ML20017A089

NEI Description - Best Practice for Issue Escalation_012220

ML20017A089
Person / Time
Site:	Nuclear Energy Institute
Issue date:	01/17/2020
From:	Tekia Govan NRC/NRR/DRO/IRSB, Nuclear Energy Institute
To:
Govan T, 415-6196, NRR/DRO
References
Download: ML20017A089 (5)

Text

Issue Escalation Process (Model for ROP Task Force)

Background

In NEIs September 19, 2018 letter to NRC on Reactor Oversight Process (ROP) Enhancement, Recommen-dation 4D said that industry would develop a best practices document on escalation of issues resulting from disagreements with inspection results and conclusions. The recommendation was intended to en-sure expectations for the handling of disagreements between NRC and the licensees are aligned on both sides of the regulatory relationship. Most licensees follow similar approaches to escalating disagree-ments on regulatory issues up their management chain. Recommendation 4D was to improve on this general similarity by providing to industry, and sharing with NRC, a consensus best practice on how to escalate regulatory disagreements, particularly those arising from inspections. This Issue Escalation Pro-cess is the result of Recommendation 4D and the work of members of the ROP Task Force, particularly a team led by Dave Gudger of Exelon. Questions or comments should be sent to NEIs Jim Slider at jes@nei.org or (202) 739-8015.

Introduction During the normal course of business, it may become necessary to address opposing positions on a regu-latory issue. In some cases, an independent peer reviewer or subject matter expert may be all that is required. However, in other cases, it may be necessary to escalate to higher levels of management.

This document presents a protocol for escalation to ensure that escalation occurs only when necessary and in a manner that maintains the integrity of the relationships between those holding opposing posi-tions.

Issue Escalation is a communication tool that ensures the appropriate level of management engagement and oversight necessary to drive resolution of issues at the lowest level possible. This protocol provides a systematic means to define and communicate a position that is based on verifiable information as well as insights from relevant operating experience. This protocol will be necessary when, after the neces-sary due diligence is applied, two or more affected parties have opposing positions regarding an issue or event. The methodology ensures complete and accurate understanding of a developed position at each level of management to enable appropriate intervention can take place at that level.

Escalation should be considered only when opposing positions remain unresolved after a robust and candid dialogue has occurred between the affected parties. In other words, discussion of the disagree-ment at the current level of both organizations must be completed before escalating the matter to the next level up.

A robust and candid dialogue is one in which an agreed upon problem statement, supporting facts, rele-vant requirements (i.e., completely encompassing and not short-sighted), and logical conclusions, are shared among the appropriate decision makers. Table 1 provides a recommended traveler documenting the essential information and the results of the escalation in a consistent manner. Table 2 provides an illustration of the counterpart levels for escalation between NRC and the licensee.

Following sections describe the principles that should guide the escalation process, and illustrative ac-tions that would fulfill those principles.

Page 1 of 5 Revised 20200113

Issue Escalation Process (Model for ROP Task Force)

Principles of the Escalation Process Principle 1 - Perform Due Diligence: Ideally, issues should be resolved between the issue-owning su-pervisors. For this reason, escalation should not be considered until after appropriate due diligence is exhausted at the current level of the organization(s).

Principle 2 - Agree to Escalate: Ideally, escalation should not occur until both the parties agree that es-calation is necessary. For this reason, both parties should communicate their intent to escalate before escalating. When communicating the intent to escalate, the primary goal should be to obtain alignment that escalation is necessary.

NOTE: Always consider using existing processes (FAQs, Regulatory Conference, etc.)

as viable exit ramps from the escalation process where applicable.

Principle 3 - Escalate One Step at a Time: Ideally, issues should be resolved at the lowest level possible.

For this reason, escalation should occur in a systematic step-wise fashion (as opposed to going straight to the top).

Principle 4 - Communicate Results: Ideally, the disagreeing parties should be aligned on the resolution of an escalated issue. For this reason, it is important to communicate to everyone involved in the chain of escalation the insights and information that were instrumental to the ultimate decision makers who provided the final resolution of the disagreement.

Principle 5 - Lessons Learned: Ideally, escalation should be necessary only for disagreements arising from ambiguity in, or interpretation of, the applicable standards or when a specific event is of such a unique nature that existing guidance cannot be applied without interpretation. For this reason, when an issue is escalated, both parties should look for improvements in guidance or decision-making processes that could preclude the need to escalate similar issues in the future.

Action Plan for Escalating Issues between the Licensee and NRC The actions presented below are meant to be illustrative and not intended to be prescriptive or binding.

Site- and company-specific policies and procedures may govern how the suggested actions are to be ac-complished at a particular plant.

Principle 1 Actions to Ensure Due Diligence:

- Supervisors and subject matter experts and site regulatory staff should review the communi-cated concern and develop a documented position based on applicable regulatory guidance, verifiable information and insights from relevant operating experience.

- Supervisors and managers should ensure that appropriate challenges and rigor are applied when finalizing a position. Consider peer checks from independent parties.

