NUREG/BR-0318

Prepared by

A. Szabo, J. Persensky/NRC

L. Peterson, E. Specht, N. Goodman, R. Black/WPI

Division of Risk Analysis and Applications

Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Washington, DC 20555-0001

WPI

6 Montgomery Village Avenue

Suite 650

Gaithersburg, MD 20879
ii

This page intentionally left blank.
iii

Acknowledgements Acknowledgements

These guidelines reflect the risk communication understanding of more

than 100 NRC staff and managers from all levels, throughout the NRC’s

headquarters and regional offices. The authors are grateful to all those

who provided essential insights into the agency’s communication

processes and feedback on early drafts. Their involvement has been

instrumental in shaping the content and structure of the final guide. The

completeness of these guidelines and their relevance to situations faced

by NRC management and staff are the direct result of the time these

contributors generously spent with the authors during interviews, focus

groups, and collaboration on actual risk communication projects.

In addition, the authors are grateful to the entire Risk Communication

Steering Committee for their supportive guidance, steady commitment,

and unwavering enthusiasm throughout the development of these

guidelines:

Mindy S. Landau, Office of the Executive Director for Operations

Mark A. Caruso, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

Douglas H. Coe, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

Russell A. Gibbs, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

Shana R. Helton, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards

Kyung Hee (Jessica) Shin, Office of Nuclear Material Safety

and Safeguards

Merri L. Horn, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards

Richard P. Rosano, Office of Nuclear Security and Incident Response

Ramin R. Assa, Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research

Alan M. Rubin, Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research

Wayne L. Schmidt, Region I

Tracy E. Walker, Region I

Elizabeth A. Hayden, Office of Public Affairs

Lillian W. Van Santen, Office of Human Resources
iv

This page intentionally left blank.
v

Acknowledgements ............................................................................... iii

Preface ................................................................................................... vii

Frequently Asked Questions ................................................................. ix

1. Defining Risk Communication ....................................................... 1

What is it? Why is it important? How does it

relate to external communication?

2. Determining Objectives for Communicating .............................. 9

What is my purpose for communicating?

3. Understanding Internal Stakeholders ......................................... 13

Who are they? What are their needs and preferences?

4. Building the Credibility of Risk Information ................................ 21

How do I gain my audience's trust?

How do I communicate about risk assessment quality?

5. Developing Key Messages .......................................................... 25

What should I say to achieve my objectives with this audience?

6. Communicating Risk Information to NRC Audiences .............. 27

How do I select the best information, language,

level of detail, and approach?

7. Ensuring Transparency in Decision-Making .............................. 37

How can communication enhance the legitimacy

of the decision-making process and outcome?

8. Implementing Effective Two-Way Communication .................. 43

How can I achieve a productive dialogue with my stakeholders?

9. Clarifying Common Areas of Confusion and Avoiding

Miscommunication ....................................................................... 47

How can I provide accurate information without

silencing other viewpoints?

10. Building Consensus and Resolving Conflict ............................... 51

What role does conflict play inside an organization?

How do I deal with disagreements?

When should I use a facilitator?

11. Evaluating the Effectiveness of Internal

Risk Communication..................................................................... 55

Am I being effective? How can I improve?

Contents Contents
vi

Graphics Key

Things to remember

A summary of the main points in the chapter.

Practice Tip

An NRC-related exercise idea you can use to rehearse

the techniques explained in the section before having

to use them in an actual risk communication situation.

References and Resources ................................................................. 57

Index ...................................................................................................... 61
vii

Preface Preface

This document presents practical, how-to guidelines for management and staff of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to

use in communicating risk-related information to others within the

agency. Research and experience show that effective risk communication depends on such key factors as understanding your

stakeholders, establishing trust and credibility, clearly presenting

your key messages, providing forums for discussion and deliberation, and using listening skills. In addressing these factors, these

guidelines demonstrate how NRC management and staff should

apply each technique to internal communication about riskrelated information and the NRC's risk-informed, performancebased regulatory approach.

This document is a companion to “Effective Risk Communication:

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission's Guidelines for External Risk

Communication” (NUREG/BR-0308). It is not a primer in risk analysis

or the related applications.

Audience

The guidelines are intended for use by NRC management and staff

across the agency to improve internal communication about riskrelated information. As such, they are generally directed toward risk

analysts and others who work with risk-related information. Nonetheless, this document emphasizes the fact that internal risk communication is a two-way process, so other staff may also find the

guidelines useful in developing questions and setting expectations.

The authors anticipate that, as more NRC staff and management

use risk-related information and insights, the audience for this

document will grow.

Reader's Guide

Depending on the communication task at hand, different parts of

the guidelines will be relevant to the reader. The advice offered in

each chapter can stand alone; however, when viewed together,

the guidelines provide a comprehensive framework for strategic

risk communication.

This document provides several navigation tools that can help

readers quickly locate topics that are relevant to their individual

needs at any given time. The table of contents includes chapter

titles, as well as questions that summarize key chapter topics.

Similarly, Chapter 1, “Defining risk communication,” ends with a road
viii

map that outlines the communication process and provides

references to direct readers to specific chapters and topics. In

addition, Chapter 2, “Determining objectives for communicating,”

points the reader to relevant chapters based on specific communication objectives.

NRC management and staff should use the principles in these

guidelines on a daily basis. Toward that end, Chapters 2-11

conclude with a summary of key points in “Things to Remember,”

followed by “Practice Tips” for developing the communication

skills addressed in the given chapter.
ix

Frequently Asked Questions

Aren't these concepts merely “good communication,”

rather than “risk communication”?

Many principles and practices of effective communication

could be applied to address a variety of communication

challenges, including risk communication, regardless of whether

your interactions are with experts inside the agency or people

outside the NRC, such as licensees or the public. Nonetheless,

this document applies the guidelines specifically to the communication of risk information to others within the agency.

How do the guidelines in this document differ from the

NRC's guidelines for external risk communication?

Risk communication principles remain the same, regardless of

whether they are applied within an organization or to an

organization's interactions with stakeholders. Thus, these internal

guidelines apply risk communication principles to communication within the NRC, and are tailored to suit the needs of NRC

management and staff. These applications differ from the

NRC's guidelines for external risk communication in that risk

communication with external stakeholders has a wider array

of audiences and requires significant flexibility to achieve a

shared understanding.

Will these guidelines teach me how to interpret risk

information?

No. These guidelines are not intended to be a primer on risk

analysis. Rather, they focus on communication principles and

are designed to help you develop an understanding of your

audience's values, concerns, and issues as you work with others

within the NRC to find common ground and develop shared

understandings of how and where risk information should be

used.

Do these guidelines contain specific direction,

including definitions of terminology, for me to use in

communicating within my area of the NRC?

No. These guidelines are intended to have broad relevance

across the NRC and, as such, they do not delve into the details

of how risk information is applied in any one area. In addition,

Frequently Asked Questions
x

because you can achieve the same goal in multiple ways,

these guidelines do not provide specific direction for how to

perform a given task. Thus, communicating and brainstorming

with a co-worker while performing a task will prove useful in

applying these guidelines appropriately.
1

1 Defining Risk Communication Defining Risk Communication

What is it? Why is it important?

How does it relate to external

communication?

Within a public context, risk

communication is an interactive process used in talking or

writing about topics that cause

concern about health, safety,

security, or the environment.

However, NRC management

and staff commonly view risk

communication more narrowly

as discussions about probabilistic risk assessment (PRA),

other risk analyses, and

related information.

These guidelines are consistent

with this latter perspective and,

as such, they focus on helping

NRC management and staff

to improve their internal

communication about risk

information and policies under

the agency’s risk-informed,

performance-based regulatory

approach. The goal of this

document is to help create

the conditions for successful

internal risk communication

that will facilitate more effective decision-making and serve as the basis for successful external

risk communication.

Because risk analysis is an important element in the NRC’s decisionmaking process, those involved must have a shared understanding

of risk-related topics in order to use risk information adequately to

reach appropriate decisions.

What is risk?

The public and the NRC have different definitions of risk. The scientific

community views risk as the likelihood of an event multiplied by a

1

Risk-informed: An approach to decision-making that

considers risk insights along with other factors (such

as engineering judgment, safety limits, redundancy,

and diversity). Decision-makers gather risk insights by

asking, “What can go wrong, how likely is it, and what

consequences would it have?” A risk assessment is a

systematic method for addressing these questions as

they relate to understanding likely outcomes, sensitivities, areas of importance, system interactions, and

areas of uncertainty.

Performance-based: An approach to regulatory practice that establishes performance and results as the

primary bases for decision-making. Performance-based

regulations have four common attributes:

(1) Measurable, calculable, or objectively observable

parameters exist or can be developed to monitor

performance.

(2) Objective criteria exist or can be developed to

assess performance.

(3) Licensees have flexibility to determine how to meet

the established performance criteria in ways that

encourage and reward improved outcomes.

(4) A framework exists or can be developed in which

the failure to meet a performance criterion,

while undesirable, will not constitute or result in

an immediate safety concern.

NRC’s Strategic Plan for FYs 2004-2009
2

series of consequences ranging from mild to catastrophic

(risk = probability x consequence). By contrast, the public’s view

is based on personal perceptions and impacts, while the NRC’s

perspective is shaped by policy, professional experience, and

protocols for risk assessment.

We often use the term “risk”

when the correct word to use

would be “hazard.” Hazard is

a danger, whereas risk takes

into account the danger and

the likelihood.

NRC Staff

health (e.g., relative to exposure) are two risk assessment frameworks that have both similarities and differences. The differences

have implications for the data required, the metrics used, the form

of the outputs of the analyses, and the implications for risk management strategies. In addition, individuals with law enforcement

or security backgrounds might have different perspectives and

understandings of risk.

Clearly, professional expertise and experience play a major role in understanding

and defining risk within the agency. As

illustrated by the table on page 3, staff

and management must reach a nexus

in order to bridge the gaps between

engineering, security, and health-related

fields so that the common ground can

provide the basis for a shared understanding. Effective risk communication is one

step in building a shared understanding.

Within the NRC, the most prevalent

definition of risk is the “risk triplet”:

• What can go wrong?

(accident identification)

• How likely is it? (probability)

• What are the consequences?

Even within the agency, however, management and staff have different definitions and levels of understanding of risk,

and use different methods to measure

and calculate risk. For example, systems

engineering (e.g., equipment failure) and
3

How does the NRC use risk information?

The NRC has adopted a risk-informed, performance-based regulatory

philosophy, which encourages the use of risk information (and risk

analysis) and also recognizes that such information is only one input to

the decision-making process. The implication is that risk information is

valuable, but may be more useful in some cases than in others. The

Commission’s policy statement on the use of probabilistic risk assessment (PRA) technology includes the following statement:

Use of PRA technology should be increased in all regulatory

matters to the extent supported by the state-of-the-art in

PRA methods and data and in a manner that complements

the NRC’s deterministic approach and supports the NRC’s

traditional defense-in-depth philosophy.

Risk

assessment

process

(1) System description

(2) Hazard identification

(3) Event frequency

(4) Event consequences

(5) Risk quantification

(1) Hazard identification

(2) Exposure assessment

(3) Dose response

(4) Risk characterization

Treatment

of event

frequencies or

likelihood of

occurrence

Looks at the frequency of

an event and the

probabilities of different

failures within the system.

