nei lawyers committee meetingresources.nei.org/documents/legal/masterslidesformarch... ·...

NEI LAWYERS COMMITTEE MEETING

Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman Conference Center

Washington, DC March 12, 2012

Introduction and Welcome

Administrative Matters

Ellen Ginsberg Vice President , General Counsel and

Secretary Nuclear Energy Institute

Keynote Address

Stephen G. Burns General Counsel

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Keynote Address

Marvin S. Fertel President & CEO

Nuclear Energy Institute

Update on Developments in Whistleblower Law

Donn Meindertsma Partner

Connor & Winters

Copyright 2012 by Conner & Winters, LLP. All rights reserved 8

UNLAWFUL HARASSMENT

IN THE WORKPLACE

Whistleblower Legal Trends

NEI Lawyers Committee March 12,

2012

Presented by Donn C. Meindertsma, Conner & Winters, LLP



• More laws • More bad law • Section 211



• Bounty Provisions • SEC Whistleblowers • CFTC

Whistleblowers • Tax Whistleblowers

X

More laws



• New Employment Protections • Dodd-Frank • Enhanced SOX • “Best practices” or

“gold standard” model

More laws



DOL ARB Changing the Law Paul M. Igasaki

E. Cooper Brown Joanne Royce Luis A. Corchado Lisa Wilson Edwards

More bad law



Expanding Procedural Protection

• Discouraging pre-trial dismissals • Looking beyond the trial record • Reaching out to address issues • More protective of pro se

complainants

More bad law



Expanding Substantive Protection

• Broadening SOX Coverage

More bad law




• Stretching “Protected Activity” • Expanding “Adverse Action” • Curbing “Legitimate” Reasons

for Personnel Action

More bad law




• Discarding “retaliatory animus” requirement • Menendez (SOX) • DeFrancesco (FRSA)

More bad law



RICO Retaliation Revival

• 18 USC § 1513(e) (SOX provision)

• DeGuelle v. Camilli (7th Cir.)

More bad law



Section 211 Siemaszko v. FENOC (211(g))

“Acting without direction from” employer: “[T]he overriding consideration is whether the employer was sufficiently involved such that a reasonable factfinder could conclude that there was expressed or implied ‘direction’ or ‘pressure’ on the complainant to commit the acts that led to the violation of the ERA or AEA.”



Section 211


Questions?

Commission Voting Process

Darani Reddick Legal Counsel

Commissioner Kristine Svinicki U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Darani Reddick Deputy Chief of Staff

& Legal Counsel Office of Commissioner Svinicki

Topics

Legal & procedural framework What is a vote? Why the process matters The process Issues

23

Energy Reorganization Act of 1974 “…a quorum for the transaction of business

shall consist of at least three members present.”

“Action of the Commission shall be determined by a majority of the members present.”

Government in the Sunshine Act Internal Commission Procedures

24

25

Hearing of the House Energy & Commerce Committee Subcommittee on Energy & Power

March 16, 2011

Response to Staff or Commissioner- generated document (written notation vote)

26

Votes at meetings Affirmation sessions When are votes “final”?

Mandatory Hearing for Vogtle Combined Operating License, Sept. 27, 2011

27

Commission makes decisions and issues direction to NRC Staff through voting

Transparency of decision-making Process can have substantive impacts

28

- non-adjudicatory & non-rulemaking items

29

Each Commissioner votes

Office of the Secretary tallies votes and circulates a draft Staff Requirements Memorandum (SRM)

Commissioners approve/disapprove/ modify draft SRM

Secretary circulates subsequent versions of draft SRM, if necessary, until majority position reached

Secretary issues final SRM

30

- adjudicatory items

Each Commissioner votes

Office of Commission Appellate Adjudication (OCAA) circulates draft final order reflecting votes

Commissioners approve/disapprove/ modify draft final order

OCAA circulates subsequent versions of draft final order, if necessary, until majority position reached

Commission affirms final order in public meeting & final order issued

- Rulemaking items

Proposed Rule Notation vote SRM process No affirmation

required

Final Rule Notation vote SRM-like

process Requires

affirmation Final “SRM”

issued upon affirmation

31

- Affirmation session

Affirmation of the Vogtle Mandatory Hearing Order, Feb. 9, 2012 Commission Meeting 1.avi

32

Timing How long do you have to vote? Extensions of time Procedural mechanisms to compel votes

When is a vote “final”? Scrutability of votes “Secret” voting

33

What happens when there is no quorum?

