ML20059F122

Lessons Learned from TMI-2 Advisory Panel, Draft Rept for Jan 1994

ML20059F122
Person / Time
Site:	Crane
Issue date:	01/30/1994
From:	Bolton P, Durbin N, Lach D BATTELLE SEATTLE RESEARCH CENTER
To:	NRC
Shared Package
ML20059F095	List: ML20059F091 ML20059F122
References
NUDOCS 9401130159
Download: ML20059F122 (57)

Text

,

I 1

1 I

LESSONS LEARNED FROM THE TMI-2 ADVISORY PANEL DRAFT:

JANUARY 1994 Preparedfor:

Nuclear Regulatory Commission Prepared by:

Denise Lach, Ph.D.

Patricia Holton, Ph.D.

Nancy Durbin, Ph.D.

Battelle Human Affairs Research Centers Rebekah liarty Pacifie Northwest Laboratory 9401130159 940107 PDR ADOCK 050003 0 P

. _, _ ~ -.. - _. - _ ~ -

EXECUTIVE

SUMMARY

~

l TO BE PREPARED AT A LATER DATE l

i

)

l i

1 1

?

TABLE OF CONTENTS E X E C UTI V E S U M M A R Y........................................................................................... i 1.0 INTR O D U CTI O N................................................................................................

1.1 M e thod s for D ta Collectio n.................................................................. I 1.2 What We Know About Advisory Panels.................................................... 3 2.0 A BRIEF HISTORY OF THE TMI 2 ADVlSORY PANEI................................. 6 3.0 LESSONS LEARNED FROM THE TMI-2 ADVISORY PANEL........................ I1 3 1 P an e l Co mp o si tio n..................................................................................... I 1 3.1.1 Analysis of Panel Composition.................................................... 12 3.1.2 Summary of Lessons Leamed about Panel Composition............14 3.2 M c e ti n g S tru ct ure................................................................................... 14

3. 2.1 S peaki n g Rul e s........................................................................... 15

3. 2.2 S e tti n g th e A g end a...................................................................... 16 3.2.3 Meeting with the Commissioners................................................ I 8 3.2.4 Changes in the Meeting Structure............................................... 19 3.2.5 S u g ge sted Improv eme nts........................................................... 20 3.2.6 Summary of Lessons l_camed about Meeting Structure.............. 21 3.3 Pan e 1 O bj ec tiv e s........................................................................................ 21 3.3.1 Analysis of Panel Objective s....................................................... 21 3.3.2 Summary of Lessons Learned about Panel Objectives................ 23 3.4 Characteristics that Support implementation of Advisory Panels.............. 24 3.4.1 Analysis of Characteristics.......................................................... 24 3.4.2 Summary of Lessons 1camed about Characteristics

-t ihat Support Implementation of..dd.M.or.7.....f.S.M.lf........................ 25 3.5 Panel Influence on Cleanup Efforts.......................................................... 25 3.5.1 Analysis of Panel influence on Cleanup Efforts........................ 26 3.5.2 Summary of Lessons 1.camed about Panelinfluence

-.4 [n th e Cl e a n u p........................................................................

3.6 R ol e o f th e M ed i a.............................................................................. 2 7 3.6.1 Analysis of the Role of the Media............................................. 28 3.6.2 Summary of Lessons Leamed about the Role of the Media........ 29' iii l _ _ _, _. _.,,

e 3.7 A d visory Panel Lon gevity.......................................................................... 29 3.7.1 Analysis of Advisory Panel Longevity...................................... 29 3.7.2 Summary of Lessons Learned about Advisory 4

Pan e l Lo n g evi ty..................................................................................... 3 2 l

4. 0 CO N CL U S I O N S...............................................................................................

4.1 Effectiveness of TMl 2 Advisory Panel................................................... 33 l

4.2 Implic atio n s fo r NR C............................................................................... 34 5.0 APPENDIX..........................................................................................................36 j

5.1 In te rv ie w Pro tocol.................................................................................... 3 6 5.2 I n te rv i e w S a mpl e................................................................................... 4 6 5.3 Contact Documents Used with Study Participants................................... 47 5.3.1 Initial Contact Letter with Potential Study Participants............... 47

1. a 5.3.2 Interview Confirmation Letter...................................................... 48 5.3.3 In tervie w Th ank Yo u Le tter........................................................ 49

5. 4 R e fe r e n c e s............................................................................................ 5 0 Iv

.~,

1.0 INTRODUCTION

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) contracted with Battelle's Pacific Nonhwest Laboratory (PNL) and Human Affairs Research Centers (HARC) to characterize participants' experiences with the Citizens Advisory Panel instituted by the NRC after the accident at the Three Mile Island Unit 2 reactor (TMI-2). The objective of the project is to identify and describe the lessons leamed from the Advisory Panel and place those lessons in the context of what we generally know about citizen advisory groups.

1.1 Methods for Data Cc!!ection i

Three methods were used to collect data for the lessons learned analysis:

review of relevant literature on citizen advisory panels; sample and review of Advisory Panel meeting transcripts; and sample and interview of Advisory Panel participants.

Each of these methods is briefly described below.

1 Recent literature (1975 to date) in sociology, psychology, planning, public administration, political science, natural science, and law was reviewed for relevant information about the use of citizen advisory panels. This information was collected to develop a context for the analysis of the lessons learned from the TMI-2 Advisory Panel. The literature review is presented below in Section 1.2.

i A complete transcript of each Advisory Panel meeting was prepared by a court reporter who recorded and transcribed the meetings. A sample of these transcripts was selected for review and analysis. Every other meeting transcript for meetings held between 1980 and 1986 was selected for review. For the meetings held between 1987 and 1992, every third meeting transcript was selected and analyzed. All transcripts of Advisory Panel meetings with the Commissioners were reviewed. Thirty two transcripts were reviewed for this report.

Each transcript was read and coded. An analysis was prepared for each coded transcript that included information about Panel objectives, topics or issues discussed, meeting mechanics, 1

P relationships between various parties, and other issues specific to the meeting. These analyses are used to support the data collected through the interviews with Panel participants.

Interviews were conducted with a sample of past and present Advisory Panel participants including Panel members, NRC staff, licensee staff, general public, and media representatives.

Potential interviewees received a letter from the NRC Designated Federal Official (DFO) approximately 10 days before they were contacted by the study team. The letter described the purpose of the project and explained how the interviews would be conducted (attached in Section 5.3.1). Individuals were then contacted to secure their agreement to be interviewed and to schedule a convenient time for the interview. All participants who were contacted agreed to be interviewed for this report. A follow-up letter was then sent to everyone who agreed to participate, confirming the time and place of the interview (attached in Section 5.3.2). Each participant received a thank-you letter after interviews were completed (included in Section 5.3.3).

Twenty-six individuals were interviewed for this analysis. Interviews were conducted with both past and current Advisory Panel participants, including twelve Advisory Panel members, five NRC staff, three licensee staff, five members of the public, and one media representative. A description of the sample is included in Section 5.2. The interviews were conducted in person in most instances. Three interviews were conducted over the phone because the respondents were l

unavailable during the time the study team was on the East Coast interviewing Panel participants.

Each interview took about 90 minutes to complete and consisted of a series of semi-structured questions. The interview protocol is attached in Section 5.1.

A decision was made by the study team n21 to tape-record interviews. Transcribing interviews is very costly and we were able to capture the amount of detail needed for this analysis through writing participants' responses as the interviews were conducted. If possible, each interview was conducted by two researchers although several interviews were conducted by only one member of the study team. When two researchers were available for the interview, one researcher conducted the interview while the other researcher wrote down the responses. When only one researcher was available for the interview, she both conducted the interview and wrote down responses. Participants' responses were recorded on the interview protocol and later transferred to a computer database for analysis. A brief analysis of the completed interview protocols suggests that both the one-and two-person methods of recording responses provide adequate data for this analysis.

2

The interviews and analysis for this report were undertalen and completed while the Advisory Panel was stillin existence. This analysis was not intended to evaluate the effectiveness of the Advisory Panel or determine whether the Panel should continue. Instead, the purpose of the analysis was to determine lessons learned from the long lived Advisory Panel which others at the NRC and other panels may benefit from. Panel participants who were interviewed for this report, gave us their input in the belief that the Panel was continuing. To capture the spirit of those conversations, discussion about the interviews is presented in the present tense.

1.2 What We Know About Advisorv Panels Much has been written over the last twenty years about public participation in general, and more specifically, how citizen advisory panels assist organizations in decision making. Most of this work has been either descriptive or prescriptive in nature; the description of one or a few case studies of advisory panels or a list of professional prescriptions for "how to do" citizen advisory panels. While informative, this descriptive and prescriptive literature is specific to the context or situation within which it was captured and analyzed. Because the reports in the literature are so context-bound and we are unsure what role (s) the context or situation plays in advisory panel operation, the material contains little information that can be generalized with confidence to other situations. A review of the small body of empiricalliterature specific to citizen advisory panels, however, does provide details on what we currently know about such panels.

The reviewed literature is taken from a wide range of disciplines including sociology, psychology, political science, law, planning, and natural resources. Therefore, the theoretical perspectives on panels and the specific application to substantive issues varies across the literature. The findings reported here do suggest some consistency across disciplines and applications. The reviewed literature is organized into four areas:

objectives of advisory panels outcomes of advisory panels structural variables limitations of advisory panels.

Literature supporting each of these areas is briefly reviewed below.

A number of objectives for citizen advisory panels have been observed and measured across many advisory panel projects. When met, these advisory panel general expectations can serve, to 3

a a_

.,p p7-_

y y,,

m,_-e,

I i

some degree, the needs of both citizens and decisions makers. Citizen-oriented objectives for l

advisory panels include identifying and presenting citizen values and inputs to local, state, and federal decision makers (Carpenter and Kennedy 1988; Robin and Hannah 1984) and increasing participation in decision making processes (Doerksen and Pierce 1975; Dunn 1975). Objectives j

oriented more to decision makers include securing cooperation with or improving acceptability j

of official decisions (Bisogni, l.emley, and Fessenden-Raden 1983; Konnheim 1988) and generating new ideas or alternatives for problem solving (Robin and Hannah 1984). Advisory panel objectives which appear to equally serve the interests of both citizens and decision makers include educating community and panel members about issues specific to the problems as well as procedures for participating in organizational decision making (Bisogni, Lemley, and Fessenden-Raden 1983; Carpenter and Kennedy 1988) and expanding the reach and/or breadth of individuals and programs through community and agency awareness and involvement in the advisory process (Christopoulo 1974; Robin and Hannah 1984).

j While most outcomes of citizen advisory panels are specific to the individual project, a more i

general set of panel outcomes has also been documented. In general, advisory panel participants (both panel members and others involved in panel activities) report high levels of satisfaction with the outcomes of projects (Carpenter and Kennedy 1988; Desario and Langton 1987; l

Konnheim 1988). Participants in citizen advisory panels also report increased satisfaction with social institutions with which they are not directly involved (Christopoulo 1974; Desario and i

Langton 1987; Reinking and Berkholz 1982). For example, Christopoulo (1974) reports that l

citizen advisory panel participants undergo positive changes in attitudes toward govemment in j

general. Elected and non-elected officials who participate in citizen advisory panels or receive input from panels, however, report mixed opinions about the value or importance of panel recommendations and may even resist input from panels (Robin and Hannah 1984; Morgan and England 1983; Shanley 1976).

