ML20072N710
| ML20072N710 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 08/31/1994 |
| From: | Bolton P, Durbin N, Harty R, Lach D Battelle Memorial Institute, PACIFIC NORTHWEST NATION, BATTELLE SEATTLE RESEARCH CENTER |
| To: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| CON-FIN-B-2525 BSRC-800-94-014, BSRC-800-94-14, NACTMI, NUREG-CR-6252, PNL-9871, NUDOCS 9409060253 | |
| Download: ML20072N710 (53) | |
Text
- - - - --_
NUREG/CR-6252 PNI 9871 BSRC-800/94/014 Lessons Learned From the Three Mi e Is:anc.-Lnit 2 Acvisory Panel h l' ilotton, N. Durt>in/IISRC R. Ilarty/PNL Pacific Northwest Laboratory flattelle Seattle Research Center Prepared for U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission DR AD 05 320 P
AVAILABILITY NOTICE Availabihty of Reference Materials Cited in NRC Publications Most documents cited in NRC publications will be available from one of the following sources:
1.
The NRC Public Document Room. 2120 L Street. NW., Lower Level, Washington, DC 20555-0001 2.
The Superintendent of Documents. U S. Government Printing Office, Mail Stop SSOP, WasNngton, DC 20402-9328 3.
The National Technical Information Service. Spnngfield. VA 22161 Although the listing that follows represents the majority of documents cited in NRC publications, it is not in-tended to be exhaustive.
)
f Referenced documents available for insps Ltion and copying for a fee from the NRC Public Document Room include NRC correspondence and internal NRC memoranda: NRC bulletins, circulars, inf ormation notices, in-spection and investigation notices; licensee event reports; vendor reports and correspondence: Commission papers; and applicant and licensee documents and correspondence.
The following documents in the NUREG ceries are available for purchase from the GPO Sales Program; formal NRC staff and contractor reports, NRC-sponsored conference proceedings, international agreement reports, grant publications, and NRC booklets and brochures. Also available are regulatory guides. NRC regulations in the Code of Federal Regulations, and Nuclear Regulatory Commission Issuances.
Documents available from the National Technicalinformation Service include NUREG-series reports and tech-nical reports prepared by other Federal agencies and reports prepared by the Atomic Energy Commission, forerunner agency to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission Documents available fr om public and special technicallibraries include all open literature items, such as books, 4
journal articles, and transactions. Federal Register notices, Federal and State legislation, and congressional reports can usua!!y be obtained from these libraries.
Documents such as theses, dissertations, foreign reports and translations, and non-NRC conference pro-ceedings are available for purchase from the organization sponsoring the publication cited.
Single copies of NRC draf t reports are available free. to the extent of supply, upon written request to the Office of Administration. Distribution and Mail Services Section. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Washington, DC 20555-0001.
Copies of industry codes and standards used in a substantive manner in the NRC regulatory process are main-tarned at the NRC Library. 7920 Norfolk Avenue. Bethesda, Maryland, for use by the public. Codes and stan-dards are usually copyrighted and may be purchased from the originating organization or, if they are American National Standards, from the American National Standards institute.1430 Broadway. New Yorir. NY 10018.
DISCLAIMER NOTICE This raport was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States Government.
NMher the United States Govemment nor any agency thereof, or any of their employees, makes any warranty, expressed or imp!ied, or assumes any legal liability of responsibility for any third party's use, or the results of such uso, of any information, apparatus, product or process disclosed in this report, or represents that its use by such tNrd party would not infringe privately owned rights.
NUREG/CR-6252 PNL-9871 BSRC-800/94/014 Lessons Learned From the Three Mile Island-Unit 2 Advisory Panel Manuscript Completed: June 1994 Date Published: August 1994 Prepared by D. Lach, P. Bolton, N. Durbin/BSRC R. Harty/PNL Battelle Seattle Research Center 4000 NE 41st Street Seattle, WA 98105 Pacific Northwest Laboratory 902 Battelle Boulevard Richland, WA 99352 Prepared for Division of Operating Reactor Support Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 NRC FIN B2525
Abstract In response to public concern about the This report describes the results of a cleanup of the Three Mile Island, Unit 2 project designed to identify and describe (TMI-2) facility after an accident on the lessons learned from the Advisory March 28,1979, involving a loss of Panel and place those lessons in the reactor coolant and subsequent damage to context of what we generally know about the reactor fuel, twelve citizens were citizen advisory groups. A summary of asked to serve on an independent the empirical hterature on citizen advisory Advisory Panel to consult with the panels is followed by a brief history of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)
TMI-2 Advisory Panel. The body of the on the decontamination and cleanup of the report contains the analysis of the lessons facility. The panel met 78 times over a learned, preliminary conclusions about the period of thirteen years (November 12, effectiveness of the Panel, and 1980 - September 23,1993), holding implications for the NRC in the use of public meetings in the vicinity of TMI-2 advisory panels. Data for the report (Harrisburg, Pennsylvania) and meeting include meeting transcripts and mterviews regularly with NRC Commissioners in with past and present Panel participants.
Washington, D.C.
iii
Table of Contents Abstract...
....... iii Executive Summary....
...... vii 1 Introduction.
.I 1.1 Methods for Data Collection.
.. I 1.2 Review of Empirical Literature on Citizen Advisory Panels.
......3 2 A Brief History of the TMI-2 Advisory Panel.
6 3 Lessons Learned from the TMI-2 Advisory Panel.
..... 10 3.1 Panel Objectives.
.... 10 3.1.1 Analysis of Panel Objectives..
10 3.1.2 Summary of Lessons Learned about Panel Objectives.
... 12 3.2 Characteristics that Support Implementation of Advisory Panels....... 12 3.2.1 Analysis of Characteristics that Support Implementation of Advisory Panels....
....... 12 l
3.2.2 Summary of Lessons Learned about Characteristics that Support Implementation of Advisory Panels.
. 14 3.3 Panel Composition.
.14 3.3.1 Analysis of Panel Composition..
.14 3.3.2 Summary of Lessons Learned about Panel Composition..
16 3.4 Meeting Structure.
. 16 3.4.1 Speaking Rules.......
.17 3.4.2 Setting the Agenda....
..... 18 3.4.3 Meeting with the Commissioners.
....... 18 3.4.4 Changes in the Meeting Structure.
19 3.4.5 Suggested Improvements for Meeting Structure.
... 20 3.4.6 Summary of Lessons Learned about Meeting Structure..
.... 21 3.5 Panel Influence on Cleanup Efforts...
. 21 3.5.1 Analysis of PanelInfluence on Cleanup Efforts..
..... 21 3.5.2 Summary of Lessons Learned about PanelInfluence on the Cleanup..............
..... 22 3.6 Role of the Media.......
... 23 3.6.1 Analysis of the Role of the Media.....
..... 23 3.6.2 Summary of Lessons Learned About the Role of the Media...
.24 3.7 Advisory Panel Longevity......
.24 3.7.1 Analysis of Advisory Panel Longevity...........
.24 3.7.2 Summary of Lessons Learned about Advisory Panel Longevity. 26 4 Conclusions..................
.......... 27 4.1 Effectiveness of TMI-2 Advisory Panel.............
..... 27 4.2 Implications for NRC..
...... 27 5 References.
.... 29 Appendix A Panel meeting dates and transcript microfiche addresses
.31 Appendix B Interview protocol.
.33 Appendix C List Of Interviewees And Contact Documents...
.36 Initial Contact Letter with Potential Study Participants..
. 37 Interview Confirmation Letter.......................
. 38 Interview Thank You Letter.....
....... 3 9 Table Table 3.1 Characteristics that support implementation of advisory panels..........13 v
Executive Summary An accident at the Three Mile Island-Unit with past and present Advisory Panel 2 facility (TMI-2) on March 28,1979, participants including Panel members, involved a loss of reactor coolant and NRC staff, licensee staff, general public, resulted in serious damage to the reactor and media representatives.
fuel. In response to public concern about the cleanup of TMI-2 after this accident, The interview and meeting transcripts twelve citizens, including scientists, were analyzed to identify the types of elected officials, and lay people, were issues and concerns raised by Panel asked to serve on an independent panel to participants over the life of the Panel. In consult with the Nuclear Regulatory addition, the literature on citizen advisory Commission (NRC) on the panels suggested several issues about decontamination and cleanup of the TMI-advisory groups which needed to be 2 facility. The Advisory Panel for the considered in the analysis. Information Decontamination of the Three Mile from the transcript analyses and literature Island, Unit 2 met for the first time on review was used to develop the list of November 12,1980, in Harrisburg, areas that was closely analyzed for this
~
Pennsylvania. The Panel held 78 report.
meetings over 13 years, meeting regularly with both the public and NRC The areas of concern identified through Commissioners. The final meeting of the the literature review and examination of Advisory Panel was held September 23, meeting and interview transcripts were 1993. By the end of 1993, TMI-2 had used to organize the information into a been placed in long-term storage, and lessons-learned analysis. The lessons many, but not all, participants believed learned include the following:
that the general usefulness of the Panel was at a natural end.
- 1. Panel Objectives Before any decision to terminate Panel
- Original objectives were well known activities had been made, NRC contracted to all Panel participants and used with the Pacific Northwest Laboratory effectively to keep Panel meetings on (PNL) and Human Affairs Research track.
Centers (HARC) of Battelle to characterize participants' experiences
- Participants believed that Panel with the Advisory Panel. Participants objectives were met although there include all those individuals and was concern that reduced public organizations who attended the Panel participation also reduced the ability meetings representing the agency, the of the Panel to represent the public.
licensee, the Panel, non-governmental organizations, and members of the public.
- Participants perceived that implicit The project was designed to identify and Panel objectives included reducing describe the lessons learned from the public anxiety about the accident and long-lived Advisory Panel and place those cleanup of TMI-2 and believed these lessons in the context of what is generally objectives were met.
known about citizen advisory groups.
- Panel members were able to reduce Three methods were used to collect growing antagonism and conflict information for the analysis: a review of between members of the public and the relevant literature on citizen advisory other Panel panicipants by panels; a review of selected Advisory expanding the original objectives to Panel meeting transcripts; and interviews include issues of great concern to the of selected Advisory Panel participants.
public.
Thirty-two transcripts were analyzed and 26 interviews conducted for the report.
- 2. Characteristics that Support The ninety-minute interviews were held Implementation of Advisory Panels vii NUREG/CR-6252 i
l l
b
Executive Summary Successful advisory group Impersonal methods for meeting implementation requires a high control maintained respect for profile problem with a specific focus.
individual perspectives.
Without an appropriate focus, an
- A mid-meeting public comment advisory panel is unlikely to attract period increased the range of public quality participants or hold their response and reduced increasing attention for long.
tensions between citizens and panel members.
Maintaining a successful advisory group requires a continuing high Frequent, but controlled, periods for public interest in the event or topic.
public participation increased the quality and quantity ofinput and
- 3. Panel Composition reduced ongoing conflict over meeting procedures.
A range of expertise increased the capability of the Panel members to Recommendations and reports to the participate in technical and political NRC Commissioners were most discussions.
often developed through informal consensus building among Panelists.
Panel members educated both the public and each other across different Respondents believed that areas of expertise and capability.
improvements could be made to the Advisory Panel by increasing Diverse perspectives and capabilities resources for the Panel, increasing increased conflict among Panel the technical aspects of the NRC participants. This conflict, however, Designated Official role, and appeared to contribute to the reassessing how Panel members are perception of the Panel as a credible selected.
and legitimate forum for discussion of the cleanup activities.
Term limits for Panel members did not appear feasible to most The wide range of Panel members' participants due to the complexity of perspectives also appeared to cleanup issues.
increase the credibility of the Panel with other participants and observers.
- 5. Panel Influence on the Cleanup Although some Panel members were The most crucial Panel influence on unable to contribute directly during cleanup activities was the increased certain technical discussions, they public scrutiny of both NRC and did participate by providing licensee decisions and activities.
additional perspectives to the issues under consideration.
The Panel facilitated communication with the public for both the NRC and
- 4. Meeting Structure the licensee. This communication helped sensitize the agency and the Consistently applied speaking rules licensee to public concerns.
created a perception of fairness among Panel participants.
The level of technical influence on cleanup activities was modest and, in An informal atmosphere provided any case, difficult to untangle from the appropriate flexibility for wide other pressures put on the licensee.
participation.
Most respondents agree, however, NUREG/CR-6252 viii
Executive Summary
=
that Panel and public questions Although interpersonal trust between expanded the range of alternatives Panel participants was generally considered by the NRC and the quite high, this trust has not typically
- licensee, been translated into increased trust of l
I the institutions or organizations that
- 6. Role of the Media other participants represented.
Local media covered the Advisory All past and present Panel members Panel meetings throughout the years.
expressed surprise that the Panel In the early years, front page survived for 13 years. Even those coverage of meetings was common.
Panel members who believed the During later years, stories about the Panel should continue thought the meetings moved to back pages with Panel had only a few issues left to other, less controversial, news.
address.
Media coverage disseminated Each of the above lessons is discussed cleanup information to a wider fully in the report, using quotes and audience than was reached through examples from the interviews and the Panel meetings.
transcripts to provide details and corroboration of the analyses. The Media coverage encouraged high information provided in this report is quality presentations about the based on the reported perceptions of Panel cleanup.
participants, the review of the transcripts, and the literature review. It is not
= Some participants believe that media intended as a representation of the "true" coverage provided opportunities for Panel experience. Instead,it is meant to grandstanding and irresponsible evoke the Panel experiences of a variety claim-making to wide audiences.
of individuals over a long period of time and place the experience within a general
= Media coverage may have reinforced context of what is known about citizen l
the significance of Panel activities to advisory panels.
l Panel members and encouraged their continued participation.
