prior root cause evaluation or corrective actions 

that were not successfully addressed.

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

mis-positioned valve the licensee determines that a previous similar problem 

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 problems and their associated 

corrective actions to determine if similar incidents have occurred in the past.

For example, the licensee staff should consider the following in their review of 

prior construction experience: internal self-assessments; quality oversight

history; adverse condition reports; and external data bases developed to identify 

and track construction experience issues. Examples of external databases may 

include Information Notices, Generic Letters, and vendor/industry generic 

communications.

The inspectors should discuss the problem and associated root causes with 

other resident, regional, or headquarters personnel to assess whether previous 

similar problems or root causes should have been considered.

d. The root cause evaluation should include a proper consideration of the extent of 

condition and the extent of cause of the problem and whether other systems, 

equipment, programs, or conditions could be affected.
Issue Date: 10/28/14 10 90002

1. The extent of condition review should assess the degree that the actual condition 

(e.g., improperly installed valve, inadequate procedure, improper human action, 

etc.) may exist in other installed plant equipment, processes, or human 

performance.

2. The extent of cause review should assess the applicability of the root causes 

across disciplines or departments to different programmatic activities, human 

performance, or different types of equipment.

For example, the licensee’s quality assurance staff considered that the root cause

identified for the improper installation of the safety injection system in accordance with 

approved design could potentially affect the installation of the fire suppression systems 

because the design documents are reviewed by the same engineering group. As a 

result, feedback was provided to the incident review committee to enhance the design 

change control procedure to include the approval of the quality manager and to provide 

remedial training to personal performing the installations and the engineering staff to 

check design documents used are correct.

The extent of condition review differs from the extent of cause review in that the extent 

of condition review focuses on the actual condition and its existence in other places. 

The extent of cause review should focus more on the actual root causes of the 

condition and on the degree that these root causes have resulted in additional 

weaknesses.

03.03 Corrective Actions

The licensee’s proposed corrective actions to the root and contributing causes should:

a. Address each of the root and contributing causes and any weaknesses associated with 

the extent of condition and extent of cause of the performance issues. The corrective 

actions should be clearly defined. Examples of corrective actions may include but are 

not limited to modifications, inspections, testing, process or procedure changes, and 

training. The proposed corrective actions should not create new or different problems 

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 licensee’s risk assessment results of the issue in prioritizing 

the type of corrective actions chosen. Attention should be given to solutions that 

involve only changing procedures or providing training because they are sometimes 

overused. 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 it achieves compliance if compliance 

issues exist.

c. Be assigned to the appropriate individuals or organizations to ensure that the actions 

are planned or taken in a timely manner. The licensee should also establish a formal 

tracking mechanism for each of the specific corrective actions.
Issue Date: 10/28/14 11 90002

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 

limited to assessments, audits, inspections, tests, trending of plant construction data, or 

follow-up discussions with plant construction personnel.

The licensee’s response to a finding that directly corresponds with the performance issue that 

was the basis for the supplemental inspection should address the reason for the violation, 

corrective actions that have been taken and the achieved results, corrective actions that will be 

taken, and 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 violation.

03.04 Independent Assessment of Extent of Condition and Extent of Cause

The objective of the independent extent of condition review is to ensure that the licensee’s 

evaluation was of sufficient breadth to identify additional issues similar to those for which the 

supplemental inspection was performed. For example, if the issue was improper installation of 

rebar due to inadequate design translation, the inspectors should sample other rebar to ensure 

the design requirements are being met before concrete is poured. If the issue was due to an 

inadequate procedure, the inspectors should sample other procedures to determine their 

adequacy.