Several studies have examined how physical and procedural arrangements influence the l

perceived success or effectiveness of advisory panels. The most effective panel structure appears to be one with a balanced and independent membership, adequate resources, a strong chair, and full support from the sponsoring agency (Ashford 1984; Landre and Knuth 1992; Michels 1987:

Shanley 1986). In addition, panels with a high percentage of professional members, access to a variety of information, and contact with diverse groups and individuals appear to have a high j

degree of internal control or perceived independence (as opposed to external control by the sponsoring agency). Internal control appears to increase the 1:gitimacy of the panel with both participants and observers (Hannah and Lewis 1982; Robin and Hannah 1984). Panels with j

4 1

I

I well-defined and widely-accepted objectives tend to have higher levels of productivity than panels which struggle over objectives. Established objectives, however, appear to be only weakly connected to overall panel impact (Pearce and Rosener 1985). Finally, members of the public who do not participate directly in citizen panels express their general support for this decision making method. The methods most preferred by the general public include decisions made by topical experts (e.g., an epidemiologist helping make decisions about reducing the spread of disease), groups of citizens, and administrators with expert experience. (The least preferred methods included decisions made by state legislators, interest groups, and political parties.) (Doerksen and Pierce 1975).

Although there appear to be many advantages to using citizen advisory panels in public decision making, the literature also points out limitations of the method. There is evidence that participants on advisory panels do not consistently reflect the average view of the public (Beatty and Pierce 1976; Priscoli 1983; Redburn, Buss, Foster, and Binning 1980). In fact, citizen advisory panels may fail to reach the individuals most in conflict with the sponsoring agency because these individuals are so disenfranchised they are unwilling or unable to participate (Christopoulo 1974). Lay members of panels are often at a disadvantage with respect to the i

l scientific and technical issues which face many advisory panels (Krimsky 1984; Nelkin 1984).

To address this disparity, panel members often need a great deal of time to learn enough about the issues to be effective participants. There also appears to be a constant tension in panel-sponsoring agencies between the desire to incorporate citizen participation into decision making and the more pragmatic practice and consequence of such participation (Nelkin 1984; Peterson 1984). These tensions include, as discussed above, a reluctance of some decision makers to accept the public input they solicited as well as lapses in communication and cooperation as attempts are made to integrate an advisory panel (and its input) within an already existing organization (Shanley 1976).

5

1 i

i t

j 2.0 A BRIEF HISTORY OF THE TMI-2 ADVISORY PANEL i

Three Mile Island, Unit 2 (TMI-2)is a nuclear power reactor located on the banks of the l

Susquehanna River in Dauphin County Pennsylvania just south of Harrisburg. TMI 2 is a

)

} ressurized water reactor with a Babcock and Wilcox (B&W) nuclear steam supply system, j

which was designed to generate 890 MW (megawatts) of electric power (2770 MW thermal).

j General Public Utilities Nuclear Corporation (GPUN), a subsidiary of General Public Utilities, j

he.'d the operating license for the facility at TMI-2.1 Between issuance of its operating license on February 8,1978, and March 28,1979, TMI-2 had operated about 95 effective full-power days. Operation ceased on March 28,1979 after an j

accident occurred that involved a loss of reactor coolant and resulted in serious damage to the reactor fuel. When coolant was restored, radioactive contamination was distributed throughout the reactor coolant system and into the reactor building basement. Exposed surfaces and equipment in the reactor building and the auxiliary and fuel-handling buildings were contaminated with radioactive material contained in the water and steam that escaped from the reactor coolant system. Minor releases of radioactive materialinto the atmosphere outside of the 3

facility occurred at the time of the accident. Additional releases occurred during the next several weeks as a consequence of controlled venting of the atmosphere in the reactor containment building.

Since the accident, water released into the facility has been removed, extensively processed (to

)

remove radionuclides), and evaporated. In addition to removing the contaminated water, cleanup j

activities included decontamination of much of the auxiliary and fuel-handling buildings as well as the reactor containment building. Approximately 99% of the fuel has been removed from the reactor vessel and the remainder of the facility. On August 16,1988, GPUN proposed placing the facility in a storage mode after the completion of the defueling process to allow decay of the radionuclides remaining in the facility. Workers would thus be exposed to lower levels of radioactivity during further decontamination and decommissioning of the facility. This storage mode. during which the facility is monitored by GPUN, is referred to as " post-defueling 1After the accident at TM12. the NRC issued an order on July 20.1979 which suspended the authority of GPUN to operate the facility and required that the licensee maintain the facility in a shut-down condition in accordance with approved operating and contingency procedures. Although its authority to operate the facility was suspended. the licensee retained an operating license, in September 1993, the NRC issued a " possession only" license to GPUN for the TM12 facility.

6

A l

i monitored storage" (PDMS). Following an in-depth review, the NRC approved the GPUN's request for post-defueling monitored storage on December 28,1993.

The accident at TMI-2 had a measurable impact on the social and psychological well being of l

individuals and groups in the area around TM1, although these impacts appear to have diminished over time (Hughey and Sundstrom 1988; Sills, Wolf, and Shelanshi 1982). Seventeen months after the accident at TMI-2,30-50% of the population within a 25-mile radius around

]

TMI reported heightened concems about the occurrence of another accident. The majority of j

respondents in the survey also reported that TMI remained one of their greatest concerns and doubted their own coping abilities in dealing with any future problems at the facility (Sorenson, Soderstrom, Copenhaver, Cames, and Bolin 1987).

4 j

The " Advisory Panel for the Decontamination of Three Mile Island, Unit 2," hereafter referred to

]

as the Advisory Panel or Panel, was established under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) as amended (Public Law 92-463,5 U.S.C., App.). This independent advisory panel was set up "for the purpose of obtaining input and views from the residents of the Three Mile Island area and affording Pennsylvania government officials an opportunity to participate in the Commission's decisional process regarding cleanup plans for the facility, The Panel will consider the comments expressed by the local residents, and make recommendations to the Commission"(Hoyle 1980a). The Advisory Panel met for the first time on November 12,1980 l

in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania.

j Administration of the Advisory Panel was designed to meet certain federal guidelines. Meetings i

of the Panel, for example, were required to be held at a reasonable time and in a place reasonably accessible to the public. All meetings of the AP were open to the public. Panel members were y

not permitted to meet and discuss TMI-2 related issues without prior notice and public participation. Members of the public were also permitted to file written statements regarding any matter discussed at the Panel meetings and were permitted to speak at meetings in accordance with procedures established by the Panel. Notice of each meeting was published in the Federal j

Register at least 15 days before the meeting date. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) designated an emplo e,of t{e Commission to coordinate and oversee the Panel operations. The

]

Designated Federal (DFO) was responsible for convening or approving each meeting, j

approving the agenda, filing the notice with the Federal Register, ensuring that minutes or transcripts of the meeting were prepared and available for public review, and collating information required for annual reports about the Panel's activities. These requirements are laid i

l 7

-v-

-.-,e----m.-,-

-,m

,,-,n

,,-w--

wm-,

w-w,,.em-,m mv,m.,,e-,,.s.e.s..wew,,

l l

out in full in the NRC Rules and Regulations, Title 10, Chapter 1, Part 7 of the Code of Federal Regulations - Energy.

The FACA requires that Panel memberships be " fairly balanced in terms of the points of view represented and the functions to be performed." In considering individuals for original Panel membership, the NRC attempted to include a cross-section of individuals directly affected, interested, or qualified to serve on the Panel. Original membership on the Panel included twelve local citizens, including scientists and elected officials, who served independently to advise and consult with the Commissian on major activities involving the dect ntamination and cleanup of j

the TMI-2 facility. The original membership of the Panelincludet local elected officials (John Minnich, County Commissioner of Dauphin County, PA.; Art Mo)ris, Mayor of Lancaster, PA.;

and Robert Reid. Mayor of Middletown, PA.), scientists (Tom Cechran of the Natural Resources Defense Council; Henry Wagner of Johns Hopkins University; hunzio " Joe" Palladino of Pennsylvania State University), representatives of state agencies (Arnold Muller, Pennsylvania Department of Health; Clifford Jones, Pennsylvania Department t.f Environmental Resources; and Dewitt Smith, Jr., Pennsylvania Emergency Management Agency) and members of the general public (Ann Trunk, Joel Roth, and Jean Kohr).

l Panel membership was relatively stable over the life of the Panel, with three original members l

serving the entire period from 1980 to 1993 (Trunk, Roth, and Morris)he.here were a few T

When g

l notable tumovers over the years: Joe Palladino left the Panel e M.: m ag= b'-

Chairmanjof the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The original Advisory Panel Chairman, John Minnich, left the Panel early and Art Morris, then-mayor of L ncaster, took on the role of Chairman. Morris was Chairman of the Advisory Panel paeit the final meeting. Additional Panel members over the years included Mr. Joe DiNunno, Dr. Thomas Gerusky, Dr. John Leutzelschwab, Ms. Elizabeth Marshall, Dr. Kenneth Miller, Mr. Frederick Rice, Dr. Gordon Robinson, Dr. Neil Wald, and Mr. Thomas Smithgall.

]

Panel members were asked to serve without compensation other than travel costs. This issue became a contentious matter over the years and is discussed in more detail below. Even with this voluntary service, a quorum was present at every meeting of the Panel. The Panel was originally scheduled to meet at least twice each year. During the early years, however, they met much more often than twice a year. Panel members traveled to Washington, D.C. at least once each year to meet with the Commissioners and provide a report on current Panel activities.

8

Although Panel members were the official participants in the Advisory Panel, many other individuals and groups contributed to the effectiveness of the Panel. For the purpose of this report, all those individuals who attended and participated in Panel meetings will be referred to as " participants." Panel participants include Panel members, members of the NRC staff and the NRC Commissioners, employees of GPUN, and members of the public.

As reviewed above, a Designated Fec'eral Official was assigned by the NRC to be responsible for the Advisory Panel. The DFO coordinated the Panel meetings (including meetings with the Commissioners) and ensured that Panti members had the information they needed to participate in meetings. The DFO attended all meetings as a representative of the NRC and ex officio member of the Panel. NRC staffinvolved in the cleanup at TMI-2 attended all but one of the meetings of the Advisory Panel. These staff members provided regular updates on the cleanup as well as other information requested by the Panel. The NRC Commissioners also met with the Advisory Panel on a regular basis to receive public input about the TMI cleanup.

Commissioners did not typically attend the regular meetings of the Panel.

The GPU Nuclear Corporation (GPUN), commonly referred to as the " licensee,"is responsible for the day-to-day cleanup efforts at the facility. Representatives of the licensee attended each Panel meeting and provided updates on the cleanup for Panel members as requested.

i Members of the public also participated in Panel activities. Many of the initial Panel meetings drew large, standing room only crowds, although this level of attendance tapered off through the years. There were often less than ten members of the public in attendance at the last few Panel meetings. While members of the public often attended meetings as individuals, others attended as members of or representatives of local community activist groups. Members of these local groups, such as Three Mile Island Alert (TMI A), Susquehanna Valley Alliance (SVA), or Concerned Mothers, faithfully attended Panel meetings over the years. TM1A, for example, had a small membership, originally organized in 1977 to resist the proposed opening of TMI-2. After the accident. TMI A was transformed into the largest protest organization in the area with a seven-member steering committee,30-member planning council, and 12 semiautonomous community group affiliates (Walsh 1981). Membership in TMIA jumped to about 2,000 active members after the accident. Concerned Mothers, another group of citizens local to the accident site in Middletown, Pennsylvania, organized after the accident. While considerably less dynastic than TM1A, Concerned Mothers participated in most Advisory Panel meetings. SVA, a group of citizens centered in Lancaster County, actively participated in Panel meetings. The SVA was particularly involved in the disposition of the accident water. SVA members presented options 9

i j

I J

and critiqued alternatives on the disposition of the water, often filing written comments for the transcript record Members of these and other local activist groups often made presentations to j

the Panel and almost always asked pointed and direct questions of other presenters. In addition, I

they were vocal in their support for expanding the original charter of the Advisory Panel to j

include discussion of health effects of the accident. Active citizen participants became known by i

name to all Panel members, NRC staff, and licensee staff who participated in Advisory Panel meetings.

i 1

The original Panel charter noted that Panel memben would " consult with and provide advice to l

the Commission on its major activities required to decontaminate and safely cleanup the TMI 2 l

facility"(Hoyle 1980b). In 1986, at the request of the Panel, the Commission expanded the Advisory Panel Charter to include the review of health issues associated with the TMI-2 i

accident. Many issues, including health effects, were discussed by the Panel over the years.