While the purpose of this report is not to assess the effectiveness of the Advisory
- 7. Panel Longevity Panel, the respondents' interviews and transcript analyses provide some evidence Many participants continued with the about perceptions of the Panel's Panelin spite ofinitial concerns effectiveness. In general, the Advisory about its efficacy because it was the Panel was perceived by interviewed only forum available for participants and observers as a success in participating in discussions about the meeting its objective of opening a cleanup.
communication channel between the public and the NRC. Although the Panel
(
= The longevity of the Advisory Panel was a moderately expensive resource served to smooth over divergent decision for the NRC, it is probable that views of Panel participants, allowed pressure on the NRC to support some enough time for individuals to learn method for individuals and groups to about the complicated technical participate in the cleanup discussions issues involved in the cleanup, and would have continued to mount in the created an almost universal months following the accident. Instead, perception that the Panel was an the implementation and continued support effective communication forum.
for an Advisory Panel, which was considered legitimate by most participants, defused that pressure so that ix NUREG/CR-6252 l
l i
i
Executive Summary NRC, licensee, and public attention could be turned to the technical aspects of the cleanup.
l l
l l
l l.
1 Introduction The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1.1 Methods for Data Collection (NRC) contracted with Pacific Nonhwest Laboratory (PNL)1 and Battelle's Human The objectives of the project required Affairs Research Centers (HARC) to information about the Advisory Panel characterize participants' experiences fmm many different perspectives with the Citizens' Advisory Panel for the throughout the life of the Panel. Several Decontamination of Three Mile Island -
sources were used to gather the Unit 2 (the Advisory Panel), instituted by information. In addition to reviewing the the NRC after the accident at the Three relevant literature on citizen advisory Mile Island Unit 2 reactor (TMI-2). The panels, we reviewed a sample of the Panel purpose of the pmject was to identify and meeting transcripts and interviewed a describe the lessons learned from the range of Panel participants. We talked Advisory Panel and place those lessons in with both current and past Panel the context of what we generally know participants including Panel members, about citizen advisory groups.
NRC staff, licensee staff, media, and citizen activist groups. In general, This document summarizes the results of collecting data from multiple sources the project. After describing the methods allowed us to corroborate mterpretations used to collect and analyze the data, the of the data. In addition, each of the three empirical literature about citizen advisory methods used to collect data for the panels is reviewed and background analysis also pmvides a unique type of mformation about the panel is provided.
information:
The main body of the repon contains the analysis of the lessons learned about the (1) The review of relevant literature on TMI-2 Advisory Panel. In the conclusion citizen advisory panels was used to of the report, effectiveness of the identify issues that needed to be addressed Advisory Panel and implications for the in the interviews as well as to place the NRC in the use of advisory panels are results of the data analysis in a larger addressed.
context of what is known about advisory After the report was drafted, the NRC solicited both internal and extemal (2) The analysis of selected Advisory reviews. The draft report was also placed Panel meeting transcripts tracked the in the Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, and history of the Advisory Panel, noted Washington, D.C., public document issues that were addressed by Panel rooms. NRC reviewers included B.
members, identified changes in the Grimes, J. Hoyle, W. Travers, L. Thonus, meeting structure, and developed a panial F. Cameron, M. Masnik, F. Young, and P.
understanding of the Panel participants Kleene. Panel members J.
and their relationships with each other.
Luetzelschwab, T. Smithgall, K. Miller, This analysis was used to develop the G. Robinson, and A. Morris also reviewed interview questionnaire, provide the draft repon. Outside reviewers of the background information during the draft repon included E. Epstein, F.
interviews, and cormborate interview Standerfer, and R. Long. Providing data.
comments to the NRC does not constitute an endorsement of the repon by the (3) The interviews with selected reviewer. Many valuable comments, Advisory Panel participants solicited the however, were received from the perceptions and memories of Panel reviewers and are incorporated into the experiences from a range of past and final version of the report.
present participants. The raw data of the interviews were used in the final analysis, 1 Pacific Northwest Laboratory is operated for the along with information from the transcript U.S. Department of Energy by Battelle Memorial analysis and literature review, to describe Institute under Contract DE-ACO6-76RLO 1830.
1 i
Introduction the lessons learned fmm the TMI-2 transcript analysis was used to develop Advisory Panel experience the interview questionnaire, provide background information during the Each of these methods is described more interviews, and corroborate data collected fully below.
through the interviews with Panel Relevant literature (1975 to date) in sociology, psychology, planning, public Interviews were conducted with selected administration, political science, natural past and present Advisory Panel science, and law was reviewed for participants, including Panel members, information about the use of citizen NRC staff, licensee staff, general public, advisory panels. This information was and media representatives. Potential collected to develop a context for the interviewees received a letter from the analysis of the lessons learned from the NRC Designated Federal Official (7FO)
TMI-2 Advisory Panel as well as to approximately ten days before they were provide insight in developing the contacted by the study team. The letter mterview questionnaire. The literature described the purpose of the project and review is presented in Section 1.2.
explained how the interviews would be conducted. Individuals were then A complete transcript of each Advisory contacted to secure their agreement to be Panel meeting was prepared by a court interviewed and to schedule a convenient reponer who recorded and transcribed the time for each interview. Every panicipant meetings. A total of 68 transcripts was who was contacted agreed to be available for review.2 In view of the interviewed for this report. A follow-up large number of meetings held by the letter was then sent to everyone who Panel over the years, a sample of these agreed to panicipate, confirming the time transcripts was selected for review and and place of the interview. Each analysis. Every other meeting transcript participant received a thank-you letter for meetings held between 1980 and 1986 afterinterviews were completed. Copies was selected for review. For the meetings of the form letters are included in held between 1987 and 1992, every third Appendix C.
meeting transcript was selected and analyzed. All transcripts of Advisory Twenty-six individuals were interviewed Panel meetings with the Commissioners for this analysis. Interviews were were reviewed. This sampling scheme conducted with both past and current was used to ensure that transcripts from a Advisory Panel participants, including range of meetings thmughout the life of twelve Advisory Panel members, five the Panel was reviewed. Thirty-two NRC staff, three licensee staff, five transcripts were reviewed for this repon.
members of the public, and one media representative. The interviewees and their Each selected transcript was read and affiliations are listed in Appendix C.
coded. An analysis was prepared for each Most of the interviews were conducted in coded transcript that identified Panel person. Three interviews were conducted objectives, topics or issues discussed, over the phone because the respondents meeting mechanics, relationships between were unavailable during the time the various parties, and other issues specific study team was on the East Coast to the meeting. This information was then interviewing Panel participants. Each examined to identify any patterns or interview took about 90 minutes to themes that occurred fmm meeting to complete and consisted of a series of meeting or changed over the years. The semi-structured questions. The interview protocolis attached in Appendix B.
2 Appendix A is a listing of the Panel meeting dates and U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission The study team decided not to tape-reconi microfiche address of each available transcript.
interviews. Transcribing taped interviews NUREG/CR-6252 2
d
=
Introduction is very costly, and we were able to capture 1.2 Review of Empirical the amount of detail needed for this analysis through wn,tmg down Literature on Citizen participants' responses as the interviews Advisory Panels were conducted. When possible, each interview was conducted by two Much has been written over the last researchers although severalinterviews twenty years about public participation in were conducted by only one member of 8.eneral and, mom specifically, how the study team. When two researchers cinzen advisory panels assist were available for the interview, one organizations in decision making. Most researcher conducted the interview while of this work has been either descriptive or the other researcher wrote down the Prescriptive in nature: the description of responses. When only one researcher was one or a few case studies of advisory available for the interview, the researcher Panels or a list of professional both conducted the interview and wrote Prescriptions for "how to do" citizen down responses. Participants' responses advispry panels. Whil desenptive and presen,e informative, this were reconfed on the interview protocol ptive literature is and later transferred to a computer specific only to the context or situation database for analysis. A brief analysis of within which it was captured and the completed interview protocols analyzed. Because the reports are so suggests that both the one-and two.
context-bound and we are unsure what person methods of recording responses role (s) the context or situation plays in provided adequate data for this analysis.
advisory panel operation, the h,terature contains little information that can be Data from the interviews were entered generalized with confidence to other into a database that allowed manipulation situations. A review of the small body of of the infonnation. The data were then empirical literature specific to citizen soned by topic and by respondent type advisory panels, however, does provide (e.g.," Panel member"). Patterns in details on what we currently know about responses were identified and then such panels. Infonnation from this review compared across respondent type. These was used to develop the interview patterns and themes were used to develop questionnaue as well as to analyze the the lessons learned for this report. Quotes results of the interviews.
from the interviews and transcripts are used to corroborate the interpretation of The reviewed literature was taken from a the data.
wide range of disciplines, including sociology, psychology, political science, The interviews and analysis for this repon law, planning, and natural resources.
I were undenaken and completed while the Therefore, the theoretical perspectives on l
Advisory Panel was still in existence.
Panels and the specific application to This analysis was not intended to evaluate substantive issues vanes across the the effectiveness of the Advisory Panel or literature. The findings reported here do determine whether the Panel should suggest some consistency across continue. Instead, the purpose of the disciplines and applications. The analysis analysis was to determine lessons learned of the reviewed literature is organized into from the long-lived Advisory Panel from four areas and briefly reviewed below:
which others may benefit. Panel panicipants who were interviewed for this (1) objectives of advisory panels report provided input in the belief that the Panel was continumg at least for some (2) outcomes of advisory panels additional months.
(3) structural variables (4) limitations of advisory panels.
Introduction A number of objectives for citizen Christopoulo (1974) reports that citizen advisory panels have been observed and advisory panel participants undergo measured across many advisory panel positive changes in attitudes toward projects. When met, these advisory panel government in general. Elected and non-general expectations can serve, to some elected officials who panicipate in citizen degree, the needs of both citizens and advisory panels or receive input from decision makers. Citizen-oriented panels, however, repon mixed opinions objectives for advisory panels include about the value or inportance of panel identifying and presenting citizen values recommendations and may even resist and inputs to local, state, and federal input from panels (Robin and Hannah decision makers (Carpenter and Kennedy 1984; Morgan and England 1983; Shanley 1988; Robin and Hannah 1984) and 1976).
increasing participation in decision-making processes (Doerksen and Pierce Several studies have examined how 1975; Dunn 1975). Objectives oriented physical and pmcedural arrangements more to decision makers include securing mfluence the perceived success or cooperation with orimproving effectivenessof advisorypanels. The acceptability of official decisions most effective panel structure appears to (Bisogni, Lemley, and Fessenden-Raden be one with a balanced and independent 1983; Konnheim 1988) and generating membership, adequate resources, a strong new ideas or alternatives for problem chair, and full support from the solving (Robin and Hannah 1984).
sponsoring agency (Ashford 1984; Landre Advisory panel objectives that appear to and Knuth 1992; Michels 1987; Shanley serve equally the interests of both citizens 1986). In addition, panels with a high and decision makers include educating percentage of professional members, community and panel members about access to a variety of information, and issues specific to the problems, as well as contact with diverse groups and procedures for participating in individuals appear to have a high degree organizational decision making (Bisogni, ofinternal control or perceived Lemley, and Fessenden-Raden 1983; independence (as opposed to external Carpenter and Kennedy 1988) and control by the sponsonng agency).
expanding the reach and/or breadth of Intemal control appears to increase the individuals and programs through legitimacy of the panel with both community and agency awareness and participants and observers (Hannah and involvement in the advisory process Lewis 1982; Robin and Hannah 1984).
(Christopoulo 1974; Robin and Hannah Panels with well-defined and widely 1984).
accepted objectives tend to have higher levels of productivity than panels that While most outcomes of citizen advisory struggle over objectives. Established panels ne specific to the individual objectives, however, appear to be only project, a more general set of panel weakly connected to overall panel impact outcomes has also been documented. In (Pearre and Rosener 1985). Finally, general, advisory panel panicipants (both members of the public who do not panel members and others involved in panicipate directly in citizen panels panel activities) repon high levels of express their general suppon for this satisfaction with the outcomes of projects decision-makmg method. The methods (Carpenter and Kennedy 1988; Desario most preferred by the general public and Langton 1987; Konnheim 1988).
include decisions made by topical expens Participants in citizen advisory panels also (e.g., an epidemiologist helping make repon mereased satisfaction with social decisions about reducing the spread of institutions with which they have not been disease), groups of citizens, and directly involved (Christopoulo 1974; administrators with expert experience.
Desario and Langton 1987; Reinking and The least preferred methods include Berkholz 1982). For example, decisions made by state legislators, NUREG/CR-6252 4
Introduction interest groups, and political parties (Doerksen and Pierce 1975).
Although there appear to be many advantages to usmg citizen advisory
?anels in public decision making, the
.iterature 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, Fostcr, 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 (Cluistopoulo 1974).
Lay members of panels are often at a disadvantage with respect to the scientific and technicalissues that face many advisory panels (Krimsky 1984; Nelkin 1984). Thus, to be effective participants, lay panel members often need a great deal of time to learn enough about the issues.
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 m communication and cooperation as attempts are made to integrate an advisory panel (and its input) withm an already existing organization (Shanley 1976).
l 5
2 A Brief History of the TMI-2 Advisory Panel Three Mile Island-Unit 2 (TMI-2) is a Since the accident, water released into the nuclear power reactor located on the facility has been removed, extensively banks of the Susquehanna Riverin processed (to remove radionuclides), and Dauphin County, Pennsylvania,just south evaporated. In addition to removing the ofIlarrisburg. TMI-2 is a pressurized contaminated water, cleanup activities water reactor with a Babcock and Wilcox included decontamination of much of the (B&W) nuclear steam-supply system, auxiliary and fuel-handling buildings as which was designed to generate 890 MW well as the reactor containment building.
