Risk Communication Management in Nuclear Emergencies

Introduction: Risk Communication as a Program Management Challenge

One of the most important challenges in the management of energy is communication, a fact highlighted by previous nuclear accidents and emergencies. Effective communication in the early stages of a nuclear emergency improves population response by increasing awareness and understanding of the protective actions required. This is advised as a short-term, or immediate, communication necessity in the event of a nuclear emergency. The process of remediation and the return to normal life is made possible through effective risk communication with stakeholders over the medium and long term (Perko, 2011).

Mass media plays a central role in this context. The nuclear emergency at the Fukushima plant in Japan brought to light the importance of communication, as the incident induced massive media coverage (Perko, Turcanu, and Geenen, 2012). During the contamination phase, various mass media outlets were used to communicate with the general population and other stakeholders, and later played an important role in the cleanup and recovery stage as well. It must be remembered, however, that for commercial purposes the media often operates on the principle that "bad news is good news," and this problem must be addressed within the overall objective of effective risk communication to help people cope with a nuclear emergency (Perko, Turcanu, and Geenen, 2012).

The above discussion makes clear that risk communication during a nuclear emergency is a major program and should not be treated as a small project. The resources and effort required are substantial, and the time period of the communication effort is also significantly longer. The size and number of stakeholders and stakeholder groups involved are equally large. Crisis communication in a nuclear emergency therefore requires a program management approach and should not simply be restricted to the level of a communication project, given how huge and complex it is, and given that it must deal with the lives and livelihoods of people both now and for future generations (Levin and Green, 2014).

Special care is needed first to define a risk communication program. As experts note, such a program should constitute a group of related projects that are implemented in a coordinated manner to achieve a specific result. While projects can exist without programs, the reverse is not true. Generally, program management is a centralized process in which various smaller projects are coordinated to achieve a preset desired outcome. Governance, infrastructure, management, financial management, and planning are all important components of a program. A program provides a concrete structure and guidance for project prioritization to meet strategic goals (Thiry, 2010). Resolving resource constraints, implementing change management, and maintaining the strategic direction that influences individual projects help program managers determine the best approach for managing smaller projects. This paper examines the various dynamics and components of a large program and its management with respect to risk communication with a variety of stakeholders in a nuclear emergency situation.

Stakeholder Management in Nuclear Emergency Programs

The specific people or groups that have an active interest or a stake in the final outcome of a program are defined as stakeholders. Such stakeholders can be internal to an organization — such as the program sponsor, the steering committee, and the governance board — or external, such as suppliers, investors, the local community, and government organizations, all of whom are directly or indirectly impacted by the activities of the organization (Eskerod and Jepsen, 2013).

Due to a program's size and complex nature, there are generally many stakeholders involved. Stakeholders are identified through a stakeholder analysis, and the results are recorded in a Stakeholder Management Plan. It is generally the centralized office of an organization that formulates this strategy. The approach and overall activation of the stakeholder management plan are proactively guided and managed at the program level.

Although programs consist of a number of smaller plans or projects, individual projects do not create their own stakeholder management plans, as doing so can create chaos and result in disjointed communication (Levin and Green, 2014). However, for a program to be successful, its component projects must also succeed, and the stakeholder management process should be evaluated and implemented at the project management level even though it is not formulated there.

It is critical to identify and analyze each stakeholder. The analysis is generally conducted on the basis of the impact the stakeholder can have on the outcome of the program and the degree of their involvement in its success and implementation (Bertsch et al., 2006). A fault in stakeholder identification and analysis can derail a program entirely.

A stakeholder analysis is the first step in the management of stakeholders. It is essentially an assessment of a program's key participants and how the program would be affected by their problems and needs. It also involves identifying the individual characteristics and interests of stakeholder groups, their motivating factors, and the factors that provoke them. The roles and degrees of participation are analyzed alongside any potential conflicts of interest between stakeholder groups. It is also important to define success from the viewpoint of the stakeholders (Bertsch et al., 2006).

After this exercise, the stakeholder management plan for engaging and communicating with stakeholders begins. Communications should be made according to the management plan. In addition to the results of the stakeholder analysis, the communication plan must take into account the culture of the stakeholders. This helps determine what type of messages and message content to communicate, the most appropriate medium of communication, and how and when to communicate.

The importance of communicating effectively with stakeholders was evident in the early planning and execution of the High Speed 2 project of the UK government's Transport Department. A report by the Comptroller and Auditor General noted: "There are particular risks for the Department if it fails to effectively meet or manage stakeholders' expectations" (Comptroller and Auditor General, UK, 2013). This reiterates the importance of communicating well with stakeholders for large projects. Recognizing the initial problem, the department appointed a single stakeholder manager for the High-Speed Rail team to improve stakeholder management across several areas.

In the case of a nuclear emergency, communication with stakeholders becomes critical — first to enable preventive measures, and later to support clearing operations and rehabilitation. There are a number of stakeholders in a nuclear emergency scenario. The first and most important are the people in the community surrounding the emergency location, as they are the stakeholders most directly affected by such an incident (Perko, 2011). Other stakeholders include government and regulatory authorities entrusted with oversight of nuclear installations (OECD Nuclear Energy Agency, 2016).