Typically, as the cleanup proceeded and new efforts were undertaken, the focus of the Advisory Panel discussions changed to include those new activities. A few topics, however, came up at meetings repeatedly and were discussed at Panel meetings over a long period of time. In i

addition, the Advisory Panel reported public concerns about these long term issues to the Commissioners more than once. These issues represent some of the most intractable problems faced by the Advisory Panel (and the cleanup in general) over the years:

Funding for cleanup and decommissioning

+

Disposition of high-level radioactive waste Whistleblowing activity at TMl Health effects and results of health studies Disposition of contaminated " accident" and cleanup water Radiation exposure of cleanup workers Long term storage of the facility (prior to ultimate decommissioning)

The date for closing the Panel was left indeterminate in the original Charter because the Panel was to be used as long as there was a perceived need to solicit public views on the cleanup issues at TM1-2. By 1993, both the agency and many Panel members were questioning the continued usefulness of the Panel. For example, the NRC estimated that final approval for the licensee to place the facility in PDMS (long term storage) would arrive by the end of 1993. Many, but not all, Panel participants. viewed this as the natural stopping place for Panel activities. In response to the perceived decline in Panel usefulness and in an effort to reduce

, the Panel met for the

[

last time on September 23,1993. A total of 78 meetings of the TMI-Advisory Panel TMI were held between 1980 and 1993.

+Q My kl of W'[

Mn Ands 10

3.0 LESSONS LEARNED FROM THE TMI-2 ADVISORY PANEL The information provided in this section is based almost solely on the perceptions of the interviewed Panel participants. None of these perceptions are represented as"true" descriptions of the experience of the Advisory Panel. Rather, the descriptions are meant to evoke the Panel experiences of a variety of individuals over a long period of time. Direct quotes from individuals are attributed only by group type (for example, past Panel member). If a direct quote cannot protect the confidentiality of a respondent, identifying comments have been removed. In a few cases, a composite quote is created by combining comments from severalindividuals to reflect a common theme expressed by several respondents Quotations are taken primarily from the one-on-one interviews conducted for this report. Any quotes or comments taken from the meeting transcripts are designated as such.

The interview and meeting transcripts were read and coded to identify the type of issues and concems raised by Panel participants. in addition, the literature on citizen advisory panels reviewed above suggests several points about advisory groups which should be considered in an analysis. These two methods were used to develop a list of areas for closer analysis including:

Panel Composition Meeting Structure Panel Objectives Characteristics that Support implementation of Advisory Panels Panelinfluence on Cleanup Activities Role of the Media Advisory Panel Longevity Each of these areas is discussed more fully below, using quotes from the transcripts and interviews to provide details and corroboration of the analysis. A summary of lessons learned about each topic concludes the analysis.

3.1 Panel Composition This section reviews the balance of competing perspectives which was built into the original Panel and continued throughout the life of the Panel even as members changed. The analysis is followed by a summary of the lessons learned about Panel composition.

I1

d 3.1.1 Analysis of Panel Composition 4

The NRC originally selected Panel members to represent local and state officials, scientists, and members of the general public. One NRC staff member remembers the reasoning behind the original selection,"We wanted a balance with members of the loyal oppo;ition (to the licensee and their activities} represented but who were also constructive. We wanted members who were respected by all sides - reasonable, rational people. People who would bring in other perspectives." All respondents believe that the Panel needs to be balanced or representative of i

the many sides of the issue. This inclusive Panel membership contributes to the perception shared by most participants that all points of view are heard and considered by Panel members.

A member of the public sums this point up "The Panel needs to be eclectic to have credibility."

Respondents recognize and describe the way Panel members balance each other in ideas, personalities, and positions. While the original official balance included three state representatives, three local elected officials, three scientists, and three members of the public, this composition changed over time as Panel members left. For example, representatives of the State of Pennsylvania dropped off the Panel quickly and were replaced by Panelists with technical backgrounds and local knowledge. In the interviews, respondents described balances in Panel composition along several different dimensions including:

elected and non-elected members technical and non-technical backgrounds anti-nuclear, pro-nuclear, and neutral positions

" local knowledge" and expert knowledge i

The original membership, selected by NRC to be balanced across a political and scientific spectrum, was supported by the additional qualities identified by respondents. Most respondents identified balancing Panel representation in some way as critical to the effectiveness and credibility of the Advisory Panel.

Licensee respondents and NRC staff,in particular, stressed the need for a range of technical capabilities among Panel members. In addition, respondents feel these technically skilled Panel members should have no vested interest in the nuclear industry. One ex Panel member reports that the " composition was important - Panel members respected the technical abilities of other members. The backgrounds varied and it was the job of technical people on the Panel to pursue 12

9' technical questions." In addition, all respondents, except licensee staff, report that the vocal presence of well-known anti-nuclear Panel members was crucial to the credibility of the Panel.

One Panel member recalls, "The representatives from the anti-nuclear groups played an important role. They were the ultimate watch dogs." An NRC staff member who remembers choosing the original Panel members reports,"[an anti-nuclear Panel member] more than earned I

his pay. The citizens listened to him. He gave them peace of mind. He was a pain,l'ut a good pain."

The wide range of technical and non-technical expertise was used by Panel members to educate i

both themselves and the public. Respondents often describe technical Panel members, for example, as translators of the highly technical information presented by the NRC, the licensee, and other experts. While this role is fairly obvious and easy to understand, Panel members and NRC staff also recognize that non technical Panel members translate public concerns and perceptions so that technically-oriented people can view those concerns as valid. One Panel respondent explains,"The technical and non-technical Panel members would disagree j

sometimes; non-technical Panel members would often say to technical members, 'Let's not go overboard here, let's wait. We don't have all the facts or information (about a technology, procedure, or results) so let's go slow.' It was good for technical Panel members to be reminded 3

of this more conservative view." This technically oriented Panel member learned to value the perspecuve of non technical Panel members.

Licensee respondents, however, feel that technical Panel members are not especially good at f

translating technical material for non-technical Panel members. They complain that non-j technical members can not be convinced by a presentation of the " facts," no matter hcw clear the presentation or the translation. In addition, licensee respondents perceive that non-technical members are " intimidated" by technical discussions and technical Panel members: "There were two technical members on the [ original] Panel. When they spoke, some of the others were intimidated because they didn't understand what was going on. A few of the Panel members, non technical, never spoke at all during these discussions." Rather than education occurring across respected Panel expertise, this licensee respondent sees intimidation between technical and non-technical rnembers. No Panel members uses the term intimidation to describe relationships on the Panel although several do comment that they were often quiet during their 5

first months because they didn't understand terms or concepts.

I l

Panel members report that the balanced representation creates conflict and adversarial relations among themselves. Rather than seeing this as a negative, however, most respondents report that 13

conniet and disagreement works to increase the credibility of the Panel. Panel members consistently report,"All the conflict on the Panel increased credibility. The credibility of the Panel increased due to our obvious lack of agreement on many subjects."

Panel members and NRC staff report that, eventually, trust and respect grew between members of the Panel with divergent perspectives. This respect grew out of months and years serving together in a problem-solving effort and learning that Panel members could keep Panel objectives in mind as they made decisions. A Panel member reports,"1 trust the ' anti's' on the Panel because I feel they understand the responsibilities and limits of the Panel objectives."

Respondents also report that respect was created as they came to know each other's varying skills and expertise. An observer of the Pand aorts," Panel members by and large trusted each other. For example, non-technical Panelists wud ask for advice from the technical members."

3.1.2 Summary of Lessons learned about Panel Composition l

A range of perspectives increases the credibility of the Panel.

A rarge of expenise increases the capability of the Panel to participate in technical and political discussions.

Panel members educate both the public and each other across expertise and capabilities.

Diverse perspectives and capabilities increase connict among Panel participants. This conflict contributes to overall Panel credibility.

Some Panel members are never able to participate in certain technical discussions, although they can contribute to other, non-technical, discussions.

3.2 Meeting Structure Respondents were asked several questions during the interview about how the meetings were structured. These questions focused on how the agenda was constructed, how individuals addressed the Panel, and how meeting participation was encouraged or discouraged. Almost without exception, respondents began their discussion of meeting structure with a discussion of the current Chairman. Respondents described the Chairman as terrific and great. A composite response from several individuals reveals this respect for the Chairman:"The Chairman was excellent - he kept reasonable order, he was respected by everyone, knew how to run a meeting, and was a gentleman. He deals with disparate views well. I have a lot of respect for him. He is l

14 l

i

efficient, knows how to mn a meeting - a perfect combination of technical knowledge and elected official. I would recommend someone like the current Chairman. Someone who is not necessarily a technical person, but someone who understands government, business, and how the ordinary person thinks. He is fair, responsive, and conducts a good meeting. There was never enough time, but he did what he could. The Chairman needs to be someone the public can trust and who has credibility with the licensee. The Chairman must also be able to mn a good meeting

- structured, but friendly."

While the acting Chairman is almost universally appreciated as a capable individual, there do appear to be several functions that contribute to this perception of his chairing abilities and can help describe an effective meeting. In general, the Chairman is able to use interpersonal skills and meeting management techniques, rather than any blatant show of personal or positional power, to run orderly meetings. Several of the meeting skills and techniques which contribute to effective meetings are discussed in more detail below.

3.2.1 Speaking Rules Respondents identified the Chairman's ability to facilitate participation as one of the qualities of effective Panel meetings. Even though Panel meetings are often lengthy, there is always time for j

~

Panel members and members of the public to ask questions and make comments. A member of the general public has positive memories of the Chairman's willingness to include public input, "The Chairman encouraged participation by setting aside time for the public. He let people exhaust their comments and questions." One Panel member remembers that there was grumbling by some members of the public about a lack of time, but believes they are unrealistic in their expectations,"The way the Chairman structured the public comment period was very helpful.

The Fanel meetings were as open as possible while still maintaining the ability to get things l

done. People who complained about lack of or shortage of time were immature and didn't understand how meetings worked. Anyone who wanted to, could talk at meetings."

1 Panel members are allowed to speak for as long as they want or need to, although speaking time for members of the public is more strictly rationed. However, allindividuals addressing the Panel are expected to stay on topic. A licensee staff remembers,"The Chairman was respectful of everyone, he called people by their names and generally made people feel comfortable. Some of the [ Panel members] rambled and talked about issues that were outside the scope of the Panel.

The Chairman would cut them off or gently put them back on track." The expectation to stay on 15

topic is one speaking rule known to everyone and consistently applied to anyone who wants to address the Panel. This evenhanded approach creates a perception of faimess, especially among Panel members and members of the public. A member of the public reports that"the Chairman has a nice manner even when admonishing people to stay on the topic."

Another speaking rule used by the Chairman is a requirement that members of the public schedule time on the agenda prior to the meeting if they want to make a formal statement. Panel members believe "The standard process of making arrangements prior to the meeting date encouraged participation." Individuals who schedule time are given the first opportunity to use available meeting time. Any additional time is allotted to speakers who do not pre-schedule time. Consistent application of this rule ensures that people who request time on the agenda are always provided time to speak. There is some flexibility in this rule so that speaking times can be traded, and even aggregated, among members of the public.

I Analysis of respondents' accounts of the rules reveal no perceptions that favorites are played or that the speaking rules are misused. Respondents do have complaints, however, about the speaking rules. For example, licensee staff do not like members of the public aggregating time so that one speaker can speak for more than the allotted three to five minutes. Members of the l

public feel that, in general, more time should be allotted during meetings for public comment.

One member of the public had an objection to the speaking rules,"You need to request time i

ahead if you wanted more than the normal two minutes. Most of these requests are granted although it felt like you were pleading to say a few words, it was controlling and demeaning."