(megawatts) of electric power (2770 MW Approximately 99% of the fuel has been thermal). Metropolitan Edison Company, removed from the reactor ve.ssel and the Jersey Central Power and Light Company, remainder of the facility. On August 16, and Pennsylvania Electric Company were 1988, GPUN proposed placing the facility holders of the original license for the in a storage mode after the completion of facility at TMI-2. 3 the defueling process to allow decay of the radionuclides remaining in the facility.
Between issuance of its operating license Workers would thus be exposed to lower on February 8,1978, and Mamh 28,1979, levels of radioactivity during future TMI-2 operated about 95 effective full-decontamination and decommissioning of power days. Operation ceased on March the facility. This storage mode, during 28,1979, after an incident occurred that which the facility is monitored by GPUN, involved a loss of reactor coolant and is referred to as " post-defueling monitored resulted in serious damage to the reactor storage" (PDMS). Following an in-depth fuel. When coolant was restored, review, the NRC approved the GPUN's radioactive contamination was distributed request for post-defueling monitored throughout the reactor coolant system and storage on December 28,1993.
into the reactor building basement.
Exposed surfaces and equipment in the The accident at TMI-2 had a measurable reactor building and the auxiliary and impact on the social and psychological fuel-handling buildings were well-being of individuals and groups in contaminated with radioactive material the area amund TMI, although these contained in the water and steam that impacts appear to have diminished over escaped from the reactor coolant system.
time (Hughey and Sundstrom 1988; Sills, Releases of mdioactive material into the Wolf, and Shelanshi 1982). Seventeen atmosphere outside of the facility months after the accident at TMI-2,30-occurred at the time of the accident.
50% of the population within a 25-mile Additional releases occurred during the radius around TMI reported heightened next several weeks as a consequence of concems about the occurrence of another controlled venting of the atmosphere in event. The majority of respondents in the the reactor containment building.
survey also reported that TMI remained one of their greatest concems and doubted 3After the accident at TMI.2, the NRC issued an their own coping abilities in dealing with order on July 20,1979, which suspended the any future problems at the facility authority of the licensee to operate the facility and (Sorenson, et al.1987).
required that the licensee maintain the facility in a shut-down condition in accordance with approved The" Advisory Panel for the operating and contingency procedures. Ahhough Decontamination of Three Mile Island, its authority to operate the facility was suspended, Unit 2," hereafter referred to as the the licensee reuu,ned an operating license. After Advisory Panel or Panel, was established the accxient, GPU, the holding company for the by the NRC under the Federal Advisory three onginal licensee holders, formed a new Comm.ittee Act (FACA) as amended corporation, GPU Nuclear Corporation (GPUN),
and the license was transferred to that (Public Law 92-463,5 U.S.C., App.).
organization. In September 1993, the NRC issued This independent advisory panel was set a possession only" license to GPUN for the TMI-up "for the purpose of obtaming input and 2 facility.
views fmm the residents of the Three 6
=
Brief History Mile Island area and affording qualified to serve on the Panel. Panet Pennsylvania govemment officials an members served independently to advise opportunity to participate in the and consult with the Commission on Commission's decisional process major activities involving the regarding cleanup plans for the facility.
decontamination and cleanup of the TMI-The Panel will consider the comments 2 facility. The twelve original Panel expressed by the local residents, and make members included local elected officials recommendations to the Commission" (John Minnich, County Commissioner of (Hoyle 1980a). The Advisory Panel met Dauphin County, PA.; Art Morris, Mayor for the first time on November 12,1980, of Lancaster, PA.; and Robert Reid, in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania.
Mayor of Middletown, PA.), scientists (Tom Cochran of the Natural Resources Administration of the Advisory Panel was Defense Council; Henry Wagner of Johns designed to comply with the requirements Hopkins University; Nunzio " Joe" of FACA. Meetmgs of the Panel, for Palladino of Pennsylvania State example, wem required to be held at a University), repmsentatives of state reasonable time and in a place reasonably agencies (Arnold Muller, Pennsylvania accessible to the public. Members of the Department of Health; Cliffoni Jones, public were also permitted to file written Pennsylvania Depanment of statements mganiing any matter discussed Environmental Resoumes; and Dewitt at the Panel meetings and wem permitted Smith, Jr., Pennsylvania Emergency to speak at meetings in accordance with Management Agency), and members of procedures established by the Panel.
the general public (Ann Trunk, member of Notice of each meeting was published in the President's Commission on the the Federal Register at least 15 days Accident at TMI[The Kemeny before the meeting date and a press Commission]; Joel Roth, fonner Chair of release was issued to notify the public of Three Mile Island Alert [TMIA]; and Jean the date, time, location, and proposed Kohr, attomey representing the agenda of the meeting. FACA required Susquehanna Valley Alliance).
the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to designate an employee of the Panel membership was relatively stable Commission to coordinate and oversee the over the life of the Panel, with three Panel operations. The Designated Federal original members serving the entire period Official (DFO) was responsible for from 1980 to 1993 (Trunk, Roth, and facilitating the convening of each Morris). There were a few notable meeting, establishing the agenda with the turnovers over the years: Dr. Palladino Panel Chairman, filing the notice with the left the Panel when he became Chairman Federal Register, ensuring that minutes or of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
transcripts of the meeting were prepared After John Minnich, the original Advisory and available for public review, and Panel Chairman, left the Panel in late collecting information required for annual 1983, Art Morris, then mayor of repons about the Panel's activities. These Lancaster, took on the role of Chairman.
requirements are laid out in full in the Morris was Chairman of the Advisory NRC Rules and Regulations, Title 10, Panel through the final meeting more than Chapter 1, Part 7 of the Code of Federal ten years later. Additional Panel members Regulations - Energy.
over the years included Mr. Joe DiNunno, Mr. Thomas Gerusky, Mr. John FACA requires that Panel memberships Luetzelschwab, Ms. Elizabeth Marshall, be " fairly balanced in terms of the points Mr. Kenneth Miller, Mr. Frederick Rice, of view represented and the functions to Dr. Gordon Robinson, Dr. Neil Wald, and be performed." In considering individuals Mr. Thomas Smithgall.
for original Panel membership, the NRC attempted to include a cross-section of Panel members were asked to serve individuals dinctly affected, interested, or without compensation other than travel 7
Brief History costs. This issue became a contentious The GPU Nuclear Corporation (GPUN),
matter over the years and is discussed in commonly referred to as the " licensee,"
more detail below. However, even with was responsible for the day-to-day voluntary service, a quorum was present cleanup efforts at the facihty.
at every meeting of the Panel. The Panel Representatives of the licensee attended was originally scheduled to meet at least each Panel meeting and provided updates twice each year.4 During the early years, on the cleanup for Panel members as however, they met much more often than requested.
twice a year. Panel members traveled to Washington, D.C., at least once each year Members of the public also participated in to meet with the Commissioners and Panel activities. Many of the initial Panel provide a report on current Panel meetings drew large, standing-room-only activities.
crowds, although this level of attendance tapered off through the years. There were Although Panel members were the official less than ten members of the public in participants in the Advisory Panel, many attendance at the last few Panel meetings.
other individuals and groups contributed While members of the public often to the effectiveness of the Panel. For the attended meetings as individuals, other::
purpose of this report, all those attended as members of, or mdividuals who attended and participated repmsentatives, oflocal community in Panel meetings will be referred to as activist groups. Members of these local
" participants." Panel participants include groups, such as Three Mile Island Alert Panel members, members of the NRC (TMIA), Susquehanna Valley Alliance staff and the NRC Commissioners, (SVA), or Concerned Mothers, faithfully licensee staff, and members of the public, attended Panel meetings over the years.
TMIA, for example, was originally As stated above, an employee of the NRC organized in 1977 to resist the pro )osed was identified as the Designated Federal opening of TMI-2. After the accicent, Officialin compliance with FACA. In TMIA was transformed into the largest addition to his duties under FACA activist organization related to TMI, with (explained above), the DFO provided a seven-member steering committee,30-overall coordination of the Panel meetings member planning council, and 12 and ensured that Panel members had the semiautonomous community group information they needed to participate in affiliates (Walsh 1981). Membership in meetings. The DFO attended all TMIA jumped to about 2,000 active meetings, occasionally repmsented the members after the accident. Concerned NRC to the Panel, and often served as a Mothers, another group of citizens local to nonvoting member of the Panel. NRC the accident site in Middletown, staffinvolved in the cleanup at TMI-2 Pennsylvania, organized after the incident attended all but one of the meetings of the to raise the health and safety concems of Advisory Panel. These staff members families in the ama. With considerably provided regular updates on the cleanu 3 fewer members than TMIA, Concerned as well as other imormation reguested by Mothers still sent mpresentatives to most the Panel. The NRC Commissioners also Advisory Panel meetings. SVA, a group met with the Advisory Panel on a regular of citizens centered in Lancaster County, basis to receive public input about the actively participated in Panel meetings TMI cleanup. Commissioners did not over the years. He SVA was typically attend the regular meetings of prominently involved in discussions about the Panel, the disposition of the accident-generated water. SVA members pmrented options and critiqued alternatives on the disposition of the water, often filing A list of the meeting dates is pmvided in written comments for the transcript 4
Appendix A.
record. Members of these and otherlocal NUREG/CR-6252 8
Brief History activist groups frequently made Radiation exposure of cleanup presentations to the Panel and almost workers always asked pointed and direct questions
. Long-term storage of the facility of other presenters. In addition, they were (prior to ultimate decommissioning).
vocal in their suppon for expansing the j
original charter of the Advisory Panel to The date for closing the Panel was left include discussion of health effects of the indeterminate in the original Charter accident. Active citizen participants because the Panel was to be used as long became known by name to all Panel as there was a perceived need to solicit members, NRC staff, and licensee s:aff public views on cleanup issues at TMI-2.
who participated in Advisory Panel By 1993, many NRC staff and Panel meetmgs.
members were questioning the continued usefulness of the Panel. For example, the The original Panel chaner noted that NRC estimated that final approval for the Panel members would " consult with and licensee to place the facility in PDMS provide advice to the Commission on its (long-term storage) would be granted by major activities required to decontaminate the end of 1993. Many, but not all, Panel and safely cleanup the TMI-2 facility" participants viewed this as the natural (Hoyle 1980b). In 1986, at the request of stopping place for Panel activities. In the Panel, the Commission expanded the response to the perceived decline in Panel Advisory Panel Chaner to include the usefulness as well as an effort to reduce review of health issues associated with the the number of Federal Advisory Panels, TMI-2 accident. Manyissues, including the Panel met for the last time on health effects, were discussed by the September 23,1993. A total of 78 Panel over the years. Typically, as the meetings of the TMI-2 Advisory Panel cleanup proceeded and new efforts were were held between 1980 and 1993.
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 addition, the Advisory Panel reponed public concems 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 cleanupin general) over the years:
Funding for cleanup and decommissioning
+ Disposition of high-level radioactive waste
. Whistleblowing activity at TMI
+ Health effects and results of health studies Disposition of contaminated
" accident" and cleanup water 9
3 Lessons Learned from the TMI-2 Advisory Panel The information provided in this section Each of these areas is discussed more is based on the perceptions of the fully below, using qu,otes from the interviewed Panel participants, review of transcripts and interviews to provide the transcripts, and the literature review.
details and corroboration of t2e analysis.
Panel panicipants' perceptions are not A summary oflessons leamed about each -
presented as "true" descriptions of the topic concludes the analysis.
1 experience of the Advisory Panel. Rather, the descriptions are meant to evoke the 3.1 Panel Objectives Panel experiences of a variety of individuals over a long period ne.
The following section reviews both the Direct quotes from individu' implicit and explicit original Panel attributed only by group type O-objectives, as well as the ways in which example,"past Panel member"). If a the objectives changed over the years. A direct quote cannot protect the summary of the lessons leamed about confidentiality of a respondent, Panel objectives concludes this section.
identifying comments have been removed.