Tied votes

34

Many procedural nuances Room for interpretation Process matters Questions?

Contact Info: [email protected]

(t) 301.415.1855

35

mailto:[email protected]

Fuel Cycle Developments

Donald Silverman Partner

Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP

www.morganlewis.com

US Fuel Cycle Industry Status Report

Donald J. Silverman

March 12, 2012

© Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP

US Fuel Cycle Industry Status Report

• Revised Regulatory Structure – How Is It Going?

• Uranium Hexafluoride Conversion • Enrichment • Fuel Fabrication • Uranium Deconversion • Recycling (Reprocessing)

38


Revised Regulatory Structure

• Significant Revisions to Part 70 in 2000 – Performance-Based/Risk Informed

• NEI Early Involvement Paid Dividends – ISA Requirement

– High Consequence Events – Highly Unlikely; Intermediate Consequence Events – Unlikely

– “IROFS”, “Management Measures”

– 50.59 “Like” Change Process

39


Uranium Hexafluoride Conversion

• Honeywell International Inc., – Metropolis, Illinois

• Sequoyah Fuels – Gore, Oklahoma

40


Enrichment

• USEC – Piketon, Ohio GDP

– Paducah, Kentucky GDP

– ACP, Piketon

• URENCO USA (LES) – Eunice, New Mexico NEF

• AREVA Enrichment Services (Eagle Rock) – Bonneville County, Idaho

• GE- Hitachi Global Laser Enrichment – Wilmington, NC

41


Fuel Fabrication

• Global Nuclear Fuel-Americas – Wilmington, North Carolina

• Westinghouse – Columbia, South Carolina

• NFS – Erwin, Tennessee

• AREVA NP – Richland, Washington

– Lynchburg, Virginia

• B&W Nuclear Operations Group – Lynchburg, Virginia

• Shaw AREVAMOX Services – Aiken, South Carolina

42


Uranium Deconversion

• Uranium Disposition Services – Piketon, Ohio (DOE)

– Paducah, Kentucky (DOE)

• International Isotopes – Hobbs, NM

43


Recycling (Reprocessing)

• Industry Initiative • NEI Activities • NRC Priorities • “BRC” Recommendations

44

© Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP 45

international presence Beijing Boston Brussels Chicago Dallas Frankfurt Harrisburg Houston Irvine London Los Angeles Miami New York Palo Alto Paris Philadelphia Pittsburgh Princeton San Francisco Tokyo Washington Wilmington

Fukushima Update First Hand Experience with Mother Nature: Fukushima, Other Natural

Phenomena, and the Industry’s Regulatory Response

David Heacock President & Chief Nuclear Officer

Dominion Nuclear

© 2012 Dominion

First Hand Experience with Mother Nature

Mr. David A. Heacock President, Chief Nuclear Officer

NEI Lawyers Committee Meeting March 12, 2012

© 2012 Dominion

Dominion Overview

50

© 2012 Dominion

Dominion Generation - Utility

Mt. Storm

Remington Possum Point

Gordonsville Bath County North Anna

Bremo

Pittsylvania Clover

Roanoke Rapids

Chesterfield

Surry

Ladysmith

Yorktown

Elizabeth River Chesapeake

Mecklenburg

Rosemary Gaston

PJM Current ~ 19,000 MW

Altavista

Southampton

Bellemeade

Hopewell

Coal

Natural Gas

Nuclear Hydro Oil-Gas Capacity Biomass

Coal and Oil

Future VA City Hybrid Energy Center

Bear Garden

Future Warren County Power Station

© 2012 Dominion

Dominion Generation - Merchant

MISO market effective 4/1/2005. State Line and Kincaid are physically located in MISO but operate in PJM.

.

MISO

NYPP

NE-ISO

PJM

NedPower

Millstone

Manchester Brayton Point

Current ~ 9,200 MW

State Line

Fairless

Kincaid Coal

Natural Gas

Nuclear

Coal and Oil

Wind

Under LT Contract

Fowler Ridge

Kewaunee

Elwood

MISO market effective 4/1/2005. State Line and Kincaid are physically located in MISO but operate in PJM.