Different combinations of

failures can lead to releases

(or events) of different

severity, each with its own

probability.

Deals primarily with situations

involving chronic releases to

the public with a release

probability of 1; the

assumption is that the release

will occur.

Impact on risk

management

strategies

Focuses on risk

management through

design, maintenance, and

administrative controls (i.e.,

controlling frequencies,

consequences, or both).

Focuses on restricting or

eliminating the material’s

presence, rather than

mitigating with engineering

controls.

Consequence

measures or

end points of

risk assessment

The end point varies and

may include core damage,

worker health and safety,

loss of a facility or piece of

equipment, and immediate

or long-term loss of life.

The end point is more

specific to radiation

exposures and the

associated dose response

(i.e., cancer fatalities).

Engineering Risk Health Risk

Comparison of Engineering and Health Risk Assessments*

* Source: Jones, E. “Risk Assessments: From Reactor Safety to Health Care,”

Risk Assessment 8: 12–21. 1995.
4

Why is risk communication a priority for the NRC?

Risk communication provides the essential links

between risk analysis, risk management (integrated

decision-making), and the public (societal values and

needs). Successful fulfillment of the NRC’s mission

requires integration among each of these areas

regarding values and assumptions, technical information, and decisions. You need risk communication to

reconcile differing perceptions of risks and gain an

appreciation of stakeholders’ points of view.

How to do it

In practice, risk communication is a team effort involving multiple

organizational entities of the NRC (project managers, legal and

How and where risk information

should be used depend on the

specific context and decision.

Standard procedures and

conventions have not yet fully

evolved in many areas.

• There is a need to clearly discuss and document

assumptions and uncertainties that impact how

and where risk analyses should be used for

decision-making.

• As more areas within the NRC become riskinformed, management and staff will need to

develop a shared understanding of what is meant

by “risk-informed” at the working level.

• There needs to be sufficient opportunity for open

deliberation and discussion.

Table 2. Communication Implications of the NRC’s Risk-Informed,

Performance-Based Policy

Risk-Informed/

Performance-Based

Policy Attributes

Communication

Implications

Risk analyses are valuable, but

are based on a different set of

assumptions about safety,

uncertainty, and compliance

than those used in traditional

deterministic approaches.

• Miscommunication can occur through lack of

familiarity with terminology and the underlying

assumptions.

• Communication occurs in the context of personal

comfort with risk information and concerns about

maintaining safety.

Risk analyses require effective

integration of multiple areas

of expertise.

• Integration requires communication and

interaction across various disciplines; conflicting

technical frameworks and organizational structure

issues might interfere with channels of

communication.

Communication Implications of the NRC’s Risk-Informed,

Performance-Based Policy

The following table summarizes some of the attributes of this policy

and describes their implications for communication.
5

public affairs, safety inspectors, analysts). It works at two levels—

strategic (agencywide) and interpersonal (between and among

NRC staff members and stakeholders). Strategic risk communication is an integrated component of risk management and vital to

the NRC’s mission.

At the strategic level, risk communication is a process that involves

the following:

• long-term planning and coordinated communication efforts

• a shared understanding of risk concepts (among all NRC

employees)

• strategic partnerships

• collaborative problem-solving

• common understanding of the strengths and limitations of risk

analysis

• an understanding of the difference between risk-informed and

deterministic analyses

• consistent messages

• appropriate tools for both internal and external risk communication

At the interpersonal level, risk communication involves applying a

variety of skills and tools to communicate and develop a shared

understanding. This level of risk communication relies on the

following:

• actively listening and demonstrating that you respect and value

others’ opinions

• building trust and credibility

• establishing long-term relationships

• sharing expertise and insights

• translating technical information into understandable language

• managing conflict

• effectively delivering relevant messages
6

How does internal risk communication relate to external

risk communication?

Internal communication about risk information and insights provides the basis for interaction with the NRC’s external stakeholders

by strengthening decision-making and enhancing the agency’s

ability to clearly communicate its activities and decisions. As such,

it is important to take an early integrated approach to internal and

external risk communication, rather than thinking of external risk

communication as an afterthought or as the exclusive purview of

certain NRC offices, such as the Office of Public Affairs. An integrated approach to internal and external risk communication

includes the following activities:

• Identify potentially controversial issues or areas of concern. The

earlier you are aware of potential hot spots, the more opportunities the NRC will have to productively fulfill its strategic goal of

openness in our regulatory processes.

• Develop tools (including examples) to communicate technical

information in plain language, in order to deepen both internal

and external understanding.

• Produce technical reports and other documents that are

technically accurate, complete, and sensitive to the concerns

of internal and external stakeholders.

What steps should I take to implement risk

communication?

Much internal risk communication occurs on a daily basis through

informal channels, and you need not follow a detailed process

for such communication. Nonetheless, whether you are facing a

significant communication challenge requiring a formal communication plan or simply looking for suggestions for improving your

communication with peers, you can use the following figure as a

road map to navigate through this document.
7

Components of a Strategic Risk Communication Process.

Establish Objectives

Plan • Identify and evaluate stakeholders and their concerns (Chapters 3 & 11)

• Determine what decisions are needed (Chapters 2, 3 & 7)

• Identify what you need to know and what stakeholders need to know

(Chapter 3)

• Determine levels of trust and credibility (Chapter 4)

• Design effective messages (Chapters 5, 6 & 7)

• Match the best risk communication tools to the situation (Chapter 8)

Prepare • Have materials reviewed by appropriate managers and staff (Chapters

5, 6, 7, & 8)

• Anticipate key questions and concerns (Chapters 3, 7, 8 & 9)

• Create or identify layers of information for backup to key messages

(Chapter 5)

• Develop tools to allow for broad understanding of risk analyses (Chapters

4, 6, 8 & 9)

• Ensure adequate time and resources are available for broad involvement

(Chapters 3 & 8)

Communicate and Involve • Seek out input at all stages of risk analyses and related olicy creation

(Chapters, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, & 10)

• Listen attentively (Chapter 8)

• Use open deliberation and discussion to determine appropriate uses of

risk information (Chapters 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9 & 10)

• Deal constructively with conflict (Chapter 10)

Evaluate and Improve

(Chapter 2)

(Chapter 11)

Document Decisions • Create a record of the process used for decision making (Chapter 7)

• Articulate the limitations related to uncertainty or scope that might impact

future applications of this risk information or analysis (Chapters 3, 5,

6 & 7)
8

This page intentionally left blank.
9

Determining Objectives for

Communicating

Determining Objectives for

Communicating

What is my purpose for communicating?

2

The first step in effective risk communication is identifying the

purpose of the effort. Your objectives may evolve as you refine your

understanding of audience needs (more about this in the next

chapter), so it’s important to think about the people to whom you

are talking (your stakeholders), what they already know and need

to know about your topic, and what you want to achieve by

communicating with them. Skipping this step can lead you to use

the wrong risk communication tools and methods, answer the

wrong question(s), or communicate an entirely different message

than you intended.

You might consider obtaining communication support from the

Communication Assistant within your office or elsewhere in the

agency to develop objectives and refine your understanding of

the internal audience needs. In addition, the Office of Public Affairs

can assist you in understanding what risk information would be

useful in supporting external risk communication.

Internal risk communication generally focuses on sharing information through briefings, meetings, email messages, memoranda, and

phone calls. Consider the following questions when determining

your objectives for internal risk communication.

Am I gathering information for a risk determination?

Risk analysts gather operational experience and seek expert

judgment for use in PRAs and other risk determinations. To

conduct a robust risk analysis, you must draw from a wide

variety of sources and disciplines. To do so, you must be able to

clearly explain what information you need and how you will use

that information in the risk assessment (i.e., the context).

(For more, see Chapter 8, “Implementing effective two-way

communication.”)

Am I eliciting peer feedback or input?

Reviews of reports or analyses contribute greatly to the credibility of the findings and conclusions, particularly when the reviewers include peers within the agency who have relevant expertise. Decision-makers are influenced by specific data, as well as

by the credibility of others who agree with the data. Reviews of

2
10

risk assessments usually focus on understanding and evaluating

the assessments. Thus, it is important to completely and accurately describe key assumptions and their potential effects on

the analysis results. It is also important to discuss which scenarios

were deemed insignificant risk contributors and why they were

not addressed in detail. (For more, see Chapter 4, “Building the

credibility of risk information.”)

Am I providing input that will contribute to a decision?

The type of information decision-makers want depends on the

resources in their control and the nature of the decision they

must make. Even before beginning an analysis, risk analysts can

confer with managers to determine how the results will be used

and which questions need to be answered. The management

team should also be involved in selecting scenarios and discussing assumptions. Similarly, when an analysis is complete, risk

analysts must share the findings in a manner that is useful to

decision-makers. (For more, see Chapter 3, “Understanding

internal stakeholders.”)

Am I providing background information?

Not all briefings are linked to impending decisions. Sometimes,

a general briefing or background overview is necessary to keep

managers and staff apprised of project progress. In such

situations, presentations should focus on the most significant

points and avoid becoming too detailed. (For more, see

Chapter 5, “Developing key messages.”)

Am I conveying a decision?

Once the NRC has made a decision, it must be conveyed both

internally and externally. In such instances, it is usually best to

begin with the conclusion, and then provide the appropriate

level of detail about what led to that decision. (The “appropriate level” depends on your audience and the nature of the

decision.) Your discussion and documentation may include the

source(s) of the data, how the analysis was conducted, and key

factors that affected the outcome. (For more, see Chapter 7,

“Ensuring transparency in decision-making.”)

Am I building consensus or resolving issues?

Because NRC managers and staff have varying roles, work in

different offices, and have differing but highly specialized

expertise, it is natural to assume that they will have different
11

views and opinions from those presented. The inherent nature of

a risk-informed approach and its recent introduction into

regulatory matters also contribute to a need to build consensus.

Conflicting views and opinions are not necessarily bad, but they

do need to be discussed openly to serve as a catalyst for

positive change. (For more, see Chapter 10, “Building consensus

and resolving conflict.”)

Am I supporting communication with external

stakeholders?

When preparing and presenting information, risk analysts need

to appreciate the broader context in which risk managers will

need to communicate. Internally, it is appropriate for NRC

management and staff to focus on the risk metrics and analyses

that are identified by agency policy. Nonetheless, the NRC must

also recognize that the concerned public has a different focus.

Specifically, members of the public want to know what the

information means for them and their families. If the public will

be the ultimate receiver of the information you’re presenting,

you must keep their interests and perspectives in mind. (For

more, see NUREG/BR-0308, “Effective Risk Communication: The

Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s Guidelines for External Risk

Communication.”)

Am I developing a risk-informed, performance-based

approach in a new area?

As NRC management and staff work through the technical

issues associated with risk-informing various areas and agency

processes, it is important to explicitly address the related

communication challenges. Consider early in the process who

you’ll need to inform about the project’s status and outcomes.

To determine who needs to be involved at a deeper level (such

as through participation on a review team), identify who will be

impacted or concerned by the new risk-informed approach.

Also consider communication processes that allow issues to be

raised and concerns to be addressed throughout the project

instead of waiting until the end when controversy can derail

your work. Set clear expectations regarding why a risk-informed

approach is necessary in the new area, and engage in dialogue

to establish a shared understanding of what “risk-informed” means

at the working level. (For more, see Chapter 3, “Understanding

internal stakeholders,” and Chapter 9, “Clarifying common areas of

confusion and avoiding miscommunication.”)
12

Once you have identified your communication objectives, you

can make better decisions about what risk communication

tools and processes will be most effective.

