LESSONS LEARNED FROM PUBLIC 

OUTREACH MEETINGS 

Prepared for 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

Contact NRC–02–07–006 

Prepared by 

Miriam Juckett 

Center for Nuclear Waste Regulatory Analyses 

San Antonio, Texas 

September 2011 
ii 

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 

This report was prepared to document work performed by the Center for Nuclear Waste 

Regulatory Analyses (CNWRA®) for the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (USNRC) under 

Contract No. NRC–02–007–006. The studies and analyses reported here were performed on 

behalf of the USNRC Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, Division of High-Level 

Waste Repository Safety. The report is an independent product of CNWRA and does not 

necessarily reflect the views or regulatory position of USNRC. 

The author thanks E. Pearcy for technical review and J. Winterle for programmatic review. The 

authors also thank A. Ramos for support in report preparation and L. Mulverhill for 

editorial review. 

QUALITY OF DATA, ANALYSES, AND CODE DEVELOPMENT 

DATA: All CNWRA-generated original data contained in this report meet the quality assurance 

requirements described in the Geosciences and Engineering Division Quality Assurance 

Manual. Sources for other data should be consulted for determining the level of quality for 

those data.

ANALYSES AND CODES: No scientific or engineering software was used in the analyses 

contained in this report.
1 

LESSONS LEARNED FROM PUBLIC OUTREACH MEETINGS

Public meetings have been one of the most important methods of communication in the 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) high-level waste repository safety public outreach 

program concerning the proposed Yucca Mountain repository. NRC staff held public meetings 

to educate and inform the public, as well as to gather important feedback and input for NRC 

decisionmaking. Over the course of the program, the structure and format of the public 

meetings evolved as more experience was gained. Staff learned many important lessons 

throughout the development of the program, and these lessons contributed to continual 

improvement and overall success. 

When the outreach program began, the agency had recently begun enhanced public 

rulemaking, including more in-depth stakeholder interactions, specifically about controversial 

rulemakings. These rulemakings were expected to receive many public comments, and it 

became necessary to collect comments in a different way than the typical format of written 

submissions. The intent was to assure the public that concerns were being heard by taking 

transcripts of public meetings and giving the comments made during those interactions the 

same attention as written comments. This approach allowed the agency to reach a broader 

audience and solicit input from groups that might not otherwise be aware of the rulemakings or 

feel comfortable providing written remarks. 

The first NRC public meeting pertaining to Yucca Mountain issues was held in March 1999. At 

that time, a proposed 10 CFR Part 63 had been published for comment. Some staff felt that 

stakeholders were put off, perceiving that the proposal seemed fully formed and that it was likely 

that no additional input would be included. Although the meeting was held to explain, gather 

additional input, and hear concerns about the proposed rulemaking, no plain language 

summaries or materials were made available to explain the process or contents of the rule. 

Several NRC staff members were present, including Janet Kotra and Tim McCartin, who had 

assisted in drafting the 10 CFR Part 63 proposed rule. A discussion panel also included 

U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) staff, advocacy group members, and representatives of Nye 

and Clark Counties. NRC and DOE staff gave presentations, and then the panelists led a 

question-answer session. Two meetings were held: the first at University of Nevada Las Vegas 

in Las Vegas, Nevada, and the second at the community center in Beatty, Nevada. The 

presentations were the same for each meeting, but the audience was different in each 

community. 

At these meetings, NRC staff faced negative feelings from many audience members as a result 

of prior experiences as “downwinders” with U.S. Department of Defense (DOD) actions. NRC 

had not yet established credibility with the stakeholders, and staff were viewed with skepticism 

due to a lack of demonstrated independence from other government agencies from Washington, 

DC, that the communities clearly did not trust. Many questions posed were unanticipated and 

centered around transportation, DOE and DOD actions, and the ways criteria were being 

applied differently at the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant versus Yucca Mountain. Many of the 

questions were not in NRC’s purview. Staff felt that the answers they could provide were not 

convincing and that they were less than effective and not adequately prepared. The questions 

in Beatty, Nevada, were even more difficult: they included a wider range of topic areas, and 