Salem Harbor

52

© 2012 Dominion

Our Core Values

Safety

Ethics

Excellence

1 Dominion

53

© 2012 Dominion

MARCH 11, 2011

54

© 2012 Dominion

Nuclear Energy in Japan 54 nuclear reactors (49

gigawatts) Two nuclear units

under construction Tokyo Electric Power

Co. produces 27% of Japan’s electricity

12,000 MW of nuclear energy capacity shut down as a result of the earthquake and tsunami

55

© 2012 Dominion

Fukushima - Initial Response

More waves approach Fukushima Daiichi station immediately after a tsunami struck following a magnitude 9 earthquake in the Tomioka, Fukushima prefecture . This still image is from a video taken on March 11, 2011.

56

© 2012 Dominion

Tsunami Inundation at Fukushima Daiichi

Source: TEPCO

57

© 2012 Dominion

Fukushima - Industry Response

NEI, INPO, EPRI – leading U.S. nuclear organizations team up to create a communications focal point

Industry CEOs/CNOs participates in daily phone with Japan to stay abreast of latest developments

Several utilities, including Dominion, send personnel to Washington to assist in providing 24 hr coverage

Meanwhile 36 days later 7,379 miles away…..

59

© 2012 Dominion

Surry Station – Tornado Path

Switchyard

60

© 2012 Dominion

Surry Station Switchyard

61

© 2012 Dominion

Surry Station – Fuel Oil Transfer Truck

62

© 2012 Dominion

THEN 165 DAYS AFTER FUKUSHIMA….

63

© 2012 Dominion

8/23/11 13:51

Earthquake Epicenter

North Anna Power Station

64

© 2012 Dominion

North Anna Station – Spent Fuel Storage

65

© 2012 Dominion

North Anna – TN-32.21 Cask Movement

66

© 2012 Dominion

Cracks

North Anna Station – Containment, Seal Table Room

67

© 2012 Dominion

Powdex Demineralizer Tanks and Base Pedestal

(Non-safety Related)

North Anna Station – Turbine Building

68

© 2012 Dominion

North Anna - Timeline Governors Staff called Nuclear Operations Senior VP

at home Amount of media attention was greater than expected

News media went directly to the site instead of reporting to their emergency response facilities

CNN called CNO within 72 mins of the event Engineering VP leaves Corporate Emergency Facility,

for 30 mins is out of communication, arrives at site is immediately sequestered into a press conference without the chance of catching up on status

Governor and House Majority Leader on site within 24 hours Reality didn’t conform to the plan…..

69

© 2012 Dominion

North Anna – Unchartered Territory NRC Reg. Guides and an EPRI* document No one had used the path We cleared the path, focused on that path Restart 110,000 hrs and $21M+ Four public meetings

September 7, 2011 October 3, 2011 October 21, 2011 November 1, 2011

*Electric Power Research Institute 70

© 2012 Dominion

North Anna - Dominion’s Strategy

Create clear success path Open communication with NRC and other

stakeholders Create project management team Communicated with the NRC at all levels Commission briefing strategy – basis for

restart - “Why the Plant is Safe”

71

© 2012 Dominion

Present Day – NRC Fukushima Recommendations Seismic and flood hazard re-evaluations Seismic and flood walkdowns Station blackout (SBO) regulatory actions Equipment covered under 50.54(hh)(2) Reliable hardened vents for Mark I and Mark II

containments Spent Fuel Pool instrumentation Strengthening and integration of emergency

operating procedures, Severe Accident Management Guidelines (SAMGs), and extensive damage mitigation guidelines

Emergency preparedness regulatory actions (staffing and communications)

72

Fukushima Update Industry Strategic Response Plan to

Fukushima

Joseph Pollock Executive Director Nuclear Operations

Nuclear Energy Institute

Fukushima Strategic Response Plan

03/12/2012

76 76

Strategic Response Plan Update

What it is:

• Activity based snapshot of SECY 0137 Tier one actions and those impacts to the U.S. nuclear fleet

• Dates/ tasks/ durations provided by task force leads performing frequent engagement with the NRC staff in order to establish key milestones

• Included are assumptions and issues pertaining to the Tier one actions

•Will be updated after final orders and 50.54f letters issued

77

Licensee Activities (perspective) 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 1st 2nd 3rd 4th