Environmentalists and peer groups are another important stakeholder category. Internal stakeholders for a nuclear company include shareholders and those with financial interests, as well as employees, who may also be significantly affected by a nuclear emergency. The media represents yet another critical stakeholder group. The views and comments carried by the media shape public perception of the emergency and can carry vital communication — particularly to stakeholders in the immediate community — about preventive measures (International Atomic Energy Agency, 2012).

See Appendix A for a stakeholder analysis for nuclear emergency and inputs for a stakeholder management plan.

References

Bertsch, V., Geldermann, J., Rentz, O., and Raskob, W. (2006). Multi-criteria decision support and stakeholder involvement in emergency management. IJEM, 3(2/3), p. 114.

Bester, C., Britz, J., and Merkestein, A. (2008). Management of information in development projects — a proposed integrated model. S Afr j inf manag, 10(1).

Bisconti, A. (2011). Communicating with stakeholders about nuclear power plant radiation. Health Physics, 100(1), pp. 97–102.

Comptroller and Auditor General, UK. (2013). High Speed 2: A review of early programme preparation. Report by the Comptroller and Auditor General HC 124 Session 2013–14. London: National Audit Office, UK, pp. 42–43.

Debowski, S. (2006). Knowledge management. Milton, Qld.: Wiley.

Defence Nuclear Emergency Response. (2013). Nuclear security and emergency planning. London: Ministry of Defence, Directorate of Business Resilience, UK, pp. 8-1 to 8-7.

England, N. (2016). NHS England — Hazardous Materials (HAZMAT) and Chemical, Biological, Radiological and Nuclear (CBRN). England.nhs.uk.

Eskerod, P. and Jepsen, A. (2013). Project stakeholder management. Farnham, Surrey, England: Gower.

FEMA. (2013). Communicating during and after a nuclear power plant incident. Washington: U.S. Department of Homeland Security, pp. 8–15.

Gov.uk. (2013). Preparation and planning for emergencies: the National Resilience Capabilities Programme. gov.uk.

Grewal, D. (2011). Perspective: Building a team science training program. Science.

Ice, J. and Petersen, D. (2002). Considerations in risk communication. Cincinnati, OH: Technology Transfer and Support Division, National Risk Management Research Laboratory, Office of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

International Atomic Energy Agency. (2012). Nuclear communication & stakeholder engagement. iaea.org.

Levin, G. and Green, A. (2014). Implementing program management. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.

Liu, H., Gopalkrishnan, V., Ng, W., Song, B., and Li, X. (2008). An intelligent system for estimating full product life cycle cost at the early design stage. International Journal of Product Lifecycle Management, 3(2/3), p. 96.

Liu, H., Gopalkrishnan, V., Quynh, K., and Ng, W. (2008). Regression models for estimating product life cycle cost. J Intell Manuf, 20(4), pp. 401–408.

OECD Nuclear Energy Agency. (2016). Practices and experience in stakeholder involvement in post-nuclear emergency management. oecd-nea.org.

Parker, G. (1990). Team players and teamwork. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Parker, G. (2008). Team players and teamwork. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Perko, T. (2011). Importance of risk communication during and after a nuclear accident. Integr Environ Assess Manag, 7(3), pp. 388–392.

Perko, T., Turcanu, C., and Geenen, D. (2012). Media reporting and changes in public opinion after Fukushima nuclear accident: Belgium as case study. International Journal of Nuclear Governance, Economy and Ecology, 3(4), p. 291.

Perko, T., van Gorp, B., Turcanu, C., Thijssen, P., and Carle, B. (2013). Communication in nuclear emergency preparedness: a closer look at information reception. Risk Analysis, 33(11), pp. 1987–2001.

Qrunfleh, S. and Tarafdar, M. (2013). Lean and agile supply chain strategies and supply chain responsiveness: the role of strategic supplier partnership and postponement. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, 18(6), pp. 571–582.

Skilton, P. (2014). Value creation, value capture and supply chain structure: understanding resource-based advantage in a project-based industry. J Supply Chain Manag.

Syal, R. (2013). Abandoned NHS IT system has cost £10bn so far. The Guardian, p. 1.

Team-Building Exercise. (2005). Science, 308(5722), pp. 597j–597j.

Thiry, M. (2010). Program management. Burlington, VT: Gower.

Young, R. and Peterson, M. (2014). Emergency management logistics must become emergency supply chain management. JEM, 12(2), pp. 171–187.

Appendix A: Stakeholder Analysis for Nuclear Emergency

The table below summarizes the stakeholder analysis inputs for a nuclear emergency stakeholder management plan.

Community: Importance — High; Current level of support — Medium; Desired outcome — Support; Key issues — Safety and health (High); Potential to block — Effective communication needed; Strategy — Proactive and transparent communication.

Government: Importance — High; Current level of support — Medium; Desired outcome — Legal support; Key issues — Safety of people, environment, and maintenance of legal requirements; Potential to block — High; Strategy — Regular communication and updates.

Internal Stakeholders: Importance — High; Current level of support — High; Desired outcome — Continued support; Key issues — Safety and job security; Potential to block — High; Strategy — Internal communication and reassurance.

Peer Groups: Importance — Medium to Low; Desired outcome — Non-interference; Key issues — Safety of people and environment (Medium); Strategy — Media communication.

Suppliers: Importance — High; Current level of support — High; Desired outcome — Continued supply; Key issues — Financial security; Potential to block — High; Strategy — Assurance from the organization.