NRC preparation had focused narrowly on the proposed rule. Staff felt that the lack of 

preparation was more obvious in that venue. Questions addressed to NRC staff included why 

Yucca Mountain had been designated as the site of study, how NRC was distinct from DOE, 

and how NRC would deal with previous “messes” created by government entities. Citizens who 

had viewed pilots from Nellis Air Force Base flying stunts raised emergency planning as a topic 
2 

of importance. Previously, DOE had had a lack of attendance at its meetings, but audience 

members had driven hundreds of miles to attend the NRC meeting and ask these questions. 

Preparation for difficult and off-topic questions at these meetings had not been given priority, but 

based on the experiences of these meetings, preparation strategy and priorities changed. 

NRC staff began gathering information on how to improve their public interactions. Based on 

information gained at a seminar on risk communication, staff began message mapping, 

anticipating follow-up questions that might be asked during the meetings, and preparing 

answers. For the 10 CFR Part 63 proposed rule, the public comment period was extended in 

response to public comments. The next meetings were held in June 1999 in Las Vegas, 

Amargosa Valley, and Caliente, Nevada. In preparation for these meetings, NRC staff worked 

through the NRC training center with Beverly Silverberg. The topical areas covered were 

broadened, and an introduction was included in the presentations giving information on the role 

and responsibilities of NRC and explaining how NRC’s public comment period works. The 

speaker base was broadened to include expertise on transportation and biological effects. For 

the first time in the outreach program, preparation included dry runs with videotaping and plain 

language edits to viewgraphs. The preparation helped team members feel comfortable, 

supported, and more self-aware. The increased success of these three meetings proved the 

effectiveness of advance preparation. This set a positive precedent for future meetings. 

The meeting in Caliente provided a unique opportunity for NRC to garner trust with the public. 

Some community members came to the meeting to protest, but attempts were made to 

discourage distribution of protest literature and opposition signage. The NRC branch chief, 

Bill Reamer, stepped in and enabled the protestors to attend the meeting and have their 

literature displayed, but on a separate table. The citizens expressed concern about why they 

felt they couldn’t trust the government and were afraid of being lied to. The welcoming of 

opponents at the meeting helped attendees feel less defensive and feel that NRC listened fairly 

to all parties in attendance. 

Additional lessons learned from these meetings included how to make members of the public 

feel welcome in the meetings and not be defensive. Furthermore, interactions with stakeholders 

at these and previous meetings had indicated a significant need for more background on 

program history. Because some staff members were tasked with many activities (logistics 

coordination, interactions with stakeholders, preparation of materials, and speaking at the 

meeting), another important lesson learned was to include enough staff members so staff would 

not be overtasked. Spreading the team too thinly caused undue stress on the staff members 

and hindered proper preparation. Finally, another lesson learned was the importance of 

breaking down the hierarchy inherent in organizations to include every team member’s input. 

Valuable contributions were gained from all staff members on the team, regardless of their 

position level in the agency, and each team member was encouraged to contribute freely. 

Team members without technical backgrounds often tend to understand technical matters in a 

manner more akin to members of the lay public. Consequently, they may provide useful input 

for improving the language used in outreach materials. 

One challenge in preparation was communication between internal offices at NRC. There was 

concern that press releases or positions taken by one branch might conflict with those of 

another branch or otherwise cause public concern. The issue of waste being shipped through 

downtown Las Vegas, Nevada, was one such conflict, which occurred when a bounding 

analysis in an impact evaluation was released in a document published by another office. 

Without a context for those scenarios, stakeholders became very concerned and public 

outreach staff were not aware that the issue had arisen. Significant coordination was 
3 

required to ensure that whenever possible, the public outreach team knew what messages 

from other NRC offices were being released in case questions about those positions or 

documents arise at public meetings. 