Things to Remember

• In considering your goals and your audience, be sure

to identify what needs to be said, to whom, and why.

• Different objectives require different information and

communication processes.

Practice Tip

Write down your communication and project objectives,

using the questions above as a guideline. Briefly state

your objectives in 25 words or less. Once you have

concisely stated your objectives, place yourself in the

position of various NRC management and staff. What

objectives might they have as stakeholders or

decision-makers?
13

Understanding internal

Stakeholders

Understanding Internal

Stakeholders

Who are they?

What are their needs and preferences?

3

Identifying your internal stakeholders and understanding their

needs and perspectives are important steps in effective internal

risk communication. We can make certain generalizations regarding the different types of information that various internal stakeholders will want based on their roles, responsibilities, and backgrounds; however, we must also consider their individual needs and

preferences. Thus, it is helpful to gain an understanding of your

audience in order to adjust your approach. For example, you might

try to find out the depth and breadth of your audience’s current

knowledge of the system to be analyzed, their knowledge of

relevant risk-related tools and results, and their belief in the value of

risk assessment (including the treatment of rare events).

As a basis for these guidelines, we have grouped stakeholders into

the three broad categories of decision-makers, technical staff, and

nontechnical staff.1 This chapter offers tips for communicating with

stakeholders in each group and summarizes the types of information that they are usually most interested in receiving. The questions

posed in the following sections can be used in presenting your risk

information, as well as providing your audience with questions they

might consider asking during a discussion.

What do decision-makers typically want or need

to know?

Risk analysts are responsible for ensuring that risk information meets

the needs of decision-makers, and this responsibility requires

ongoing and open dialogue. To the extent feasible, decisionmakers and risk analysts should engage in dialogue to address the

following sample questions (among others):

1 NRC internal stakeholders can be grouped into many more categories according to areas of expertise, roles and responsibilities, and experience with risk

information. However, the three broad categories discussed in this chapter

provide a general framework for understanding stakeholders’ various perspectives without complicating the discussion.
14

Problem identification

• What is your understanding of the problem?

• What are the decision criteria?

Key technical issues (results and analysis)

• What assumptions were used?

• Which assumptions had the greatest impact on the final results?

• Which assumptions were based on science, and which were

based on policy or procedure?

• What data were used, and what were the sources and

limitations of the data?

• Was any relevant data not considered and, if so, why not?

• What are the limitations of the analysis (including data

and model)?

• What were the uncertainties in the analysis?

• What contributes to the uncertainties?

• Given the uncertainties and assumptions, what is your

confidence in the conclusion?

• Can anything happen in the model that cannot happen

in reality (or vice versa)?

Implications

• Is risk analysis appropriate for this situation?

• How do the results compare to a known standard, typical

values, or a traditional deterministic analysis?

• What is the impact on safety?

• What is the impact on resources?

• Do you need help and/or resources? How much time is

needed to conduct the analysis and why?

• Were specific risk management options ruled out and,

if so, why?
15

• Does this analysis or situation indicate a deficiency or contradiction in policy that needs to be addressed by upper management or the Commission?

• Do the results apply more broadly than just to the facility or

system analyzed?

Potential for controversy

• What is the licensee’s position on the issue?

• Why is the licensee’s analysis different?

• Has this information been shown to other people and, if so, how

did they react?

• Which parts of the assessment may be controversial?

• Do other staff members within the agency take a different

position on the issue?

• How is the public likely to respond to the decision options under

consideration?

• Does this analysis appear to conflict with prior NRC decisions

and, if so, how?

• Do the results need to be applied generically to other facilities

or systems?

• Has there been a peer review or stakeholder input?

Tips for communicating with decision-makers

Decision-makers lack the time to become deeply involved in the

details of a given risk assessment. They are likely to prefer short

narrative descriptions of an assessment that give qualitative insight

into the causes of risk and the related uncertainties, rather than

details of the numerical results, statistical methods, and uncertainty

analyses. They need information that clearly states the applicability

of the assessment for decision-making. Keep the following tips in

mind when preparing reports or presentations for decision-makers:

• Avoid jargon and recognize that decision-makers may not be

familiar with risk terminology and methodology.

• Provide the most important information first, and follow with

evidence to support your conclusion.
16

• Acknowledge or emphasize that factors other than risk also

contribute to the decision.

• Be brief and to the point (usually about 30 minutes to an hour

for a presentation).

• Explain the status of the project or initiative and provide an

estimated time frame.

• Explain your recommendation so that they can defend it to the

next level of management.

• Explain why the analysis was needed and how it fits into the

larger picture.

• Explain the benefits and limitations of the analysis and whether

refinement of the analysis is needed.

• Be prepared to provide options based on the risk information

and explain the implications of each.

The types of information decision-makers need depend on the

nature of the decision to be made. For example, in the reactor

oversight process, if they’re making a decision on a red or yellow

finding, they need a deeper understanding of the background

information and more detailed information on issues. If the stakes

aren’t as high, they don’t need as much detailed information.

What do technical staff typically want or need to know?

Technical staff have many of the same interests as decision-makers

and they’ll likely want much more detail concerning the data and

assumptions that were used, especially in their respective areas of

expertise. The following additional interests are common among

technical staff:

• What are some examples of a risk-informed approach being

used to increase, rather than relax, restrictions on licensees?

• What relevant assumptions were made? (For example, why and

for what duration was certain equipment considered to be

unavailable?)

• What was the thought process?
17

• How will you use the information that they provide?

• Did you consider the right things, or did you miss something?

• What are the benefits of using a risk-informed approach for this

situation?

• What level of PRA was performed?

The following table provides representative examples of information preferences for specific technical stakeholders.

Engineers Specific scenarios that contribute to risk analysis

results and assessments of whether they are

reasonable, which scenarios dominate risk, and how

results of deterministic engineering analysis are used

in the analysis and decision-making processes.

Representative Information Preferences of Technical Stakeholders

Stakeholders Sample Information Preferences

Health physicists The risk of worker and public exposure to radiation.

Human factors analysts How the assumptions and analysis reflected human

interaction and its impact on the system, and

whether realistic human performance data were

used.

Inspectors The risk significance of particular components or

activities (to better plan and focus their inspection

efforts), and how the analysis uses their input

concerning operating practices, observed incidents,

and other data.

Radiation

biologists

What types of devices, sources, and consequences

were considered in the analysis.

Security experts How risk analysis is used to assess a malicious act,

what design-basis threat was considered, and

whether the analysis considered low-probability,

high-consequence events.

Risk analysts Information that enhances modeling reality to

accurately portray the design and operation of

complex systems.
18

Tips for communicating with technical staff

Fulfilling the NRC’s mission requires input from individuals with

numerous areas of expertise, many of which are highly technical.

Moreover, the fact that these individuals work for the same agency

does not mean that all NRC employees speak the same language

or operate under the same framework for understanding the risks

associated with nuclear reactors and nuclear materials. Acronyms

and words (such as “risk”) that are used in everyday language

that have one or more technical definition(s) are just as likely to

interfere with communication within the NRC as with external

stakeholders. In addition, engineering risk models are based on an

understanding of multiple systems, operating environments, and

physical phenomena. Thus, risk analysts must be generalists with the

ability to draw on the expertise and experience of other disciplines

to create appropriate models and use valid assumptions. The

following tips will help you communicate more effectively with

technical staff who have different backgrounds than your own:

• Describe the value of their input to the broader scope of the

analysis and ultimately the decision.

• Recognize the potential effects of differing technical expertise.

Avoid or explain jargon and acronyms with which they may be

unfamiliar. (This requires careful attention to the questions you

are asked and the nonverbal signals you receive from your

audience.)

• Involve stakeholders early enough so that their input has

meaning and can have a noticeable impact.

• Recognize that many technical staff members do not have a

great deal of knowledge, experience, or comfort with probabilities and statistics.

• Invest the time to explore their reservations about the riskinformed, performance-based regulatory approach and

concerns about specific risk numbers or assumptions.

• Encourage questions and seek feedback mechanisms that

will enable the staff to present differing views or positions to

coworkers and management without fear of reprisal.

What do nontechnical staff want or need to know?

Either officially or unofficially, all staff members are spokespeople for

the agency and, as such, they need an accurate understanding of

how the NRC reaches its decisions. While nontechnical staff want

to understand the broad conclusions, they typically want the least

background information underlying those conclusions.
19

Tips for communicating with nontechnical staff

Effective two-way communication between technical and nontechnical staff will ensure that the available risk information is technically accurate, understandable, and relevant to stakeholders’

concerns. Keep the following tips in mind when communicating

with nontechnical staff:

• Explain why a risk-informed approach is beneficial for certain

projects.

• Explain how risk will be used in making decisions.

• Explain the impact of the decision on them, the licensee, and

the public.

• Use qualitative explanations.

• Use understandable language and familiar examples or

comparisons.

• Encourage questions to clarify understanding.

Tips for communicating with mixed audiences

Many situations involve communicating with multiple stakeholder

groups at the same time. The key is to provide just enough background

information to enable those who are less familiar with your topic to

follow the discussion, without losing the attention of those who don’t

need as much information. Use the following tips to communicate

with mixed audiences:

1. Provide a brief overview of the project, process, and purpose.

2. Use a couple of specific examples to illustrate your findings. This

might include explaining a couple of parameters.

3. Don’t go overboard on the details. If you provide time for questions,

your audience will be able to direct you to the information they are

most interested in hearing about.

4. Limit your use of jargon and explain the terms you are using

(preferably with examples).

5. Engage the members of your audience.

6. Read nonverbal signals to determine whether you are losing the

audience.
20

Things to Remember

• Internal stakeholders include decision-makers,

technical staff, and nontechnical staff.

• Tailor the level of detail to the audience’s roles and

interests.

• Be careful not to stereotype even though similar

stakeholders generally have similar interests.

• Recognize that even staff with technical backgrounds

may not be fully conversant in all technical areas

(including risk).

• Understand that anyone on the NRC staff can be

perceived as an agency spokesperson; therefore, all

staff should have access to background information

concerning the agency’s decisions.

Practice Tips

Think about the perspective of your audience for a

report or presentation. If you were in their shoes, what

types of information would you want? As you present your

information, try to use terminology that is familiar to the

audience, and tie the recommendations and conclusions

to their interests and needs. Following the presentation,

seek out colleagues from different areas or positions

within the NRC, and ask for feedback about what they

found most useful.
21

Building the Credibility of

Risk Information

Building the Credibility of

Risk Information

How do I gain my audience’s trust?

How do I communicate about risk

assessment quality?

4

Risk analysis is a systematic

process for modeling complex

systems and relationships to

better understand the associated risk(s). Skeptics are concerned that risk analyses can

be manipulated to arrive at any

outcome, while risk analysts

highlight the legitimate uses

and benefits of their analyses.

As noted in the following

quotation, trust in internal risk

communication hinges on

understanding and trusting the

underlying risk assessment.

Incorporating risk information

into decision-making will always

require some degree of subjectivity. Nonetheless, by understanding and acknowledging both the

strengths and the limitations of risk information, the NRC can use

such information appropriately and with confidence.