- Site regulatory staff should ensure the final position is shared with stakeholders. This includes the bases for the position, as well as alternatives considered, where applicable.

- The NRC inspector (or inspection team) shares the position of their technical staff with the licen-see (e.g., during an inspection exit meeting).

- Site regulatory staff should facilitate a conference with NRC technical staff and appropriate li-censee personnel. Opposing positions should be shared in a robust and candid dialogue with mutually agreed upon objectives.

Page 2 of 5 Revised 20200113

Issue Escalation Process (Model for ROP Task Force)

NOTE: Refer to utility specific procedures regarding preparing for meetings with the NRC as well as company Communication expectations with outside agencies Principle 2 Actions - Agree to Escalate:

Note: These steps apply at all levels of the escalation.

- Either NRC or licensee believes the issue should be escalated and communicates to the other party an intent to escalate.

- Bases for escalation should be clearly communicated, including salient points of disagreement.

- Both NRC and licensee agree that due diligence is complete, opposing positions are fully under-stood, concur with salient points of disagreement, and agree to escalate.

- Both NRC and licensee develop a focused escalation request (e.g., using the Attachment) sum-marizing the issue, the points of agreement, and the salient points of disagreement between the two positions that are preventing resolution.

- NRC and licensee agree on timing for coordinated escalation.

NOTE: Once escalation is agreed to, develop a Traveler document based on the attached template to maintain continuity between meetings.

Principle 3 Actions - Stepwise Escalation Note: NRC/Licensee example in italics

- Each step of the escalation process begins with Principle 1 actions (with appropriate owners) to ensure due diligence and alignment at each level. (See Table 2 below.)

- First Escalation - Escalate to the next level or authority, may not be completely independent:

NRC Branch Chief and Licensees Site Functional Area Manager (SFAM) or Licensing Manager

- Second Escalation - Escalate to the first level of authority that is independent:

NRC Deputy Director and Licensees Site Department Head or Corporate Licensing Director / Cor-porate Functional Area Manager (CFAM)

- Third Escalation - Escalate to independent subject matter experts at the next level of authority:

NRC Director or Deputy Regional Administrator and Licensees Site or Corporate VP

- Final Escalation - Consider if issue has generic applicability:

NRC Regional Administrator and Utility Senior VP Principle 4 Actions - Communicate Results:

- Parties reach resolution and identify key insights which supported resolution

- The final resolution, including key insights that led to decision, is shared back down the chain of escalation to the original inspector and site supervisor.

Principle 5 Actions - Lessons Learned:

- Both parties, using key insights as a guide, consider lessons learned from the escalation outcome as a basis for potential process improvements to avert the need for escalation in the future.

Page 3 of 5 Revised 20200113

Issue Escalation Process (Model for ROP Task Force)

Table 1: Escalation Template ESCALATION ISSUE

SUMMARY

AND FACTS TITLE:

PROBLEM STATEMENT:

EVENT

SUMMARY

(CAP summary /

timeline, etc.)

REGULATORY POSITION: NRC: LICENSEE:

(Facts only)

Bases, Supporting Information: Bases, Supporting Information:

APPLICABLE STANDARDS: (Reg Guides, NEI Documents, RISs, GLs, etc.)

OTHER RELEVANT DOCUMENTS:

(Root Cause / Operator Logs /

Maintenance Records, etc.)

REGULATORY SIGNIFICANCE:

JUSTIFICATION FOR LSSIR: (if Justify why NOT in Licensing Basis:

applicable)

Justify why LOW saftey significance:

IMPACT OR CONSEQUENCE: Impact on Plant / Utility (Cost):

Industry Impact (Precedent Setting):

ISSUE OWNER: (Affected/Owning Department)

ESCALATION I MEETING RESULTS MEETING DATE, PARTICIPANTS UPDATED INFORMATION, FACTS, RESOLUTIONS ACTIONS TAKEN ESCALATION II MEETING RESULTS MEETING DATE, PARTICIPANTS UPDATED INFORMATION, FACTS, RESOLUTIONS ACTIONS TAKEN ESCALATION III MEETING RESULTS MEETING DATE, PARTICIPANTS UPDATED INFORMATION, FACTS, RESOLUTIONS ACTIONS TAKEN Page 4 of 5 Revised 20200113

Issue Escalation Process (Model for ROP Task Force)

Table 2: Management Counterparts Level of Escalation Licensee NRC Initial Issue Owners Functional Area Supervisor (FLS) Senior Resident Inspector or Inspection Team lead Initial Escalation Manager, Site Functional Area and Corpo- Branch Chief rate Reg Assurance Manager Second Escalation Site Department Head, Corporate Func- Deputy Director tional Area Manager Third Escalation Site VP and Corporate Director, Regulatory Director or Deputy Regional Affairs Administrator Final Escalation Utility VP (Functional Area and Reg Affairs) Regional Administrator Page 5 of 5 Revised 20200113