INTRODUCTION AND WEBINAR AGENDAS

Third NEA Stakeholder
Involvement Workshop
on Optimisation in
Decision-making
Preparatory Webinars

Table of contents
Background and lessons learnt from previous NEA Stakeholder Involvement
Workshops ........................................................................................................................... 2
Workshop objectives .......................................................................................................... 3
General approach ................................................................................................................ 3
Scope ..................................................................................................................................... 4
Preparatory webinars ......................................................................................................... 4
Webinar agendas ................................................................................................................ 6
Webinar I – “How to better formulate problems for holistic, inclusive andsustainable decision-making?” .................................................................................... 6
Webinar II – “How to balance competing aspects and interests (as defined by
the prevailing circumstances) in decision-making to reach holistic, inclusive
and sustainable decisions? ........................................................................................... 8
Webinar III – “How to transparently implement and post-assess decisions fortheir holism, inclusiveness and sustainability?” ..................................................... 10
Speaker biographies ......................................................................................................... 12

1

Background and lessons learnt from previous
NEA Stakeholder Involvement Workshops
Decision-making processes can be optimised across the whole spectrum of nuclear andradiation-related policy, regulation and practice. Optimisation has always been afundamental concept in decision-making in all parts of society, but the way decisions
are taken has changed in recent years. Societal considerations towards nuclear-related
activities have evolved to promote more holistic, inclusive and sustainable decisionmaking perspectives, addressing the need to integrate many diverse aspects andstakeholder 1 views (notably those of civil society) to reach more balanced and“optimised” (i.e. better) decisions.
The Nuclear Energy Agency (NEA) has played a pioneering role in encouraging thesedevelopments through the organisation of a number of workshops over the past years
to shed light on the complex topic of stakeholder involvement and the concept of
optimisation in policymaking. This included the first two editions of the NEA
Stakeholder Involvement Workshop on “Stakeholder Involvement in Nuclear Decision
Making” (2017) and on “Risk Communication – Towards a Shared Understanding ofRadiological Risks” (2019). Other relevant workshops included the joint NEA and DSA(Norwegian Radiation and Nuclear Safety Authority) workshop on a “Regulatory
Framework of Decommissioning, Legacy Sites and Wastes from Recognition to
Resolution: Building Optimization into the Process” (2019), the NEA workshop on“Optimisation: Rethinking the Art of the Reasonable” (2020), and the NEA workshop on“Multifactor Optimisation of Predisposal Management of Radioactive Waste” (2020).
One of the conclusions of these events was that while optimisation is crucial in decisionmaking, there is no common understanding across nuclear sectors of what an “optimised”
decision implies. A key aspect identified in this context was the involvement of
stakeholders, and especially civil society, in the decision-making process. It was notedthat there was room for improvement, for more transparency and greater stakeholder
involvement, and that there was a lack of a robust framework in this context. While an
optimised decision depends largely on the prevailing circumstances in which the decision
is taken, there is a need for generic guidance in the implementation of more holistic,
inclusive and sustainable decision-making processes. Better cross-sector communication
was highlighted as one way to optimise decisions and appropriately consider and balance1.

In addition to policy makers and regulators (e.g. safety authorities), stakeholders include but
are not limited to (representatives of): elected governmental officials; civil society; Indigenous
peoples; NGOs (including environmental groups); academic community; media; public
opinion builders; businesses and industry (workers, unions, suppliers, professional
associations, etc.); and the international community (including neighbouring countries)(adapted from IAEA [2021], “Stakeholder Engagement in Nuclear Programmes” and NEA[2021], “Towards a Shared Understanding of Radiological Risks”). More broadly speaking, astakeholder is “any group or individual who feels affected by an activity, whether physicallyor emotionally”. This can be “organisations and groups that are statutory stakeholders —those required by law to be involved in any planning, development or operation of a nuclear
project — as well as non-statutory stakeholders — those who have an interest in or will bedirectly or indirectly impacted” (IAEA, Nuclear Communicator’s Toolbox).
2their societal, health, environmental, and economic impacts. The 3rd NEA Stakeholder
Involvement Workshop will be an important step in identifying the key considerations thatallow for a common approach to decision-making processes across the nuclear sectors
and across the NEA member countries. This will support the objectives outlined in the
new NEA Strategic Plan 2023-2028 (see pp. 8, 9, 20).
As countries aim to achieve the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals, there isa growing need for more holistic, inclusive, and sustainable decision-making processes
that account for national/cultural contexts and the complex interplay between economic,
environmental, health and societal aspects. The ultimate goal is to reach a sustainable,transparent and widely accepted decision-making process. Such a process should balance
the different factors and risks, depending on the prevailing circumstances, to identify the
optimal solution or solutions for all stakeholders and society as a whole.
In other words, decisions should no longer be narrowly based on a limited number of
aspects and views or on one specific sector. This applies to all kinds of decision-making
processes and contexts. Inclusive and deliberative approaches and the management of
the multiple consequences of decisions could lead to a holistic view of governance andmake it a mutual learning process for policymakers, regulators, owners, practitioners,
implementers, experts and civil society.