It is important to build trust and credibility within the agency. To do

so, you must be comfortable with the information you are presenting. Ask yourself whether you trust your sources, the analysis, and

results, and whether the analysis fulfills the following criteria:

• Cover all relevant scenarios.

• Consider human error.

• Use appropriate

assumptions.

• Rely on valid data.

• Consider other factors, as discussed in

existing standards and review guidance.

4

So the trust issue in internal risk communications is one of understanding and

trusting the PSA [probabilistic safety

assessment], not the larger and more

difficult problem of trusting the [organization]. Therefore, a process to communicate the technical basis for the PSA

is needed that places the PSA within

the framework of the [audience’s] own

engineering training and discipline,

rather than the public risk communication process that promotes understanding each other’s goals and priorities.

Bley, Kojima, and Wreathall in

“Facilitating Technical Risk Communication among Non-Specialists”

We need to build trust and credibility

from the inside out. As long as there

is [comfort] inside, that will propagate

outside.

NRC Staff
22

When presenting risk information, recognize that most audiences

don’t have time to re-analyze or recreate your results. Consider the

following practices to increase the credibility of your results and

recommendations:

• Prepare decision-makers in advance by describing what the risk

information will look like (so they know what to expect).

• Clarify the nature of the decision to be made, and explain how

the risk information is satisfactory for that type of decision.

• Show that different analysts obtained the same results, or

explain any differences. (Risk information is more credible when

independent analysts reach the same conclusions.)

• If possible, allow interested and affected stakeholders to see,

understand, and participate in the analysis. (Make information

accessible to people

who need or want to

participate.)

• Talk about the strengths

and limitations of risk

information in terms of

their potential implications

for how the information

should be used. (State the

limitations up front to avoid

problems later in the

process.)

• Tell whether the information was staff-reviewed

or benchmarked. (Risk

managers put a higher

value on staff-reviewed

materials. Knowing who

agrees or disagrees is

helpful when making

decisions.)

• Explain how you concluded

that something is not a

concern.

• Explain what the risk

information does and

doesn’t tell you. (Good risk

Communicating about

Risk Assessment Quality

How good does a risk assessment

have to be?

The NRC encourages the use of PRA

technology in regulatory matters, so

confidence in the information derived from

a risk assessment is an important factor.

Current NRC policy related to the quality of

a PRA is that it should be driven by context.

That is, the scope, level of detail, and

quality of a risk assessment depend on the

specific application.

Consequently, it is difficult to set standard

guidelines for assessing PRA quality. This

problem places a burden on communicators to clearly document and explain why

PRA works for one situation but not another.

Through open communication, the NRC

must also overcome the following misconceptions about risk assessment quality:

• If the risk assessment is good for one

situation, it’s good for another.

• If the risk assessment has any weaknesses,

it’s not good for anything.
23

information is still imperfect because it tries to predict the future,

often with respect to the occurrence of rare events.)

Why must I be careful of the words I use?

When a risk analysis determines that a system or component is

not “risk-significant,” this information can be useful in prioritizing

resources and the attention of staff, inspectors, and licensees.

However, NRC management and staff must bear in mind that

risk-significance does not, in and of itself, equate to safety-significance. Moreover, the NRC and its regulatory activities are riskinformed, not risk-based. Thus, it is misleading to use the words “not

important” synonymously with “not risk-significant,” and doing so

undermines the credibility of the information and reinforces concerns about the way risk information is applied in the NRC’s

decision-making process.

Things to Remember

• Most audiences don’t have time to re-analyze or

recreate your results, so be ready to explain the risk

information.

• Recognize that risk managers place a higher value on

staff-reviewed materials.

• Communicate that the scope, level of detail, and

quality that are required of a risk assessment depend

on the application for which the assessment is used.

• Pay attention to the words you are using.

• Involve relevant staff and management early and often.

Practice Tip

The next time you are asked to review a technical document that you weren’t involved with creating, take notes

as you read on your own mental steps for assessing the

quality of the work. Do this for a document that involves a

subject you know a great deal about and then for one

that is outside your area of expertise. How do the factors

you use to assess the quality of the information differ in

these instances?
24

This page intentionally left blank.
25

Developing Key Messages Developing Key Messages

What should I say to achieve my

objectives with this audience?

5

After you have determined your

communication objectives,

accounted for the interests and

preferences of your internal

stakeholders, and considered

the context as it relates to trust

and credibility, you’re ready to

develop your key messages.

To be most effective, those

messages should be brief,

accurate, straightforward, easy

to understand, consistent, and

tailored to the needs of your

internal stakeholders. Stick to

just a few key messages—using

more will weaken the overall

message of your communication.

While numerical values of risk

may support your messages,

they should not stand alone. Focus the messages on your

interpretation of what the numbers mean, their context, and their

implications for a specific

decision or policy with respect

to safety. Put your messages into

the context of answering

questions that are relevant to

your audience. (See Chapter 3.)

Use the following principles as a

guide when preparing and

delivering a briefing; writing a

memo, report, or email; and

engaging in conversations:

• Explain the important

conclusions and summarize

the impacts first. Save technical details as backup information.

Your audience may want to hear the details after you have

provided the summary statement.

The implicit contract between speakers and [those] spoken-to requires the

former to use the time of the latter well.

Listeners will not like a communication

that repeats well-known facts or introduces irrelevant ones, while ignoring

topics that they want to understand

better. Nor will listeners appreciate

information that conflicts with their existing beliefs, with other experts’ claims,

or with everyday experience—unless

those discrepancies are explained.

Baruch Fischhoff, “Communicate

unto others...” Reliability Engineering

and System Safety, Volume 59,

pages 63-72, 1998

Key messages should be a mixture of

what the audience wants to explore

and what you want to convey:

• What decisions do people face?

• What information is most critical to

those decisions?

• What do people already know?

• What are the critical gaps in their

current knowledge?
26

• Provide qualitative assumptions underlying the analysis and

reasons for the results. Do not get bogged down in the details of

the numerical results and statistical methods used in the analysis.

• When you do discuss risk values, provide context. Your key

messages might answer the following questions: “Is the

number generally considered to be good or bad?“ “Is the

number higher or lower than expected?“ “Has it decreased

or increased?“ “Is it a change for the better or the worse?“

• Be up-front about any uncertainties, weaknesses, or data gaps

in the assessment. External stakeholders are likely to bring these

up, so you should be proactive in preparing management to

respond. Indicate whether any ongoing research or other

opportunities might yield new data that could reduce the

uncertainties or alter opinions of the risk.

• Use diagrams or other visual tools to illustrate your key messages

(e.g., a graphical representation of a particular event sequence

that contributed significantly to risk).

Things to Remember

• Understand your specific communication objective,

and tailor your messages to your specific audience.

• Develop several messages in support of your objective.

• Do not use numerical risk information as a standalone

message. When such information is needed to support

another message, provide adequate explanation of

how the numbers will be used in making a decision.

Practice Tip

Ask colleagues to review your reports or presentations

and summarize your main points. Did they understand the

messages you were trying to convey? If not, discuss ideas

for how you could present your messages differently to

ensure that they are understood.
27

Communicating Risk

Information to NRC Audiences

Communicating Risk

Information to NRC Audiences

How do I select the best information,

language, level of detail, and

approach?

6

While most NRC staff have technical and scientific backgrounds,

they differ in their knowledge of and experience in using and

interpreting risk assessments. Part of the NRC’s challenge in communicating effectively about risk to internal audiences is finding

ways to enhance their understanding and acceptance of “riskinformed” approaches. While the NRC makes its transition from the

traditional deterministic approach to those that are risk-informed,

communication is critical to build an understanding about how risk

assessments and insights appropriately fit into the decisions facing

the NRC.

Provide thorough risk characterizations

The NRC intends risk information to be used in a thoughtful and

appropriate way. Risk information is but one tool for use in reaching

decisions and, as such, it must be supplemented with operational

experience, engineering insights, and qualitative information.

Consider the following tips for presenting risk information to audiences within the NRC who may not have day-to-day experience

with risk:

• Be prepared for skepticism. People have a natural discomfort

with any new approach to safety evaluation. In fact, informed

skepticism should be considered necessary to ensure that

assumptions are valid and that risk information is applied

appropriately in decision-making.

• Provide a frame of reference. Relate the results to some

established standard or typical result.

• Decide on the appropriate level of detail to present. Your

audience may benefit from an examination of the initiating

events, accident sequences, equipment failures, and

human errors.

• Explain key assumptions behind the model and how those

assumptions affect results in both directions. (Why isn’t the risk

higher or lower?)
28

• Explain how the data from different disciplines fits into the risk

assessment, and how the audience’s expertise is used as input

to the final result.

• Ask your audience to examine the model to test whether it

accurately reflects their knowledge and experience.

(“Did we leave out anything that should be included?“)

While PRAs have applicability to reactor safety issues, other techniques are used in other areas, such as the High-Level Waste

Program, where the staff is using Performance Assessment and

Preclosure Safety Assessment models. However, relevant methods

have not yet been fully developed to handle many of the

other issues outside of the reactor arena, such as security and

emergency preparedness. In assessing risks in these areas, expert

judgments are often relied on to make decisions. Make sure your

audience understands this situation and has an opportunity to ask

questions, as needed, about different applications and models.

Communicate information about uncertainty

According to interviews with NRC management and staff,

uncertainty is a primary area of miscommunication and lack of

understanding. Therefore, effective risk communication about

uncertainty must achieve the following objectives:

• Recognize that policy and practices related to uncertainty

aren’t well established in many areas. Make time for discussion

of the issues and the implications related to different decisions.

• Be precise about the type of uncertainty that is under

discussion, which uncertainties are most relevant for the

specific decision, and how those uncertainties should affect

the decision.

• Distinguish between uncertainty and variability. Their importance depends on the types of decisions to be made.

Three types of uncertainties2 that are addressed and affect the

results of risk assessments relate to parameters, models, and

completeness:

2 Uncertainty is also commonly categorized as aleatory and epistemic. Aleatory

uncertainty deals with the randomness or predictability of an event. By contrast,

epistemic uncertainty deals with the state of knowledge in risk assessment (e.g.,

parameter and model uncertainty are examples of epistemic uncertainty).
29

• Parameter uncertainty stems from imprecise values for parameters used in the PRA model, such as equipment failure rates,

initiating event frequencies, and human error probabilities. The

probabilities that the PRA generates for these parameters are

used to quantify probabilities for accident sequences.

• Model uncertainty is the risk analyst’s degree of confidence in

the model’s capability to capture reality. Model uncertainty

answers the question of how closely the model represents the

actual system being modeled.

• Completeness uncertainty refers to the limitations in the PRA

scope (what is or is not included). It is addressed by limiting the

scope of the application, or by demonstrating the impact of the

unanalyzed portion of the risk. This type of uncertainty cannot

be quantified, but is arguably the most important to discuss.

Promote discussion about the uncertainties. Risk assessments use

the best available data on what is occurring or could occur at the

site, and they evaluate the likelihood of different kinds of system or

equipment failures, as well as the likely consequences of such

failures. The results are probabilities, not certainties. When explaining risk analyses, discuss the uncertainties in the inputs to and

outputs from the risk model, as well as those associated with the

model itself. Invite examination of the results, and discuss the

following questions:

• What are the weaknesses of the available data?

• On what assumptions are the estimates based?

• How sensitive are the estimates to changes in assumptions?

