radioactive waste management communication and nuclear communication: two players for one safe...

Radioactive waste management communicationRadioactive waste management communication and Nuclear communication: and Nuclear communication:

Two players for Two players for ONE SAFE FUTURE ONE SAFE FUTURE

Authors: Stela Diaconu, Ilinca Authors: Stela Diaconu, Ilinca CovreagCovreag

SIEN, octombrie SIEN, octombrie 20092009

ANDRADANDRAD

ContentContent

Communication goalsCommunication goals

Target groupsTarget groups

MessagesMessages

ToolsTools

Feedback assessmentFeedback assessment

Efficiency monitoringEfficiency monitoring

SIEN, octombrie 2009SIEN, octombrie 2009

ANDRADANDRAD

Communication goalsCommunication goals

Nuclear Communication (NC)Nuclear Communication (NC) promoting nuclear energy and applications; getting public trust and confidence in nuclear power as a reliable

source of clean, safe and not expensive energy; getting public acceptance for power plants siting and construction; done by Nuclear Agency and by Nuclear Power Companies (SNN

and Energonuclear)

Radioactive Waste Management Communication (RWMC)Radioactive Waste Management Communication (RWMC) making the public aware of the existence and characteristics of

RW; making the public aware of the disposal necessity; getting the public trust in the safety of the disposal techniques; getting public acceptance for repositories siting and construction; done by the waste management agency (ANDRAD)Notes:Notes: NC includes RWMC in its sphere, RWMC does not include references to promoting the expansion of nuclear and nuclear capabilities, being not involved in these issues. On the other hand, a good RWMC can be very useful to NC, because it may diminish one of the great concerns of the public about nuclear energy, namely the one related to solving the problem of radioactive waste.


ANDRADANDRAD

Target groupsTarget groups Target groups are Target groups are basicallybasically the same for NC the same for NC

and RWMCand RWMC:

General publicGeneral public Politicians;Politicians; NGO’s;NGO’s; Local communitiesLocal communities MediaMedia

but but actually actually they they difdifffer er somesometimestimes:: The repository siting community can be the same as that which host

the power plant or may be different. Example:Example:NC and RWMC have a common target when we are talking about DFDSMA project – this target is the community near Cernavoda NPP. The targets may be different in the case of the geological repository


ANDRADANDRAD

Messages:Messages:The hierarchical system of main messagesThe hierarchical system of main messages

The hierarchical system of the main messages are basically the same for NC and RWMC. First of all our facts should prove a lot of consideration for the people and the environment.


ANDRADANDRAD

Main MessagesMain Messages

PeoplPeoplee

NCNC RWMCRWMCNE is not only unexpensive but also safe and a necessary component of energy mix

Ex. The radioactive waste are handled in such a way as to protect human health in the short and long-term

Common messages:Common messages: We ensure public safety, without compromising future generations’ needs and aspirations.

EnviromeEnviromentnt

NCNC RWMCRWMCEx. Nuclear power is a clean energy, without greenhouse gases emission

Ex. We have the solution for waste disposal that is

sustainable safe.

Common messages:Common messages: We minimise the risks and ensure the environment’s protection against the potential negative effects.

CommunitiCommunities es

developmedevelopmentnt

NCNC RWMCRWMCEx. Social Program of the Cernavodã Town, cheap heat of the community supply, substantial taxes for the local budget & CSR Campagne ‘Receive a tree in your......”

Ex. Improving infrastructure; Local business development;taxes to local budgets

Common messages:Common messages: Nuclear energy ensures human society’s long term development


In both cases, siting of a NPP and siting of a repository, two In both cases, siting of a NPP and siting of a repository, two main factors influence the public acceptance: safety of the main factors influence the public acceptance: safety of the facility and communities benefits;facility and communities benefits;

The perception exists that radioactive waste management The perception exists that radioactive waste management involves risks that are higher than operating nuclear power involves risks that are higher than operating nuclear power plants; the reason may be the low visibility of the waste plants; the reason may be the low visibility of the waste repositories’ benefits; repositories’ benefits;

At NPP’s the safety can be more easily proved and the At NPP’s the safety can be more easily proved and the confidence can be obtained; in the repositories case, due to confidence can be obtained; in the repositories case, due to the long-term frames involved (especially for geological the long-term frames involved (especially for geological repositories), the safety is not easy to be proved and the repositories), the safety is not easy to be proved and the confidence is low and hard to be achieved. confidence is low and hard to be achieved.