Workshop objectives
Based on the above, the 3rd Stakeholder Involvement Workshop will have the following
three overarching objectives:
1.

Improve the common, practical understanding of what optimisation in decisionmaking means for policymakers, regulators and other stakeholders, notably civilsociety, across the nuclear sector and compare with non-nuclear sectors.

2.

Identify the foundation of a generic multidimensional framework to support the
optimisation process for decision-makers across the nuclear sector to achieve
more sustainable decisions.

3.

During 1 & 2, support inclusive stakeholder involvement, notably civil society,and identify the relevant tools/approaches to optimise decision-making using
qualitative and quantitative elements across the nuclear sector and achieve
more sustainable decisions.

General approach
The main workshop will be held in September 2023 with the aim of addressing
objectives 2 & 3. To set the scene for the workshop and to prepare a common groundfor discussions, objective 1 will be addressed through three preparatory webinars
between December 2022 and February 2023. The improvement in the involvement of
stakeholders, including civil society, will be the guiding theme for both the preparatory
webinars and the workshop.

3

The discussion part of the preparatory webinars is open for participation upon invitation.
This will limit the number of participations to permit an efficient exchange andengagement with participants from different fields. Invitations were issued on behalf of
the Workshop Programme Committee, based on input from the different NEA Standing
Technical Committee Bureaus to achieve participation from different fields andprofessional backgrounds.

Scope
The workshop and preparatory webinars will be based on active and constructive
engagement between participants and aim for a better, cross-cutting understanding
among the different nuclear sectors. This will not include the medical field, however, inorder to limit the complexity of the subject matter. Regarding the preparatory webinars,
the scope is reduced to finding a common practical understanding of what optimisationmeans in decision-making for the purposes of the workshop in 2023, i.e. describing abroad decision-making process, with its drivers and barriers, and the potential
influencing factors, rather than developing a new definition of “optimisation” as such.
For this purpose, the decision-making process will be broken down into three phases
which will be analysed individually.
For the purposes of the webinars and the workshop, the terms “decision” and“decision-making” refer to decisions that will have, or can be expected to have, a direct
impact on stakeholders. Decision-making entities are assumed to have the required
legal authority. This does not include lower-level decisions in which there is no
expectation for purposeful stakeholder engagement.

Preparatory webinars
Three phases, each addressed by a dedicated webinar
The process of optimisation in decision-making will be examined from an end-goal
perspective, the end-goal being to make more holistic, inclusive and sustainable decisions
that are understood and reasonably accepted by all parties involved, with a specific focus
on all relevant stakeholders during the process. Each group of stakeholders is likely tohave its own set of key considerations that are to be consolidated in a deliberative andsustainable manner with those of other stakeholders in order to reach an optimised
decision. For the purpose of the preparatory webinars, the decision-making process will
be broken down into three phases:
1.

Identifying and framing the purpose of the decision (i.e. pre-decision-making
activities). This includes how a problem, including its context, is identified andexplicitly stated, along with the method(s) for its assessment. For example:
What is the problem? Why should it be solved? What are the consequences if
the problem is not considered? What are the legal/regulatory triggers? Whoneeds to be engaged in the problem formulation? Who would be impacted by
the decision(s)?

4‣ Guiding theme for the webinar on phase I: “How to better formulate problems
for holistic, inclusive and sustainable decision-making?”
2.

Finding and evaluating options for making the decision. This includes theidentification of different options, their assessment regarding their risks,benefits, feasibility and impact in view of the prevailing circumstances, as wellas the timeline for their potential implementation.
‣ Guiding theme for the webinar on phase II: “How to balance competing
aspects and interests (as defined by the prevailing circumstances) whenevaluating options to reach holistic, inclusive and sustainable decisions?”