In a few cases, a composite quote is 3.1.1 Analysis of Panel Objectives created by combining comments from several individuals to reflect a common When asked about the original Panel theme expressed by several respondents.
objectives, most respondents were able to Quotations are taken primarily from the identify the explicit objectives of the NRC one-on-one interviews conducted for this in forming the Panel. These objectives report. Any quotes or comments taken included providing the NRC with input from the meeting transcripts are about public concems and providing the designated as such.
public with information about cleanup activities. NRC staff and early Panel The interview and meeting transcripts members remembered seeing the were read to identify the type ofissues objectives in writing and reported that the and concerns raised by Panel participants-objectives were brought out on many The issues were then analyzed to identify occasions to determine whether specific any patterns or themes that were common topics were appropriate for Panel across the interviews and transcripts. In discussion. Panel members who joined addition, the literature on citizen advisory during its later years, licensee staff, and panels suggested several points about members of the public were much less advisory gmups that should be considered likely to report having seen the objectives in an analysis. These two methods were in writing, and their descriptions of the used to develop the following list of objectives are less formulaic in nature.
issues for closer analysis:
For example, one NRC staff member reported that the objective of the Panel (1) Panel Objectives was to "act as an independent group that evaluates public concems and relates (2) Characteristics that Suapon them to the Commission." This almost Implementation of Ac visory Panels verbatim restatement of Panel objectives can be contrasted with the less polished, (3) Panel Composition but still accurate, description provided by a Panel member whojomed the Panel (4) Meeting Structure relatively late in its history, "... to give the NRC some insight into another (5) PanelInfluence on Cleanup Activities perspective besides that of the operating company [ licensee]."
l (6) Role of the Media Respondents reported that they were (7) Advisory Panel Longevity.
familiar with the explicit Panel objectives 10 NUREG/CR-6252
Lessons Learned because they were often referred to in NRC staff members and Panel members attempts to keep Panel panicipants on remembered that the charter of the i
topic. Using the objecuves as a Advisory Panel was expanded to include gatekeeping mechanism was viewed discussion of possible health effects and positively by Panel members and less funding for the cleanup. Most positively by non-Panel participants. For respondents, however, did not remenber example, one Panel member remembered, or discuss these changes. Review o 'the "When the Panel went astray from the transcripts for meetings prior to changes original objectives, the Panel and the in the scope of Panel objectives reveded Commissioners reviewed the original many pmtracted struggles between Panel objectives... One of the liaison's (DFO) members and members of the public over tasks was to gently remind the Panel what appropriate topics for discussion at we were supposed to focus on." Another meetmgs. Public testimony or questions Panel mem xr reponed that there were about health issues were consistently many meetings where the discussion overmled by the Chairman as irrelevant to focused on "This is our charge and this the Panels' purpose. Anxiety and i
isn't our charge." In contrast, a member frustration about the potential health of the public reponed that the objectives consequences of the accident and the were used to"tell people to come back inability to find anyone who would listen later or save their questions for another, to pubhc concerns created a growing more appropriate, time." This public antagonism between Panel members and participant conceded, however, that the members of the public during the early objectives were also used to insist that the and middle years of the Panel. This licensee and NRC provide certain reports polarization seriously threatened the to the Panel, perceived legitimacy of the Panel during its middle years until the chaner was In addition to understanding explicit Panel expanded to include consideration of objectives, respondents also talked about health concerns. The flexibility that unstated objectives that they believed allowed the Panci to address issues of compelled the NRC to create the Panel.
most concern to the public helped the The most often reponed implicit objective Panel reassen its role as a conduit of of the Advisory Panel was to reduce information from the public.
public anxiety about the accident and subsequent cleanup. Otherimplicit Most respondents felt that the Advisory objectives included allowing the public to Panel met both the original objectives set i
"let off steam," take the " political heat off by the NRC and many of the implicit the Commissioners,"" provide assurance objectives perceived by panicipants.
that things weren't as bad as they looked,"
Several respondents reponed, however,
" provide a buffer between citizens and the that because public attendance and i
NRC," and " build credibility for both the participation at Panel meetings declined NRC and the licensee." All respondents over the. years, the objective of providing discussed this perceived need to reassure NRC with insight about public concerns the public and reduce the growing was not fulfilled. Instead, they argued, antagonism between the public and the the Panel provided the NRC with only the NRC and licensee. In general, limited insight of Panel members and a respondents believed the implicit small group of active participants.
objectives were related to the high levels Licensee respondents,in panicular, of public anxiety and low levels of reponed that while they were satisfied NRC/ licensee credibility that existed that the Panel initially pmvided a conduit when the Advisory Panel was formed.
for expression of public concern, they were concerned that the Panel was Most respondents believed that Advisory currently less representative of the general Panel objectives did not change public than it had been in the beginning.
throughout the life of the Panel. A few Other respondents, however, believed the 1I NUREG/CR-6252
Lestons Leamed decrease in public attendance may be a cleanup of TMI-2 and believed these result of the pemeption that the cleanup objectives were met.
aroject is gomg well and public concern las declined.
. Panel members were able to reduce growing antagonism and conflict Panel members perceived the Panel to between members of the public and have more than met its objectives, other Panel participants by especially the implicit objective of convincing the NRC to expand the increasing public trust in the cleanup original objectives to include issues process. NRC staff believed the Panel of great concern to the public.
met its objective of providing a conduit for public input to the NRC. Many NRC staff also reponed, however, that because 3.2 Characteristics that Support the cleanup is so complex, Panel members were unable to provide any meaningful Implementation of Advisory technical guidance. NRC staff were also Panels concemed that the conduit opened by the Advisory Panel provided a fomm for The following section analyzes repons they considered not credible.
respondents' perceptions of TMI-2 They accepted this as a by-product of the cleanup characteristics that made it openness required to facilitate good-faith amenable to the effective use of an discussions between members of the advisory panel. A summary of the lessons public and Panel members. Members of learned about these characteristics the public were more uncertain about follows.
whether the Panel had met its original objectives. Most public respondents 3.2.1 Analysis of Characteristics that reported that the Panel was a good soume Support Implementation of of reliable information about the cleanup Advisory Panels and provided a critical review of NRC and licensee activity. They complained, While citizen advisory panels have been however, that the Panel too often only used in many situations (see Section 1.2, reacted to NRC or licensee effons and did above), use m cimumstances such as the not take a proactive stance in promoting Three Mile Island accident is unique to certain activities or providing guidance to both the nuclear industry and the public.
the Commission.
Instead of comparing the experience of the TMI-2 Panel with those of other 3.1.2 Summary of Lessons Learned advisory panels, we asked respondents to about Panel Objectives identify characteristics of the TMI-2 situation that they believe supported the Original objectives were well known implementation and successful use of an to all Panel panicipants and were advisory panel. Respondents' answers used effectively to keep Panel consistently echoed a Panel member's meetings on track.
description of the need for a situation with "a traumatic change in the status quo."
. Participants believed that Panel Characteristics identified by Panel objectives wem met, although there panicipants in at least two groups are was concem that reduced public described in Table 3.1 below.
participation also reduced the ability of the Panel to mpresent the public.
- Panicipants perceived that implicit Panel objectives included reducing public anxiety about the accident and NUREG/CR-6252 12
Table 3.1: Characteristics that support implementation of advisory panels CIIARACTERISTIC RESPONDENTS High-profile incident, creating concern Licensee, NRC, Panel, Public across many commumties
+ Traumatic incident Licensee, NRC, Panel, Public
. People understand what the pmblem is and Licensee, Panel, Public can focus on common goals
. Controversialissue Licensee, NRC
- Unique event Licensee, NRC
. Loss of credibility and trust NRC, Panel Ongoing problem NRC, Panel Health fears NRC, Public 13 NUREG/CR-6252
Lessons Leamed Only members of the public suggested 3.3.1 Analysis of Panel that an advisory group can also be an Composition appropriate forum in less traumatic situations, such as discussions about The NRC originally selected Panel ongoing nuclear plant, operations. All members to represent local and state other respondents beheved that only a officials, scientists, and members of the situation that is alarming and focused on a high-profile incident, such as the accident general public. One NRC staff member remembered the reasoning behind the at TMI,is an appropriate setting for an original selection: "We wanted a balance advisory panel. A Panel member summed up why Panel members belteved a less with members of the loyal opposition [to the licensee and their activities]
traumatic situation wouldn,t be represented but who were also appropnate: It s too much, work and we constructive. We wanted members who could,n t get people to participate for so were respected by all sides-reasonable, long. Another Panelist beheved that it rational people. People who would bring would be possible to use this modelin in other perspectives." All respondents situations with a specific focus, such as a believed that the Panel needed to be site selection or facility decommissioning, balanced or representative of the many but agreed there needs to be a major sides of theissue. This inclusive Panel issue to get the quality of people wh membership contributed to the perception served on the TMI-2 Panel.,
shared by most participants that all points f view were heard and considered by 3.2.2 Summary of Lessons Learned about Characteristics that Panel mem,bers., A member of the pubh,c to be eclectic to have credibility.,p needs summed dus pomt up: W Pan Support Implementation of Advisory Panels Respondents recognized and described the Successful advisory group way Panel members balanced each other mylementation re, h a specific focus.
quires a high-in ideas, personalities, and positions.
profile problem wit While the original official balance included three state representatives, three
. Without an appropriate focus, local elected officials, three scientists, and advisory panels are unlikely to attract three members of the public, this qualit,y pamcipants or hold the,r composition changed over time as Panel i
attention for long.
members left and new members joined.
For example, most of the State of
+ Maintammg a successful advisory Pennsylvania representatives dropped off group requires a contmuing high the Panel quickly and were replaced by pubhc mterest in the event.
Panelists with technical backgrounds and local knowledge. In the interviews, 3.3 Panel Composition respondents described balance in Panel composition as deriving from members' This section reviews the balance of diversity of perspective:
competmg perspectives that was built into the original Panel membership and
. those holding elected office and continued throughout the life of the Panel those not holding elected office even as members changed. The analysis is followed by a summary of the lessons
. those with technical and non-learned about Panel composition, technical backgrounds
. those who held anti-nuclear, pro-nuclear, and neutral positions NUREG/CR-6252 14
Lessons Learned those with " local knowledge" and "The technical and non-technical Panel expert knowledge.
members would disagree sometimes; non-technical Panel members would often say The original membership, selected by to technical members, 'Let's not go i
NRC to be balanced across a political and overboard here, let's wait. We don't have scientific spectrum, was supported by the all the facts orinfonnation [about a additional qualities identified by technology, procedure, or results] so let's respondents. Most respondents identified go slow.' It was good for technical Panel balancing Panel re presentation in some members to be reminded of this more way as critical to the effectiveness of the conservadve view." This technically Advisory Panel.
oriented Panel member had learned to value the perspective of non-technical Licensee respondents and NRC staff, in Panel members.
particular, stressed the need for a range of technical capabilities among Panel Licensee respondents, however, reported members. In addition, respondents felt that technical Panel members were not these technically skilled Panel members especially good at translating technical should have no vested interest in the material for non-technical Panel members, nuclear industry. One ex-Panel member They complained that non-technical reponed that the " composition was members could not be convinced by a important -- Panel members respected the presentation of the " facts," no matter how technical abilities of other members. The clear the presentation or the translation.
backgrounds varied and it was thejob of In addition, licensee respondents technical people on the Panel to pursue perceived that non-technical members technical questions." In addition, all were " intimidated" by technical respondents, except licensee staff, discussions and technical Panel members:
reported that the vocal presence of well-
"There were two technical members on known anti-nuclear Panel members was the [ original] Panel. When they spoke, crucial to the credibility of the Panel. One some of the others were intimidated Panel member recalled, "The because they didn't understand what was representatives from the anti-nuclear going on. A few of the Panel members, groups played an important role. They non-technical, never spoke at all during were the ultimate watch dogs." An NRC these discussions." Rather than observing staff member told us,"[an anti-nuclear panel members educating each other Panel member] more than earned his pay.
across their respective areas of expenise, The citizens listened to him. He gave this licensee respondent saw intimidation them peace of mind. He was a pain, but a between technical and non-technical good pain."
members. Panel members themselves did not use the term " intimidation" to The wide range of technical and non-describe relationships on the Panel, technical expenise was used by Panel although several did comment that they members to educate both themselves and were often quiet during their first months the public. Respondents often described because they didn't understand terms or technical Panel members, for example, as concepts.
translators of the highly technical information presented by the NRC, the Panel members reponed that the balanced licensee, and other experts. While this representation created conflict and role is fairly obvious and easy to adversarial relations among themselves.
understand, Panel members and NRC Rather than seeing this as a negative, staff also recognized that non-technical however, most respondents reported that Panel members translated public concerns conflict and disagreement w&4 to and perceptions so that technically increase the integrity of the Panel. Panel oriented people could view those concerns members consistently reported,"All the as valid. One Panel respondent explained, conflict on the Panel increased crectibility.
Lessons I.camed The credibility of the Panel increased due additional perspectives to the issues to our obvious lack of agreement on many under consideration.
subjects."
Panel members and NRC staff reported 3.4 Meeting Structure that, eventually, trust and respect grew between members of the Panel with Respondents were asked several questions divergent perspectives. This respect grew during the interview about how the Panel out of months and, years serving together meetings were structund. These m a problem-solvmg effon and learnmg questions focused on establishment of the objectives m mm,bers could keep Panel agenda, how individuals addressed the that Panel mem d as they made Panel, and ways in which meeting decisions. A Panel member reported,..I panicipation was encouraged or trust the anti,s on the Panel because I discouraged. Almost without exception, feel they understand the responsibilities respondents began their discussion of and limits of the Panel objectives.,
meeting structum with a discussion of the Respondents also reponed that respect current Chairman. Respondents was created as they came to know each consistently described the Chairman as other s varym, g skills and expertise. An doing an excellentjob. A composite observer of the Panel concluded, Panel response from several individuals reveals members by and large trusted each other.
this respect for the Chairman:"The For example, non-techmcal Panelists Chairman was excellent-he kept could ask for advice from the techmcal reasonable order, he was mspected,by members.,
everyone, knew how to run a meetmg, and was a gentleman. He deals with disparate 3.3.2 Summary of Lessons Learned views well. I have a lot of respect for about Panel Composition him. He is efficient, knows how to run a meeting-a perfect combination of
. A range of expenise increased the technical knowledge and elected official.
capability of Panel members to I would mcommend someone like the panicipate in technical and political current Chairman. Someone who is not discussions.
necessarily a technical person, but someone who understands government,
. Panel memben educated both the business, and how the ordinary person public and each other across different thinks. He is fair, msponsive, and areas of expertise.
conducts a good meeting. There was never enough time, but he did what he
. Diverse perspectives and capabilities could. The Chairman needs to be increased conflict among Panel someone the public can trust and who has participants. This conflict, however, credibility with the licensee. The appeared to contribute to the Chairman must also be able to run a good perception that the Panel was a meeting - structured, but friendly."
credible orlegitimate forum for discussion of the cleanup activities.
