ML020920610

NRC Region I Public Meeting with Licensee Re Feedback Analysis Form for IP2

ML020920610
Person / Time
Site:	Indian Point
Issue date:	04/02/2002
From:	Blough A, Eselgroth P NRC Region 1
To:
References
Download: ML020920610 (3)

Text

NRC REGION I PUBLIC MEETING FEEDBACK ANALYSIS FORM Meeting Date: February 27, 2002 Meeting Location: Public Meeting Room Meeting Purpose/

Subject:

Regulatory Performance Meeting to review Entergy's performance improvement efforts in the areas of equipment reliability, design and configuration control, human performance, and problem identification and resolution for Indian Point 2, a multiple degraded cornerstone plant.

Was the overall public perception of the meeting POSITIVE or NEGATIVE? Positive Summarize feedback received (consider the factors described on the next page):

One feedback form was submitted with a generally positive tone and with no additional comments. Five members of the public attended the meeting. During the meeting, only one individual had a general comment about performance indicators which was addressed by the NRC. No additional followup was required.

Any useful suggestions / ideas:

None Constructive criticism (what can be improved):

None Actions recommended as a result of feedback received:

None Other actions planned:

None Meeting Sponsor Date: 3/Zf/2002 P.W. E groth Division Director: 6,* h Date: 2.1,2002 A. R. Blough Package together with this form:

Meeting Summary Feedback Forms Within 3 weeks of meeting date, deliver completed package to Region I DNMS Division Secretary.

Factors to consider in your discussion:

1. Provide some perspective regarding the meeting "atmosphere". For example, public concerned because of some earlier was the event? What recent news had motivated people to come to the meeting?

2. Were people expecting to have an opportunity to express their views, when the meeting was not intended or designed to provide such an opportunity?

3. Has the public's perception of, or opposition to, the meeting subject already been strongly expressed in the area media?

Keep in mind that the purpose of this analysis is on the quality of NRC communications to improve them. The purpose does and how not include how to persuade stakeholders message; they may not like the NRC, to like the the licensee, or the message to be delivered.

objective is to make our communications Our to the stakeholders more effective.

Page 2 of 2

U.S. INUC-*.Rt- RGUULATORY COMMISSION NRC PUBLIC MEETING FEEDBACK Meeting Meeting Date: February 27, 2002

Title:

Discuss Entergy's IP-2 Fundamentals Improvement Plan The NRC recognizes the public's interest in the proper regulation of nuclear activities and is committed to understanding and including public input into our decisions. The NRC seeks to elicit public involvement early in the regulatory process so that safety concerns that may affect a community can be resolved in a timely and practical manner. This process is considered vital to assuring the public that the NRC is making sound, balanced decisions about nuclear safety. If you would like more information about NRC, please visit our web site at www.nrc.gov.

1. Why did you attend this meeting? 10. Was the written material useful in understanding the topic? A/,,

F-1 a. I am a local resident XD . I work for an interested organization LI a. Very LI b. Somewhat [] c. Not at all LI c. I am concerned about environmental issues F] d. I am concerned about economic issues

11. Were NRC's presentations and material presented in El e. Other cdear, understandable language?

2. Were you familiar with the meeting topic prior to coming b. No N a. Yes today?

12. In your opinion, did the meeting achieve its stated purpose?

nI a. Very b. Somewhat [] c. Not at all

[ a. Yes Ej b. No

3. How did you find out about this meeting?

nI a. NRC mailing list d. Inten net 13. Has this meeting helped you with your understanding of LI b. Newspaper e. Othe .r the topic?

LI c. RadiofTV 0)'_

I El a. Greatly

• b. Somewhat F1 c. Not at all

4. Have you attended an NRC meeting before?

a. Never F] c. 3 to 5 times 14. How well did NRC staff respond to your concerns at this

b. 1 or 2 times F] d. More than 5 times meeting?

5. Was sufficient notice given in advance of the meeting? nI a. My concerns were directly addressed LI b. I was provided an alternate source of information Ho a. Yes -] b. No to address my concerns

6. How well do you feel you understand the NRC's role with regard to the issues discussed today? c. I did not raise my concerns at this meeting n a. Very well [* b. Somewhat f] c. Not at all [] d. I raised my concerns but am not satisfied with the

7. Were you able to find all of the supporting information response you wanted prior to the meeting? 15. Was adequate time allotted for discussion with NRC FI a. Yes staff on the topic of today's meeting?

, b. I did not try to find any information Sa. Yes [] b. No

c. No

8. Was the purpose of the meeting made clear in the 16. How satisfied are you overall with the NRC staff who preliminary information you received? participated in the meeting?

12 a. Yes n b. No ?a. Very F] b. Somewhat [] c. Not at all

9. In your opinion, were people's questions answered 17. Were the next steps in this process clearly explained, clearly, completely and candidly?

including how you can continue to be involved?

FE1a. Yes --1 b. No Ea. Yes L] b. No If you would like someone to contact you, please provide your name and phone number or email.

Name 4eS5iC'1- eL-j ' Telephone (? I-Lbn- ,(-PL E-Mail-<

S; ": -- i I £ d0o 0R 00

, Expires:

0MB NO. 3150-01OW7 Public Protedion tctilication: Ifa means used to impose an information colleclion does not display a currently valid OMB control number, the NRC may not oonduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to resund to, the information collecton.

Please fold on the dotted lines with Business Reply side out, tape the bottom, and mail back to the NRC.