2.1 Flooding analysis 1st 20 sites1st 20 sites

2nd 20 sites2nd 20 sites

2.1 Seismic analysis1st 12 sites

2nd 12 sites

2.1 Other events analysis

2.3 Flooding walkdowns

2.3 Seismic walkdowns

4.1 SBO

4.2 Flex Equipment

5.1 Hardened Vents

7.1 SFP Instrumentation

8 SAMG/EOP/EDMG

9.3 EP Staffing

9.3 EP Communications

NRC Actions

Acceptance, Review, SubmittalImplement Modifications

2016 2017

Guidance DevelopmentPerform analysis and design

2012 2013 2014 2015

78

NEI Guidance development and NRC endorsement

Mar-12 Apr-12 May-12 Jun-12 Jul-12 Aug-12 Sep-12 Oct-12 Nov-12 Dec-12 Jan-13

2.1 Flooding analysis

2.1 Seismic analysis

2.1 Other events analysis

2.3 Flooding walkdowns

2.3 Seismic walkdowns

4.1 SBO

4.2 Flex Equipment

5.1 Hardened Vents


8 SAMG/EOP/EDMG

9.3 EP Staffing


NEI development NRC endorsement

79

Site 50.54(f) and Order responses 2012 responses

2.1 Analysis All Sep Risk Assessment Approach/ Acceptance Criteria

2.3 Walkdowns Flood Jun Confirm walkdown procedures or alternative Seismic Jul Confirm walkdown procedures or alternative

4.1 ELAP May Industry comments to ANPR

5.1 HV Jun Plan and schedule

9.3 EP Staffing Jun Dates for completion of assessment and initial questions Staffing Jul Initial questions Staffing Dec NEI10-05 (Single Unit) Comm May Dates for completion of assessment and initial questions Comm Jun Initial questions Comm NLT Oct Remaining questions

2013 responses

2.3 Walkdowns All Mar Results of walkdowns

4.2 FLEX Feb 180 day response every 6 mos After initiation of implementation

5.1 Hardened Vents Feb Plans and schedules

7.1 SFP Instrumentation Feb Plans and schedules

9.3 EP Staffing Apr Remaining questions

80

2.1 Flood Hazard Analyses

Assumptions • Analysis to New Plant Criteria

• EPRI supporting FFTF development of screening criteria for plant prioritization with input from PWROG and BWROG

• Additional time will be required for implementation of any plant mods

• Implementation by 6 years from 9 Mar 12

Issues

• Development of Std Assumptions and Terminology

• Low water levels not part of Flooding Eval

• Integrated Assessment Plan (180 day Site Response)

NEI TF- Fukushima Flooding (FFTF) – Jim Riley

9-Mar-12 May-12

NEI develop guidanceAug-12

Jun-1490 days

Mar-12 Apr-12 Jun-12 Aug-12

Jun-12 Aug-1290 days

Aug-12

Sep-12

90 days50.54(f) response

18 monthsImplementation of any plant mods

6 to 18 mos

2nd 20 sites

Aug-14

Screen hazards and establish necessary contracts

Nov-14

Site response -50.54 (f)

Utility eval of analysis

Analyses by vendor

Aug-14

Nov-14

60 daysJan-15

6 to 18 mos

60 days

NLT

50.54(f)