Another member of the public remembers participation in Panel meetings more positively,"I got whatever time 1 needed or wanted. I felt the Panel respected my presentations and perspectives."

l 3.2.2 Setting the Agenda While many topics are generally covered during eact meeting, the structure of the meeting evolved oser the years to include a routine or standard agenda. A review of the transcripts suggests that a typical agenda allows for update reports from the licensee and NRC, reports from other agencies as necessary (e.g., EPA or DOE), and a public comment period. In addition, topics of special concern are scheduled as needed. These special topics are usually generated by current cleanup activities or public concerns. Agenda items are discussed at the end of each meeting for the next meeting, during the interim between meetings by contacting the Chairman, or at the beginning of each meeting.

16 l

Agenda setting is relatively informal. A wide range of mechanisms is used to identify appropriate topics, meeting attendees do not receive the agenda until the beginning of the meeting, and agenda items are often added or subtracted on an informal basis. This informality can suggest to participants that getting items of concern on the agenda is an open and inclusive g

i process. Most respondents report that informal agenda setting is comfortable and usually effective in ensuring that the Panel addresses important issues. A composite response from members of the public, Panel members, and NRC staff participants describes how the informal process works,"At the end of each meeting, the Panel would decide on the agenda. Between meetings they sometimes add things. Or new things came out and that would be added. The public also expresses interests about what they want discussed. The public has a lot of guidance on meeting topics and agenda."

Despite the informal nature of agenda setting, respondents report that the agenda itself is adhered to rather rigorously during most meetings. The agenda appears to be used, as necessary, to keep people on topic and schedule. A composite response describes how the agenda is used to control OWL meetings, "No en really knows the exact agenda until the night of the meeting. The point was

/

not to give the utility or the public an edge - no one could have an advantage by having the agenda early. The agenda was constrained by time - we really only wanted to spend about two or two and a half hours at each meeting. The Chairman made attempts to keep people on time."

While not explicitly complaining that the Chairman uses the agenda as a control mechanism, some respondents report that the use of the agenda in this manner makes them uncomfortable.

One Panel member protests,"I didn't always receive an agenda in the mail so I couldn't prepare for the meeting before hand. I complained to the Chairman but it didn't change anything."

Using the agenda as an impersonal referee to keep participants on track during meetings is another example of how the Chairman uses his skills, rather than the power of his position, to enforce control of meetings without alienating participants.

Respondents report that the current Chairman tends to manage meetings through his personal authority and skills rather than relying on formal rules or power. While this creates an informal atmosphere at most meetings,it also creates the potential for chaotic meetings. Respondents, however, give accounts of efficient and structured informality. A composite response from Panel members, members of the public, and NRC staff describes a meeting style they all feel comfortable with: "The Panel meetings are informal and congenial. There is a lot of interaction among the Panel members and with the public and utility. The level of meeting formality is very effective and appropriate. The meetings were a blend of formal and serious when necessary and 17

relaxed and fun when necessary. The meetings have a formal framework with many openings for informality. You had to have some formal structure to make it possible for people to speak.

But the meetings were not so formal that people felt they couldn't talk."

3.2.3 Meeting with the Commissioners As part of the original Charter, Advisory Panel members must find a way to condense or j

synthesize all the information they receive from the public to report to the NRC Commissioners in regular meetings. Transcripts of the meetings with Commissioners reveal this synthesized j

information is most often reported in casual discussions between Commissioners and Panel members about recent agenda topics. When asked during interviews, most Panel members remember that the Panel often reached a consensus prior to a meeting with the Commissioners about which items would be discussed. The Panel also often developed a consensus p ysition about specific issues before meeting with the Commissioners. Panel members do not clearly remember what type of process they use to build a consensus. For example, one Panel member reports,"There is no real effort to develop a Panel position, instead it is a more informal consensus seeking. There would be the formal comment by the Chairman [to the Commissioners], but individual Panel members could add their comments. I don't remember any internal Panel fights over what to say to the Commissioners." Another Panel member remembers more of a struggle over consensus development, "There is always some controversy when it comes time to determine recommendations for the commissioners because of the different perspectives represented on the Panel. But it was all done in good spirit." One Panel member sums it up with the observation, "We tried for a consensus on recommendations to the Commissioners and Panel positions. But, we had no control over the diverse Panel and really couldn't hide anything like differences in opinion even if we had wanted to."

On occasion, Panel members report they feel it necessary to develop a more formal Panel position on a specific topic. Topics identified as needing a Panel position usually have high l

visibility with the public such as plans for the disposition of the accident water. Official l

positions may also be developed when Panel members feel they are not receiving an appropriate response from the licensee or agency. For example, when repeated requests for a response to charges that the licensee was harassing whistleblowers went unanswered, the Panel developed a l

more formal position and request. An official Panel position, (usually with both majority and I

minonty views attached),is assumed by Panel participants to represent the views of the public.

l l

The legitimacy of the position taken by the Panel appears to inhere in the balanced composition i

l 18

of the Panel; each Panel member is assumed to represent a certain viewpoint held by some portion of the general public. By taking a vote, developing a consensus, or negotiating a position, the Panel is standing in for a larger public vote, consensus, or negotiation. ".h P=:1

/

paz;mu sou au 6 myva w uic Cvuum33muco os ik yea _.. f i p.iS.

3.2.4 Changes in the Meeting Structure Respondents ieport, with few exceptions, that the informal structure of the meetings stayed essentially the same over the years. The most notable structural change was in scheduling the public comment period. Originally, public comment was delayed until all other agenda items were complete. By this time, it was usually late in the evening, discussion had touched on many issues, and many members of the public had already left for home. Review of the early transcripts suggest that allowing individuals to comment only at the end of the meeting created frustration and an adversarial relationship between Panel members and members of the public. It is likely that Panel members were not only hearing individuals express frustration with the way the cleanup activities were progressing. They were also hearing public anger about the lack of

/

access m,..

_ and the necessity of condensing all concerns, comments, and questions into the allowed period at the end of the meeting. For example, one member of the public remembers,"there was not enough time [given] to the public point of view. Really often all that people wanted was to know that someone had heard them give their point of view."

Disallowing public comment until late in the meeting and evening also led to an attrition factor.

Some members of the public left the meetings before they were over, leaving individuals who

)

were highly committed (or with fewer demands on their time) as the sole representatives of the 1

public. Organizing the meetings in this way made it likely that moderate individuals did not participate in discussions during initial Panel meetings. After Morris became Chairman, a change in meeting structure was made to include one public comment period after the major presentation (usually about half way through the meeting) and another at the conclusion of the scheduled presentations. Analysis of the transcripts suggests that after the meeting structure was changed to include this earlier public comment period, more individuals participate in the public comment period and public-initiated questions relate more directly to the agenda items. During interviews, respondents recall the earlier structure with some intensity and in great detail, but are less likely to provide any comment at all about the current arrangements. This suggests that the current meeting structure is taken for granted and accepted as an appropriate method for including individuals in the discussion.

19

1 l

3.2.5 Suggested Improvements i

When asked to suggest improvements in the way meetings are conducted or methods to improve I

meeting participation, respondents are generally hard pressed to identify specific changes they would like to see made. Most commonly, respondents request increased resources for the Panel, including funds to bring in outside experts, pay Panel expenses, and administer the Advisory Panel. One NRC staff member reports," Expenses for Panel members was an issue from day one. We did a poor job on servicing their reimbursements and I don't understand why. It was not legitimate to pay Panel members, but I can't exactly remember why the original decision was j

made. It was not a budgetary constraint. Maybe Commissioners didn't want to set a precedent for paying citizen Panel members." Panel members, almost to a person, were concerned about reimbursement for Panel activities. The transcripts reveal that this topic is discussed at almost every meeting during the past few years, although the manner of the discussions is a genial joking between Panel members and the NRC DFO. A composite of Panel responses suggests the nature of their concern,"he NRC should have been more responsive to Panel expenses. I felt that we were nickeled and dimed by the NRC. I bet the NRC is paying more for this research than for all twelve years of Panel expenses. Panel members may be more objective if they aren't paid, but not paying Panel members sends a message of low priority."

Other suggestions for improving Panel meetings include changing the NRC DFO position so that j

it is less clerical and more technical in scope, having the Commissioners attend the Panel meetings on a regular basis, and rethinking how Panel members should be selected and/or replaced. A composite response from Panel members, NRC staff, licensee staff, and members of the public explains the nature of their concerns about Panel membership: "There was little discussion among the Panel members about replacements for members who left. This created some question in certain citizens' minds about whether the replacements represented the public.

Panel members were not asked to provide any input on the replacements. After the elected officials left office, they most often stayed on the Panel. This was not appropriate since they no longer represented the public in the same way. We should have at least talked about it." Only one respondent suggested term limits for Panel members as an improvement. Others feel that the issues and topics are so complex and complicated that a relatively long period of time is required before individuals are effective Panel members. Members of the public think that more agenda time should be devoted to citizen input. They believe this would allow them to make more thoughtful presentations about complicated issues.

20

r 3.2.6 Summary of Lessons Leamed about Meeting Structure Consistently applied speaking rules create a perception of fairness among Panel participants.

An informal atmosphere provides the appropriate flexibility for wide participation.

+

Impersonal methods for meeting control maintain respect for individual perspectives.

Frequent, but controlled, periods for public participation increases the quality and quantity of input and reduces ongoing conflict over meeting procedures.

Recommendations and reports to the NRC Commissioners are most often developed through informal consensus building among Panelists.

Respondents believe that improvements can be made to the Advisory Panel by increasing resources for the Panel, revising the NRC DFO role to be primarily technical suppon, and reassessing how Panel members are selected.

Term limits for Panel members do not appear feasible to most participants due to the complexity of cleanup issues.

3.3 Panel Obiectives The following section reviews both the implicit and explicit original Panel objectives as well as the ways in which the objectives changed over the years. A summary of the lessons learned about Panel objectives concluc'es this section 3.3.1 Analysis of Panel Objectives When asked about the original Panel objectives, most respondents are able to identify the explicit objectives of the NRC in forming the Panel. These objectives include providing the NRC with input about public concerns and providing the public with information about cleanup activities.

NRC staff and early Panel members remember seeing the objectives in writing and report that the objectives were brought out on many occasions to determine whether specific topics were appropriate for Panel discussion. Panel members whojoined during the later years of the Panel, licensee staff, and members of the public are much less likely to report having seen the objectives in writing and their descriptions of the objectives are less formulaic in nature. For example, one NRC staff member reports that the objective of the Panel is to "act as an 21

independent group that evaluates public concerns and relates them to the Commission." 'Ihis almost verbatim restatement of Panel objectives can be contrasted with the less polished, but still accurate, description provided by a Panel member who joined the Panel relatively late in its history,", to give the NRC some insight into another perspective besides that of the operating company [ licensee]."

In addition to understanding explicit Panel objectives, respondents also talk about unstated objectives that they believe compelled the NRC to create the Panel. The most often reported I

implicit objective of the Advisory Panel was to rec;uce public anxiety about the accident and subsequent cleanup. Other implicit objectives include allowing the public to "let off steam," take the " political heat off the Commissioners,"" provide assurance that things weren't as bad as they looked,"" provide a buffer between citizens and ihe NRC," and " build credibility for both the NRC and the licensee." All respondents discuss this perceived need to reassure the public and reduce the growing antagonism between the public and the NRC and licensee. In general, the implicit objectives refer to the perceptions of high levels of public anxiety and low levels of l

NRC/ licensee credibility that existed when the Advisory Panel was formed, i

Respondents report that they are familiar with the explicit Panel objectives because they are often l

referred to in attempts to keep Panel participants on topic. Using the objectives as a gatekeeping mechanism was viewed positively by Panel members and le.ss positively by nonPanel participants. For example, one Panel member remembers," When the Panel went astray from the j

original objectives, the Panel and the Commissioners reviewed the original objectives... One of the liaison's tasks was to gently remind the Panel what we were supposed to focus on." Another Panel member reports that there were many meetings where the discussion focused on "This is our charge and this isn't our charge." In contrast, a member of the public reports that the objectives are used to "tell people to come back later or save their questions for another, more appropriate, time " This public prticipant concedes, however, that the objectives are also used to insist that the licensee and NRC previde certain reports to the Panel.