3.

Selecting, executing and post-assessing the decision. This includes theselection of the “optimal” decision based on the analysis of options above, theimplementation of that solution, and the post-assessment of the decision andthe decision-making process during/after its implementation to extract lessons
for future decisions.
‣ Guiding theme the webinar on phase III: “How to transparently implement
and post-assess decisions for their holism, inclusiveness and sustainability?”

During all three phases, the question should be how to involve and empowerstakeholders to play a solution-oriented role in the decision-making process, and to
identify the types of triggers or goals that drive the process and its influencing factors.
Each of the three phases will be analysed in more detail during a dedicated webinar.
The webinars will aim to identify similarities and differences in approaches toimplement each of the three phases across sectors and across countries.

Consider new policy developments and examples from the nuclear
sectorEach webinar will start with a short introduction, followed by a general, cross-cutting
and high-level presentation on best practices and emerging approaches in theinternational democratic decision-making fora. This will provide some broad
perspective and will be followed by the analysis of a nuclear-specific situational
example so as to draw the focus back to the nuclear sector. Participants will then discussin breakout groups their own experience, best practices and examples from theirsectors, guided by a number of questions (see draft agendas).
The discussion of these questions in the breakout groups, based on the impressions
gained during the two keynote presentations of each webinar, will provide a basis todraw up a document to capture and outline a common understanding of optimisationin decision-making for the main workshop in September 2023. The insights will besummarised in a short final report, which will outline the characteristics of optimisationin the decision-making process, potentially broken down into the above phases.

5Webinar agendas
Webinar I – 14 December, 13-15:35 CET
Phase I – “How to better formulate problems for holistic, inclusive
and sustainable decision-making?”
The first part of the webinar is open to all registered participants
Topic

Speaker

Time

Intro
Welcome remarks

William D. MAGWOOD, IV
Director-General, OECD Nuclear
Energy Agency (NEA)

5’

Keynote remarks

Commissioner David A. WRIGHT
Commissioner, US Nuclear
Regulatory Commission

10'

Welcome remarks and short introduction

Haidy TADROS
Director General, Directorate ofEnvironmental and Radiation
Protection and Assessment,
Canadian Nuclear Safety
Commission (CSNC)

5’

Alexander ATARODI
Senior Foresight Expert, OECD
Development Co-operation
Directorate

15’

Keynote presentation:
How can strategic foresight support more
holistic policy decision making?

Q&A

15’

Presentation (situational example):
Lessons learnt from the dialogue with civilsociety regarding the 4th periodic safety
review of French 900 MWe reactors

Véronique LEROYER
Responsible for openness tosociety, French Institute ofRadiation Protection and
Nuclear Safety (IRSN)

Q&A

15’

15’

End of first part

6

The second part of the webinar is open on invitation – starting at 14:30
Topic

SpeakerTime
45’

Breakout discussion on phase I – What
do we mean by ‘optimisation’: How to better
formulate problems for holistic, inclusive
and sustainable decision-making?
Moderated by members of the
programme committee

Breakout discussions on three specificquestions applied to the pre-decision phase:a) How to identify and give all relevant
stakeholders the opportunity to engage(considering aspects such as time, region,
distance)?
b) How to foster mutual trust from the
beginning of the decision-making process?
c) What considerations are needed to build
ethical and inclusive points of views from all
involved stakeholders, empowering them toalso raise sensitive questions?
The above questions should lead toconclusions on what is common acrosssectors and what is different, and if possible,
what comprises an optimal approach forbeing considered “holistic”, inclusive andsustainable.
Short presentation of group findings inplenary

Breakout group rapporteurs

15’

Summary and end of meeting

Haidy TADROS
Director General, Directorate ofEnvironmental and Radiation
Protection and Assessment,
CNSC

5’

7

Webinar II – 18 January, 13-15:35 CET
Phase II – “How to balance competing aspects and interests (as definedby the prevailing circumstances) in decision-making to reach holistic,
inclusive and sustainable decisions?”
The first part of the webinar is open to all registered participants
Topic

Speaker

Time

Intro
Welcome remarks

William D. MAGWOOD, IV
Director-General, OECD Nuclear
Energy Agency (NEA)

