A sociotechnical approach to nuclear
energy development
Aditi VermaAssistant Professor, Nuclear Engineering and Radiological Sciences
University of Michigan
aditive@umich.edu
ICEF, October 6 2022

Eng a g ing
c om m unit ie s t ounde rs t a nd t he ire ne rgy ne e d s a nd
pre fe re nce s

De ve lop ing d e c is ion
De s ig nings up p ort t ools
Ene rg y t e c hnolog ie sfor a n e quit a ble
wit h us e rs a nde ne rg y t ra ns it io ncom m unit ie s

Ma p p ing a nd
re p a iring e ne rgy
ine quit ie sLessons from fission technology
development

Key takeaways from an advanced fission
stakeholder focus group
Design teams should not makeassumptions about what
communities wantI.

Many communities actively
expressing interest in nuclear
energy because of familiarity
with nuclear
II. Communities seek to clearly
understand the intended uses
and socio-environmental
impacts of any potential facility
III. Strong opposition to the decideannounce-defend model“Equitable design and development of nuclear energy infrastructure: Recommendations for policymakers, practitioners, and researchers”, Aditi Verma, Key findings andrecommendations informed by a discussion hosted by Fastest Path to Zero, Good Energy Collective, and the Nuclear Innovation: Clean Energy Future (NICE Future) initiative’s RISE3
campaign, held on May 31st, 2022.

Key takeaways from an advanced fission
stakeholder focus group
Design teams should not makeassumptions about what
communities wantCommunity expectations vary
regionally and have technologicaldesign implications

I.

I.

Many communities actively
expressing interest in nuclear
energy because of familiarity
with nuclearII. Communities seek to clearly
understand the intended uses
and socio-environmental
impacts of any potential facility
III. Strong opposition to the decideannounce-defend model

Communities have some sharedpreferences but community andpreferences also varysignificantly
II. Important to find the rightmatch between a hostcommunity, technology
developer and technology type
III. Tension between rapid
technological development andneed to go slowly to understandcommunity concerns“Equitable design and development of nuclear energy infrastructure: Recommendations for policymakers, practitioners, and researchers”, Aditi Verma, Key findings andrecommendations informed by a discussion hosted by Fastest Path to Zero, Good Energy Collective, and the Nuclear Innovation: Clean Energy Future (NICE Future) initiative’s RISE3
campaign, held on May 31st, 2022.

Key takeaways from an advanced fission
stakeholder focus group
Design teams should not makeassumptions about what
communities wantCommunity expectations varyCommunities seek agency andregionally and have technological meaningful participation indesign implications
design-related decision makingI.

I.

Many communities actively
expressing interest in nuclear
energy because of familiarity
with nuclear
II. Communities seek to clearly
understand the intended uses
and socio-environmental
impacts of any potential facility
III. Strong opposition to the decideannounce-defend model

Communities have some sharedpreferences but community andpreferences also varysignificantly
II. Important to find the rightmatch between a hostcommunity, technology
developer and technology type
III. Tension between rapid
technological development andneed to go slowly to understandcommunity concerns

I.

Designers and developers must
be careful not to overpromise
and underdeliverII. High performance in early
projects is especially important
III. Developers may wish to appoint
dedicated community liaisons
IV. Engage communities in adiscussion about risk

“Equitable design and development of nuclear energy infrastructure: Recommendations for policymakers, practitioners, and researchers”, Aditi Verma, Key findings andrecommendations informed by a discussion hosted by Fastest Path to Zero, Good Energy Collective, and the Nuclear Innovation: Clean Energy Future (NICE Future) initiative’s RISE3
campaign, held on May 31st, 2022.

Sociotechnical readiness level frameworksystem operated over the full range of
SRL 9 Actualsociotechnical conditions
system completed and qualified through
SRL 8 Actualsociotechnical test and demonstration
scale (prototypical) system demonstrated in relevant
SRL 7 Fullsociotechnical environment
pilot scale (prototypical) system validation in
SRL 6 Engineering,sociotechnical environment
scale system validation in representative
SRL 5 Laboratorysociotechnical environment
and/or system validation in representative
SRL 4 Component
sociotechnical environment
and experimental critical function and/or characteristic proof of concept studies withSRL 3 Analyticalanalytical and experimental studies of the social and environmental impacts of the technology

SRL 2 Technology concept and/or application are formulated in a socially engaged way.
principles observed and reported. Societal implications and applications of theSRL 1 Basic
newly discovered scientific and technological principles are explored.
Aditi Verma and Todd Allen, “A sociotechnical readiness level scale for the development of advanced nuclear technologies”. Proceedings of the International High Level Radioactive Waste Management Conference (IHLRWM) 2022.

Engaging Wyoming
Communities in an
Environmental JusticeApproach for Advanced
Nuclear Energy FacilitySitingIntegrating socially led
co-design into consentbased siting of interim
storage facilities