The current Chairman was almost universally appreciated as a capable
. The wide range of Panel members' individual and there appear to be several perspectives also appeared to functions that contribute to this perception merease the credibility of the Panel of his chairing abilities. Respondents with other panicipants and observers, reponed that the current Chairman tended to manage meetings through his personal
. Although some Panel members were authority and skills rather than relying on unable to contribute directly dunng formal rules or power. While this created did panicipate by providm,ons, they an informal atmosphere at most meetings, certain technical discussi g
it also cmated the potential for chaotic NUREG/CR-6252 16
Lessons Learned meetings. Respondents, however, gave Panel members wem allowed to speak for accounts of efficient and structured as long as they wanted or needed to, informality. A composite response from although speaking time for members of Panel members, members of the public, the public was more strictly rationed.
and NRC staff describes a meeting style However, all individuals addmssing the they all felt comfonable with: "The Panel Panel were expected to stay on topic. A meetings are informal and congenial.
licensee staff remembered,"The There is a lot of interaction among the Chairman was respectful of everyone, he Panel members and with the public and called people by their names and utility. The level of meeting formality is generally made people feel comfortable, very effective and appropriate. The Some of the [ Panel members] rambled meetings were a blend of formal and and talked about issues that were outside serious when necessary and relaxed and the scope of the Panel. The Chairman i
fun when necessary. The meetings have a would cut them off or gently put them formal framework with many openings back on track." The expectation to stay for informality. You had to have some on to.pic was one speaking rule known to formal structure to make it possible for everyone and consistently applied to people to speak. But the meetings were anyone who addressed the Panel. This not so formal that people felt they evenhanded approach created a pemeption couldn't talk." Several of the meeting of fairness, especially among Panel skills and techniques that contributed to members and members of the public. A effective meetings are discussed in more member of the public mported that "the detail below.
Chairman has a nice manner even when 3.4.1 Speaking Rules Another speaking rule used by the Respondents identified the Chairman's Chairman was a requirement that ability to facilitate participation as one of members of the public schedule time on the qualities of effective Panel meetings.
the agenda prior to the meeting if they Even though Panel meetings were often wanted to make a formal statement. Panel lengthy, there was always time for Panel members believed that,"The standard members and members of the public to process of making arrangements prior to ask questions and make comments. A the meeting date encouraged member of the general public had positive participation." Individuals who scheduled memories of the Chairman's willingness time were given the first opportunity to to include public input: "The Chairman use available meeting time. Any encouraged participation by setting aside additional time was allotted to speakers time for the public. He let people exhaust who did not pre-schedule time.
their conunents and questions." One Consistent application of this rule ensured Panel member recalled that some that people who requested time on the members of the public grumbled about agenda were always provided time to lack of time, but believed they were speak. There was some flexibility in this unrealistic in their expectations: "The rule so that speaking times could be way the Chairman structured the public traded, and even aggmgated, among comment period was very helpful. The members of the public.
Panel meetings were as open as possible while still maintaining the ability to get Analysis of mspondents' accounts of the things done. People who complained rules revealed no perceptions that about lack of or shortage of time were favorites wem played or that the speaking immature and didn't understand how rules were misused. Respondents did meetings worked. Anyone who wanted to have complaints, however, about the could talk at meetings."
speaking rules. For example, licensee staff did not like members of the public aggregating time so that one speaker 17 NUREG/CR-6252
Lessons Leamed could speak for mom than the allowed composite response from members of the three to five minutes. Members of the pubhe, Panel members, and NRC staff public felt that, in general, more time participants describes how the informal should have been allotted during meetings process worked: "At the end of each for public comment. One member of the meeting, the Panel would decide on the public objected,"You need to request agenda. Between meetings they time ahead if you wanted more than the sometimes add things. Or new things normal two minutes. Most of these came out and that would be added. The requests are granted although it felt like public also expresses interests about what you wem pleading to say a few words. It they want discumed. The public has a lot was controlling and demeaning." Another of guidance on meeting topics and member of the public remembered agenda."
participation in Panel meetings more positively, "I got whatever time I needed Despite the informal natum of agenda or wanted. I felt the Panel respected my setting, respondents reponed that the presentations and perspectives."
agenda itself was adhered to rather rigorously during most meetings. The 3.4.2 Setting the Agenda agenda appeared to be used, as necessary, to keep people on topic and on schedule.
While many topics were generally A composite response describes how the covered during each meeting, the agenda was used to control meetings:
structure of the meeting evolved over the "No one really knows the exact agenda years to include a routine or standard until the night of the meeting. The point
~
agenda. A review of the transcripts was not to give the utility or the public an suggested that a typical agenda allowed edge - no one could have an advantage by for update reports from the licensee and having the agenda early. The agenda was NRC, reports from other agencies as constrained by dme - we mally only necessary (e.g., Environmental Protection wanted to spend about two or two and a Agency or Depanment of Energy), and a half hours at each meeting. The public comment period. In addition, Chairman made attempts to keep people topics of special concern were scheduled on time." While not explicitly as needed. These special topics were complaining that the Chairman used the usually generated by current cleanup agenda as a control mechanism, some activities or public concerns. Agenda respondents reported that the use of the items were identified at the end of each agenda in this manner makes them meeting for the next meeting, during the uncomfortable. One Panel member interim between meetings through protested, "I didn't always receive an discussion with the Chairman, or at the agenda in the mail so I couldn't prepare beginning of each meeting.
for the meeting beforehand. I complained to the Chairman but it didn't change Agenda setting was relatively informal:
anything." Using the agenda as an a wide range of mechanisms was used to impersonal referee to keep participants on identify appropriate topics; meeting track during meetings is another example attendees received the agenda at the of how the Chairman used his skills, beginning of the meeting; and agenda rather than the power of his position, to items were often added or subtracted on enforce control of meetings without an informal basis. This type of alienating too many participants.
informality can suggest to participants that getting items of concern on the 3.4.3 Meeting with the Commissioners agenda is an open and inclusive process.
Most respondents reported that informal As part of the original Panel Charter, agenda setting was comfortable and Advisory Panel members were mquired to usually effective in ensuring that the condense or synthesize the information Panel addmssed important issues. A NUREG/CR-6252 18
Lessons Learned l
they received from the public and repon response to charges that the licensee was l
to the NRC Commissioners in regular harassing whistleblowers went meetings. Tmnscripts of the meetings unanswered, the Panel developed a more l
with Commissioners revealed that this formal position and request. An official synthesized information was most often Panel position (usually with both majority reported in casual discussions between and mmority views attached), was Commissioners and Panel members about assumed by Panel participants to represent recent agenda topics. When asked during the views of the public. The legitimacy of the interviews about the meetings, most the position taken by the Panel appeared Panel members remembered that the to inhere in the balanced composition of Panel often reached a consensus about the Panel; each Panel member was l
which items would be discussed prior to assumed to represent a certain viewpoint l
meeting with the Commissioners. The held by some portion of the general Panel also developed consensus positions public. By taking a vote, developing a about specific issues before meeting with consensus, or negotiating a aosition, the the Commissioners. Panel members did Panel was standing in for a.arger public g
not clearly remember what type of vote, consensus, or negotiation.
process they used to build consensus. For example, one Panel member re sorted:
3.4.4 Changes in the Meeting "There is no real effon to develop a Panel Structure position, instead it is a more informal consensus seeking. There would be the Respondents reported, with few formal comment by the Chairman [to the exceptions, that the informal structure of Commissioners], but individual Panel the meetings stayed essentially the same members could add their comments. I over the years. The most notable don't remember any internal Panel fights structural change was scheduling of the over what to say to the Commissioners."
public conunent period. Originally, Another Panel member remembered more public comment was delayed until all of a struggle over consensus development:
other agenda items were complete. By l'There is always some contmversy when that time, it was usually late in the it comes ume to determme evening, discussion had touched on many recommendations for the Commissioners issues, and many members of the public because of the different perspectives had already left for home. Review of the represented on the Panel. But it was all early transcripts suggested that allowing done in good spirit." One Panel member individuals to comment only at the end of summed it up with the observation, "We the meeting created frustration and an tried for a consensus on recommendations adversarial relationship between Panel to the Commissioners and Panel positions.
members and members of the public. It is But, we had no control over the diverse likely that Panel members were not only Panel and really couldn't hide anything heanng individuals express frustration like differences in opinion even if we had with the way the cleanup activities were wanted to."
progressing. They were also hearing public anger about the lack of time to Panel members reported they felt it question presenters and the necessity to necessary, on occasion, to develop a more condense all concerns, comments, and formal Panel position on specific topics.
questions into the allowed period at the Topics identified as needing a Panel end of the meeting. For example, one position usually had high visibility with member of the public remembered, the public such as plans for the disposition "There was not enough time [given] to the of the accident water. Official positions public point of view. Really often all that were also developed when Panel members people wanted was to know that someone felt they were not receiving an appropriate had heard them give their point of view."
response from the licensee or agency. For example, when repeated requests for a 19 NUREG/CR-6252 I
Lessons Leamed Another consideration was that reporters members was an issue from day one. We from local television and newspapers did a poorjob on servicing their often left the meetings early. Scheduling reimbursements and I don't understand public comment at the end of the Panel why. It was not legitimate to pay Panel meetings denied the public access to the members, but I can't exactly remember media. Disallowing public comment until why the original decision was made. It late in the meeting and evening also led to was not a budgetary constraint. Maybe an attrition factor. Some members of the Commissioners didn't want to set a public left the meetings before they were precedent for paying citizen Panel i
over, leaving individuals who were highly members." Panel members, almost to a committed (or with fewer demands on person, were concemed about their time) as the sole representatives of reimbursement for Panel activities.5 The the public. Organizing the meetings in transcripts reveal that this topic was j
this way made it likely that moderate discussed at almost every meeting during individuals did not participate in the past few years, although the manner of discussions during mitial Panel meetings.
the discussions was a genialjoking After Morris became Chairman, a change between Panel members and the NRC in meeting structure was made to include DFO. A composite of Panel responses one public comment period after the suggests the nature of their concern: "The major presentation (usually about half NRC should have been more responsive way through the meeting) and another at to Panel expenses. I felt that we were the conclusion of the scheduled nickeled and dimed by the NRC. I bet the presentations. Analysis of the transcripts NRC is paying more for this research than suggested that after the meeting structure for all twelve years of Panel expenses, was changed to include this earlier public Panel members may be more objective if comment period, more individuals they aren't paid, but not paying Panel participated in the public comment period members sends a message oflow l
and public-initiated questions related priority."
l more directly to the agenda items. During interviews, respondents recalled the Other suggestions for impmving Panel earlier structure with some intensity and meetings included providing more in great detail, but were less likely to technical support to the Panel, having the provide any comment at all about the Commissioners attend the Panel meedngs current arrangements. This suggests that on a regular basis, and rethinking how the current meeting structure is taken for Panel members should be selected and/or granted and accepted as an appropriate replaced. A composite response from method for including individuals in the Panel members, NRC staff, licensee staff, discussion.
and members of the public explains the nature of their concerns about Panel 3.4.5 Suggested Improvements for membership: "There was little discussion Meeting Structure among the Panel members about replacements for members who left. This When asked to suggest improvements in created some question in certain citizens' the way meetings were conducted or minds about whether the replacements methods to improve meeting participation, represented the public. Panel members respondents were generally hani pressed to identify specific changes they would 5 Although the decision was made not to like to see made. Most commonly, compensate Panel members for their participation, respondents requested mereased resources the NRC agreed to pay their expenses. Federal for the Panel, including funds to bring in travel regulations, under which members were outside experts, pay Panel expenses, and reimbursed for expenses, prohibited payment of administer the Advisory Panel. One NRC per diem for most Panel members. Panel meetmgs staff member told us," Expenses for Panel were of too short a duration to qualify for the per diem payment.
NUREG/CR-6252 20 l
Lessons Learned were not asked to provide any input on Respondents believed that the replacements. After the elected improvements could be made to the officials left office, they most often stayed Advisory Panel by increasing on the Panel. This was not appropriate resources for the Panel, increasing since they no longer represented the the technical support by the NRC public in the same way. We should have DFO, and reassessing how Panel at least talked about it." Only one members are selected.
respondent (licensee staff) suggested term limits for Panel members as an
. Term limits for Panel members did improvement. Others felt that the issues not appear feasible to most and topics were so complex and participants due to the complexity of comphcated that a relatively long period cleanup is. sues.
of time was required before individuals were effective Panel members. Members 3.5 PanelInfluence on Cleanup of the public thought that more agenda time should be devoted to citizen input.
Efforts They believed this would have allowed them to make more thoughtful The following analysis focuses on presentations about complicated issues.
respondents' perceptions of the role played by the Panel in the cleanup efforts 3.4.6 Summary of Lessons Learned at TMI-2. The analysis is followed by a about Meeting Structure summary oflessons learned about Panel mfluence.
- Consistently applied speaking rules created a perception of fairness 3.5.1 Analysis of PanelInfluence on among Panel participants.
Cleanup Efforts
. An informal atmosphere provided Respondents were convinced that the the appropriate flexibility for wide Advisory Panel did have influence on the participanon.
cleanup acdvities at TMI-2 althcagh they had difficulty untangling the dicct
. Impersonal methods of controlling influence of the Panel from the other meetings maintained respect for pressures on the licensee during the individual perspectives.
cleanup period. Even though most respondents were unable to identify any i
. Frequent, but controlled, periods for examples of direct technical influence on public panicipation increased the the cleanup, they did believe that the quality and quantity ofinput and Advisory Panel played other significant reduced ongoing conflict over roles in the cleanup process.
meeting procedures.