5’

Keynote remarks

Nobuhiko BAN
Commissioner, Nuclear
Regulation Authority, Japan10'

Welcome remarks and short introduction

Haidy TADROS
Director General, Directorate ofEnvironmental and Radiation
Protection and Assessment,
Canadian Nuclear Safety
Commission (CNSC)

5’Christian GOLLIER
Professor of Economics,
Toulouse School of Economics

15’

Keynote presentation:
Challenges of using cost-benefit analysis
and other approaches within the nuclear
sectorQ&A

15’

Presentation (situational example):
Tristan BARR
Section Head, Planning,
Outreach, Exercises and Training
Section, Health Canada

Proposed tool for selecting protective
actions in a nuclear emergency: balancing
radiological and non-radiological(psychosocial) impacts

15’

Q&A

15’

Break/End of webinar – continuation of thewebinar upon invitation

10’

8

The second part of the webinar is open on invitation – starting at 14:30
Topic

Speaker

Breakout discussion on phase II – What
do we mean by ‘optimisation’: How tobalance competing aspects and interests indecision-making to reach holistic, inclusive
and sustainable decisions?

Time
45’

Moderated by members of the
programme committee

Breakout discussions on three specificquestions applied to the decision phase:a) What are competing aspects at play? How
to best balance them?
b) What mechanisms work best totransparently involve stakeholders in theprocess of balancing competing aspects?
c) Making one decision after listening to all
points of view: When and how to agree todisagree?
The above questions should lead toconclusions on what is common acrosssectors and what is different, and if possible,
what comprises an optimal approach forbeing considered “holistic”, inclusive andsustainable.
Short presentation of group findings inplenary

Breakout group rapporteurs

15’

Summary and end of meeting

Haidy TADROS
Director General, Directorate ofEnvironmental and Radiation
Protection and Assessment,
CNSC

5’

9

Webinar III – 8 February, 13-15:35 CET
Phase III – “How to transparently implement and post-assess decisions
for their holism, inclusiveness and sustainability?”
The first part of the webinar is open to all registered participants
Topic

Speaker

Time

Intro
Welcome remarks

William D. MAGWOOD, IV
Director-General, OECD Nuclear
Energy Agency (NEA)

5’

Keynote remarks

Christine NOIVILLE
President, High Committee forTransparency and Information
on Nuclear Safety, France

10'

Welcome remarks and short introduction

Haidy TADROS
Director General, Directorate ofEnvironmental and Radiation
Protection and Assessment,
Canadian Nuclear Safety
Commission (CNSC)

5’

Alessandro BELLANTONIHead, Open Government, Public
Communication, and Civic Space
Unit, OECD Public GovernanceDirectorate

15’

Keynote presentation:
Introduction to and relevant findings fromthe new OECD Citizen Participation
Guidelines

Q&A

15’’

Presentation (situational example):
Remediation experience from the Maralinga
test site

Emma BARNES
Assistant Director (Acting) –Health Physics Measurements,
Radiation Health Services Branch,
Australian Radiation Protection
and Nuclear Safety Agency

15’

Q&A

15’

Break/End of webinar – continuation of thewebinar by invitation

10’

10

The second part of the webinar is open on invitation – starting at 14:30
Topic

Speaker

Breakout discussion on phase III – What
do we mean by ‘optimisation’: How totransparently implement and post-assess
decisions for their holism, inclusiveness andsustainability?
Breakout discussions on two-three specificquestions applied to the implementationand post-assessment phase:

Time
45’

Moderated by members of the
programme committeea) How to communicate the decision to all
involved stakeholders?
b) What are criteria to evaluate whether thedecision-making process was holistic,
inclusive and sustainable?
c) How can we use the lessons learnt during
and after the implementation of the decision
to improve future decision-making
processes?
The above questions should lead toconclusions on what is common acrosssectors and what is different, and if possible,
what comprises an optimal approach forbeing considered “holistic”, inclusive andsustainable.
Short presentation of group findings inplenary

Breakout group rapporteurs

15’

Summary and end of meeting

Haidy TADROS
Director General, Directorate ofEnvironmental and Radiation
Protection and Assessment,
CNSC

5’

11

Speaker biographies
William D. Magwood, IV, has been the NEA’s Director‐Generalsince 2014. Prior to that, he served as Commissioner of the US
Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), appointed by the US
President and confirmed by the Senate. In 2005‐2010, he provided
independent strategic and policy advice on energy, environmental
and technology policy issues. From 1998 to 2005, Mr Magwood
was Director of Nuclear Energy at the US Department of Energy,
where he launched several important initiatives, including theGeneration IV International Forum (GIF). He began his career
working as a scientist for Westinghouse and Edison Electric
Institute. Mr Magwood holds Bachelor’s degrees in Physics andEnglish from Carnegie Mellon University and a Master of Fine Arts
from the University of Pittsburgh.