• How sensitive is the decision to changes in the estimates?

• How complete is the logic model, and what is the justification

for a limited scope?

Present risk tradeoffs to assist with decision-making

A risk analysis might be the first step in deciding on the best option

from among a range of options. As such, risk analysis can be used

to calculate the positive impacts (or benefits), negative impacts

(such as costs or decreases in efficiency or effectiveness), and risks

of each option under consideration. Using risk assessment results as

a point of departure for staff discussions highlights the value

judgments that contribute to the final decision. Along with clearly

and simply presenting the numerical data, encourage discussions
30

concerning the significance of each positive and negative factor

and risk calculation. Sharing risk tradeoff information helps the staff

focus not only on the numbers, but also on the numbers that they

feel are most significant when deciding which option to pursue. All

should have an opportunity to use the numbers to explain their

viewpoints:

• Present the numerical data on options in a clear and

straight-forward manner.

• Portray the differences among positive and negative factors

and risks either numerically or qualitatively.

• Solicit audience feedback by asking questions that compare

negatives to risks and positives:

– “How important is the increase (or decrease) in risk, (negative

or positive) between Option A and Option B?”

– “How acceptable is a slight increase in risk to provide an

efficiency of X?”

– “Does the decrease in risk for Option A warrant the increased

costs?”

– “How important is it that the risk is lowered from 10-5 to 10-6?”

– “Do the positives outweigh the negatives?”

Create effective graphs and charts

Visual depictions of information (such as graphs and charts) are

critical to an audience’s understanding of complex data. Images

help our brains make comparisons and quickly understand complex relationships. Graphical representation is a powerful tool for

portraying data because images tend to make deeper and more

lasting impressions than text alone. The following suggestions can

help you create effective and accurate visuals:

• Consider which type of visual representation will be most

effective in conveying your intended message. (For example,

“Will the audience better understand the results if a risk assessment includes event trees or some other means of depicting

initiating events and consequences?“)

• Engineers may appreciate your use of an event tree if you use it

as a tool to demonstrate how the model reflects their expertise
31

and if you solicited their

participation in critiquing

the accuracy of the

model.

• Provide yardsticks for

understanding where the

risk numbers fall in relation

to performance measures

and safety standards.

Allow the audience to

see (visually) where the

value (mean) or distribution falls in relation to

regulatory standards or

the NRC’s safety goals or

quantitative health

objectives.

• Risk information is often

most appropriately

portrayed using a logarithmic scale. However, it is

common for our minds to

subconsciously interpret

visual images in a linear

manner. Therefore, some

analysts have found it

effective to also provide

the linear scale perspective, even if this must be achieved

through a verbal example.

Graphical excellence begins with telling the truth about data

• Ensure that a graphic does not distort the actual quantities. The

picture of the numbers, as physically represented by a graph,

should be directly proportional to the quantities represented.

• Label important parts of each graphic, including important

events that the data represent. Write explanations of the data

on the graphic itself.

Help your audience focus on the most important information

• Ensure that the amount of ink you are using is proportionate to

the importance of the data you are portraying. For example,

avoid or mute grid lines, and don’t include unnecessary

decoration.

Do’s & Don’ts for Using Color

Do...

• Use color to layer and separate data.

• Keep color significance consistent throughout a presentation. It is confusing if orange

indicates one variable on one chart and a

different variable on the next.

• Highlight data using strong hues in small

amounts against a muted field.

Don’t...

• Develop color systems that will be confused or conflict with those of the Reactor

Oversight Process (green, white, yellow, and

red) or Homeland security levels (green,

blue, yellow, orange, red).

• Place strong colors in large, adjacent areas

as this will be distracting for the viewer.

• Use green/red combinations, especially in

small areas.
32

• Organize and sequence information to highlight changes in the

key variables. For example, don’t list a series of variables by

date, if the main point is the impact of temperature on a

component. In this case, the series should be ordered by

temperature so that it is easier to see any correlation between

temperature and other variables.

There are many ways to communicate risk information using graphs

and charts. However, there is no definitive answer for which is most

effective for the public, and there is even less research about

which approach is best for internal stakeholders. Nonetheless, it is

clear that consistency in colors, format, style, and content significantly increases the effectiveness of graphics to portray similar

types of risk information for use in decision-making.

Don’t stop with the numbers

NRC audiences will appreciate some form of qualitative information to supplement and provide a more complete understanding

of how the numbers were derived and how they were influenced

by the assumptions. In fact, qualitative risk insights can often be

more useful than a risk number. Consider the following hints for

alternative ways to present risk information:

• Tell the story of the risk assessment. Include background

information, reasons for conducting the risk assessment, and

how the results compare to results from other sites.

• Share key assumptions, and show how using different

assumptions would have influenced the results.

• Use verbal descriptions of a risk value, such as “frequently,“

“sometimes,“ or “rarely.“ However, wherever possible, tie

qualitative terms to quantitative data.

• Group risks into categories, such as “high,“ “moderate,“

and “low.“

• Present key messages in executive summaries to state

assumptions, uncertainties, and results.

Recognize the value of qualitative risk information

In some areas, the amount or quality of the data is not sufficient to

generate a number. In addition, even when they can be generated, numbers often convey a sense of precision and accuracy

even if the measurements that yielded the numbers are relatively

unreliable. In the materials arena, analysts use the Integrated
33

Safety Analysis (ISA) method to systematically explore process

hazards at chemical facilities. An ISA explores what can happen,

as well as the likelihood, impacts, and controls needed for safety.

Instead of quantifying the likelihoods and consequences of

specific events, however, an ISA generally uses qualitative classes

to rank the relative importance of risks.

Despite the value of purely qualitative risk information, some

people are simply not comfortable with such information. In fact,

within both the technical and nontechnical communities, use of

qualitative information can be quite controversial. As a result, a

credible qualitative analysis will need to clearly communicate the

following issues:

• What techniques and methods were used to ensure the

integrity, validity, and accuracy of the findings?

• What does the analyst bring to the study in terms of

qualifications, experience, and perspective?

• What theoretical frameworks and assumptions undergird

the study?

• What is the risk classification scheme, and how is it applied

to provide a value judgment?

In addition, it can be challenging to standardize qualitative

information, especially if that information is not tied to a quantitative framework. Consequently, when communicating qualitative risk

information, be aware that when you fail to provide a number,

audiences tend to latch onto any number, even one that is tucked

away in an appendix as an example. Thus, a number that you

merely intended to illustrate a single acceptable answer can

become the de facto threshold.

Risk metrics

Metrics are surrogates for the NRC’s safety goals and quantitative

health objectives and, as such, they reflect the agency’s focus on

avoiding accidents and preventing or mitigating their negative

consequences. Toward that end, the staff chooses metrics to

quantify risks and reflect the agency’s values. Consequently, each

metric has its own strengths and limitations. In the reactor arena, for

example, “core damage frequency“ (CDF) and “large early

release frequency“ (LERF) are familiar terms. Nonetheless, despite

the familiarity of the terms, CDF and LERF are not well understood

by many, especially as they relate to the NRC’s safety goals and

the differences between the various related parameters, such as
34

core damage probability (CDP), conditional core damage probability (CCDP), and change in CDF (∆CDF). Moreover, as the staff

establishes metrics in the materials, waste, and security arenas,

additional challenges will arise in communicating the interrelationships among the metrics that are used throughout the agency, as

well as the questions that the public ultimately wants answered

about safety.

Consider the following tips:

• Especially when members of your audience have less direct

experience with risk information, provide examples that illustrate

the basis of your metrics, what they omit (e.g., land contamination), and how they are calculated.

• Different metrics have their own yardsticks for defining what is

acceptable, and those who use risk metrics on a daily basis

tend to internalize the framework for interpreting the numbers

so that they no longer need to refer to it directly. It is important

to recognize that many people with whom you communicate—

even within the NRC—do not have frequent experience with risk

information. Consequently, they will need you to explain the

framework for interpreting the numbers associated with the

various metrics and their acceptability.

• As the NRC develops metrics for use in risk assessments, the

agency should develop a comprehensive reference tool that

includes units, specifics for the situations in which each metric

should be used, guidelines or criteria against which each metric

should be evaluated, and the bases for all of these factors.

Consider the level of technical detail to present

The level of technical detail you should present depends on your

audience and the purpose of your communication. Audiences

have different tolerances for technical presentations, different

perceptions of risk, and different interests in receiving risk information. (See Chapter 3.)

• Be ready with handouts to fill requests for additional technical

detail.

• Use a range of tools—diagrams, outlines, and analogies—

to explain complex phenomena and promote shared

understanding.
35

• Use props to illustrate your technical information. (For example,

a geologist might provide rock samples to augment a discussion

of how water might flow through different layers of a rock

formation.)

• Have informal discussions with staff who are interested in

learning more about the risk assessment process or interpreting

the risk assessment results.

Things to Remember

• Be open about the inherent uncertainties in risk

analysis.

• Use visuals to help your audience quickly understand

complicated relationships and data.

• Present risk tradeoffs.

• Discuss qualitative aspects of risk assessment.

• Be aware of the jargon and terms used in different

NRC offices.

• Explain all new terms to your audience.

• Match the level of technical detail you present to the

technical background of your audience.

Practice Tip

At the next meeting you attend where you do not have

a major role, write down all of the questions asked of

the presenter. Does the audience want more information

about where the data came from? Do they want clarification about a certain assumption or policy? Were

graphics or tables used to explain the data and, if so,

how effective were they? Try to address these types of

questions in your next presentation.
36

This page intentionally left blank.
37

Ensuring Transparency in

Decision-making

Ensuring Transparency in

Decision-making

How can communication enhance

the legitimacy of the decision-making

process and outcome?

7

Some critics of the NRC complain that

the agency makes decisions on the

basis of information that is generated in

a “black box.“ Not being able to see,

hear about, or participate in the process

leads to misunderstandings and breeds

distrust. Consequently, open communication within the NRC—both during an

analysis and throughout the decisionmaking process—sets the stage for

better understanding within the agency.

It also enables the staff to share information with greater confidence. The three

basic stages for ensuring transparency

in decision-making are (1) defining the

process, (2) communicating the decision

and how input was used in making that

decision, and (3) documenting for the future.

Stage 1: Defining the process

The NRC’s stakeholders use guidance documents to understand

the factors that will be considered in decision-making, who will be

included, and what the process will be. Remember that it is always

important to be clear about when and how input will be used.

(See Figure on the following page.)

Stage 2: Communicating the decision

Once a decision has been made, it must be communicated to

interested parties, and any deviations from expected outcomes or

processes must be clearly explained. Use the following tips when

communicating about risk-informed decisions:

• Provide examples of how decision-makers used the inputs from

various offices and levels of the NRC and how those inputs

impacted the decision.

7

Openness... in communications and decision-making

The NRC views nuclear regulation

as the public’s business and, as

such, it must be transacted openly

and candidly in order to maintain

the public’s confidence. The goal

to ensure openness explicitly

recognizes that the public must

be informed about, and have a

reasonable opportunity to

participate meaningfully in, the

NRC’s regulatory processes.

“Communicating Results of a

Decision,” NRC’s Strategic Plan for

FYs 2004-2009
38

• Explain the relationship between defense-in-depth and the risk

information and how these concepts influenced the decision.

• Discuss the implications of the decision for other offices or the

NRC as a whole.