All respondents identified one important
. A mid-meeting aublic comment role of the Panel as increasing public period increasec the range of public scrutiny of both licensee and agency response and reduced increasing cleanup activities. Members of the public tensions between citizens and Panel and the Panel were observing and members.
questioning the licensee and the NRC in public; answers to those questions were
. Recommendations and reports to the also provided in public. Respondents NRC Commissioners were most recalled that many questions posed by the often developed through informal Panel were asked in no other public consensus building among Panel forum. One NRC staff member described members.
participation in the Panel as the only consistent " source of contradictory 21 NUREG/CR-6252 l
Lessons Leamed information for GPU."6 Both the Respondents' analyses of the Panel's licensee and challengers to the licensee technical contribution to the cleanup were were expected to present and defend their quite divergent. Licensee staff, for positions in public, which all respondents example, were fairly certain that the felt was beneficial to the cleanup. One Advisory Panel contributed no technical member of the public described this role guidance during the cleanup. They of the Panel as " extending the reach" of admitted, however, that some Panel the general public, allowing them to hear members, particularly those with technical and participate in discussions about the backgrounds, raised interesting issues cleanup to which they normally had no which were followed up by the licensee.
access. NRC staff members believed that One licensee respondent conceded that the scrutiny of the Advisory Panel forced "the Advisory Panel raised issues that the licensee to think through their plans
[GPU] had to consider. If a technical very carefully before presenting them to aerson, in particular, raised an issue, we either the agency or the Panel.
1eard it. It got us to listen." NRC staff were mom confident that Panel members Respondents also reported that the contributed substantially to technical existence of the Advismy Panel issues. NRC staff believed that, at the influenced the way information about the very least, Panel members insisted that a cleanup was delivered and presented.
wider range of technical alternatives be Techmcal information was prepared by considered or developed. One NRC staff l
both the NRC and the licensee for wide member reported,"[A Panel member]
dissemination and understanding by first brought up the idea of PDMS (post-members of the lay public. In addition to defueling monitored storage) in a Panel providing a conduit between the NRC and meeting. I can't honestly say the licensee the public, Panel members believed they hadn't given PDMS some previous also facilitated communication between thought, but the idea was first discussed at the licensee and the public. Issues were Panel meetings."
highlighted by the Panel so that licensee j
staff could know what was important to In general, Panel members believed they the public, were sensitized to public provided some level of technical guidance I
concerns, and would hear the public for the cleanup, although it was difficult perspective. One NRC staff member for Panelists to identify specific instances corroborated this communication role by where their questions or ideas changed the observing that "the advisory Panel helped technical course of the cleanup. One in packaging the cleanup issues for the technical Panel member conceded, "I do public. If a general public consensus
[believe we had some technical influence developed about a specific issue, the on the cleanup], but I don't know how Panel helped focus or concentrate that much. Our questions made them go back consensus." A licensee staff member and think... Some questions influenced believes that " participation in the Panel GPU and NRC to lookinto things more provides [the beensee] with a constant thoroughly and carefully.... Overall, reminder and better perception of what GPU did an excellent technicaljob."
issues the public was concerned about."
3.5.2 Summary of Lessons Learned about Panel Influence on the 6 Most respondents referred to the licensee as Cleanup "GPU." While GPU is technically the parent company of the licensee GPUN, we believe that
- The most crucial Panelinfluence on the respondents are referring to the licensee cleanup activities was the.mereased (GPUN) in their responses because they openness to public scrutiny of both consistently switch back and forth between the NRC and licensee decisions and terms GPU and licensee. In deference to respondents
- statements, we retain the references activities.
to GPU.
NUPIG/CR-6252 22 i,
Lessons Learned
. The Panel facilitated communication not very accurate because they usually with the public for both the NRC and didn't get the whole story." By later licensee. 'Iliis communication years, however, Panel members reported helped sensitize the agency and the general satisfaction with the techmcal licensee to public concerns.
content of stories, because they were "very straightforward and mostly correct."
- The Panel's degree of technical Panel participants reported both influence on cleanup activities was advantages and disadvantages of media modest and,in any case, difficult to coverage of Panel meetings. One untangle from other pressures put on disadvantage mentioned by several the licensee. Most respondents respondents was that some participants agree, however, that Panel and public
" play to the camera," often exaggerating questions expanded the range of their positions to make interesting stories altematives considered by the NRC that the media will pick up. One Panel and the licensee.
member thought that the effect of this kind of media coverags "only exacerbates 3.6 Role of the Media the differences between the NRC and OPU." Some respondents also beheved The fo!!owing analysis focuses on the role that media presence encouraged played by the media as it covered the irresponsible mdividuals, to make claims Panel's activities over the years. While that are counterproductive to only one interview was conducted with a understandmg the real issues.,
long-term media participant, all interviewees discussed the role of the In general, however, most Panel media over the years. The analysis is participants believed that the role of the followed by a summary of the les, sons media was generally a positive one for the learned about the role of the media, Advisory Panel. NRC staff, Panel members, and members of the public all 3.6.1 Analysis of the Role of the Media reponed that the m,ost irnponant role of the media was to dissemmate information The Advisory Panel meetings received about cleanup activities to an audience wider than the one the Panel could reach extensive media coverage during the early years, although this lessened considerably at each meeting. One NRC staff member over the years. One participant beh,eved that a positive side effect of this complained that recently," Stories about dissemination was having to prepare and Panel meetings and cleanup activities end Present repons that were polished an,d up on the fourth page of the sports could stand up to the glare of television section." Anotherinterpretation of IIghts. In addition to widely founh-page stories is a decreased level of dissenunatmg mformation from the controversy and meetings that effectively licensee, NRC, and other agencies and and efficiently covered the issues.
CXPerts, the media also provided a wider forum for asking and answenng questions Both local newspapers and television in Public. This increased the ability of provided coverage at most meetings.
Panel parucipants to scrutimze cleanup Reporters covering this beat often retained activities, which most respondents felt the assignment for years. A media was a vital role of the Panel. In addition, ne Panel member beheved that the media respondent reponed "that the topic is so complicated it took years to figure out attention,gives the Panel a sense of uragement because they know exactly what was going on." This
""C. dents of the area are getting
[esi complexity may be reflected in Panelists, inf nnation about the Panel act,v,nes ii perceptions that "at the beginning, the j
media blew things out of proportion, through the medi,a. Othenvise, he said, j
elaborating on certain things. They were m st Panel activities would have been lost i
Lessons Izamed on area residents, and Panel members out of hand. [The NRC] received a $1000 would feel as if their effons were in vain.
damage bill." A series of ad hoc meetings were also held with concerned citizens, 3.6.2 Summary of Lessons Learned representatives of state and local About the Role of the Media government, and licensee staff in order to find a more organized way for NRC to
. Local media covered Panel meetings receive input about the cleanup efforts.
throughout the years. In the early Several respondents remembend that the years, front-page coverage was local activist group, Three Mile Island common. During later years, stories Alert (TMIA), was insistent that citizens moved to back pages with other,less be involved in the cleanup in some way.
controversial, news.
No respondent recalled the formulation of Media coverage disseminated the Panel as particularly slow. What they cleanup information to a wider did report was initial concern about the audience than was reached through Purpose of the Panel and some the Panel meetings, apprehension about how best to involve citizens in Panel activities. The transcript
. Media coverage encouraged high of the first meeting is revealing. Before quality presentations.
members can be introduced, conflict between the first Chairman of the Panel,
. Some participants believe that media John Minnicli, and a member of the public coverage provided increased arose over the role of the public (NRC opportunities for grandstanding and 1980:2-3):
irresponsible claim making.
Mr.Minnich(Chairman): Folks,I Media coverage may have reinforced welcome all of you and your interest in the significance and value of Panel this meeting. I must say to you this activities to Panel members and evening that I do not believe that we will encouraged their continued have an opportunity for public discussion participation.
tonight fmm the audience, not because we don't want to hear your views, but simply because if the rest of the Panelis like i
3.7 Advisory Panel Longevity myself, we are groping for some answers I
tonight, and I think that is the prime The following analysis focuses on h,ow reason for this meeting tonight is to give the Panel was sustained as an effective us some direction and purpose to that entity over the thirteen years ofits direction.
existence. The analysis is followed by a Mr. Horgan (member of the summary oflessons learned about public): Excuse me, sir. If you're going effective advisory panel longevity.
to give direction to the Panel and Mr.
Denton is going to advise you on what 3.7.1 Analysis of Advisory Panel steps you are going to take, don't you Longevity think that the people of the area should also be giving you direction?
The Panel met for the first time on Mr. Minnich: At an appropriate J
i November 12,1980, almost one year and time. The next time, please, I will hear nine months after the accident, and you if you will raise your hand, but don't continued to meet thereafter for 13 years.
mterrupt me. Let's not get started on the Prior to the formation of the Panel, the wrong foot tonight, please.
NRC held public meetings in the general Mr. Horgan: Excuse me, sir, but area of Three Mile Island. One NRC staff before you can decide what you are going members recalls the " infamous Liberty to study don't you think that you should Township Fire Hall meeting which got NUREG/CR-6252 24 l
L_____________________________________..
Lessons Learned hear what we want you to study? This Another Panel member thought "it took Panel-maybe ten years for the public trust of Mr. Minnich: No, I don't. You are NRC and GPU to emerge." A fellow out of order. And if this is the kind of Panel member expressed concern that the thing you are going to start right off the working relationships between Panel bat, then there is no purpose in my being participants, which took yean to build, here or anybody else being here.
were not being institutionalized in the Now,if you will sit down and licensee orgam,zation. The respondent listen to the pmceedings, maybe you will believes that " reverting back to the old learn something like I hope to learn antagonistic way [between the Panel and something, and when we want your input the licensee] is still a possibility as new
-- and you will have a chance for input --
GPU people, without any history with the we will ask for it. I do not anticipate that Panel, stan to work with the Panet" your opportunity will arise this evening.
Several respondents reponed that in a recent Panel meeting, a GPUN official The tone set by this exchange in the displayed a defensive communication earliest moments of the Citizens' style, reminiscent of the earliest Panel Advisory Pane.' raised serious concerns meetings. They all expressed surprise that for the members of the public we talked licensee staff familiar with Advisory with. They reported that they stuck with Panel meetings had not prepa ed this the Panel over the next few hours, as well official for the relatively non-as the next 13 years, because there was no confrontational style of Panel meetings.
other option. A Panel member sums ups One Panel member remembered that this this perception, "... the Panel was the institutional forgetfulness was a pattern only game in town. The Panel was the with the licensee over the years: "The only open meeting about the cleanup utility tends to shoot itselfin the foot-activities at TMI-2."
whenever they have a good thing going, they shoot themselves in the foot. "
Obviously, the Advisory Panel was not a quick fix to any of the problems facing It is also likely that the apparent trust the NRC regarding the cleanup of TMI-2.
between the NRC and other participants It took many years for some participants has not yet been institutionalized beyond tojust gain enough technical knowledge personal contact with NRC staff at TMI to be effective Panel participants. It also and the NRC Panel DFO. Members of the took many years for rapport to develop public were panicularly likely to repon between the Panel participants. One NRC that individual interpersonal contact with staff member believed,"The two most local NRC staff was satisfactory, but this significant factors in maintaining the did not translate into an increased level of dialogue [between the NRC and the trust for the NRC (or the licensee)in public] were time and the existence of the general.
Panel. As the licensee succeeded in its cleanup activities, the public became The longevity of the Panel did allow more comfortable with what they were divergent views and interpersonal saying at meetings.... As the public got problems to be smoothed over by to know more details, they got more
?articipants' shared experience and comfortable. For example, the videos that cnowledge. Panel panicipants got to the licensee showed of their activities know each other over the course of were very helpful for both the Panel and thineen years. One Panel member the public." A Panel member reported reponed that he began his Panel tenure that " trust [oflicensee and NRC] was with a strongly held perspective on one built up by their carrying through on side of the anti-/ pro-nuclear spectrum.
actions, explaining problems, telling the Over the years, however, he found truth."
himself agreeing more and more with Panelists who he believed originally 25 NUREG/CR-6252
Lessons Leamed represented the other side. A fellow views of Panel participants, allowed Panelist echoed this perspective: "I trust enough time forindividuals to learn my opponents on the Panel more than the about the complicated technical ones in the audience because they heard issues involved in the cleanup, and the same presentations I did, understood created an almost universal the responsibilities of the Panel, and knew perception that the Panel was an the limits of what we were trying to do."
effective communication forum.
If the Panel hadn't been allowed to mature in this way, antagonism and distrust
. Although interpersonal trust between between Panel members would not have Panel participants is generally quite been transformed into the almost high, this trust has not typically been universal perception of Panel success.
translated into increased trust for the institutions or organizations that Panel members were equally divided other participants represent.
when asked whether the Panel should continue to operate. Every Panel
. All past and present Panel members member, past and present, expressed expressed surprise that the Panel surprise that the Panel had survived for 13 survived for 13 years. Even those years. Panel members who thought the Panel members who believed the Panel should come to an end believed that Panel should continue thought the the most important issues had been Panel had only a few issues left to addressed and resolved by the Panel and
- address, the cleanup efforts. Pas: Panel members reported their primary reason for resigning was the completion of what they perceived to be the major cleanup activities. Panel members who favored continuing the Panel expressed concem that without the Panel, the public would have no forum in which to express their concems about activities at TMI. Several milestones still remained, including plans for the post-defueling monitored storage (PDMS) and funding for decommissioning, and these Panelists expressed willingness to continue their service to the Panel until these discussions are complete. However, even those Panel members who thought the Panel should continue, believed the Panel was in the "home stretch."