Most respondents believe that Advisory Panel objectives did not change throughout the life of the Panel. A few NRC staff members and Panel members dc remember that the charter of the Advisory Panel was expanded to include discussion of possible health effects and funding for the j

cleanup. Most respondents, however, do not remember or discuss these changes. Review of the transcripts for meetings prior to changes in the scope of Panel objectives reveals many protracted struggles between Panel members and members of the public over appropriate topics for discussion at meetings. Public testimony or questions about health issues were consistently i

22 i

~

overruled by the Chairman as irrelevant to the Panels' purpose. Anxiety and frustration about the potential health consequences of the accident and the inability to find anyone who would listen to 4

public concerns created a growing antagonism between Panel members and members of the public during the early and middle years of the Panel, This polarization seriously threatened the perceived legitimacy of the Panel during its middle years until the charter was expanded to include consideration of health concerns. The flexibility that allowed the Panel to address issues of most concern to the public helped the Panel reassert its role as a conduit of public information.

Most respondents feel that the Advisory Panel met both the or:ginal objectives set by the NRC and many of the implicit objectives perceived by participants. Several respondents report that because public attendance and participation at Panel meetings declined over the years, the objective of providing NRC with insight about public concerns was not fulfilled. Instead, they argue, the Panel provides the NRC with the limited insight of Panel members and a small group of active participants. Licensee respondents,in particular, report that while they are satisfied that the Panel initially provided a conduit for expression of public concern, they are concemed that the Panel is currently less representative of the general public than it had been in the beginning.

Panel members perceive the Panel to have more than met its objectives, primarily in terms of the implicit objective of increasing public trust in the cleanup process. NRC staff believe the Panel met its objective of providing a conduit for public input to the NRC. Many NRC staff also report, however, that because the cleanup is so complex, Panel members are unable to provide any meaningful technical guidance. NRC staff are also concemed that the conduit opened by the Advisory Panel provides a forum for reports they consider not credible. They accept this as a by-product of the openness required to facilitate good-faith discussions between members of the public and Panel members. Members of the public are more uncertain about whether the Panel has met its original objectives. Most public respondents report that the Panel is a good source of reliable information about the cleanup and provides a critical review of NRC and licensee activity. They complain, however, that the Panel too often only reacts to NRC or licensee efforts and does not take a proactive stance in promoting certain activities or providing guidance to the Commission.

3.3.2 Summary of Lessons Learned about Panel Objectives Original objectives are well known to all Panel participants and are used effectively to keep Panel meetings on track.

23

Participants believe that Panel objectives have been met although there is concem that reduced public participation has also reduced the ability of the Panel to represent the public.

Participants perceive that implicit Panel objectives include reducing public anxiety j

about the accident and cleanup of TM1-2 and believe these objectives have also been met.

Panel members were able to reduce growing antagonism and conflict between members of the public and other Panel participants by expanding the original objectives to include issues of great concern to the public.

3.4 Characteristics that Succort Implementation of Advisorv Panels The following section analyzes respondents perceptions of what characteristics of the TMI-2 i

cleanup situation make it amenable to the effective use of an advisory panel. A summary of the lessons learned about these characteristics follows.

3.4.1 Analysis of Characteristics While citizen advisory panels have been used in many situations (see Section 1.2 above), the situation surrounding Three Mile Island is unique to both the nuclear industry and the public.

Instead of comparing the experience of the TMI-2 Panel with other advisory panel experiences, we asked respondents to identify the characteristics of the TMI 2 situation which they believe support the implementation and successful use of an advisory panel Respondents' answers consistently evoke a Panel member's somewhat understated description of a situation with "a traumatic change in the status quo." The identified characteristics are described in Table 1 below.

Only members of the public believe that an advisory group can also be an appropriate forum in less traumatic situations, such as discussions about ongoing nuclear plant operations. All other respondents believe that only a situation which is alarming and focused on a high profile incident such as the accident at TMl is an appropriate setting for an advisory panel. A Panel member sums up why Panel members believe a less traumatic situation wouldn't be appropriate,"It's too much work and we couldn't get people to participate for so long." Another Panelist believes that it would be possible to use this model in situations with a specific focus, such as a site selection l

24

or facility decommissioning, but agrees "there needs to be a major issue to get the quality of people who served on the TMI-2 Panel."

Table 1: Characteristics that Support implementation of Advisory Panels CHARACTERISTIC RESPONDENTS

. high profile incident, creating concern across Licensee, NRC, Panel, Public many communities traumatic incident Licensee NRC, Panel, Public

. people understood what the problem was and Licensee, Panel, Public could focus on common goals

. controversial issue Licensee, NRC

. unique event Licensee NRC

. loss of credibility and trust NRC, Panel

. ongoing problem NRC, Panel

. health fears NRC, Public 3.4.2 Summary of Lessons Leamed about Characteristics that Support Implementation of Advisory Panel Successful advisory group implementation requires a high profile problem with a specific focus.

Without an appropriate focus, the advisory Panel would be unlikely to attract quality participants or hold their attention for long.

Successful advisory group maintenance requires a continuing high public interest in the event.

3.5 Panelinfluence on Cleanup Efforts The following analysis focuses on respondents' perceptions of the role played by the Panel in the cleanup efforts at TMI-2. The analysis is followed by a summary of lessons teamed about Panel influence.

25

i l

3.5.1 Analysis of Panel Influence on Cleanup Efforts Respondents are convinced that the Advisory Panel does have influence on the cleanup activities at TMI-2 although they have difficulty untangling the direct influence of the Panel from the other pressures on the licensee during the cleanup period. Even though most respondents are unable to identify any examples of direct technical influence the Panel had on the cleanup, they do believe

]

that the Advisory Panel plays other significant roles in the cleanup process.

l All respondents identify an important role of the Panel as increasing the public scrutiny of both licensee and agency cleanup activities. Members of the public and the Panel are observing and questioning the licensee and the NRC in public; answers to those questions are also provided in public. Respondents recall that many questions posed by the Panel are asked in no other public forum. One NRC staff member describes participation in the Panel as the only consistent

" source of contradictory information for GPU."2 Both the licensee and challengers to the licensee are expected to present and defend their positions in public, which all respondents feel is beneficial to the cleanup. One member of the public describes this role of the Panel as

" extending the reach" of the general public, allowing them to hear and participate in discussions about the cleanup to which they normally have no access. NRC staff members believe that the scrutiny of the Advisory Panel forces the licensee to think through their plans very carefully before presenting them to either the agency or the Panel.

Respondents also report that the existence of the Advisory Panel influences the way information about the cleanup is delivered and presented. Technical information is prepared by both the NRC and the licensee for wide dissemination and understanding by members of the lay public.

In addition to providing a conduit between the NRC and the public, Panel members believe they also facilitate communication between the licensee and the public. Issues are highlighted by the Panel so that licensee staff will know what is important to the public, are sensitized to public concems, and hear the public perspective. One NRC staff member corroborates this perception of the facilitation role by observing that "the advisory Panel helped in packaging the cleanup issues for the public. If a general public consensus developed about a specific issue, the Panel helped focus or concentrate that consensus." A licensee staff member believes that " participation 2 Most respondents refer to the licensee as "GPU/' While GPU is technically the parent company of the licensee GPUN. we believe that the respondents are referring to the licensee (GPUN) in their responses because they consistently switch back and fonh between the tenns GPU and licensee, in deference to respondents'staternents, we retain the references to GPU.

26

in the Panel provides [the licensee] with a constant reminder and better perception of what issues the public was concerned about."

Respondents' analyses of the Panel's technical contribution to the cleanup are quite divergent.

Licensee staff, for example, are fairly certain that the Advisory Panel contributed no technical guidance during the cleanup. They admit, however, that some Panel members, particularly those with technical backgrounds, raise interesting issues which are followed up by the licensee. One licensee respondent concedes that "the Advisory Panel raised issues that (GPU) had to consider.

If a technical person, in particular, raised an issue, we heard it. It got us to listen." NRC staff are I

more confident that Panel members contribute substantially to technical issues. At the very least, NRC staff believe that Panel members insist that a wider range of technical alternatives be considered or developed. One NRC staff reports,"[A Panel member] first brought up the idea of PDMS (post-defueling monitored storage) in a Panel meeting. I can't honestly say the licensee hadn't given PDMS some previous thought, but the idea was first discussed at Panel meetings."

l In general, Panel members believe they provide some level of technical guidance for the cleanup, l

although it is difficult for Panelists to identify specific instances where their questions or ideas changed the technical course of the cleanup. One technical Panel member concedes,"I do

[believe we had some technical influence on the cleanup], but I don't know how much. Our questions made them go back and think... Some questions influenced GPU and NRC to look into things more thoroughly and carefully.... Overall, GPU did an excellent technical job."

3.5.2 Summary of Lessons Leamed about Panelinfluence on the Cleanup l

l The most crucial Panel influence on cleanup activities is the increased public scrutiny l

of both NRC and licensee decisions and activities.

l The Panel facilitates communication with the public for both the NRC and licensee.

t This communication helps sensitize the agency and the licensee to public concerns.

The level of technicalinfluence on cleanup activities is minimal and difficult to j

untangle from the other pressures put on the licensee. Most respondents agree, however, that Panel and public questions expand the range of alternatives considered i

by the NRC and licensee.

27

\\

4 J

3.6 Role of the Media The following analysis focuses on the role played by the media as it covered the Panel's activities over the years. The analysis is followed by a summary of the lessons leamed about the role of the media.

l 3.6.1 Analysis of the Role of the Media The Advisory Panel meetings received extensive media coverage during the early years, although this lessened considerably over the years. One participant complains that recently," Stories about Panel meetings and cleanup activities end up on the fourth page of the sports section." Both local newspapers and television provide coverage at most meetings. Reporters covering this beat often retain the assignment for years. A media respondent reports "that the topic is so complicated it took years to figure out exactly what was going on." This complexity may be reflected in Panelists' perceptions that "at the beginning, the media blew things out of proportion, elaborating on certain things. They were not very accurate because they usually didn't get the whole story." By later years, however, Panel members report general satisfaction with the technical content of stories, because they are "very straightforward and mostly correct."

Panel panicipants report both advantages and disadvantages of Panel meeting media coverage.

One disadvantage mentioned by several respondents is that some participants " play to the camera," often exaggerating their positions to make interesting stories that the media will pick up. One Panel member thinks that the effect of this kind of media coverage "only exacerbates the differences between the NRC and GPU." Some respondents also believe that media presence encourages irresponsible individuals to make claims that are " counterproductive to understanding the real issues."

In general, however, most Panel participants believe that the role of the media is generally a positive one for the Advisory Panel. NRC staff, Panel members, and members of the public all report that the most important role of the media is to disseminate information about cleanup activities to an audience wider than the one the Panel can reach at each meeting. One NRC staff member believes that a positive side effect of this dissemination is having to prepare and present reports that are polished and can stand up to the glare of television lights. In addition to widely disseminating information from the licensee, NRC, and other agencies and experts, the media also provides a wider forum for asking and answering questions in public. This increases the 28

)

j i

i l

scrutiny of the cleanup which most respondents feel is a vital role of the Panel. In addition, one 1

j Panel member believes that the media attention "gives the Panel a sense of encouragement j

j because they know residents of the area are getting information about the Panel activities through I

J the media." Otherwise, he feels, most Panel activities would have been lost on area residents and Panel members would feel as if their efforts were in vain.

I i

3.6.2 Summary of Lessons Leamed about the Role of the Media J

Local media covered Panel Meetings throughout the years, although stories moved

~

i off the front page during later years.

Media coverage disseminates cleanup information to a wider audience than is reached j

through the Panel meetings.

Media coverage encouraged high quality presentations.

j Media coverage does provide opponunities for grandstanding and irresponsible claim 1

l making to wide audiences.