In November 1999, a new format was introduced for public meetings. A roundtable discussion 

was held to discuss Yucca Mountain technical issues, such as whether subsystem criteria or a 

more risk-informed approach should be used. Staff wanted a public discussion with 

representatives holding differing points of view to discuss why performance-based standards 

were to significant the decisionmaking, and whether that approach lessened stringency of 

standards and was therefore less protective. At this meeting, major interests were represented 

at the table, including advocacy groups, DOE, and NRC. Presentations were interspersed with 

opportunities for questions from the audience, and the table discussion was broken into discrete 

topics to help the audience follow the conversation. This effort to change the format was based 

on previous experiences, as segments of shorter length allowed people to ask questions in a 

more timely fashion. The intention was to create a dialogue, having a conversation with the 

audience rather than lecturing. This approach received an overall positive response. 

Comments from the audience that were off topic were easier to incorporate if they were shared 

more often throughout the discussions. While the comment period was over by the time this 

meeting was held, NRC staff included as much of the input received as possible into the final 

development of 10 CFR Part 63. 

In May 2000, the staff planned to hold public meetings based on feedback received from the 

1999 Beatty, Nevada, meeting that the hearing process was not well understood. Planning and 

preparation for the meetings proceeded on schedule until 3 weeks before the meetings, it was 

decided that public meetings could not be held about the NRC hearing process. With very little 

notice, the staff then had to change the content of the meeting to cover the licensing process to 

make it more general, and another speaker was brought in to talk about the inspection process 

that would be applied to Yucca Mountain if it received a construction authorization. This public 

meeting was also held in two parts: a daytime meeting in Las Vegas, Nevada, for “professional” 

stakeholders who worked in related fields, and an evening meeting in Pahrump for a broader lay 

audience. Presentation topics included the NRC role and responsibilities, the licensing support 

network (LSN), the process of an acceptance review, the docketing procedure, and what would 

happen when the license application was filed. The turnout for the meeting was good: it 

included national nongovernmental organizations as well as local organizations, and 

interactions with the groups were constructive. 

Despite the success and good reception of the meetings, many new challenges arose. For one, 

a last-minute change of venue was required to ensure enough space for participants. This 

situation underscored the importance of visiting the venues ahead of time to ensure proper 

facility size and accommodations. Also, a decision had been made not to have public outreach 

meetings discussing the NRC hearing process because of the possibility that the process would 

change, but the public viewed making the hearing process less formal as a potential “fast track 

to Yucca.” The audience still wanted to have a later meeting concerning the hearing process. 

Additionally, because the meetings were not limited to a specific length of time, staff found 

themselves pressed for time and exhausted by holding two lengthy meetings in one day. Staff 

struggled to balance being responsive and answering all the questions with respecting 

attendees’ time. NRC attorneys also faced the new challenge of defining the line between 

answering legitimate questions about NRC’s licensing process and what could be perceived as 

offering legal advice . This challenge persisted throughout the program. Lastly, NRC staff 

received comments by one meeting attendee that could be taken as threatening, and security at 
4 

the meetings became a larger focus. After this meeting, staff coordinated in advance with 

security staff for all public outreach meetings. 

In 2001, NRC staff finally held public outreach meetings with information about the hearing 

process. These meetings provided another step in the learning process about meeting 

preparation. During the dry run for these meetings (now standard practice), tensions arose 

between the technical staff and Office of the General Counsel staff about the content as well as 

the understandability of the presentations to the lay public. This tension was based, in part, on 

fundamentally different views of the public and stakeholders held by the attorneys and the staff 

members. Staff struggled to reach agreement about the acceptability of presenting general 

information about NRC’s adjudicatory process, as opposed to providing legal advice. Staff 

members from the two offices also disagreed extensively over how best to edit presentations for 

plain language. Because the dry run was not perceived as successful, another dress rehearsal 

was needed, and this subsequently became common practice. In the end, the final meetings 

went well and were well received. County representatives felt that they received needed 

answers to give to their constituents. 