3.7.2 Summary of Lessons Learned about Advisory Panel Longevity
. Many participants continued with the Panel m spite ofinitial concerns about its efficacy because it was the only forum available for participating in discussions about the cleanup.
. Thelongevity of the Advisory Panel served to smooth over divergent NUREG/CR-6252 26
4 Conclusjons 4.1 Effectiveness of TMI-2 In general, however, respondents Pemeived the Panel as "a TMI-2 Advisory Panel experiment that worked." A member of the public believed that the " commitment Although the purpose of this report is not fmm Panel members was extraordmary.
to assess the effectiveness of the TMI-2 This component of the Panel expenence Advisory Panel, the respondents, may not be repmducible." In reply, interviews provide some evidence about several Panel members s, hared in the perceptions of Panel effectiveness. In sentunent that panicipatmg on the Panel general, the Advisory Panelis deemed a
, was no,t fun, I didn t like do, g it. But I m
success by allintemewed participants, keep doing it and I 11 keep domgit although all participants also have some because it is an effective public forum. It criticism of Panel activities or objectives.
stimulated a public dialogue about the cleanup of TMI-2 that never would have A licensee respondent succinctly taken place othenvise." A few Panel expressed a general perception among members admitted, somewhat sheepishly, parucipants that "the NRC got more out that panicipation on the Panel, while of this Panel than it was entitled to. What exhaustmg, was" great fun. It is a staned out as a palliative device tumed tremendous educational experience - I into an effective conununication channel."
know so much about how things work at Responding to mounting pressure to "do
- 2. One of die reasons I stayed was something about the increasing numbers because I enjoyed the um,que msight the of near-hysterical people" contacting the Advisory Panel gets into the cleanup."
NRC about TMI-2, the Panel grew into a two-way communication forum for participants. Most respondents believe 4.2 Implications for NRC
~
that the Panel introduced and legitimized the consideration of public concems in the The TMI-2 Advisory Panel is perceived development of cleanup plans.
by participants and observers as a success in meeting its objective of opening up a communication channel between the Licensee staff mported that participating in the Panel helped them formulate their public and the NRC. This reflects the findings in the literature that advisory message effectively so they could get panel objectives can serve both citizens their message and "the facts out to the real public and the press." Implied in the and public decision makers. The arevious statement is a strong criticism by development and focus on a set of well-
.icensee respondents that the Panel did not known and concrete objectives appears to truly represent the public. From their have helped the Advisory Panel be perspective, the Panel was strongly productive and effective over the years.
slanted to the " anti-nuclear" side of the liowever, this focus on a limited set of continuum. According to a licensee objectives may also have limited the respondent, the Panel "never effectively scope of the Advisory Panel's effect.
presented both sides of the story. The The literature about advisory panels
' pro' side never got a real hearing."
Interestingly enough, members of the suggests that participation on or with an public had the same criticism of the Panel, advisory panelincreases public satisfaction with social institutions more although they perceived that the Panej generally. It does not appear at this time provided more attention to, and opportunity for, the proponents of nuclear that Panel participants share this expanded energy. As additional evidence of this satisfaction. There does not appear to be bias, public respondents pointed out that any institutionalization of relationships lay people constituted only 25% of the between the public, the Panel members, NRC, and the licensee beyond the strong, Panel membership.
interpersonal relationships developed over 27 NUREG/CR-6252
Conclusions the years of Panel participation. While pleased, with the cleanup effort.
Panel-mlated interaction with the public Technically, the Advisory Panel can best about TMI-2 cleanup activities appears to be characterized as representing that be somewhat normalized, there is no subsample of the population most actively 3
guarantee that these relationships will interested in the cleanup of TMI-2. Low endure if another problem arises at Thme levels of participation by this subsample Mile Island in the future. This may be of the public does not necessarily suggest partly a result of the decision by the NRC that they feel unrepresented by the Panel.
to keep the Panel focused strictly on TMI-It is equally likely that they feel very 2 cleanup activities or the practice of represented by the Panel and by limiting the number of staffinvolved in individuals who consistently attend Panel activities or presentations. Instead meetings. One official of TMIA reports of building a wider relationship with the that membership went fmm less than 100 NRC and all ofits activities and members before the accident at TMI-2 to employees, Panel participants are limited about 2,000 current members. These to interactions with a limited number of members know that TMIA follows NRC employees about a constrained set cleanup activities carefully, participating of topics.
not only in Panel activities but in other efforts as well, including litigation and The original structure of the Panel, which monitoring programs. Other, non-TMIA emphasized a broad representation of members of the actively interested public scientists, officials, and citizens, are likely to feel fairly well represented by effectively initiated a legitimacy or the broad range of perspectives on the credibility for the Panel with most of its Panel at any given time. It is pmbable potential audience. Panel credibility was thatif the Advisory Paneldid not also enhanced by several other represent the views of the public that is phenomena. There is widespread interested in the cleanup of TMI-2, the recognition that while the diversity of NRC would have experienced more viewpoints on the Panel often created pressure from these mdividuals and conflict among members, it also provided gmups to provide meaningful ways to the credibility required for continued participate in the cleanup discussions.
participation by active members of the public as well as acceptance of Panel Supporting the Advisory Panel for 13 activities by the licensee. These two years was a modest commitment of groups of participants perceive that they resources by the NRC. It is not possible are underdogs with the Panel, which to use the information from this study to suggests that Panel members treat calculate either the costs or the benefits of representatives of both groups the Advisory Panel. However, given the evenhandedly Panel credibility was also psychological trauma of the accident, the increased by the quality ofindividuals sense of betrayal by local, state, and who served diligently for years. Finally, federal officials, and people's fear for individual Panel members and the Panel their own and their children's physical as a whole are perceived by panicipants health, it is probable that the pressure on as distinct from, and unbeholden to, the the NRC to support some method for sponsoring agency.
individuals and groups to panicipate in the cleanup discussions would have Both members of public interest groups continued to mount in the months after the and the licensee question whether the accident. Instead, the implementation and Advisory Panel represents the public at continued support for an Advisory Panel large. Most members of the public in considered legitimate by most potential Three Mile Island area never attended participants defused that pressure so that i
Panel meetings or other activities related NRC, licensee, and public attention could l
to the cleanup. It is likely that these be turned to the technical aspects of the individuals were at least satisfied,if not cleanup.
=
5 References Ashford, N.," Advisory Committees in Hoyle, J.,"Three Mile Island Unit 2 OSHA and EPA:Their Use in Regulatory Advisory Panel; Establishment," Pederal Decision Making," Science, Technology, Register 45: 71692,1980a.
andHuman Values,9: 92-82.
Charterfor Advisory Panelfor the Beatty, K. and J. Pierce, " Representation Decontamination of Three Mlle Island, and Public Involvement in Water Unit 2. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Resource Politics: A Comparison of Six Commission, Washington, D.C.,1980b.
ParticipantTypes," WaterResources,12:
1005.
Hughey, J. and E. Sundstrom,
" Perceptions of Three Mile Island and l
Bisogni, C., A. Lemley, and J. Fessenden-Acceptance of a Nuclear Power Plant in a Raden," Decision Making and Risk Distant Community," JournalofApplied Management by Individuals: Nitrate-SocialPsychology 18: 880-890.
Nitrogen in the Clifton Springs, New
~
York, Public Water Supply." Technical Konnheim, C.S., "Public Participation in Report for the Office of Water Research the Siting of Resoume Recovery and Technology, Washington, D.C.,1983.
Facilities," paper presented at the Annual APCA Meeting, Dallas, Texas, June 19-Carpenter, S. and W. Kennedy, Managing 24,1988.
Public Disputes, lossey-Bass, San Francisco, California,1988.
Kostmayer, P., M. Udall, and M. Lujan, Jr., letter from House Committee on Christopoulo, G.,"An Evaluation of Interior and Insular Affairs to J. F.
Policy Related Research on Citizen Ahearne, Chairman, U.S. Nuclear Participation in Municipal Service Regulatory Commission May 13,1980.
Systems: Legal System." Monograph No.
7, Technical Assistance Research Krimsky, S., "Beyond Technocracy: New Programs Institute, Washington, D.C.,
Routes for Citizen Involvement in Social 1974.
Risk Assessment," Citizen Participation in Science Policy, (J.C. Peterson, ed.)
Desario, J., and S. Langton, Citizen The University of Massachusetts Press, Participation in Public Decision Making, Amherst, Massachusetts.
Greenwood, New York,1987.
Landre, B. and B. Knuth," Success of Doerksen, H. and J. Pierce. " Citizen Citizen Advisory Committees in Participation in Water Policy Formation,"
Consensus-Based Water Resources paper presented at the Annual Meeting of Planning in the Great Lakes Basin,"
Western Political Science Association, Society and Natural Resources,6: 229 Seattle, Washington, March 20-21,1975.
257.
Dunn, J., Jr., "Public Participation in Martin, D., Three Mile Islandr Prologue Landfill Siting Process Can Help Smooth or Epilogue? Ballinger Publishing the Way," Solid Wastes Management Company, Cambridge, Masssachusetts, Refuse RemovalJournal,22: 81-82.
1980.
Hannah, S. and H. Lewis. "Intemal Michels, M.," Involving Citizen Advisory Citizen Control of Locally Initiated Committees Helps Siting," World Wastes, Citizen Advisory Committees: A Case 30:36-37.
Study,"Journalof Voluntary Action Research, 11:39-52.
Morgan, D. and R. England, " Evaluating a Community Block Grant Program: A Citizens Group Perspective," The Policy Studies Journci pp. 295-304.
References Governmental Officials in the Water Nelkin, D., " Science and Technology:
Resources Planning Process," technical Policy and the Democratic Process,"(J.
report for the Office of Water Research Peterson, ed.) Citizen Participation in and Technology, Washington, D.C.,1976.
Science Policy, University of Massachusetts Press, Amherst, Sills, D., C.P. Wolf, and V. Shelanshi, Massachusetts.1984.
Accident at Three MileIsland: The Human Dimensions, Westview Press, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Boulder, Colorado.1982.
(NRC), transcript of the Advisory Panel on the Decontamination of Three Mile Sorenson, J., J. Soderstrom, E.
Island Unit 2, November 12,1980.
Copenhaver, S. Carnes, and R. Bolin, impacts ofHazardous Technology: The Pearce, J. and J. Rosener, " Advisory Psycho-Social Effects ofRestarting TMI-Board Performance: Managing Ambiguity 1, State University of New York Press, and Limited Commitment in Public Albany, New York.1987 Television," Journal of Voluntary Action Research,4: 36-47.
Wald, N.,"The Nuclear Regulatory Commission's TMI Decontamination Peterson, J., Citizen Participation in Advisory Panel and Public Stress Science Policy, University of Mitigation," (Ricks, Berger, and O'Hara, Massachusetts Press, Amherst, Jr., eds.) The MedicalBasisfor Massachusetts.1984.
Radiation-Accident Preparedness 111: The Psychological Perspective, Elsevier Press, Priscoli, J., "The Citizen Advisory Group New York.1982.
as an Integrative Tool in Regional Water Resources Planning," (Daneke, Garcia, Walsh, E., " Resource Mobilization and and Priscoli, eds.) Public Participation Citizen Pmtest in Communities Around and SocialImpact Assessment, Three Mile Island," SocialProblems, Westview Press, Boulder, Colorado.
29(1): 1-21.
1984.
Redbum, S., T. Buss, S. Foster, and W.
Binning,"How Representative are Mandated Citizen Participation Processes?" Urban Affairs Quarterly, 15:345-352.
Reinking, R. and P. Berkholz,"A New Role for Citizens in State Park Planning:
Saugatuck Dunes State Park," Michigan Academician,15: 99-109.
Robin, H. and S. Hannah, " Relationships Among Committee Members, City Administrators, and City Council Members with Respect to the Tasks and Impact of Locally Initiated Citizen 1
Advisory Committees," paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Society for the Study of Social Problems,1984.
Shanley, R.A., " Attitudes and Interactions of Citizens' Advisory Groups and NUREG/CR-6252 30
=
Appendix A Panel meeting dates and transcript microfiche addresses 7 MEETING I) ATE MICROFICIIE LOCATOR NUMBER 12 Nov 80 07071-017 07071-129 18 Dec 80 07473-180 07473-274 l
30 Dec 80 07473-275 07474-028 4 Feb 81 07743-130 07743-226 11 Feb 81 90215-142 90215-198 9Jul81 09208-001 09208-082 1 Sep 81 09891-072 09891-204 2i Oct 81 10338-026 10338-136 16 Nov 81 12918-253 12918-360 10 Dec 81 1163(>- 131 11636-272 13 Jan 82 8
28 Jan 82 12618-317 12619-095 22 Apr 82 69283-130 69283-261 17 Nov 82 16571-182 16571-292 2 Feb 83 17240-011 17240-113 18 hiar 83 17891-158 17891-212 22 Apr 83 18328-242 18329-005 28 Jul 83 20047-237 20048-007 17 Aug 83 20289-328 20290-045 16 Sep 83 20634-252 20634-320 28 Sep 83 20873-095 20873-303 8 Dec 83 22034-181 22034-328 12 Jan 84 22251-192 22251-309 3 Feb 84 22344-065 22344-115 9 Feb 84 22436-158 22437-110 12 Apr 84 24207-318 24208-134 30 May 84 24897-183 24897-246 14 Jun 84 25210-245 25211-023 12 Jul 84 25883-316 25884-138 9 Aug 84 26257-048 26257-186 19 Sep 84 26887-001 26887 155 11 Oct 84 27170-222 27171-063 8 Nov 84 27859-001 27859-246 15 Nov S4 27739-216 27739-289 10 Jan 85 28658-349 28659-127 14 Feb 85 29215-239 29216-016 7 Mar 85 29565-012 29565-086 II Apr 85 30185-113 30185-301 16 May 85 30675-078 30675-253 7 A total of 78 Advisory Panel meetings were held. NRC staff has identified 73 panel meeting dates.