Analyses by vendor

120 day - 180 days

Eval Preparations

1st 20 sites

Screen hazards and establish necessary contracts

NRC endorsement of guidance

120 day - 180 daysEval Preparations

Nov-12

Feb-13

TF develop screening criteria and perform plant prioritization

NSIAC acceptance of screening criteria and

prioritization

NRC acceptance of prioritization

81

2.1 Seismic Hazard Analyses

Assumptions • Analysis to new plant methodology

• 4 far west plants performing independent evaluations

• Seismic industry can support 10-12 plants per 2 yr period

• NRC to prioritize sites based on GMRS > SSE

Issues


• Implementation will exceed Mar 2016

• Limited margin in initial 180 days

NEI TF- Seismic – Kimberly Keithline

9-Mar-12 Sep-12 Nov-1260 daysNRC endorsement

Jul-13 Sep-13Mar-12

Sep-1318 months Oct-13

1st 12 Sep-12 sites

Oct-1524 months

50.54(f) response 2nd 1250.54(f) sitesresponse

24 months

Jul-12Prioritization by EPRI/ Utilities

50.54(f) Develop NEI guidance and Implementation details

Site collection of ground data

Risk Assessment

180 days

Risk Assessment

Sites/ EPRI develop Ground Motion Response Spectra NRC accept prioritization

82

2.3 Flood Walkdowns

Assumptions • Current Design Basis/ Criteria

• FLEX equipment used in mitigation

• Implementation by Mar 2016

Issues


• Development of training requirements for walkdown teams

NEI TF- Fukushima Flooding (FFTF) – Jim Riley

9-Mar-12 Apr-12

NEI develop guidance Jun-12

NRC Endorsement Jul-1230 days

Site develop WD plan Sep-12

90 days

Nov-12

Perform walkdownsJan-13

Jun-12 Sep-12 60 days90 days Evaluate Mar-13

results 60 daysSite issue

Jun-12 50.54 (f)

50.54(f) response

NLT

NLT

50.54(f)

60 days

Site WD preparations90 days

Initial 50.54(f) response by sites

NRC review site plans

83

2.3 Seismic Walkdowns

Assumptions • Walkdown performed to current design basis

• Sampling of equipment only

• With the exception of inspections requiring planned outages, it may be possible to perform walkdowns in six months

Issues


NEI TF- Seismic – Kimberly Keithline

9-Mar-12 Jul-12 Sep-1260 daysNRC endorsement

60 days

Nov-1260 days

Jul-12 Jan-1260 days

Evaluate50.54(f) response results Mar-13

Site issue 50.54(f)

120 days50.54(f)

Develop guidance and walkdown criteria

EPRI and sites train walkdown teams

Perform walkdowns

60 days

84

4.1 Extended Loss of All AC Power Rulemaking

Assumptions • Rename to Extended Loss of all AC Power (ELAP)

• 4.2 Guidance is input to 4.1 Rule

• 4.1 ELAP Rule will codify 4.2 Order

• Rule effective Dec 2016

Issues


• Regional sites must be operational to be included in site coping strategy

NEI TF- Extended Loss of All AC Power (ELAP) – Scott Bauer

15-Mar-12 1-May-12 mid 2014 Dec-1645 daysIndustry comments final Rulemaking Effective date

4.1 ANPR issued

Jan-13

Proposed Rule issued

85

4.2 FLEX

Assumptions

• BDB event resulting in loss of AC and/or UHS

• Owners Groups complete coping analyses by Jun 2013

• 4.1 Rule will codify 4.2 Order

• ELAP TF/ 4.2 TF TF ELAP

• Implementation by Dec 2016

Issues


• Regional sites must be operational to be included in site coping strategy

NEI TF- Extended Loss of All AC Power (ELAP) – Scott Bauer

9-Mar-12 Jul-12Dec-16

Guidance developed

Aug-12

Feb-13180 days

Site Strategy/ Eval Dec-16developed NLTPhases1. Coping w/ installed equip w/ 6 mos updates to NRC2. Coping with Site FLEX equip Plant Mods for tie-ins3. Coping with Regional equip

Flex equipent ordered

4.2 Order

regional sites established

Site implementation

NRC endorsement

Sep-12

Prepare site response

ISG issued

Order on-site FLEX gear, delivered by 31 Dec 2012

NLT

31-Mar-12

86

5.1 Hardened Vents

Assumptions • 1st 24 months = scoping outage

• 2nd 24 months = installation outage

• White papers being developed by BWROG/ PWROG to address filtered vents

• Mark I / Mark II mods initial focus


Issues


• Filter decision may pass from NRC to EPA

• Pro-filter decision will drive re-design of on-going mods

BWROG/ PWROG

9-Mar-12 Apr-12

BWROG develop response Aug-12template

BWROG develop design ISG issued Feb-13principles

Sites develop response,plan, schedule Site submit plan to NRC Dec-16

NLT

Sep-12Jul-12

Develop white papers on filtered vents NRC filter decision

30 days

Implementation

Order released

No Later Than (NLT) two refueling cycles after submittal of the site plan or 31 Dec

2016, whichever comes first

87


Assumptions

• Not Safety Related • Seismic Mounting

• One permanent install/ One portable or permanent install

• No feed to Control Room required

• Power back up, portable or installed


Issues

• Portable components part of FLEX

NEI TF- Used Fuel Fukushima Response – Steven Kraft

9-Mar-12 May-12

Provide NEI GuidanceAug-12

NRC issue ISG

Feb-13NLT

Site submit plan to NRCDec-16

NLT

No Later Than (NLT) two refueling cycles after submittal of the site plan or 31 Dec