Staff gained important experience about how the makeup of a community can affect the course 

and reception of a public outreach meeting during the Mesquite, Nevada, meeting in 2001. At a 

previous meeting, NRC staff had received a request to visit Mesquite, Nevada. Many meeting 

attendees were retired military or had traveled from across the Arizona and Utah borders. The 

meeting, held at the local community center, had a different atmosphere than many previous 

meetings because of the makeup of the population. Most of the citizens were very patriotic, 

pro-Nevada Test Site, and pro-government, and they were suspicious about environmental 

groups or advocacy groups. The attendees had many questions about safety and the roles of 

DOE versus NRC and had a different approach to the situation than those attendees at other 

Clark County meetings held in Las Vegas. The group showed some skepticism, but was 

openminded and eager to hear about NRC’s role and responsibilities. The atmosphere 

provided the opportunity to explain the processes as well as convey a message of openness. 

Because the previous stakeholder interactions were not representative of the viewpoints of 

those encountered in Mesquite, this experience was valuable in showing the importance of 

reaching out to communities besides those immediately surrounding Las Vegas, Nevada, and 

being prepared for a response to meetings based on differing stakeholder composition. The 

NRC staff made more concerted efforts to reach out to or visit as many affected units of local 

government (AULG) as possible. 

During April 2002, NRC staff visited several communities in Nevada to present an overview of 

activities related to the proposed repository. The trip served as an opportunity to demonstrate a 

visible “passing of the baton” from Bill Reamer to Janet Schlueter, the incoming branch chief for 

the High-Level Waste Division, and preserve a sense of continuity to the public. As part of 

building long-term relationships with the communities, the staff felt it was important to have a 

familiar format and familiar faces. The meeting held in Tonopah, Nevada, provided another 

unique perspective for NRC staff, as Tonopah had been home for the development of the 

stealth bomber, and citizens were very proud of this achievement and very patriotic. While 

there was still some “anti-Yucca” sentiment, the community was interested in potential economic 

benefits of having rail lines to support Yucca Mountain. Citizens expressed suspicion that the 

Las Vegas, Nevada, community would stonewall the project, or use political clout and take the 

economic and labor force benefits if the project did go through, and therefore appreciated the 

attention NRC had given to Tonopah residents. Many citizens in different parts of the state, 

whose issues primarily focused on transportation, wanted to have input into the environmental 

impact statement (EIS). The NRC staff needed to be able to explain the NRC process, with the 
5 

evolving understanding that most public concerns had to do with the National Environmental 

Policy Act and the EIS. An important lesson learned was how to anticipate concerns of the 

community and explain how individuals and affected communities could put their concerns 

forward to the appropriate regulatory bodies. 

In Ely, Nevada, NRC staff had an opportunity to address the town council. This opportunity was 

important because Ely had specifically requested that NRC visit, which is generally a good 

indicator that communication with NRC staff is viewed as positive and useful. Eureka County, 

Nevada, representatives also drove to Ely to talk with NRC staff. Eureka County, Nevada, was 

primarily interested in pragmatic issues such as timing of input, how to participate in the hearing 

process, how to learn about the process of submitting contentions, and becoming a party to 

NRC’s hearing process. Prompted by these inquiries, NRC staff developed material to explain 

these points for later workshops. 

Two important lessons came from the Yucca Mountain Review Plan (YMRP) public meetings. 

First, at one of the meetings a local politician attended the meeting with his own television 

reporter and used the meeting as a venue for grandstanding. His comments off camera to the 

NRC staff were very complimentary, but on camera he took a much harsher stance. The staff 

were courteous and answered his questions, but learned to prepare for politicians who may use 

the meetings as personal campaigning venues and to plan for dealing with the situation 

accordingly to keep discussions on topic. Secondly, at another YMRP public meeting, NRC 

staff answered questions from a reporter, who subsequently printed only part of the discussion. 

The printed story prompted questions from a Commissioner, who called on the NRC staff 

member to explain the situation and the answer that had been given. Having a transcript clearly 

demonstrated that staff had given an acceptable answer to the question. Transcripts could be 

used not only for sharing information about the meeting with members of the public who could 

not attend, but also for internal review and demonstration of adherence to agency policies. 