2

]

3.7 Advisory Panel Longevity 4

j The following analysis focuses on how the Panel was sustained as an effective effort over the i

thirteen years of its existence. The analysis is followed by a summary of lessons learned about j

effective advisory panel longevity.

3.7.1 Analysis of Advisory Panel Longevity l

The Panel met for the first time on November 12,1980, almost nine months after the accident and continued to meet thereafter for 13 years. Prior to the formation of the Panel, the NRC held public meetings in the general area of Three Mile Island. One NRC staff remembers the

" infamous Liberty Township Fire Hall meeting which got out of hand. [The NRC] received a 51000 damage bill." A series of ad hoc meetings were also held with concerned citizens.

l representatives of state and local government, and licensee staff in order to find a more organized way for NRC to receive input about the cleanup efforts. Several respondents remember that the local activist group, Three Mile Island Alert (TMI A), was insistent that citizens be involved in i

the cleanup in some way.

i I

1 29 i

o

\\

No respondent recalls that the formulation of the Panel was particularly slow. What they do report is initial concem about the purpose of the Panel and some apprehension about how best to J

involve citizens in Panel activities. The transcript of the first meeting is revealing. Before members can be introduced, con 0ict between the first Chainnan of the Panel, John Minnich, and a member of the public arises over the role of the public (NRC 1980: 2-3):

Mr. Minnich (Chairman):... Folks, I welcome all of you and your interest in this l

l meeting. I must say to you this evening that I do not believe that we will have an opportunity for public discussion tonight from the audience, not because we don't want to hear your views, but simply because if the rest of the Panel is like myself, we are groping for some answers tonight, and I think that is the prime reason for this meeting tonight is to give us some direction and purpose to that direction.

Mr. Horgan (member of the public): Excuse me, sir. If you're going to give direction to the Panel and Mr. Denton is going to advise you on what steps you are going to take, don't you think that the people of the area should also be giving you direction?

Mr. Minnich: At an appropriate time. The next time, please,I will hear you if you will raise your hand, but don't interrupt me. Let's not get started on the wrong foot tonight, please.

Mr. Horgan: Excuse me, sir, but before you can decide what you are going to study don't you think that you should hear what we want you to study? This Panel --

Mr. Minnich: No,I don't. You are out of order. And if this is the kind of thing you are going to start right off the bat, then there is no purpose in my being here or anybody else being here.

Now, if you will sit down and listen to the proceedings, maybe you will learn something like I hope to learn something, and when we want your input -- and you will have a chance for input -- we will ask for it. I do not anticipate that your opportunity will arise this evening.

The tone set by this exchange in the earliest moments of the Citizens Advisory Panel raised serious concerns for the members of the public we talked with. They report that they stuck with the Panel over the next few hours, as well as the next thirteen years, because there was no other option. A Panel member sums ups this perception,".. the Panel was the only game in town.

The Panel was the only open meeting about the cleanup activities at TMl-2."

30

Obviously, the Advisory Panel was not a quick fix to any of the problems facing the NRC regarding the cleanup of TMI-2. It took many years for some participants to just gain enough technical knowledge to be effective Panel participants. It also took many years for rappon to develop between the Panel participants. One NRC staff member repons "The two most significant factors in maintaining the dialogue [between the NRC and the public] were time and the existence of the Panel. As the licensee succeeded in its cleanup activities, the public became more comfortable with what they were saying at meetings.... As the public got to know more details, they got more comfortable. For example, the videos that the licensee showed of their l

activities were very helpful for both the Panel and the public." A Panel member reports that

" Trust (of licensee and NRC] was built up by their carrying through on actions, explaining problems, telling the truth."

Another Panel member thought "it took maybe ten years for the public trust of NRC and GPU to emerge." A fellow Panel member expresses concern that the working relationships between Panel panicipants which took years to build are not being institutionalized in the licensee organization. The respondent believes that " reverting back to the old antagonistic way [between the Panel and the licensee) is still a possibility as new GPU people, without any history with the Panel, start to work with the Panel." Several respondents report that in a recent meeting a GPUN official displayed a defensive communication style, reminiscent of earliest Panel meetings. They all express surprise that licensee staff familiar with Advisory Panel meetings had not prepared this official for the relatively non-confrontational style of Panel meetings. One Panel member remembers that this institutional forgetfulness was a pattern with the licensee over the years, "The utility tends to shoot itself in the foot - whenever they have a good thing going, they shoot then.selves in the foot. "

j It is also likely that the apparent trust between the NRC and other panicipants is not yet institutionalized beyond personal contact with NRC staff at TM1 and the NRC Panel DFO.

Members of the public are particularly likely to report that individual interpersonal contact with local NRC staff is satisfactory but this does not translate into an increased level of trust for the NRC (or the licensee)in general.

The longevity of the Panel did allow divergent views and interpersonal problems to be smoothed over by participants' shared experience and knowledge. Panel participants got to know each other over the course of thirteen years. One Panel member reports that he began his Panel tenure with a strongly held perspective on one side of the anti-/ pro-nuclear spectrum. Over the years, however, he found himself agreeing more and more with Panelists who he believed originally 31

represented the other side. A fellow Panelist echoes this perspective,"I trust my opponents on the Panel more than the ones in the audience because they heard the same presentations I did, understood the responsibilities of the Panel, and knew the limits of what we were trying to do."

If the Panel hadn't been allowed to mature in this way, antagonism and distrust between Panel members would not have been transformed into the almost universal perception of Panel success.

i Panel members are equally divided when asked whether the Panel should contmue to operate.

Every Panel member, past and present, expresses surprise that the Panel has existed for thirteen years. Panel members who think the Panel should come to an end believe that the most important issues have been addressed and resolved by the Panel and the cleanup efforts. Past Panel members report their primary reason for resigning is the completion of what they perceived to be the major cleanup activities. Panel members who favor continuing the Panel express concem that without the Panel, the public will have no forum in which to express their concerns about activities at TMI. Several milestones still remain, including plans for the post-defueling monitored storage (PDMS) and funding for decommissioning, and these Panelists express willingness to continue their service to the Panel until these discussions are complete. However, even those Panel members who think the Panel should continue, believe the Panel is in the "home stretch."

3.7.2 Summary of Lessons Leamed about Advisory Panel Longevity g spNe 00 Many participants continued with the Panel ever initial concerns about its efficacy becau e it was the only forum available for participating in discussions about the cleanup.

The longevity of the Advisory Panel served to smooth over divergent views of Panel participants, allowed enough time for individuals to learn about the complicated technical issues involved in the cleanup, and created an almost universal perception that the Panel was an effective comrnunication forum.

Although interpersonal trust between Panel participants is generally quite high, this trust has not typically been translated into increased trust for the institutions or organizations that other participants represent.

All past and present Panel members express surprise that the Panel survived for 13 years. Even those Panel members who believe the Panel should continue think the Panel has only a few issues left to address.

32

4.0 CONCLUSION

S 4.1 Effectiveness of TMI-2 Advisory Panel Although the pumose of this report is not to assess the effectiveness of the TMI-2 Advisory Panel, the respondents' interviews provide some evidence about perceptions of Panel effectiveness. In general, the Advisory Panel is deemed at least a modest success by all l

interviewed panicipants, although all participants also had some critique of Panel activities or objectives.

1 l

A licensee respondent graciously expresses a general perception among panicipants that "the l

NRC got more out of this Panel than it was entitled to. What started out as a palliative device turned into an effective communication channel." Responding to mounting pressure to "do j

something about the increasing numbers of near-hysterical people" contacting the NRC about TMI-2, the Panel grew into a two way communication forum for participants. Most respondents believe that the Panel introduced and legitimated the consideration of public concerns in developing the cleanup plans.

Licensee staff report that participating in the Panel helps them formulate their message effectively so they can get their message and "the facts out to the real public and the press."

Implied in the previous statement is a strong criticism by licensee respondents that the Panel does not truly represent the public. From their perspective, the Panel is strongly slanted to the " anti-i nuclear" side of the continuuri. The Panel"never effectively presented both sides of the story.

The ' pro' side never got a real hearing," reports a licensee staff member. Interestingly enough, members of the public have the same critique of the Panel, although they perceive that the Panel provides more attention to and opportunity for the proponents of nuclear energy As evidence of this bias, many of the public respondents suggest that not enough lay people are represented on the Panel.

In general, however, respondents perceive the Panel as "a TMI 2 experiment that worked." A member of the public believes that the " commitment from Panel members was extraordinary.

This component of the Panel experience may not be reproducible." In reply, several Panel members share in the sentiment that participating on the Panel"was not fun,I didn't like doing it. But I keep doing it and I'll keep doing it because it is an effective public forum. It stimulated a public dialogue about the cleanup of TMI 2 that never would have taken place otherwise." A 33

i few Panel members admit, somewhat sheepishly, that participation on the Panel, while exhausting, was " great fun. It is a tremendous educational experience - I know so much about how things work at TMI-2. One of the reasons I stayed was because I enjoyed the unique insight the Advisory Panel gets into the cleanup."

i 4.2 Implications for NRC The TMI 2 Advisory Panel is perceived by participants and observers as a success in meeting its i

objective of opening up a communication channel between the public and the NRC. This reflects the findings in the literature that advisory panel objectives can serve both citizens and public I

decision makers. The development and focus on a set of well known and concrete objectives appears to have helped the Advisory Panel be productive and effective over the years. However, this focus on a limited set of objectives may have contributed to a less positive situation.

The literature about advisory panels suggests that participation on or with an advisory panel increases public satisfaction with social institutions more generally. It does not appear at this time that Panel participants share this expanded satisfaction. There does not appear to be any f

institutionalization of relationships between the public, the Panel members, NRC, and the licensee beyond the strong, interpersonal relationships developed over the years of Panel j

participation. While Panel related interaction with the public about TMI-2 cleanup activities appears to be somewhat normalized, there is no guarantee that these relationships will endure if another problem arises at Three Mile Island in the future, This may be partly a result of the decision by the NRC to keep the Panel foc.ised strictly on TMI-2 cleanup activities or the practice of limiting the number of people involved in Panel activities or presentations. Instead of building a wider relationship with the NRC and all ofits activities and employees, Panel participants are limited to interactions with a limited number of NRC employees about a constrained set of topics.

The original stmeture of the Panel, which emphasized a broad representation of scientists, officials, and citizens, effectively initiated a legitimacy or credibility for the Panel with most of its potential audience. Panel credibility is also enhanced by several other phenomena. There is wide-spread recognition that while the diversity of viewpoints on the Panel often created conflict among members, it also provided the credibility required for continued participation by active members of the public as well as acceptance of Panel activities by the licensee. These two groups of participants perceive that they are underdogs with the Panel which suggests that Panel 34

members treat representatives of both groups evenhandedly. Panel credibility is also increased by the quality of individuals who serve diligently for years. Individual Panel members and the Panel as a whole are perceived by participants as distinct from, and unbeholden to, the sponsoring agency.

Both members of public interest groups and the licensee question whether the Advisory Panel represents the public at large. Technically, the Advisory Panel can best be characterized as j

i representing that subsample of the population actively interested in the cleanup of TMI-2. A lack of panicipation by this more interested public does not necesserily suggest that they feel unrepresented by the Panel. It is equally likely that they feel very represented by the individuals who consistently attend meetings. One official of TMIA reports that membership went from less than 100 members before the accident at TMI-2 to about 2,000 current members. These l

members know that TMIA follows cleanup activities carefully, panicipating not only in Panel actives but in other efforts as well, including litigation and monitoring programs. Other, non-TMIA members of the interested public are likely to feel fairly well represented by the broad range of perspectives on the Panel at any given time. It is probable that if the Advisory Panel did l

not represent the views of the public which is interested in the cleanup of TMl-2, the NRC would have experienced more pressure from these individuals and groups to provide meaningful ways to participate in the cleanup discussions.

s med A. wedrins~d d resews Supporting the Advisory Panel for 13 years was = rpem r m~~- tiin for the NRC. It is not possible to use the information from this study to calculate either the costs or the benefits of the Advisory Panel. However, given the psychological trauma of the accident, the sense of betrayal by local, state, and federal officials, and the physical fear for their own and their children's health,it is probable that the pressure on the NRC to support some method for individuals and groups to panicipate in the cleanup discussions would have continued to mount in the months after the accident. Instead, the implementation and continued suppon for an Advisory Panel considered legitimate by most potential participants defused that pressure so that NRC, licensee, and public attention could be turned to the technical aspects of the cleanup.

i I

35 i

s

,,,,_,___,m_

y._,,_m,m,,,,,_.7r

,y.,,,y.,_n,.,...,py,y..m...