Main MessagesMain Messages


ANDRADANDRAD

ToolsToolsSame tools for NC and RWMCSame tools for NC and RWMC:: Media tools:Media tools: press conferences, press releases,

workshops/trainings for journalists, interviews, etc;

Publications:Publications: flyers, brochures, annual reports, posters, etc;

Websites;Websites;

Debates:Debates: public debates, meeting with formal liders, scientific events, etc;

Opinion polls;Opinion polls;

etcetcThese tools are used in a individual way – each

organization has its own strategy, but they also can be used in an integrated way (common activities such us: common public debates, scientific conferences, common media conferences, etc)


ANDRADANDRAD

Feedback assessmentFeedback assessment NC and also RWMC receive permanently a real feedback, which

deserve a close attention and is periodically analyzed, from: Media Media : journalists are the gatekeepers (ours ideas and information are

filtred for publication ) showing us which messages are important and which are not for the public, which are the public’s concerns, the misperceptions and the interests. We receive this feedback from papers, conferences, formal and informal discussions or surveys applied to the journalists ;

Politicians:Politicians: the feedback from politicians is represented by their awareness level regarding nuclear and radioactive waste management field. We can receive this feedback from their public statements on the strategy for nuclear energy development and formal discussions;

NGO’s:NGO’s: they express attitudes pro or against nuclear issues which must be taken into account;

Local communities:Local communities: the most important feedback consists in the acceptance level for the construction of new nuclear facilities (power plants or repositories);

General public:General public: its feedback can be assessed meainly through opinion polls.


ANDRADANDRAD

Notes: Feedback assessment is an integrated part of efficiency monitoring, and represents a very useful tool in improving our communication strategies on short and long-term.

Efficiency monitoringEfficiency monitoring Media analysis:Media analysis: At the end of each year, we perform a media analysis. The results of 2008

analysis revealed significant increase of ANDRAD presence in media – 37 articles in the written press, 2 news stories on TVR1 news bulletins and a one hour talk show at Radio România Actualităţi on the topic of radioactive waste.

Opinion polls:Opinion polls: As regards the opinion polls, we are using the results of three surveys: a national one, performed in 2006 in the frame of a PHARE Project, which represents a photograph of the starting moment in the communication activity of ANDRAD, allowing on one side the improvement of the communication strategy and on the other side the assessment of the evolution in time of the public perception by periodically applying the survey, a second national opinion poll, similar with that of 2006, performed in 2008, and the Eurobarometer 2008 “Attitudes towards radioactive waste”, which included Romania among the surveyed countries.

Romanians are 67,7% in favor of nuclear energy production: Romanians are 11% less informed that the EU Romanians are 67,7% in favor of nuclear energy production: Romanians are 11% less informed that the EU citizens on radioactive waste: citizens on radioactive waste:

Both, media analysis and opinion polls are instruments which allows the assessment of the evolution in the public perception of nuclear energy and radioactive waste

Institutional image analysis:Institutional image analysis: by integrating the results of the above mentioned instruments, one can assess the level of public trust in their institution and can perform a SWOT analysis of it

Do you agree with nuclear energy production?

RO2006

Eurobarometer 2008

RO 2008

EU RO

Agree 55 44 35 67,7

Against 28 45 38 20,2

How informed do you think you are on radioactive waste ?

RO2006

Eurobarometer 2008

RO 2008

EU RO

Informed 17 25 16 14,4

Not informed 82 74 81 79,7


ANDRADANDRAD

ConclusionsConclusions In conclusion, NC includes RWMC in its sphere but RWMC does not

include references to promoting the expansion of nuclear and nuclear capabilities, being not involved in these issues. On the other hand, a good RWMC can be very useful to NC, because it may diminish one of the great concerns of the public about nuclear energy, namely the one related to solving the problem of radioactive waste.

Finally, both communication processes are working hard for the same purpose:

ONE SAFE FUTURE.ONE SAFE FUTURE.


ANDRADANDRAD

radioactive waste management communication and nuclear communication: two players for one safe...

Documents