• Explain what has changed and why. Pay more attention to

communication when the final results differ from what was

expected. This process includes allowing more time for questions

about data, assumptions, and the impetus for the additional

analysis.

• Be careful not to rely too heavily on slide presentations to

support decision-making, and choose words carefully when

developing slides. Make sure the key points are prominent when

condensing the information to fit on a slide, and place critical

information in the most visible location. (See box on the right).

Stage 3: Documenting for the future

Throughout the risk assessment process, it is important to maintain

accurate, complete, and understandable records of the thought

process that contributed to a decision and the underlying analyses. Thorough documentation of the decision-making process is an

internal risk communication tool that can help prevent others from

4. Proposed increases in CDF or risk

are small and are consistent with

the Commission’s Safety Goal

Policy Statement.

Integrated

Decision-Making

3. Maintain

sufficient safety

margins.

1. Change meets current regulations unless

it is explicitly related to a requested

exemption or rule change.

2. Change is consistent

with defense-in-depth

philosophy.

5. Use performancemeasurement strategies

to monitor the change.

Principles of Risk-Informed Integrated Decision-Making. An example of a chart

used to communicate a decision-making process, from Regulatory Guide 1.174, “An

Approach for Using Probabilistic Risk Assessment in Risk-Informed Decisions on PlantSpecific Changes to the Licensing Basis.”
39

using data, analyses, and conclusions in a manner that is inconsistent with the intent. People may have an inherent tendency to

view published information with undue authority or definitiveness.

Explanation and caveats can help to put the information into the

proper perspective.

Even if an assumption is used because “it’s standard practice,“ it’s

important to document every assumption. Readers of a report or

analysis who are unfamiliar with risk assessment practices may not

know the “standards.“ Thus, you can help them understand the risk

information by providing a complete explanation of why the

analysis was conducted a certain way and how the conclusions

can be used appropriately.

During the decision-making process, document information such

as the following:

• What were the initial scenarios?

• What assumptions were made and why?

Risk Management by PowerPoint

On February 1, 2003, Shuttle Columbia was destroyed in its

return to Earth, and all crew members were lost. The Columbia

Accident Investigation Board identified a complex system of

technical, organizational, and cultural failures that led to the

tragedy. Among the things that the board reviewed were the

viewgraphs used in technical briefings at NASA before the

accident. At many points during the investigation, the board

was “surprised“ to receive confusing and misleading presentation slides from NASA officials instead of technical reports. The

board pointed out that, “As information gets passed up an

organization hierarchy, from people who do analysis to midlevel managers to high-level leadership, key explanations and

supporting information is filtered out. In this context, it is easy to

understand how a senior manager might... not realize that

[information on a slide] addresses a life-threatening situation.“

Edward R. Tufte, Visual Explanations: Images and Quantities,

Evidence and Narrative
40

• In what other circumstances

could the assumptions be

used, and when would they

not be applicable?

• Where did the data come

from?

• In what other circumstances

could the results be used

appropriately, and when

would it be inappropriate to

use them?

Taking these steps will not guarantee that risk information and

results will not be taken out of

context. It is everyone’s responsibility to prevent risk numbers from

being stripped of relevant

discussions on uncertainties and

assumptions.

Avoid Isolation in Decision-Making

Risk analyses and decision-making cannot

happen in isolation. Rather, these processes require strong communication

about the variables on which the risk

assessment is based. For example, one

analyst might conclude that a pump

“need not be that robust“ because the

valves are robust and will limit failure.

Another analyst might say it is acceptable

to reduce the redundancy of the valves

because the pumps are robust. If the

dependency between these relationships

is not clearly communicated to all involved parties, a decision-maker might

decide to reduce the robustness of both

the valves and the pump, without realizing

the potentially dangerous overall impact

on the system.
41

Things to Remember

• Share information throughout the analysis and

decision-making processes to increase trust in the

outcome.

• Clearly define how stakeholders’ input will be used in

making a decision. After the decision is made, reinforce how the input was used.

• When a final decision differs from what was expected,

explain what changed and why.

• Ensure that all analysis reports include explanations of

the factors considered in reaching a decision.

• Prepare clear documentation to help prevent the

information from being used inappropriately in a future

analysis.

Practice Tip

Review a report from the past that you’ve used in a

subsequent analysis. How well are the assumptions and

caveats explained? What background information was

omitted that would have made your analysis more

complete? Keep these things in mind as you prepare

your own reports so that you can provide the documentation that an analyst will find useful in the future.
42

This page intentionally left blank.
43

Implementating Effective

Two-Way Communication

Implementating Effective

Two-Way Communication

How can I achieve a productive

dialogue with my stakeholders?

8

Two-way communication is essential for effective internal risk

communication. Two-way communication is a continuous cycle of

exchanges between sender and receiver, and ongoing interaction

is crucial to successful communication. By openly communicating

with coworkers and encouraging participation, you can use input

and feedback to generate more useful risk information.

The communication process

All communications involve a message delivered through one or

more channels, a sender who encodes the message, and a

receiver who decodes the message and may provide feedback.

All interactions occur in an environment of competing messages,

differing levels of knowledge and experience, and distractions,

all of which constitute noise that affects whether and how the

receiver interprets the message.

The Two-Way Communication Process

To be a successful communicator, you must understand your

audience’s perspectives, use various techniques to deliver

effective messages, listen actively, and make adjustments

based on feedback or evaluation.

Encourage participation!

Effective two-way communication requires thinking strategically

about who needs to be involved and at what point. Before

conducting a risk analysis, work with decision-makers to determine

the level of detail they need to make a decision. Find out what

Noise

Noise

Noise

Noise

Noise

Noise

Message Responds

Decodes

(Sends

and

Receives)

Feedback

Channels

(Sends

and

Receives)

Feedback

Channels

Responds

Decodes
44

Risk Analysts

will gain a better

understanding of...

• The decision

• The non-risk-based

factors that are present

• Individual 

communication

preferences

Examples of Two-Way Internal Risk Communication

Decision-Makers

will gain a better

understanding of...

• The information that

is available and its

quality

• What form it will be in

• What it means

Noise

• Time pressures

• Lack of familiarity with

risk terminology and

decision-making

• Lack of openness due

to organizational

culture issues

Technical Staff

will gain a better

understanding of...

• Where information/

expertise is included

in a risk analysis

• What might be missing

from the model

• The problems risk

information can

help address

Risk Analysts

will gain a better

understanding of...

• Key design or

operational factors

• Failure rates/sources

of data

• Accidents to consider

• Review of assumptions

about a specific

technical area, such

as fire protection

Noise

• Technical jargon from

area of specialty

• Different conceptual

frameworks about

safety

• Lack of familiarity with

risk models

• Varying understandings

of what “risk informed”

means

Public Affairs

will gain a better

understanding of...

• What information is

available

• The processes used to

arrive at a decision

• The risks

Risk Analysts

will gain a better

understanding of...

• Concerns and

values of external

stakeholders

• Local conditions that

might influence

assumptions or models

• Risk perceptions

Noise

• Time pressures

• Lack of familiarity with

risk terminology and

decision-making

• Lack of understanding

of public perceptions

and acceptance of risk

assumptions or scenarios need to be considered so you can

include them in your analysis. As you gather data for your analysis,

describe how the information will be used so your coworkers can

provide input that best meets your needs.

As always, remember to listen. As an issue emerges or a plan

comes together, input is critical, and your coworkers can provide

important insights. Be flexible and open to new ideas and different

perspectives. While it is natural to place a higher value on ideas

that are similar or complementary to your own, it is important to

seriously consider other points of view. If you disagree with others’

ideas, try to understand their points of view. Considering different

perspectives can help you identify new solutions and may help you

(and others) avoid future problems. The table above illustrates twoway communication among different NRC stakeholders, identifies

what each can hope to learn from the interaction, and provides

examples of what might interfere with understanding among the
45

parties. Use these examples to gain perspective on what you can

learn from others and what you can do to minimize “noise.“

Ensure that adequate time and resources are available

For a risk-informed regulatory approach to be accepted and

integrated throughout the NRC, attention must be paid to the time

and resources made available for learning, discussing, building

consensus, and resolving conflicts. The amount of time needed for

such activities is often significantly underestimated, or the activities

don’t take place early enough in the process. Management has a

responsibility to make this a priority. Schedule and budget constraints are facts of life; however, an upfront investment in learning

and integration can often prevent controversy from derailing an

initiative later on. Even a well-informed, receptive audience may

take a while to absorb and respond to complex concepts (like risk),

and it may take several exchanges over time. It is important to

have realistic expectations about what can be accomplished in a

single interaction.

Be creative

Remember that there are many ways to communicate with coworkers. While formal methods (such as staff reviews, surveys, and

planned meetings) may be necessary when developing official

documents and plans, remember to employ informal techniques

as well. Casual one-on-one conversations, phone calls, or informal

group sessions are great ways to gather information. It may also be

helpful to talk to people outside of your office to gain additional

perspectives.

Tips for Effective Listening

(1) Pay attention to nonverbal communication. People give clues

as to whether they understand or are overwhelmed by information, as well as whether they agree or disagree. Also pay

attention to the nonverbal messages you are sending.

(2) Summarize to clarify what has been said and to demonstrate

that you listened.

(3) Ask questions:

• Use open-ended questions to—

– gather information about opinions and preferences

– help elicit the reasoning behind a decision

• Use direct questions to—

– give the other person a clear idea of what you want to know

– guide discussion toward a specific problem or solution
46

Things to Remember

• Listen actively; active listening is an essential

component of two-way communication.

• Remain open to new ideas and different perspectives.

• Informal conversations and phone calls are great ways

to gather information.

• Involve everyone in the decision-making process.

• Leave your desk and talk to your colleagues from

other parts of the agency.

Practice Tip

Identify an internal stakeholder (either a person or

a group) with whom you would like to improve your

communication. List the various types of “noise” that

might be interfering with your communication. (See table

on page 44 for examples.) Brainstorm ways to minimize

the interference. After your next communication with that

stakeholder, evaluate the experience.
47

Clarifying Common Areas of

Confusion and Avoiding

Miscommunication

Clarifying Common Areas of

Confusion and Avoiding

Miscommunication

How can I provide accurate information

without silencing other viewpoints?

9

The NRC has a difficult task in addressing public concerns about

the agency’s mission and role. However, it can be equally difficult

to communicate with internal audiences to correct misinformation,

clarify positions, and broaden understanding about risk information.

Internal risk communication is important in implementing

agencywide changes and building and maintaining a strong,

united, and efficient agency.

Be aware of the power of

jargon to interfere with

communication

Everyone knows that NRC

jargon and acronyms are

obstacles to understanding

when agency spokespersons try

to communicate with the public.

A similar problem arises when

staff from different areas within

the agency try to communicate

and realize that they have

different jargon or use common

terms (like “risk“) in different

ways. Consider the following tips

when communicating across

the NRC:

• Don’t assume that everyone

knows what you know and

uses risk terms in the same way.

• Be aware of the special meanings of commonly used words,

and take time to explain your use of such words within the

context of your discussion.

• When using terms that are not universally understood outside

your group, give examples to illustrate what the term does and

does not mean to you.

You Know Not What I Say...

In a speech to the Society for Risk

Analysts, Stan Kaplan described two

theorems of miscommunication:

Theorem 1: 50% of the problems in the

world result from people using the same

words with different meanings.