,,, _. -.,r

i

~

5.1 Interview Protocol LESSONS LEARNED FROM THE TMI-2 ADVISORY PANEL Interview Protocol

1. BriefIntroduction

. to interviewer and to Battelle to goals of project how results will be used (remind respondent that interview is voluntary and confidential, unless permission granted otherwise to attribute quotes) mechanics: how interview is laid out, how long the interview will take, etc.

. questions the respondents may have IL GENERAL OUESTIONS TO BE ASKED ALL INTERVIEWEES A. Basic Information about respondents' relationship with the Advisory Panel

Purpose:

to clarify respondent's relationship and experiences with the Advisory Panel including the length of time involved in Panel activities, types of activities or character of relationship, and frequency of participation in Panel activities.

1. How long have you been involved with Advisory Panel activities?

2. How are you [or how have you been] involved with the activities of the TMl-2 Advisory Panel?

. what types of Advisory Panel activities have you participated in?

3. Has the relationship or types of activities you have been involved in changed during the last 12 years?

if so,in what ways have it changed?

4. How often do you attend Advisory Panel meetings has this increased or decreased over the years?

if changed, why?

36

i i

B. Objectivas of Advisory Panet

Purpose:

to clarify respondent's understanding of Advisory Panel objectives including any changes in objectives

1. Right after the accident at TM1, what did you think was needed to ensure -

communication between the public, the licensee, and the NRC?

• Did the advisory Panel meet those needs?

2. What were the original objectives of the Panel's activities?

+ do you remember if you ever saw those objectives in writing?

do you remember if the objectives were talked about i

explicitly during any of the Advisory Panel meetings you attended?

I

3. Did these original objectives of the Advisory Panel change over time?

. if so,in what ways did they change?

. were these changes formal (i.e., with great discussion and changes in the written objectives) or more informal (a general shift over time)?

. do you know why they changed?

4. In your opinion, did the Advisory Panel meet its general objectives?

4

. did the Panel meet any objectives that emerged later?

C. Mechanics of Panel Meetings

Purpose:

to determine respondent's understanding of how the Advisory Panel meetings worked and to solicit information about strengths and weaknesses of Panel mechanics j

1. Can you describe the " mechanics" of Advisory Panel meetings or how meetings are organized and run?

. how are meeting agendas set?

l

. who decides what topics will be covered?

\\

. how did the chair come to be selected?

)

+ what were the (NRC) criteria for selecting a chair?

. who typically attended meetings of the Advisory Panel?

. how does an individual address the Panel?

I

. how does a citizen have input?

i 37

j i

a

. were resolutions or " motions"ever developed and/or voted on?

2. Did any of the " mechanics"of the Advisory Panel change in any way over the years you were involved with the Panel? [ agenda setting, topics to be discussed, addressing the Panel, or any other mechanics that have been identified by the respondent]

. if so, in what ways did they change?

. do you have any ideas about why the mechanics may have changed?

. do you think the changes benefited Advisory Panel operations?

3. When you think about the way the Advisory Panel operate,s, are,there particular processes or ways of operating that seemed to encourage participation m meetings?

. are there particular procedures that seemed to discourage participation m meetmgs.

. can you remember specific examples from meetings?

4. Do you have any suggestions for processes or procedures that you think would improve the mechanics of Panel meetings?

i D. Advisory Panel communication

Purpose:

to determine respondent's understanding of how information was exchanged between the various parties la. How does the Advisory Panel receive information from other parties?

how is information communicated to the Advisory Panel by the NRC staff?

j

. how is information communicated to the Advisory Panel by the licensee staff?

. how is information communicated to the Advisory Panel by the members of the public?

lb. In what ways have the methods through which the Advisory Panel receives information from other parties changed over the years?

. any changes in communicating information to the Advisory Panel by the NRC staff?

. any changes in communicating information to the Advisory Panel by the licensee staff?

. any changes in communicating information to the Advisory Panel by the members of the public?

38

2a. How does the Advisory Panel communicate information to others?

i

. how does the Advisory Panel communicate information to members of the public?

. how does the Advisory Panel communicate information to NRC staff?

l

. how does the Advisory Panel communicate information to licensee staff?

]

2b. In what ways have the methods through which the Advisory Panel communicates information to others changed over the years?

. any changes in communicating information to the NRC staff?

. any changes in communicating information to the licensee staff?

. any changes in communicating information to members of the public?

E. Issues Addressed by the Advisory Panel

Purpose:

to describe types of issues and changes in types ofissues addressed by Advisory Panel and to solicit information about issues that respondent felt should have been addressed but never were.

1. When you first became involved with the Advisory Panel, what types ofissues or concems did the Panel typically address?

. what types ofissues or concerns was the Panel able to resolve during the early days of its existence?

. are there issues or concerns that the Panel was never able to resolve and are still being addressed by the Panel?

2. What types of issues or problems emerged during your subsequent involvement with Advisory Panel activities?

. how long ago were these issues addressed by the Panel?)

3. Were the later problems similar to or different from the original types of issues or problems addressed by the Panel?

. why did the types of problems addressed by the Panel [ change] [ remain the same] over the years?

4. Do you think there were or are issues that should have been addressed by the Panel and never were?

. if so, can you give examples of the types of issues you felt should have been addressed by the Panel

. why do you think the Panel never addressed these issues?

39

l F. Nature of the Relationship Among the Parties

Purpose:

to determine the role of the Advisory Panelin creating and maintaining relationships among the various parties intro: Now I am going to go through a set of questions that refer to conditions in three j

time periods - the time just before the TMI-2 accident, a month or two after the TMI 2 accident, and currently.

i

1. How would you characterize the relationships among the various parties before the i

accident at TMI-2?

4

. between the NRC staff and members of the" involved"public

. between the NRC staff and members of the licensee staff

. between the licensee staff and members of the " involved"public

2. What do you remember about how the relationships between the various parties changed after the emergency simmered down but within a month or two of the accident?

. were there any difficulties between the public and NRC or licensee staff during this phase?

j

. do you remember how long it took to move out of the " emergency" phase?

3. How would you characterize the current relationships among the various parties?

i l

. between the Advisory Panel and members of the " involved"public 1

. between the Advisory Panel and members of the NRC staff

~

. between the Advisory Panel and members of the licensee staff between the NRC staff and members of the " involved" public

. between the NRC staff and members of the licensee staff

. between the licensee staff and members of the" involved"public

4. What role do you think the Advisory Panel had in creating or sustaining the relationships between the various panies that you just described?

I

. between the Advisory Panel and members of the "involveil" public

. between the Advisory Panel and members of the NRC staff

+ between the Advisory Panel and members of the licensee staff l

. between the NRC staff and members of the " involved" public 40

_, _.. =

. between the NRC staff and members of the licensee staff

. between the licensee staff and members of the" involved"public III. UNIOUE OUESTIONS ASKED SPECIFIC GROUPS A. NRC Staff

1. Could you please describe how the Advisory Panel is managed and coordinated with other NRC activities or groups?

. does the manager responsible for the Advisory Panel have enough authority to help the Panel meet its objectives or responsibilities?

based on your experience with the Advisory Panel, how much time do you think is necessary to effectively " manage" the Panel?

how is information from the NRC communicated to the Advisory Panel?

. how is information from the Advisory Panel communicated to the NRC?

. what types of coordination with other groups or departments within NRC are required?

l

2. How is information received from the Advisory Panel used by the NRC?

l

3. Who at NRC uses information received from the Advisory Panel?

4. Is the Advisory Panel information considered valuable? if so, for what?

5. Is there intemal criticism of the information?

. if so, by whom?

. what kinds of criticism are received?

6. How would you describe the original working relationship between the Advisory Panel and NRC Staff?

7. How would you describe the current working relationship between the Advisory Panel and bHC staff.

. if there have been changes, how do you account for any changes?

l

8. What changes in Advisory Panel operations would make the Panel more effective?

l

9. In your opinion, are there characteristics unique to the TMI 2 clean-up that lends itself particularly well to the use of a citizen advisory group? what are those characteristics?

. if not, do you believe that there are characteristics unique to the TMI 2 clean-up that suggest no use of a citizen advisory group? what are those characteristics?

l 41

~

l

10. In your opinion,is there a more appropriate foium to deal with the issues addressed by the Advisory Panel?

i

. what is it?

I1. Have NRC staff ever used public forums other than the Advisory Panel for addressing issues related to the TMI-2 clean-up?

i

. if so, what forums?

. are they used in addition to or in replacement of the Advisory Panel?

. why are they chosen instead of the Panel?

Thank you for your assistance, what questions do you have for me?

B. Panel Members 4

1. Why did you originally get involved with the Advisory Panel?

were you asked by someone you respect to participate?

2. Were your motivations for getting involved satisfied by your participation?

i 3a. Why do you continue to participate in the Advisory Panel?

. are there panicular issues you would like to see resolved?

3b. Why did you decide to discontinue participating in the Advisory Panel?

4. What other public forums have you participated in to address issues related to TMI-2 cleanup?

. why have you participated in other forums?

5. Are other forums more successful than the Advisory Panel in addressing issues related to TMI-2 cleanup?

. why do you think they have been more successful?

i l

l

6. In your opinion, are there characteristics unique to the TMI-2 clean-up : hat lend itself l

particularly well to the use of a citizen advisory group? what are those characteristics?

. if not, do you believe that there are characteristics unique to the TMI-2 clean-up that suggest no use of a citizen advisory group? what are those characteristics?

7. Knowing what you know now, is there a more appropriate forum to deal with issues related to the TMI-2 cleanup?

i l

l

. what is it?

l Thank you for your assistance, what questions do you have for me?

42

i C. Licensee Staff

1. What types of information does [the licensee] receive from the Advisory Panel?

. how is the information received (e.g., through written communications or through attendance or panicipation in Advisory Panel meetings?)

2. How is the information that is received from the Advisory Panel used by the licensee?

3. Who uses information received from the Panel?

4. Is the information received from the Panel considered valuable?

. if so, for what?

5. Is there intemal criticism of the information received from the Panel?

. if so, by whom?

i

. what kinds of criticism are received?

6. Does the licensee ever use public forums other than the Advisory Panel for addressing issues related to the TMI-2 clean-up?

. if so, what are those forums?

i are they used in addition to or in replacement of the Advisory Panel?

. why are they chosen instead of the Panel?

7. What role,if any, do you think the Advisory Panel had in changing the licensee's relationships with members of the public?

8. What role,if any, do you think the Advisory Panel had in changing the licensee's relationships with NRC staff members?

Thank you for your assistance, what questions do you have for me?

D. Members of the Public

1. What types of information does the public receive from the Advisory Panel?

. how is the information received (e.g., through written communications or through attendance or participation in Advisory Panel meetings?)

2. How is information that is received from the Advisory Panel used by members of the public?

3. Is the information received from the Panel considered valuable by members of the public?

43

. ~

i

\\

. if so, for what?

4. Are there other public forums that the public uses to address issues related to the TMl-2 clean up?

if so, what are those forums?

. are they used in addition to or in replacement of the Advisory Panel?

. why are they chosen instead of the Panel?

