DOE OSTI2018
The licensing process for any facility associated with nuclear power or aspects of the nuclear fuel cycle can be expected to encounter intense stakeholder interest, and often significant challenges. Over the last decade, staff of the Center for Nuclear Waste Regulatory Analyses (CNWRA{sup R}) at Southwest Research Institute{sup R} (SwRI{sup R}) provided comprehensive support to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) for public outreach efforts across a wide variety of nuclear activities. Many of these projects included public involvement and consultation activities for compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), including scoping, public meetings, responding to public comments on draft documents, and holding small meetings with affected local, state, and tribal governments. In addition, we have supported NRC public outreach related to nuclear facility licensing activities (including the proposed repository at Yucca Mountain), rulemaking, and regulatory guidance development. This experience has offered us a broad view of the challenges faced by industry, regulators, and stakeholders. In the process, we have observed some best practices that lead to effective stakeholder communication. Communication about complex technical issues is challenging, particularly for societally controversial topics, such as civilian use of nuclear power and management of radioactive waste. Most commonly, we have observed a lack of mutual trust and respect among industry, regulators, and stakeholders that creates an atmosphere ripe for suspicion and misunderstanding. Stakeholders have, in public comments, criticized the lack of appropriate venues to raise concerns in which they feel they can get meaningful responses from the nuclear industry and regulators. Conversely, industry faces difficulty in reaching compromise with stakeholders, who sometimes misinterpret or misrepresent factual information. Within this contentious environment, regulators are constrained by their statutory framework, even as they are challenged to be more responsive, transparent, and fair to both stakeholders and industry. In spite of these obstacles, there are examples where feedback from stakeholders was heard and utilized. Because of successful collection of appropriate feedback, regulators became more adept at understanding the full range of perspectives from both industry and stakeholders, and subsequently did a better job at effectively incorporating feedback and communicating their decisions and findings in a clear and understandable way. Ultimately, the success of these examples was based on a measure of mutual respect, which was reached through effective communication and implementation of some best practices. These best practices include (i) outreach planning that is abundantly mindful of the various stakeholder points of view, site history, regional characteristics, and probable future and related actions, combined with advance identification of key stakeholders; (ii) development and distribution of information that facilitates public participation; and (iii) use of avenues by which stakeholders can provide meaningful and effective comments. Illustrative examples include (i) how concerns raised by stakeholders were heard by an applicant and resulted in a revised project proposal; (ii) use of a variety of interaction formats that incorporated input across a broad spectrum of stakeholders; (iii) utilizing stakeholder feedback received during scoping; and (iv) how a facility underestimated the impact of 'outsider' stakeholder voices that were in contrast to the known local community. By moving past the viewpoint that public outreach is a 'necessary evil' and engaging only to check a procedural box, each participant can benefit from mutually satisfactory and improved outcomes. (author)
22 GENERAL STUDIES OF NUCLEAR REACTORS↗