Theorem 2: The other 50% result from

people using different words with the

same meaning.

Kaplan hung those theorems on his office

wall, and he routinely used them to point

out to colleagues how their arguments

exemplified either Theorem 1 or Theorem 2.

“It’s amazing how that drains the emotion

from an argument.”
48

• Develop common understandings and uses of major concepts

and terms to facilitate communication with other NRC staff.

It may be helpful to write agreed-upon definitions and list

acronyms that aid communication between groups.

• Don’t be afraid to question how someone else is using a term to

ensure that you are clear on their interpretations.

Don’t confuse different

perspectives with

incorrect information

In several areas, internal stakeholders have a tendency to

confuse different perspectives

with incorrect information or a

lack of understanding. For

example, the reactor program

has been using risk information

longer than the materials, waste,

and security programs. Decision-makers and staff should not

assume that tools, metrics, and types of analyses can be directly

transferred from the reactor program for use in all areas.

In addition, some internal stakeholders have a tendency to assume

that those who raise concerns are opposed to the risk-informed

approach, rather than recognizing that they may simply have

specific—and valid—concerns about implementation issues.

Develop tools to communicate and involve staff and

decision-makers in risk analyses

The NRC should consider investing in tools that enable non–risk

analysts to interact directly with risk information and analyses. Risk

analysts from both the NRC and other agencies anecdotally report

that they see a visual and physical display of understanding from

their audience when their colleagues see firsthand how changing

an assumption, for example, influences the result. In the Reactor

Oversight Program, this type of tool has been developed for use by

inspectors.

Sample responses to counter misperceptions about a

risk-informed approach

One of the NRC’s internal risk communication challenges is

building understanding and support for integrated, risk-informed

approaches in reaching safety decisions. Using risk-informed

Learning in organizations means the

continuous testing of experience, and

the transformation of that experience

into knowledge -accessible to the

whole organization, and relevant to its

core purpose.

The Fifth Discipline Fieldbook:

Strategies and Tools for Building a

Learning Organization
49

approaches (rather than

relying exclusively on

traditional deterministic

engineering analyses) is an

issue that polarizes many

NRC employees. The

following representative

statements and responses

should be viewed not as

ways to silence opposing

viewpoints, but as efforts to

shed some light on an issue

that divides the agency.

“Our risk-informed

approach makes it easier

for licensees to make

changes that are compromising safety.“

Suggestions for addressing

this concern:

• Acknowledge the

legitimacy of the

concern. Not all

licensees have the

same level of commitment to safety and

understanding of risk

information.

• Explain the systems and

processes that are in

place to counterbalance the use of risk

assessment.

• Communicate examples of how risk information was used to

address problems in a more effective way, as well as cases

where such information was used to identify safety issues that

had previously been overlooked.

“PRAs can be effectively applied across the NRC for any issue

or decision.“

Suggestions for addressing this overstatement:

Issues Commonly Requiring Clarification

The following issues are drawn from interviews

with NRC staff. Interviewees were asked what

they believe are key areas requiring additional

clarification or discussion:

• Several definitions of risk exist within the NRC.

How is risk defined? What is the difference

between risk to the individual and collective

risk?

• Uncertainty is not always understood. What

are the uncertainties? What is contributing to

the uncertainties?

• Numbers can be misleading and confusing.

What do the numbers mean? What is the

context for this number?

• There is a need to understand what is and

isn’t included in risk models. What is the

relationship between the model and reality?

• Some assumptions are controversial, and

there is a need to describe assumptions. How

do these assumptions impact the analysis?

Which assumptions are based on accepted

values? Which assumptions are the most

influential?

• “Defense-in-depth” and “risk-informed” are

often portrayed as two distinct concepts.

How are these terms defined? How do these

principles relate? How can they work together?
50

Things to Remember

• Avoid misunderstandings by explaining your terms and

language to people outside of your office or group.

• Don’t be afraid to ask how other people are using

certain terms.

• Be willing to understand different perspectives.

• Develop tools to communicate internally.

Practice Tip

Spend about half an hour researching how various

NRC documents use a risk-related term (such as risk, riskinformed, integrated decision-making, defense-in-depth,

risk-significant, or safety-significant). How do the definitions and usages of the term vary among different

sources? Next, for a couple of days, pay special attention

to how the selected term is used during presentations,

discussions, and other oral communications. What different meanings do you hear, and how do they compare

with those spelled out in NRC documents? Use what you

learned to help clarify what the term does and does not

mean in a particular context.

• Provide specific examples to illustrate the strengths and weaknesses of PRAs and risk information.

• Discuss the steps taken to decide the appropriate risk-informed

approach in a specific area or NRC process and the factors

that were considered.

• Explore how other areas are using risk assessment and how that

approach is applicable to a specific technical issue.
51

Building Consensus and

Resolving Conflict

Building Consensus and

Resolving Conflict

What role does conflict play inside

an organization? How do I deal with

disagreements? When should I use

a facilitator?

10

Because risk decisions are

inherently complex, differences

of opinion often arise. It is

important to remember that

conflict is not necessarily bad.

Conflict can be a catalyst for

positive change and can lead

to meaningful relationships

between coworkers.

Conflict is a natural part of

workplace dynamics, and it can serve to balance power relationships, promote flexibility and adaptability, guard against giving in to

the consensus of the group without considering alternatives, and

facilitate effective decision-making by challenging complacency

and illusions of invincibility. If left unresolved, conflict can interfere

with communication, foster “winning at the expense of others,” and

polarize groups.

To minimize destructive conflict and prevent workplace disruptions,

initiate or increase personal contact and communication with

coworkers. Listen to the concerns of others, and acknowledge their

perspectives. Remember that the workplace

comprises individuals with diverse interests, experiences, and backgrounds. Try to view conflict from

the perspective of others.

Tips for managing conflict

• Admit the problem. It’s difficult to reach a

resolution if people ignore the problem or deny

that there’s a conflict.

• Arrange a time and place to discuss the issue.

This can be an informal conversation or a group

meeting. In most situations, do not rely on

The key is to encourage, draw out, and

compile all the misperceptions and

challenges. Get them out in the open.

Get the staff to tell you what they don’t

like. Put it all on the table, pull all the

negatives out. Then address them with

answers.

NRC Manager

Sources of Conflict

• Data

• Resources

• Interests

• Expectations

• Power structure

• Relationships
52

electronic communication to resolve the conflict. Face-to-face

interaction works best to address concerns:

– Select a neutral location.

– Allow adequate time to talk through the issue.

• Include everyone who is involved, interested, or likely to be

affected. Leaving a person or group “out of the loop” may

create additional conflict.

• Adopt a strategy of achieving resolution and consensus.

Abandon the concept of winning or losing.

• Avoid negative or confrontational language.

• Listen. Uncovering the concerns and feelings of others can be

instrumental in creating solutions that are acceptable to

everyone involved.

• Be flexible and open to new ideas.

• Be ready to suggest possible solutions.

• Always treat others with dignity and respect.

Consider taking a team approach to handle significant

internal risk communication

In some cases, it might be useful to form a team of three to five

NRC employees to address internal communication about issues

that are potentially controversial or have broad impacts. Conflicts

can often be prevented by involving people in solving problems

and generating solutions. Team members should be personally

affected by the issues, have credibility within the NRC, represent or

understand conflicting views, and have good communication skills.

Using a facilitator

If meetings about an issue are repeatedly unproductive, a stalemate

exists, or the situation has the potential to escalate, consider using a

facilitator. An uninvolved third party can sometimes help to provide

objective solutions. A facilitator can improve internal communication

in the following ways:

• Keep meetings focused and on track.

• Clarify questions and comments.
53

• Acknowledge conflict and underlying issues.

• State problems in constructive ways.

• Sense agreement.

Building consensus to resolve conflicts

Consensus building is a decisionmaking process that works creatively to include all persons involved in a decision. It equalizes

power over a group of people by

allowing everyone an opportunity to

express his or her opinions. Consensus building is a powerful decisionmaking process because it takes

into account and validates each

participant. People have a chance to be heard, feel they have

been heard, and can agree to a final decision even if it wasn’t

their first choice.

Consensus-building process

The following steps describe one method of developing consensus:

(1) Presentation. Present an issue or plan to the group.

(2) Questions. Give group members an opportunity to ask clarifying questions to ensure that they understand the issue or plan.

(3) Discussion. Discuss and debate the issue or plan, and allow

group members to make recommendations.

(4) Assessment. Take the group’s pulse. Are their feelings generally

positive? Are there major objections or strong concerns about

the issue or plan?

(5) Resolution. Consensus does not mean that everyone agrees on

every detail, but rather that they have a shared understanding

of the issue or plan and a basic level of widespread acceptability of the outcomes.

You may not always have time to conduct a formal meeting, but

you can apply the same steps informally. For example, you can

send a proposed plan to your colleagues and give them a certain

period of time to reply with comments and concerns. Let them

know they can call, send an email message, or drop by your office

to give you feedback.

We need a shared mental model for

safety that combines all of the

metrics and defense-in-depth

safety margins. We need a bigger

picture of safety.

NRC manager
54

Things to Remember

• Recognize that conflict is natural and can be a

positive catalyst for change.

• Minimize conflict by increasing interaction and

communication with coworkers.

• Resolve issues by providing unbiased recommendations. (A facilitator can help.)

• Use the consensus process to help a group reach a

solution that is acceptable to everyone involved.

Practice Tip

Developing strong listening skills can help improve your

ability to prevent and resolve conflicts. A key part of

listening is asking questions to learn more about the

perceptions, interests, and concerns of others. Think of a

disagreement or confrontational situation in which you

have been involved. Using the tips for effective listening,

draft some open- and closed-ended questions to help

you learn more about the other party’s perspective.

(Skimming Chapter 3, “Understanding internal stakeholders,” might also assist you with this exercise.)

Additional tips for building consensus

• Present your position as clearly, simply, and logically as possible.

Listen to other people’s reactions and consider them carefully.

Avoid arguing solely for your own ideas or cutting others off

before they have had an opportunity to complete their point.

• Avoid the attitude that someone must win and someone must

lose. Instead, look for alternatives that are acceptable for all

parties.

• Do not change your mind simply to avoid conflict and to reach

agreement. When agreement seems to come too quickly,

explore the reasons and be sure everyone accepts the solution

for similar reasons.
55

Evaluating the Effectiveness of 11 Internal Risk Communication

When determining whether your internal risk communication efforts

are working, it is important to have a realistic impression of what

success looks and feels like. Because decision-makers, risk analysts,

and other technical staff at the NRC have different roles and

responsibilities, they will not always see eye to eye. Being in perfect

agreement 100% of the time is not a realistic goal. It is reasonable

to expect, however, that more effective internal risk communication can improve relationships and professional respect for differing

points of view. In an atmosphere of successful internal risk communication, the staff can build a common understanding of the key

issues even if they disagree about how to address those issues.

Consider the following criteria when evaluating your internal risk

communication:

• Are risk analysts interacting with decision-makers and other

technical staff before, during, and after the analysis to discuss

how the results will be used, which scenarios to consider, and

which assumptions are acceptable?

• When risk analysts present analysis results, are they putting that

information into the larger context of the NRC’s mission and the

specific interests of the audience?

• Do internal stakeholders understand the uncertainties that are

linked to a specific risk analysis result?