Transcripts of 67 of the meetings are on the U.S. NRC NUDOCs microfiche system. Individual microfiche are available at all U.S. NRC kical public document rooms as well as the public document room located at the Gelman Building,2120 L Street NW, Washington, D.C. 20037.
8 Microfiche location not available.
31
Appendix A MEETING DATE MICROFICHE LOCATOR NUMBER 20 Jun 85 31297-001 31297-066 18 Jul 85 32035-289 32036-067 11 Sep 85 32734-297 32735-136 16 Oct 85 33230-186 33230-322 19 Nov 85 33646-046 33646-101 12 Dec 85 34263-130 34264-016 12 Feb 86 34640-139 34640-254 10 Apr 85 35572-048 35572-161 11 Jun 86 36683-263 36683-337 13 Aug 86 8
8 Oct 86 38343-196 38343-335 10 Dec 86 39170-197 39170-330 21 Jan 87 39675-001 39675-157 26 Feb 87 39975-254 39976-079 25 Mar 87 8
16 Apr 87 40673-256 40673-312 10 Jun 87 8
12 Aug 87 71863-143 71863-254 13 Jan 88 8
14 Apr 88 45715-190 45715-359 26 May 88 45970-026 45970-170 14 Jul 88 46309-144 46309-317 7 Sep 88 46850-009 46850-120 25 Oct 88 47493-324 47493-358 16 Feb 89 48778-218 48778-354 13 Apr 89 49632-033 49632-150 21 Sep 89 51568-001 51568-181 14 Mar 90 53548-205 53548-299 18 Oct 90 56057-237 56058-031 15 Jan 91 57223-143 57223-228 16 Apr 92 71302-174 71302-361 9 Jun 92 62337-202 62337-336 1 Dec 92 64128-050 64128-104 23 Sep 93 77168-210 77169-094 l
NUREG/CR-6252 32 l
=
Appendjx B Interview protocol Introduction Introduce yourself to the respondent. Describe the Battelle Human Affairs Research Centers. Ex alain the goals of the project and how the results will be used. Remind the respondent tlat the interview is voluntary. Discuss the mechanics of the interview including how it is laid out, how long it will take, taking notes.
Questions for All Respondents Questions about the respondents' relationship with the Advisory Panel
. How long have you been involved with Advisory Panel activities?
How are you [or how have you been] involved wid1 the activities of the TMI-2 Advisory Panel?
. What types of Advisory Panel activities have your participated in?
. Have these activities changed in the last 12 years? How?
How often do you attend Advisory Panel meetings? Has this changed over the years?
Questions about the Objectives of the Advisory Panel Right after the accident at TMI, what did you think was needed to ensure l
communication among the public, the licensee, and the NRC7
. Did the Advisory Panel meet those needs?
. What were the Panel's original objectives?
. Do you remember ever seeing those objectives in writing?
Were the objectives talked about explicitly during any of the Advisory Panel meetings you attended?
. Have the original objectives of the Panel changed? In what ways?
. Do you think the Advisory Panel met its general objectives? How about any objectives that emerged over time?
Questions about the Mechanics of Panel Meetings
. Please describe the " mechanics" of Panel meetings. How are meetings organized and run?
. How are meeting agendas set? Who decides what topics will be covered at each meeting?
. How did the chair come to be selected? Were there criteria for selecting a chair?
. Who typically attended Panel meetings?
How did someone address the Panelif they had a question or comment? How does a citizen have input?
. Were resolutions or" motions" ever developed and/or voted on? If so, how was this done?
Did any of the " mechanics" of the Panel change over the years you were involved with the Panel? In what ways?
33 l
l
Appendix B Do you have any idea why the mechanics may have chariged?
- Do you think the changes benefited Panel operations?
Are there particular processes or ways of operating that seem to encourage participation? Can you provide an example?
Are there particular processes or ways of operating that seem to discourage participation? Can you provide an example?
- Do you have any suggestions for ways to improve the Panel meetings?
Questions about communications between the Advisory Panel and other participants
. How does the Advisory Panel receive information from other parties such as the NRC staff, licensee staff, and members of the public?
Have these methods changed in the last 12 years? How?
How does the Advisory Panel communicate information to other parties such as the NRC staff, licensee staff, and members of the public?
+ Have these methods changed in the last 12 years? How?
Questions about issues typically addressed during Panel meetings
. What types of issues did the Panel initially address? Were these issues usually resolved? What types of issues was the Panel unable to resolve?
. What types ofissues emerged during later years?
Are there issues that the Panel never addressed? Can you provide examples ofissues you believe the Panel should have addressed?
Questions about the nature of the relationship between the parties
- How would you characterize the relationships among the various parties before the accident at TMI-27 What can you tell me about the relationships between the various parties after the emergency simmered down but within a month or two of the accident?
How would you characterize the current relationships among the various parties?
Did the Advisory Panel play any part in creating or sustaining the relationships you've just described? Can you provide examples?
Questions about the effectiveness of the Advisory Panel Do you have any ideas about ways to make the Panel operations more effective?
)
- Is there some characteristic unique to the TMI-2 cleanup that lends itself particularly well to the use of an advisory group?
+ Do you think there is a more appropriate forum for dealing with the issues addressed by the Advisory Panel? What is it?
Have you ever used a public forum besides the Advisory Panel for addressing issues related to the TMI-2 cleanup? What are those forums?
Knowing what you know now, do you think the Advisory Panel was an effective forum for dealing with issues relsted to the TMI-2 cleanup?
=
Appendix B 1
Questions for Specific Groups Questions for NRC Staff
. How is the Advisory Panel managed? How is it coordinated with other NRC activities and groups?
. Does the manager responsible for the Advisory Panel have enough authority to help the panel meet its objectives and responsibilities?
How much time do you think is necessay to effectively manage the Panel?
. How is information from the Advisory Panel used by the NRC7 Who uses the information?
Is there internal criticism of the information received from the Panel? What kinds of criticism are received?
Questions for Panel Members
. How and why did you originally get involved with the Panel?
Why do you continue to participate in the Panel? (Or altematively, why did you decide to discontinue panicipation on the Panel?)
. What value has the Advisory Panel had for you personally?
What value has the Advisory Panel had for the more general community?
Questions for Media Representatives
. How do you cover Panel activities? What is the focus of any coverage? Has there been any change in type or amount of the coverage?
Thank you for your assistance. What questions do you have for me?
35 NUREG/CR-6252 3
Appendix C List OfInterviewees And Contact Documents COMPLETED INTERVIEWS Affiliation Past Participant Current Participant Advisory Panel Members Dr. Thomas Cochran Mr. John Luetzelschwab Mr. Thomas Gerusky Ms. Elizabeth Marshall Dr. Henry Wagner Mr. Kenneth Miller Dr. Neil Wald Mr. Arthur Morris Mr. Frederick Rice Dr. Gonion Robinson Mr. Joel Roth Mrs. Ann Trunk NRC Staff Mr. Lake Barmtt Dr. Michael Masnik Dr. Bernie Snyder Mr. Lee Thonus Dr. William Travers Licensee Mr. Frank Standerfer Mr. Roben Rogan Dr. Robert Friedman Members of the Public Ms. Joyce Corradi Ms. Deborah Davenport Mrs. Beverly Davis Mr. Eric Epstein Ms. Kay Pickering Media Mr. Ad Crable TOTAL 10 16 l
36
Letters Initial Contact Letter with Potential Study Participants
Dear [ Panel Member]:
The Nuclear Regulatory Ccmmission (NRC) has contracted with Battelle Pacific Northwest Laboratories (PNL) and Bntelle Human Affairs Research Centers (HARC) to document the experiences of the TMI-2 Advisory Panel for the decontamination of Three Mile Island Unit 2 and describe the " lessons learned" by the Advisory Panel experience. To do this analysis, the contractor will be looking at transcripts of the Panel meetings as well as conducting face-to-face and teleahone interviews with individuals who participated in Advisory Panel meetings. They will be conducting interviews with a sample of NRC staff, licensee staff, Advisory Panel members, and public and media representatives who participated in Panel activities over the 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 be contacting you to schedule an interview to ask about your experiences on the Advisory Panel. The interview will take appmximately 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 interview will be scheduled for a location and time convenient to you. If a face-to-face interview is not possible, the contractor will ask to schedule a phone IntervleW.
.hc 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 contractor has been directed to ensure that all interviews are confidential and that all reports frcm these interviews do not reveal, either implicitly or explicitly, the identity of any interviewee without their explicit per%sion. The principalinvestigator on the pmject, Denise Lach, will be calling you soon tc a Ledule an interview. If you have any questions about the project, please feel free to contar? J e PNL project manager, Becky Harry at (509) 375-2263, or the HARC project man y, Nancy Durbin, at (206) 528-3248.
l Sincerely, Michael Masnik NRC Project Manager l
37
Interview Confirmation Letter
Dear [ Interview participant]:
I 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 and Dr. Nancy Durbin, 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 the Advisory Panel experience. All comments you make,during the interview will remain strictly 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.
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, Denise H. Lach, Ph.D.
Research Sociologist l
l l
38
Interview Thank You Letter
Dear (Interviewee):
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 thineen 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 stafflet us know that everyone they asked to ?articipate agreed to an interview. The interviewers also felt that everyone was frank anc 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 ofinformation, 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 repon, 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.
Sincerely, Michael Masnik NRC Project Manager 39
N3C FORu 335 U S. NUCLE AR REGULATORY COMMIS$ DON
- 1. REPORT NUMBER Uc%n.
N%2Ps,%%'?.e.?ih!,7"""
nou2m BIBLIOGRAPHIC DATA SHEET NUREG/CR-6252 a" "'"'"c'"'" c v "'")
PNL-9871
- 2. TITLE AND SUBTITLE BSRC-800/94/014 Lessons Learned from the Three Mile i
3 OATE REPORT PUBLISHED Is1and-Unit 2 Adv.isory Panel j
oon t..
u.a August 1994 4 FIN OR GRANT NUMBER B2525
- 5. AUTHOR (Si
- 6. TYPE OF REPORT Denise Lach, Ph.D.
Technical Patricia Bolton, Ph.D.
Nancy Durbin, Ph.D.
- 7. eE R iOo COv E R E o u,,,,
o.,,,,
Rebekah Harty, Pacific Northwest Laboratory, Richland, WA Feb.1993-May 1994 e ee R F 0,RgG gAN<z ATuON - N Aue ANo AooR e Ss ur NRc. oro. o. ow.on. on.c. or R o. v s noc~., e.eus.cor, comm o
.~r m una
.,o cona, cror. oro..
Battelle Seattle Research Center i
4000 NE 4ist Street Seattle, WA 98105 9 SPO OR N RG ANIZ A TION - N AM E AND ADDR ESS or NPC type *5eme m orme". al conse.ctor. provoce NRC Dormon. OHicr or Regen. yL Nuckar Regulatory Commossoon, Division of Operating Reactor Support Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555
- 10. SUPPLEMENT ARY NOTES
- 11. ABSTR ACT (200 wores or wa)
In response to public concern about the cleanup of the Three Mile Island, Unit 2 (TMI-2) facility after an accident on March 28, 1979 involving a loss of reactor coolant and subsequent damage to the reactor fuel, twelve citizens were asked to serve on an independent Advisory Panel to consult with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) on the decontamination and cleanup of the facility.
The panel met 78 times over a period of thirteen years, holding public meetings in the vicinity of TMI-2 and meeting regularly with NRC Commissioners in Washington, D. C.
This report describes the results of a project designed to identify and describe the lessons learned from the Advisory Panel and place those lessons in the context of what we generally know about citizen advisory groups.
A summary of the empirical literature on citizen advisory panels is followed by a brief history of the TMI-2 Advisory Panel. The body of the report contains the analysis of the lessons learned, preliminary conclusions about the effectiveness of the Panel, and implications for the NRC in the use of advisory panels. Data for the report include meeting transcripts and interviews with past and present Panel participants.
12 K E Y WORDS!DE SCR:Y1 ORS u ese woron er o raers that w.u mm, rversaners +n oucarone ese revers a n AvAesswLN 5 1fMkN1 s
Public Involvement Unlimited Three Mile Island, Unit 2 m ecum n ua m ano~
Advisory Panel n a..
Unclassi fied (Thos Recor?}
Unclassified
- 15. NUMBL R OF PAGE S 16 PRICE NftC 7 084M 3M 42491
t
?
l l
Printed on recycled paper l
Federal Recycling Program
NUREGICR-4252 LESSONS LEARN 2D FROM THE TIIREE MILE ISLAND-UNIT 2 ADVISORY PANEL AUGUST 1994 UNITED STATES FIRST CLASS MAIL NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION POSTAGE AND FEES PAID WASH!NGTON, D.C. 20555-0001 USNRC PERMIT NO. G-67 OFFICIAL BUS! NESS PENALTY FOR PRIVATE USE $300 1 1M1901
$$g13o531 e4S SMS 7Uj,]h,}$
rustic?T12 y
CCG jp3_pnc-NU
'USE' CC p L r N - CI 7 g c 381 N GT ON,
.