ML021400304

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
NRC Region I Public Meeting Feedback Annual Assessment Meeting Conducted by the NRC to Provide Nrc'S Annual Assessment of IP3 Performance
ML021400304
Person / Time
Site: Indian Point Entergy icon.png
Issue date: 05/17/2002
From: Blough A, Eselgroth P
NRC Region 1
To:
References
Download: ML021400304 (2)


Text

NRC REGION I PUBLIC MEETING FEEDBACK ANALYSIS FORM Meeting Date: April 11, 2002 Meeting Location: Verplanck Fire House - Verplanck, NY Meeting Purpose/

Subject:

Annual Assessment Meeting conducted by the NRC to provide NRCs annual assessment of IP3 performance.

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

One anonymous form was submitted with a generally positive tone and with no additional comments. Approximately 50 people attended the meeting and about 10 of these were from the public, the remainder were Entergy employees. During the meeting, three people had comments which were addressed by the NRC. One local official asked a number of questions regarding plant security, plant protection, and evacuation issues within the local communities. These were also 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 _____/RA/______________ Date: 5/17/2002 P. W. Eselgroth Division Director: ____/RA/______________ Date: 5/17/2002 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.

2 Factors to consider in your discussion:

1. Provide some perspective regarding the meeting atmosphere. For example, was the public concerned because of some earlier 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 publics 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 and how to improve them. The purpose does not include how to persuade stakeholders to like the message; they may not like the NRC, the licensee, or the message to be delivered. Our objective is to make our communications to the stakeholders more effective.

Page 2 of 2