5. What value has the Advisory Panel had for you personally?

i

5. What is your sense about the value of the Advisory Panel to the more general community?

6. Is there anyone else in the community you think I should be sure and talk with?

. name and address

. shou!d I use your name as an introduction?

j i

Thank you for your assistance, what questions do you have for me?

l l

E. Media Representatives i

1. How are Advisory Panel meetings covered in your newspaper?

j is the focus on the technical information or the meeting processes?

how this focus changed at all over the years? If so, how?

2. What types of information does the media receive from the Advisory Panel?

. how is the information received (e.g., through written communications or through attendance or participation in Advisory Panel meetings?)

3. How is the information that is received from the Advisory Panel used by media representatives?

4. Who uses information received from the Panel?

5. Is the information received from the Panel considered valuable?

i i

. if so, for what?

6. Is there criticism of the information of the information received from the Panel?

if so, by whom?

. what kinds of criticism are received?

44

_.,...... _ _,., _...... _,. _ -... -. -... ~.., _. - -

7. Do media representatives ever use other public forums for gathering information related to the TMI-2 clean-up?

• if so, what are those forums?

. are they used in addition to or in replacement of the Advisory Panel?

. why are they chosen instead of the Panel?

8. What role,if any, do you think the Advisory Panel had in changing the relationships between the NRC and members of the public?

9. What role,if any, do you think the Advisory Panel had in changing relationships between the licensee and members of the public?

9. What sense do you have about the value of the Advisory Panel to the general community?

Thank you for your assistance, what questions do you have for me?

45

5.2 Interview Samolet COMPLETED INTERVIEWS Affiliation Past Participant Current Participant Adviso:y Panel Members 4

8 NRC Staff 3

2 Licensee 2

1 Members of the Public 1

4 Media 1

TOTAL 10 16 I We are currently seeking pennission from interviewees to include their names in this appendix. The final repon should include the names and affiliations of the interviewees, but at this time we are unable to release those names.

l O

5.3 Contact Documents Used with Study Participants 5.3.1 Initial Contact Letter with Potential Study Participants l

Dear [ Panel Member]:

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has contracted with Battelle Pacific Northwest l

Laboratories (PNL) and Battelle Human Affairs Research Centers (HARC) to document the experiences of the TMI-2 Advisory Panel for the de. contamination of Three Mile Island Unit 2 and describe the " lessons learned" by the Advisory Panel experience. To do this analysis, the l

contractor will be looking at transcripts of the Panel meetings as well as conducting face-to-face l

and telephone interviews with individuals who participated.in Advisory Panel meetings. They will be conducting interviews with a sample of NRC staff, licensee staff, Advisory Panel l

members, and public and media representatives who participated in Panel activities over the l

years.

Your membership on the Advisory Panel gives you a special perspective on the Panel's activities and events over the years and your input into the report to the NRC is vital. The contractor will l

be contacting you to schedule an interview to ask about your experiences on the Advisory Panel.

The interview will take approximately 1.5 hours5.787037e-5 days <br />0.00139 hours <br />8.267196e-6 weeks <br />1.9025e-6 months <br /> to complete. If possible, a face-to-face l

interview will be scheduled for a location and time convenient to you. If a face-to-face interview l

is not possible, the contractor will ask to schedule a phone interview.

l The information you provide to HARC interviewers will be critical to providing a meaningful analysis of the Advisory Panel experience over the last twelve years. For this reason, the con'ractor has been directed to ensure that all interviews are confidential and that all reports from l

these interviews do not reveal, either implicitly or explicitly, the identity of any interviewee without their explicit permission. The principal investigator on the project, Denise Lach, will be calling you soon to schedule an interview. If you have any questions about the project, please feel free to contact the PNL project manager, Becky Harty at (509) 375-2263, or the HARC project manager, Nancy Durbin, at (206) 528-3248.

Sincerely, i

l Michael Masnik NRC Project Manager i

l i

1 47 l

l

1 l

i j

5.3.2 Interview Confirmation letter i

Dear :

1 enjoyed talking with you on the phone last week and am pleased that you agreed to an interview about your experiences with the 'Three Mile Island Advisory Panel. Either I and/or my colleague, Dr. Trish Bolton, will be conducting the actual interview We look forward to meeting you at The interview should take about one and a half hours to complete.

As Mike Masnik explained in his recent letter, your participation is vital to any understanding of i

the Advisory Panel experience. All comments you make during the interview will remain strictly 1

confidential unless you give us express permission to attribute a specific quote to you. Your identity will not be revealed, either implicitly or explicitly, in any reports resulting from this-study.]

1 If you are unable to make the scheduled interview, please feel free to call me at 206-528-3319 before May 5 or at 717-561-1900 after May 9. Thank you.

Sincerely, I

Denise H. Lach, Ph.D.

Research Sociologist I

l i

l 48

~. -

l l

5.3.3 Interview Thank You letter i

Dear (Interviewee):

i Thank you, again, for your participation in the recent interview with Battelle staff members about your experiences with the TMI-2 Advisory Panel. The information and perspective you provided during the interview are vital to a comprehensive review of the Panel over its thirteen year existence.

We asked Battelle to interview current and past members of the Panel and to complement these with interviews of NRC staff members, licensee staff members, members of the public, and media representatives. These interviews are essentially complete. Although the contents of each interview are confidential, Battelle staff let us know that everyone they asked to participate agreed to an interview. The interviewers also felt that everyone was frank and open during the interviews and were particularly impressed with the quality and usefulness of the information they received. We expect the final report to contain valuable information about the Advisory Panel experience.

The final report prepared for the NRC by Battelle will describe the " lessons learned" through the Advisory Panel experience: participants' perceptions of what worked to make the Panel an effective conduit of information, what was less successful in facilitating the exchange of information, and what changes were made along the way to address participants' concerns. The report, which should be ready in early 1994, will be forwarded to you if you requested a copy.

If you have any questions about the interviews or the report, please feel free to contact the Battelle project manager, Nancy Durbin, at (206) 528-3248, or the principal investigator, Denise Lach, at (206) 528 3319. You can also call me at the NRC, toll free, at 1-800-426-8096 with any questions.

l Sincerely, i

l l

49

0 5.4 References

.l Ashford, Nicholas.1984. " Advisory Committees in OSHA and EPA: Their Use in Regulatory Decisionmaking." Science, Technology, and Human Values 9: 92-82.

Beatty, Kathleen and John Pierce.1976. " Representation and Public Involvement in Wate~

Resource Politics: A Comparison of Six Participant Types." WaterResources 12: 2005.

Bisogni, C., A. Lemley, and J. Fessenden-Raden.1983. " Decision Making and Risk Management by Individuals: Nitrate-Nitrogen in the Clifton Springs, New York Public Water Supply." Technical Report for the Office of Water Research and Technology, Washington, D.C.

Carpenter, S. and W. Kennedy 1988. Managing Public Disputes. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Christopoulo, George.1974. "An Evaluation of Policy Related Research on Citizen Participation in Municipal Service Systems: Legal System." Monograph No. 7, Technical Assistance Research Programs Institute, Washington, D.C.

Desario, J. and S. Langton.1987. Citi:en Participation in Public Decision Making. NY:

Greenwood.

Doerksen, Harvey, and John Pierce.1975. " Citizen Participation in Water Policy Formation."

Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of Western Political Science Association, Seattle, Washington, March 20-21,1975.

Dunn, J., Jr.1979. "Public Participation in Landfill Siting Process Can Help Smooth the Way."

Solid Wastes Management Refuse RemovalJournal 22: 81-82.

Hannah, Susan and Helenan Lewis.1982. " Internal Citizen Control of Locally Initiated Citizen Advisory Committees: A Case Study. Journalof Voluntary Action Research 11: 39-52.

j Hoyle, J.1980a. "Three Mile Island Unit 2 Advisory Panel; Establishment." FederalRegister j

45:71692.

1 50 l

l l

---

. I980b. Charterfor Advisory Panelfor the Decontamination ofThree bfileIsland, Unit 2.

Washington, D.C.: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Hughey, Joseph and Eric Sundstrom.1988. Perceptions of Three Mile Island and Acceptance of a Nuclear Power Plant in a Distant Community." Journal ofApplied SocialPsychology 18:

880-890.

Konnheim, C.S.1988. "Public Participation in the Siting of Resource Recovery Facilities."

Paper presented at the Annual APCA Meeting, Dallas, Texas. June 19-24,1988.

Kostmayer, P., M. Udall, and M. Lujan, Jr.1980. Letter from House Committee on Interior and l

Insular Affairs to J. F. Aheame, Chairman, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (May 13, 1980).

Krimsky, Sheldon.1984. "Beyond Technocracy: New Routes for Citizen involvement in Social l

Risk Assessment." Pp. 43-61 in Citizen Participation in Science Policy, James C. Peterson, Editor. Amherst, MA: The University of Massachusetts Press.

Landre, Betsy and Barbara Knuth.1992. " Success of Citizen Advisory Committees in Consensus Based Water Resources Planning in the Great Lakes Basin." Society and Natural Resources 6: 229-257.

Martin Daniel.1980. Three hfileIsland Prologue or Epilogue? Cambridge, MA: Ballinger Publishing Company.

Michels. Mark.1987. " Involving Citizen Advisory Committees Helps Siting." World Wastes 30:36-37.

Morgan David and Robert England.1983. " Evaluating a Community Block Grant Program: A Citizens Group Perspective." The Policy Studies Journal 1983: 295-304.

Nelkin, Dorothy.1984. " Science and Technology: Policy and the Democratic Process." Pp 18-39 in Citi:en Participation in Science Policy, James Peterson, Editor. Amherst, MA:

University of Massachusetts Press.

51

c Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC).1980. Transcript of the Advisory Panel on the Decontamination of Three Mile Island Unit 2. (November 12,1980).

Pearce, Jone and Judy Rosener.1985. " Advisory Board Performance: Managing Ambiguity and Limited Commitment in Public Television." Journal of Voluntary Action Research 4: 36-47.

Peterson, James.1984. Citi:en Participation in Science Policy. Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts Press.

Priscoli, Jerome.1983. "The Citizen Advisory Group as an Integrative Tool in Regional Water l

Resources Planning." Pp 79-87 in Public Participation and SocialImpact Assessment, Daneke, Garcia, and Priscoli, Editors. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Redbum, Steve, Terry Buss, Steven Foster, and William Binning.1980. "How Representative l

are Mandated Citizen Participation Processes?" Urban Affairs Quarterly 15: 345-352.

Reinking, Robert, and Patricia Berkholz.1982. "A New Role for Citizens in State Park Planning: Saugatuck Dunes State Park." Michigan Academician 15: 99-109.

i l

Robin, Helenan and Susan Hannah.1984. " Relationships Among Committee Members, City Administrators, and City Council Members with Respect tot he Tasks and Impact of Locally Initiated Citizen Advisory Committees." Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Society for the Study of Social Problems,1984.

l Shanley, Robert A.1976. " Attitudes and Interactions of Citizens Advisory Groups and 1

Governmental Officials in the Water Resources Planning Process." Technical report for the Office of Water Research and Technology, Washington, D.C.

Sills, D., C.P. Wolf, and V. Shelanshi. 1982. Accident at Three Mile Island: The Human Dimensions. Beulder, CO: Westview Press.

i Sorenson, John, Jon Soderstrom, Emily Copenhaver, Sam Carnes, and Robert Bolin.1987.

Impacts ofHa:ardous Technology: The Psycho-Social Effects ofRestarting TMI 1, Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

52

l l

o 1

Wald, Neil.1992. "The Nuclear Regulatory Commission's TMI Decontamination Advisory Panel and Public Stress Mitigation," pp. 253-262 in Ricks, Berger, and O'Hara, Jr., editors.

The Medical Basisfor Radiation-Accident Preparedness Ill: The Psychological Perspective.

NY: Elsevier.

Walsh, Edward.1981. " Resource Mobilization and Citizen Protest in Communities Around Three Mile Island." SocialProblems 29(1): 1-21.

l l

l l

I l

l l

l I

i 53 l

i

..-,.-.,_.,..__..-_._....__...,..,~,r.-m.~...~..