The objective of the independent extent of cause review is to ensure that the licensee’s 

evaluation was of sufficient breadth and depth to identify other plant equipment, processes, or 

human performance issues that may have been impacted by the root causes of the 

performance issue. For example, if in the above example the inadequate installation of rebar 

was due to inadequate oversight from the procurement organization, the inspectors should 

review other components being accepted by procurement to assess their adequacy. The depth 

of the extent of cause review should be commensurate with the nature and complexity of the 

original performance issue. For those instances where multiple issues have been documented, 

the inspectors should consider performing a broad-based inspection(s) to assess performance 

across the different work processes. If this IP is being performed due to a single yellow issue, a 

more focused inspection would likely be appropriate.

Consideration should also be given to the comprehensiveness of the licensee’s evaluations. In 

those cases where significant weaknesses are identified in the licensee’s evaluations during 

implementation of Sections 90002-02.01 through 02.03 of this procedure, consideration should 

be given to performing a more in-depth programmatic review of the licensee’s corrective action 

program.

03.05 Safety Culture Consideration

For the individual and collective safety significant performance issues, determine that the root 

cause evaluation appropriately considered whether a weakness in any safety culture trait was a 

root cause or a significant contributing cause of any safety-significant performance issue, as 

follows:
Issue Date: 10/28/14 12 90002

a. Confirm that the licensee performed an evaluation and considered all of the safety 

culture traits listed in IMC 0613, Appendix F, and that a basis exists for the conclusion

of whether or not any safety culture trait could reasonably have been a root cause or 

significant contributing cause of the deficiency.

b. Review the licensee’s evaluation to determine and/or discuss with appropriate 

personnel whether the root cause methodology considered whether a possible 

weakness in a safety culture trait could have been a root cause or a significant 

contributing cause of the deficiency. If so, also verify that the consideration included at 

least those traits that the inspectors determined could reasonably have been a root 

cause or a significant contributing cause of the deficiency.

c. If the licensee did not consider whether a possible weakness in a particular safety 

culture trait could have been a root cause or a significant contributing cause of the 

deficiency, and if the inspectors determined that a weakness in the same trait could 

reasonably have been a root cause or a significant contributing cause of the deficiency, 

then independently perform an evaluation. The evaluation should be extensive enough 

to (1) determine whether a weakness in that trait actually was a root cause or a 

significant contributing cause of the deficiency and (2) establish the relationship 

between the weakness and the deficiency. If the inspector’s evaluation shows that a 

weakness in a safety culture trait actually was the root cause or a significant 

contributing cause of the deficiency, and the licensee’s evaluation did not recognize that 

cause or contribution, refer to IMC 2505 to properly disposition the issue (e.g., holding 

open the associated performance issue past two quarters in the Construction Action 

Matrix).

90002-04 RESOURCE ESTIMATE

It is estimated that this procedure will take approximately 200 hours to complete. The resources 

required to complete this procedure will vary greatly depending on the specific procedure(s) 

chosen to independently assess the validity of the licensee’s evaluation of extent of condition 

and extent of cause, the effectiveness of the licensee corrective action program, and the 

complexity of the issue(s).

A combination of procedures or portions of procedures as described in Section 02.04 can also 

be used as appropriate to independently assess the extent of condition and the extent of cause. 

Inspection hours utilized in fulfilling this inspection requirement should be charged to IP 90002, 

regardless of the specific procedure(s) chosen for implementation.

95002-05 PROCEDURE COMPLETION

Meeting the inspection objectives defined in Section 90002-01 of this IP will constitute 

completion. A failure to satisfy this IP’s inspection objectives will normally result in continued 

inspection under this IP and may result in holding open the associated performance issue past 

two quarters in the Construction Action Matrix. Refer to IMC 2505 for additional information.

END
Issue Date: 10/28/14 Att1-1 90002

Attachment 1 – Revision History for IP 90002

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 ML112270533

11/22/2011

CN 11-037

This is an initial issuance N/A ML113250189

N/A ML14231B076

10/28/14

CN 14-026

This revision changed terms related to safety 

culture to be consistent with IMC 0613, 

NUREG 2165 and the NRC safety culture 

policy. 

N/A N/A