The Honourable David A. Wright was first sworn in as aCommissioner of the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission on
30 May 2018. He is currently serving a term ending on 30 June
2025.
Before joining the NRC, Commissioner Wright served as anenergy and water consultant and policy advisor on nuclear waste
issues. He is a former president of the National Association ofRegulatory Utility Commissioners and served as Vice Chairman
and Chairman of the South Carolina Public Service Commission.
He was also elected councilman and mayor in Irmo, S.C. and to
the South Carolina House of Representatives.
A colon cancer survivor, Commissioner Wright is an advocate forcancer awareness and education. He is a proud father andgrandfather and has enjoyed umpiring baseball for nearly
50 years. He is a graduate of Clemson University.

Nobuhiko Ban has been involved in academic activities formany years as an expert in radiological protection, and he hasserved as a Commissioner of the Nuclear Regulation Authority
since 2015. He is also a member of ICRP Committee 4 and thechair of the NEA Working Group on Safety Culture of theCommittee on Nuclear Regulatory Activities.

12Christine Noiville has a doctorate in law and is director of
research at the French National Centre for Scientific Research(CNRS). She analyses the links between law and scientificdevelopments. Her main research interests are biotechnology,
bioethics, the precautionary principle, patents and theenvironment. Her main publications, alone or in collaboration,
include Public interest stakes in times of pandemic (“Des enjeux
d'intérêt public en temps de pandémie” - Mare et Martin, 2021),
The biobanks (“Les biobanques” - Que Sais-Je? PUF, 2009),
Bioequity, battles over the sharing of the living (“La bioéquité,
batailles autour du partage du vivant” -Autrement, coll. Frontières,2009), Contracts and living (“Contrats et vivant” - LGDJ, 2006), andOn the good governance of risk (“Du bon gouvernement desrisques” - PUF, 2003). Christine Noiville conducts her research at
the Institute of Legal and Philosophical Sciences of Sorbonnewhich she directs at the University of Paris 1 (UMR CNRS 8103).
She chairs the French High Committee for Transparency andInformation on Nuclear Safety (HCTISN) and co-edits the “Cahiers
Droit, Sciences et Technologies” journal with Florence Bellivier.

Haidy Tadros has been with the CNSC since 2006 and has held
several technical and leadership roles in the areas of radiation
protection, integrated management systems, organisationalchange management, licensing of nuclear fuel cycle facilities andlicensing of new nuclear technologies. In her current role as
Director General of the Directorate of Environmental andRadiation Protection and Assessment, she is responsible foroverseeing all aspects of regulatory assessments and research in
the fields of environmental and radiological protection, including
geoscience, environmental risk, health science, and laboratory
services. A main focus of her work entails ensuring regulatory,
technical and scientific information and data are shared andcommunicated with Indigenous Nations and communities, thepublic and interested stakeholders.
Prior to joining the CNSC, Ms Tadros worked in the field of radiation
protection and completed a Master’s degree in biomedical sciences.

13

Alexander Atarodi is the Team Lead Foresight at the OECD’s
Development Co-operation Directorate. Before joining the OECD,
he worked as Senior Advisor at the Swedish Prime Minister’s
Office and at the Swedish Ministry of Foreign Affairs. He further
worked for the Swedish Ministry of Defence, the Swedish Defence
Research Agency and for Microsoft.
Mr Atarodi holds a Master’s degree in economics and a Bachelor’s
degree in international relations from the School of Economics inGothenburg. He is pursuing a PhD at the School of Economics inGothenburg, with a focus on political economy in the Middle Eastand North Africa, in addition to his work at the OECD.