• Do staff members know where to go for clarification of specific

risk analysis results?

Simple, readily available methods for gathering

feedback

Evaluation efforts do not need to be formalized and complex.

There are quick and easy ways to evaluate your efforts:

• Just ask. Asking is the simplest way to find out if your internal risk

communication efforts are working. When you complete a

briefing, ask the audience for constructive feedback. (“What

Evaluating the Effectiveness of

Internal Risk Communication

Am I being effective? How can I

improve?
56

did you think?” “Is there additional information you would like to

have?” “How did this meeting compare to others you have

attended?” “What would have made it better?”)

• Have a designated observer at a meeting. Ask colleagues to

observe you at a meeting. They can provide you with specific

feedback about what you said and how people responded.

(What questions are people asking? What nonverbal signals

were participants sending at various points in the meeting?)

Things to Remember

• Agreement is not a fair or accurate measure of

success in internal risk communication.

• A primary goal of internal risk communication should

be to achieve a common understanding of the key

issues, even if there is disagreement about how to

address those issues.

• A simple and readily available method for getting

feedback on your reports and presentations is to ask

the audience or a colleague for a critique.

Practice Tip

Based on feedback from your audience or a colleague in

response to a report or presentation, think about how you

would implement those ideas to improve the report or

presentation. Write down those ideas and refer to them

the next time you develop a report or presentation.
57

References and Resources

References

Bier, V.M. “Challenges to the Acceptance of Probabilistic Risk

Analysis,” Risk Analysis 19: 703-710. 1999.

Bier, V.M. “On the State of the Art: Risk Communication to the

Public,” Reliability Engineering and System Safety 71: 139-150. 2001.

Bier, V.M. “On the State of the Art: Risk Communication to the

DecisionMaker,” Reliability Engineering and System Safety 71: 151-157.

2001.

Bley, D.C., S. Kojima, and J. Wreathall. “Facilitating Technical Risk

Communication among Non-Specialists,” PSA ‘99, International

Topical Meeting on Probabilistic Safety Assessment, August 22-26,

1999, Willard Intercontinental Hotel, Washington, DC. 1999.

Columbia Accident Investigation Board. The CAIB Report, Vol. 1.

2003. Accessed on the Internet at www.caib.us/news/report/

volume1/default.html.

Dusenbury, R., and M.G. Fennema. “Linguistic-Numeric Presentation

Mode Effects on Risky Option Preferences,” Organizational Behavior

and Human Decision Processes 68(2): 109-122. 1996.

Fischhoff, B. “Communicate unto others...,” Reliability Engineering

and System Safety 59: 63–72. 1998.

Fox, C.R., and J.R. Irwin. “The Role of Context in the Communication

of Uncertain Beliefs,” Basic and Applied Social Psychology 20(1):

57-70. 1998.

Jones, E. “Risk Assessments: From Reactor Safety to Health Care,”

Risk Assessment 8: 12-21. 1995.

Kaplan, S. “The Words of Risk Analysis,” Risk Analysis 17(4):

407-417. 1997.

Koehler, J.J. “The Influence of Prior Beliefs on Scientific Judgments of

Evidence Quality,” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision

Processes 56(1): 28-55. 1993.

Kuhn, K.M., and D.V. Budescu. “The Relative Importance of Probabilities, Outcomes, and Vagueness in Hazard Risk Decisions,”

Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 68(3):

301-317. 1996.

References and Resources
58

Patton, M. Qualitative Evaluation and Research Methods, 2nd ed.

Sage Publications. 1990.

Thompson, K.M., and D.L. Bloom. “Communication of Risk Assessment Information to Risk Managers,” Journal of Risk Research 3(4):

333-352. 2000.

Additional Resources

NRC Resources

USNRC. “Effective Risk Communication: The Nuclear Regulatory

Commission’s Guidelines for External Risk Communication,” NUREG/

BR-0308. 2004.

USNRC. “An Approach for Using Probabilistic Risk Assessment in RiskInformed Decisions on Plant-Specific Changes to the Licensing

Basis,” Regulatory Guide 1.174, Revision 1. November 2002.

USNRC. “White Paper on Risk-Informed and Performance-Based

Regulation” (SRM to SECY 98-144, Attachment, “Risk-Informed and

Performance-Based Regulation”). 1998.

USNRC. “Guidance for Performance-Based Regulation,” NUREG/BR0303, N.P. Kadmabi. 2002.

USNRC. “Use of Probabilistic Risk Assessment Methods in Nuclear

Regulatory Activities: Final Policy Statement,” Federal Register, Vol. 60,

p. 42622 (60 FR 42622). August 16, 1995.

USNRC. “An Approach for Plan-Specific, Risk-Informed

Decisionmaking: Inservice Testing,” Regulatory Guide 1.175.

August 1998.

USNRC. “An Approach for Determining the Technical Adequacy of

Probabilistic Risk Assessment Results for Risk-Informed Activities,”

Regulatory Guide 1.200 for Trial Use. February 2004.

USNRC. “Use of Probabilistic Risk Assessment in Plant-Specific, RiskInformed Decisionmaking: General Guidance,” Chapter 19 of the

Standard Review Plan, NUREG-0800, Rev. 1. November 2002.

USNRC. “Yucca Mountain Review Plan,” NUREG-1804, Rev. 2. July 2003.

USNRC. “Standard Review Plan for the Review of a License Application for a Fuel Cycle Facility,” Chapter 3 of the Standard Review

Plan, NUREG-1520 (and Appendix A).

USNRC. “Strategic Plan for FYs 2004–2009,” NUREG-1614, Vol. 3.

August 2004.
59

Presentation Resources

www.presentations.com

Tufte, E.R. (1997). Visual Explanations: Images and Quantities,

Evidence and Narrative. Cheshire, CT: Graphics Press.

Rutledge, P., Dyck, T., Fuller, R., Gilgen, R., Ulrich, L., and Mucciolo, T.

(2001). Special Edition Using Microsoft PowerPoint 2000.

Indianapolis, IN: Macmillan Computer Publishing.

Web Sites

Consortium for Risk Evaluation with Stakeholder Participation

(CRESP) II [internet]. Piscataway (NJ): CRESP Headquarters;

2004 August 12 [cited 2004 December 9]. Available from:

http://www.cresp.org

Health Risk Communication (CBM 2000-7) [internet]. Bethesda

(MD): National Library of Medicine; 2003 December 15 [cited 2004

December 9]. Available from: http://www.nlm.nih.gov/pubs/cbm/

health_risk_communication.html

Institute for Risk Analysis and Risk Communication [internet]. Seattle

(WA): University of Washington; 2003 [cited 2004 December 9].

Available from: http://www.depts.washington.edu/irarc/index.html

Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) [internet].

Washington (DC): U.S. Environmental Protection Agency;

2004 December 2 [cited 2004 December 9]. Available from:

http://www.epa.gov/iriswebp/iris/index.html

Peter Sandman Risk Communication Web Site [internet]. Princeton

(NJ): Peter M. Sandman; 2004 December 4 [cited 2004 December

9]. Available from: http://www.psandman.com

Publications [internet]. Washington (DC): U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency; 2004 November 4 [cited 2004 December 9].

Available from: http://www.epa.gov/opei/pubsinfo.htm

Rand Environmental Science Policy Center [internet]. Santa

Monica (CA): Rand Environmental Science Policy Center Corporate Headquarters; 2004 November 18 [cited 2004 December 9].

Available from: http://www.rand.org

Recent Publications [internet]. Washington (DC): National

Academy of Public Administration; 2003 [cited 2004 December 9].

Available from: http://www.napawash.org/

pc_economy_environment/recent_publications.html
60

Risk Abstracts Library [internet]. Knoxville (TN): Tec-Com;

2004 October 26 [cited 2004 December 9]. Available from:

http://www.riskworld.com/Abstract/AB5ME001.htm

Risk Communication Web Sites [internet]. Knoxville (TN): Tec-Com;

2004 October 26 [cited 2004 December 9]. Available from:

http://www.riskworld.com/websites/webfiles/ws5aa014.htm

Society for Risk Analysis [internet]. McLean (VA): Tec-Com;

2004 November 1 [cited 2004 December 9]. Available from:

http://www.sra.org
61

Index Index

acronyms, 18, 47–48

assumptions, 4,9–10, 14, 17, 21, 26–29, 32–33, 38–41, 43–44, 55

building consensus, 10–11, 45, 51–54

building credibility, 5, 9–10, 21–23, 25, 52

challenges, 11, 33–34, 48–48

charts, 30–32

communicating complex numbers, 25, 29–34

communication plans, 5–6, 44–45, 54

communication processes, 1, 3, 5–7, 11–12, 22, 37–39, 43–45

conflict, 5, 11, 45, 51–54

confrontation, 52

credibility, 5, 9–10, 21–23, 25, 52

decision makers, 9–10, 13, 15–16, 20, 22–23, 43–44, 48, 55

delivering messages, 5, 25, 30

designing effective messages, 25–26, 30

determining levels of trust and credibility, 5, 9–10, 21–23, 25, 37, 52

developing a risk communication strategy, 7, 43, 52

developing effective risk comparisons, 14, 19, 29–30, 32

difficult questions, 10, 13–14, 25, 34, 37, 47, 52

effective listening, 5, 43–46, 51–52, 54

effectiveness, 1–2, 5, 9, 11–12, 18–19, 25, 27–32, 43–45, 49, 55

establishing objectives, 7, 9–12, 25, 28

external communication, 1, 5, 6, 9–11, 18, 26

evaluation, 9–10, 27, 29, 34, 43, 55

facilitator, 52, 54

feedback, 9, 18, 30, 43, 53, 55–56

graphs, 26, 30–32, 35

identifying stakeholders, 7, 11, 13, 20

information preferences, 3, 6, 9, 10–11, 15–19, 27, 32–35, 45, 55

internal stakeholders, 6–7, 10–11, 13–20, 25, 32, 48, 55

interpersonal risk communication, 4–5

jargon, 15, 18, 47

key messages, 25–26, 32

level of detail, 10, 15–16, 19–20, 25–27, 34–35, 43

matching the best risk communication tool to the situation, 5–6, 12,

26–27, 30, 34–35, 38, 48, 50

messages, 5, 9, 10, 25–26, 30, 43, 45

misinformation, 47

misperceptions, 48

non-technical staff, 13, 18–19

nonverbal signals, 18–19, 45, 56

NRC mission, 4–5, 18, 47, 55

NRC role, 2, 10, 47, 55
62

numbers, 18, 25, 29–34, 40

performance-based, 1, 3, 11, 18

PRA quality, 17, 29, 49

qualitative risk , 15, 27, 30, 32–33, 35

responding to difficult questions, 10, 13–14, 25, 34, 37, 47, 52

risk analysis, 1, 3–5, 9, 14, 21, 23, 29, 35, 43, 55

risk-informed, 1, 3, 4–5, 11, 16–19, 23, 27, 37, 45, 48–50

risk management, 2, 4–5, 11, 14, 39

risk metrics, 2, 11, 33–34, 48

risk triplet. 2

soliciting stakeholder input, 15, 18, 37, 41

stakeholder identification, 7, 11, 13, 20

strategic risk communication, 7, 43, 52

technical staff, 13, 16–18, 27, 55

trust, 5, 21, 25, 37

two-way communication, 9, 19, 43–46

uncertainty, 15, 28–29, 35