2016, whichever comes first

NLT

Implementation

7.1 Order

Site Response- Plans and Schedule for Compliance

88

8 Strengthen and Integrate SAMG/EOP/EDMG

Assumptions • All PWR SAMGs on same format NLT Dec 2015

• Plant specific SAMG training developed by Dec 2013

• Include FLEX Equip in SAMGs/ EOPs/ EDMGs when available


Issues


SAMG Action Plan Working Group (APWG) – Biff Bradley

Jul-11 Dec-15

Jul-11 Dec-13

TBR enhancement and supportJan-12 Dec-12

Dec-1560 days NLT

Sites incorporateDec-12 TBR changes Dec-15

60 days NLTSites incorporate

into SAMGs TBR changes Dec-13TBD

SAMG formatANPR issued

EPRI/ BWROG/PWROG SAMG program planning/ interaction with NRC for Rule development

into SAMGs

PWR site specific training and implementation of SAMGs

BWR site specific training and implementation of SAMGs

Owner's Groups perform coping analyses for FLEX

BWROG incorporate TBR changes

PWROG incorporate TBR changes

PWROG develop single

89

9.3 EP Staffing

Assumptions

• Prolonged ELAP at all units

• Use NEI 12-01 as guidance

• Site access limitations

• Phase 1 multi-unit staff assessment


Issues


• Phase II staff assessment of ELAP strategies adequate staff in place to support ELAP strategies

NEI TF- EP Staffing Study – Susan Perkins-Grew/ David Young

9-Mar-12 Apr-12 Dec-1250.54(f)NEI 12-01 developed NRC Endorse Guidance (12-01) Jun-12

60 days

Jul-1290 days

TBD 2014NLT

Mar-13NLT

Apr-13NLT

Apr-13 Mar-16

NLT

Site complete FLEX staffing assessment

30 days

Site response-- Dates for completion of Staffing assessment and question(s)

Site response-- initial question(s)

Implementation

Site NEI 10-05 response

Feb-13

FLEX 180 day submission

Site complete multi-unit Staffing Assessment

Site response to remaining questions

90


Assumptions

• Use NEI 12-01 as guidance

• Damage to communication infrastructure

• Equipment availability and storage assumptions need to be consistent with other task force work

• Phase approach to access


NEI TF- Communications during a Prolonged Station Blackout – Susan Perkins-Grew/ David Young

Issues


• Completion of EP communications implementation tied to ELAP strategies

9-Mar-12 Apr-1250.54(f)NEI 12-01 developed NRC Endorse Guidance (12-01) May-12

60 days

Jun-12

30-Sep-12NLT

31-Oct-12NLT

Mar-16NLT

30 days

Implementation

90 daysSite response-- Answer initial question(s)

Site complete EP Communication Assessment

Site response-- Provide dates for completion of EP Communication assessment and questions

Site response to remaining questions

Summary

The results of Guidance development will impact cost and schedule

Over a dozen regulatory action occurring concurrently requiring multiple responses

Short Cycle modification design and installation

Cost Impacts not clear at this point

91

92

Going Forward Recommendation

Update Strategic Plan to reflect current schedule after issuance of 50.54f letters and orders – Perform periodic updates on a semi annually basis

on progress including Tier 2 & 3 – NEI Develop Common Reporting Template – Establish Major Milestones for Reporting – Updates would follow the Spring and Fall Outage

seasons

93

Going Forward Recommendation

Modify the Fukushima Regulatory Response Committee charter to include Implementation Oversight – Form a Sub Group to monitor and identify

progress and trends during implementation – Coordinate implementation regulatory issues

interfaces – Development of Std Assumptions and

Terminology – Coordinate Tier 2 & 3 development

Fukushima Update Review of Industry’s FLEX Approach

Scott Bauer Senior Project Manager

Engineering & Operations Support Nuclear Energy Institute

Fukushima Update International Response to Fukushima

Lady Barbara Judge Chairman Emeritus, UK Atomic Energy Authority

UK Business Ambassador, UK Trade & Investment Chairman, Pension Protection Fund

Other Business

NEI LAWYERS COMMITTEE MEETING

Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman Conference Center

Washington, DC March 12, 2012

nei lawyers committee meetingresources.nei.org/documents/legal/masterslidesformarch... ·...

Documents