Effective advertising and notification of public meetings were other important lessons learned 

throughout this process. Small newspapers and circulars were used to advertise the meetings, 

and the NRC onsite representatives were able to find local publications or other news 

distribution points. While larger ads sometimes drew inflammatory attention from outside 

activist groups, local ads posted on community bulletin boards or local news sites effectively 

reached people in advance of meetings. Federal register notices and appropriate press 

releases were also issued according to NRC practice. 

Obtaining an appropriate facility proved key to all of the public meetings. Not only was facility 

size an important factor, but also the technical capabilities in the room, such as screen size for 

presentation slides, sound systems, and transcription equipment. Comfortable and adequate 

seating was crucial, but having space for side conversations, poster display areas, and snack 

areas also enhanced the overall atmosphere and hence the effectiveness of the meetings. 

Furthermore, having the right staff on hand for meetings was extremely important. Not only 

were public outreach staff necessary for meetings, well-prepared technical experts ready to 

answer technical questions and legal staff to assist with legal matters were also needed. A 

variety of expertise on the team from both NRC and the Center for Nuclear Waste Regulatory 

Analyses contributed to overall success, as members of the team were drawn from not only the 

high-level waste branch, but also from transportation, environmental, and fuel cycle staff. 

Discussions were kept on track and fruitful by having an expert facilitator, who also assisted 

in forming a prioritized agenda and contacting appropriate parties to participate in discussions. 
6 

An additional general lesson learned was the significance that stakeholders place on evidence 

that their concerns are heard. After citizens in Beatty, Nevada, commented about emergency 

planning concerns, NRC staff made efforts to incorporate those concerns into subsequent 

presentations on how emergency preparedness plans were written and interpreted. Staff also 

received positive feedback from occasions when NRC speakers were able to remember and 

repeat input received during previous meetings, including personal concerns from individual 

attendees. Not surprisingly, it was important to the stakeholders to not only feel that NRC staff 

listened attentively, but also were willing to act on the issues that were presented. 

While these first meetings laid the foundation for the public outreach work, throughout the 

duration of the program, several additional public outreach meetings were held that built on the 

success and lessons learned from previous meetings. Topics included further explanation of 

the NRC roles and responsibilities, the licensing process, regulation of transportation of 

nuclear waste, and the YMRP. The format typically included brief presentations by NRC staff 

(10–15 minutes) and subject matter experts interspersed with question-answer sessions with 

the audiences and roundtable discussions. Venues for the public outreach meetings varied 

depending on the nature of the meeting, but outreach staff continued to make every effort 

possible to hold meetings in the directly affected communities. Community centers continued to 

be commonly used. For meetings or workshops that included many different communities, Las 

Vegas, Nevada, often served as a central and easy to travel to location. Once in place, the 

NRC hearing facility at Las Vegas, Nevada, was used several times. Public meetings were 

consistently well received and attended by representatives of a wide variety of interests. 

Feedback from the meetings continued to be positive. 

Aside from the public meetings, the public outreach team held stakeholder workshops and 

meetings for Native American tribes. The tribal workshops started because very few 

representatives from Native American tribes attended the public meetings. In an effort to better 

serve that community, mailing lists of tribal contacts were obtained from other agencies and 

used for notification of a variety of agency actions. Tribal participants offered perspectives on 

sovereignty and history regarding Yucca Mountain and views on the NRC regulatory framework, 

and NRC provided information on the NRC role, issues surrounding 10 CFR Part 63, and 

transportation. Overarching discussions included factors that affected tribal government 

understanding and evaluation of documents on high-level radioactive waste disposal and 

transportation, and whether there were unique Native American cultural perspectives on science 

and the natural world that might affect NRC approaches to providing information to or obtaining 

information from tribal governments. Considering the sensitive nature of past relationships 

between tribal governments and the U.S. government, NRC staff felt that it was particularly 

important to actively seek out and demonstrate attentiveness to Native American concerns. 