Emma Barnes has over 25 years’ experience working in the nuclear
and radiation safety field. She has worked for the Australian
Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency (ARPANSA),
located in Melbourne, Australia, for over 17 years.
During this time, she has worked within health physics monitoring,
environmental monitoring, radiation emergency preparedness andresponse, and performed Radiation Safety Officer (RSO) roles. She
currently manages the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty
Organisation’s (CTBTO) Australian expert laboratory (AUL02).
While employed at ARPANSA, she has undertaken several
radiation monitoring trips to Maralinga, the former British nuclear
weapons test site in Australia. These monitoring trips have alsowith various
involved close stakeholder
engagement
organisations overseeing and regulating the former test site, as
well as representatives from the Maralinga Tjarutja community
who are the traditional owners of the land on which the nuclear
tests were undertaken at Maralinga and Emu Field.
In addition to her work at ARPANSA, during 2017-2018, sheundertook a secondment to the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban
Treaty Organisation (CTBTO), based in Vienna, as Operations
Officer within the International Data Centre of the CTBTO,
overseeing 30+ radionuclide monitoring stations, as part of theinternational monitoring system of the CTBTO.
Prior to working at ARPANSA, she was employed for over 8 years
as an analytical radiochemist within the radioanalytical laboratories
at Sellafield, United Kingdom, (formerly British Nuclear Fuels Ltd.,or BNFL).

14

Tristan Barr is the section head of the Planning, Outreach,
Exercises and Training section within the Radiation Protection
Bureau of Health Canada. He has a Master’s degree in biology andhas worked in the field of radiation protection in private industry
and government since 2002. Tristan Barr has extensive expertise inradiation detection, characterisation, dosimetry, radioactive waste
management, emergency response and has recently focused on
nuclear emergency exercises and the management of Canada’s
Federal Nuclear Emergency Plan. In authoring Canada’s “Guidanceon Planning for Recovery from a Nuclear or Radiological
Emergency”, Barr identified the need to develop tools for balancing
psychosocial and radiological impacts in emergency response
decision-making for the application of protective actions. Mr Barr’s
presentation will focus on research and the development of a
proposed decision-making tool for nuclear emergency managers in
the context of a protection strategy.

Alessandro Bellantoni joined the OECD in 2009, where he is the
Head of the Open Government, Public Communication, and Civic
Space Unit in the Public Governance Directorate. Previously, heworked in the Ministry of Public Administration and Innovation of
the Government of Italy, for the United Nations (WFP and ILO), andin civil society. He graduated in international affairs from the John
Cabot University of Rome and holds a Master of Science in social
anthropology and development studies from the London Schoolof Economics and Political Science of the University of London.

15

Christian Gollier’s research spans the fields of economics of
uncertainty, environmental economics, finance, insurance, andcost-benefit analysis, with a particular interest in long-termsustainable effects. He founded the Toulouse School of Economics
with Jean Tirole in 2007 and has been its director since 2009 (with ahiatus in 2015-2016). He has published more than a hundred articles
in international scientific journals. He has also published 10 books
on risk including “The Economics of Risk and Time” (MIT Press),which won the Paul A. Samuelson Award (2001). In 2012, hepublished a book entitled “Pricing the Planet’s Future” at Princeton
University Press, which he presented at the 6th Arrow Lecture atColumbia University. Christian Gollier is one of the authors of the
4th and 5th reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change (IPCC, 2007 and 2013). In addition, he regularly advises
several governments on their public investment evaluation policies.
He is a former President of EAERE, the European Association ofEnvironmental Economists. His recent book for the general public,“Le Climat après la fin du mois” (PUF 2019), deals with theimportance of taking action in the face of climate change and has
been a success in France.

Véronique Leroyer is project officer in the openness to society
division of the French Institute for Radiation Protection and Nuclear
Safety (IRSN). She is in charge of developing dialogue with civilsociety on safety, especially in the field of periodic safety reviews ofreactors, and on post-accident awareness. She ensures the technicalsecretariat of IRSN’s committee ODISCE, for the “openness andimpulsion of dialogue with civil society on expertise.”16

Nuclear Energy Agency (NEA)
46, quai Alphonse Le Gallo
92100 Boulogne-Billancourt, France
Tel.: +33 (0)1 73 21 28 19
nea@oecd-nea.org www.oecd-nea.org
Cover photos: Workshop (Matej Kastelic/Shutterstock); Sizewell Nuclear Power Plant (Phil Silverman/Shutterstock); Stakeholders (Unsplash).