Three workshops were also held for AULGs, including tribal governments. Participants at the 

workshops included representatives from most city and county governments surrounding the 

Yucca Mountain area, as well as citizen groups. NRC staff members spoke about several 

subjects pertinent to the AULGs, including NRC’s licensing process, the formal hearing process, 

criteria governing adoption of a final environmental impact statement for the proposed repository 

at Yucca Mountain, transport of spent nuclear fuel, and the role and use of the LSN. 

Opportunities were given for question-answer sessions with members of the public as well. 

Particular focus was placed on how AULGs could participate in the hearing and contention 

processes. These meetings were well attended and well received, with the original meeting 

followed by two requested subsequent meetings. NRC staff learned that Native American tribal 

governments were different than other stakeholder groups and expected to be treated as 

sovereign nations rather than “just members of the public.” Although the tribal requests could 
7 

not always be fully satisfied, staff strove to treat the spirit behind these requests with dignity. 

These tribal interactions occurred primarily before NRC had many of its current tribal 

communications support resources in place, and members of the public outreach team were 

able to contribute to these internal improvements. 

The NRC high-level waste repository safety public outreach team also benefitted from 

stakeholder interactions in international circles. In August 2000, the Forum on Stakeholder 

Confidence, or FSC, was established when the Radioactive Waste Management Committee 

(RWMC) of the Nuclear Energy Agency decided that it needed to form a group to take a 

disciplined look at societal factors affecting the management of radioactive waste management 

facilities. RWMC had noted the lack of public acceptance that had plagued earlier programs in 

Canada, the United Kingdom, and Sweden, and the considerable opposition that arose when 

new sites were considered for characterization. Another common problem that FSC was 

expected to confront was the inability of technical and policy experts to understand or be 

understood when they spoke to concerned members of the lay public. Another promising focus 

for the new forum was the increasingly visible role of the regulator in building public confidence. 

At the initial forum meeting, Janet Kotra gave a talk on the efforts being made to improve the 

NRC meeting format, the goals for future meetings, how NRC explained its agency role, and 

NRC’s efforts at creating a dialogue with the stakeholders. 

The FSC structure includes technical meetings as well as site and stakeholder visits, with 

emphasis not on technical matters but on interactions with the local communities. All of these 

venues provided an opportunity to interact with other agencies and discover both unique and 

common problems among stakeholder groups. Issues of safety and confidence do not always 

have the same definitions based on the sensitivity of the stakeholders, and working groups 

could solve problems together with a variety of experience bases. The forum follows changes in 

the international radioactive waste management community and allows sharing of experiences 

and growing together. However, participating countries had to be careful not to appear to send 

an unofficial national endorsement of a country’s preferred course, or send a particular message 

to the public or stakeholders. Literature from the forum has been useful in helping NRC 

understand other outreach programs and results. Also, participation in this forum has informed 

NRC actions in the public outreach realm and was needed for information and validation. 

Participation also opened up other opportunities because of personal connections, international 

visibility for NRC, and increased awareness of other international activities. 

The insights gained from the public outreach meetings and stakeholder interactions benefitted 

not only the stakeholder communities and the NRC high-level waste repository safety program, 

but also other parts of the agency. Other groups around the agency noticed the success of the 

high-level waste repository safety outreach program and requested public outreach team input 

and materials. In 2003, the agency began to recognize the need to increase stakeholder 

confidence in NRC. Members of the public outreach team were invited to join the Commission’s 

task force to evaluate public communications and to provide strategies for enhancing 

communications at all levels of the agency. The outreach staff provided useful insights to the 

team based on experience gained in public outreach meetings and international interactions. 

Overall, the NRC high-level waste repository safety program interactions with stakeholders, 

especially through public meetings, improved greatly over the course of the program, and were 

seen as beneficial and positive by both the agency and stakeholder communities. The meetings 

conveyed information to the public and gathered important input for decisionmaking. Through 

effective preparation, carefully considered presentations, and meaningful discussions, NRC was 

able to build trust, confidence, and long-term relationships. Lessons learned in this program can 
8 

benefit future public outreach programs and ensure continued success with 

stakeholder interactions.