 on that portal. So I'll send you that when we get it. That's the digital portal itself. And people can just click on it and go to any portal they want. So it's a new thing we're trying to develop. Hopefully we'll have it in place by the end of the year. So I've left my business card here. If anybody wants my email address or wants to follow on me with any stuff, please take a card. I think my email address may be on some of the course information stuff as well. So please help yourself. I'll put them there. So Sam, I think we've got some more customers for the digital hub. I think your colleagues here, you need to make sure we get their emails for the hub so they can join the community to practice. So as I said earlier, your last lecture for the two weeks. So you can kind of chill out. I only have one video though, so don't worry. So we're going to talk about principles of effective stakeholder involvement in nuclear power. So I'm just going to start my usual, maximizing the contribution of nuclear technology. This is about explaining to our stakeholders what that contribution is really. So first question I've got on this last session. How can you find out what level of support you have for any activity? Any answers? Ask for feedback? Survey. How can you increase the level of support you have? So we would advise you through stakeholder involvement programs. So anybody remember what we used to call this? What this topic used to be called? We used to call it something different, not stakeholder involvement. PR, well it's not quite PR. That's an element of it. We used to call it stakeholder management. And then there was inference that we were trying to manage people's views rather than involve them in the debate. Interesting. So it's now called stakeholder involvement. So what we want to do in this session is demonstrate an understanding of the concept of stakeholder involvement, which is quite tricky actually. It's not PR. It's not just managing people's opinions. It's more complex than that. Recognize the importance of stakeholder involvement to the success of a nuclear power program. Six principles of stakeholder involvement, which we would describe one of our documents, and then demonstrate an appreciation of the guidance, which is nowhere to go to together. Just coming before we go on, can anybody think of an example of where a nuclear organization did not have success with stakeholder involvement? So they built a plant in Austria. They were very confident the public wanted it. Then when it was 95% complete, they then had a referendum. Does the Austrian people want a nuclear power plant? And they voted no. So 2 billion euros were spent, and the plant's multiple. Can anybody ever think of a bigger situation where a nuclear power program did not manage their stakeholders or involve their stakeholders and suffer the consequences of it? There's a Vienna one, any others. There's a bigger one than that. Yeah, Germany. So just to put this into context, Germany operated a number of power plants following Fukushima, the president, the prime minister. The leader of the government, Angela, the chancellor. Sorry, thank you. The chancellor, the leader of the government announced they were going to shut down their nuclear industry. An incredible decision for those who was working in the nuclear sector. So just to put some context on that, Germany had about 24 plants, reactors. They had the best availability record as a country in the world. Their nuclear power record, arguably, was the most efficient in the world. At one time, they don't typically WANO, you guys all know about WANO. They don't typically publish a ratings table. INPO have one, two, three, and four, plant two, one, two, three. But WANO doesn't. However, they still tabulate plant availability and nuclear safety index, which is an index they have of how much a plant complies with its nuclear safety management value. So of those plants, those 20-odd plants, 10 of those plants were in the top 25 in the world. So half of their industry was in the top 25 plants in the world, which is a phenomenal achievement. Some of their plants had never had unplanned trips. I worked with a colleague, a guy called Eberhard Grauf. Some of you may have had him on some of your workshops. He was the ex-station director, or VP, or plant manager, how you call it, at one of their German plants. And they never had a 22-year running boat schedule prompt, which was met 100% over 22 years. So they only shut down when it had to refuel. World record upon world record. Their performance was exemplary. They were the model that the world followed. And because of Fukushima, because the public perception of Fukushima's nuclear power was unsafe, so here we've got a country with the best nuclear safety weapon in the world. Their population thought, actually, it's pretty unsafe. We don't want all this radioactive waste, da-da-da-da. Shut it down. So there's a real example of a whole industry in a country that was shut down. Because you could say that the state current involvement was not really fully understood or implemented or appreciated by those operating organizations. The value of having that state current involvement was lost. Consequently, they lost their industry. So what is a stakeholder and what is state current involvement? What's the stakeholder? Sorry, it can be the state. Can be a company. Yeah, research, you know, they're stakeholders. Public. Public. Everyone involved in this. Absolutely right. Whoever wants to be can be a stakeholder. We don't get to decide who's a stakeholder. They decide themselves. Really important principle. You may think you know your stakeholder's wrong. The stakeholders decide who the stakeholders are. That's a really important principle, especially for embarking countries. What is state current involvement? Yeah, let's go back to that. What is state current involvement? So it used to be stakeholder management. Let's identify the stakeholders and then manage them how we want. But the kind of philosophy now is, look, it's state current involvement. So you involve everybody as much as possible and allow them to make their informed decision. Our job is to present the facts and our views. But fundamentally, they're going to make their own decisions based on that. So a stakeholder is defined, actually, by these learned organizations. Any institution, group, or individual with an interest in or a role to play in a societal decision making process. So you don't get to decide who the stakeholders are. They select themselves and they'll come from all sorts of places. You wouldn't imagine. We had, I don't think which country. We had one of our, I'm sure it was Nigeria, actually. It was one of the African countries and we had one of their state current involvement officers come and talk from the government and talk about the challenge of trying to communicate with the different tribes in the different languages. They're the same stakeholder message. They're really, really interesting. So some countries have some real challenges with this going forward. And a lot of work and investment needed to kind of manage, to put in place the right state current involvement arrangements. It's an integral part of decision making and it's really an important part of formulating and implementing good policies around the nuclear power programs. It involves different phases and has different stakeholder groups involved. It can take many forms. Information sharing, consulting, participating in dialogue or deliberating on decisions. And I'll come back to those in a minute. It's about trust and understanding, not just communicating. It isn't just about, we had a request from an American country and they said, look, can you come and run a workshop in our country for our media? We said, okay, we can do that. What exactly, what's the purpose of this? Well, we want you to come and we want the IAA to come and tell our media how safe nuclear power is. So we, I thought, say, look, it's not our job to tell them how safe nuclear power is. We can talk to them about why we would recommend nuclear power in the pros and cons, but to try and influence the media in that way is not the role of the IAA. And actually, nor should it be in your stakeholder involvement program. You want to engage with the media to get a positive output, but trying to convince them and manage them into a certain direction is a whole different thing. And in fact, your media would see through that in a heartbeat, it couldn't be done. It's much more complicated than that. So it's about establishing trust and understanding. You will have some stakeholders who will never support nuclear power, never. They can still be really good effective stakeholders in your involvement in discussion. So stakeholder involvement techniques should not be viewed as convenient tools for public relations, image building, or winning acceptance for a decision taken behind closed doors. Because it's much broader than that. It's about establishing that trust and understanding. You want to build this nuclear power plant or this program, it's going to run for this long. We're going to manage the plant in a certain way. We're going to manage the people and the waste in a certain way. It's much broader than just getting them to say, yeah, we think it's a good idea. The other comment I would make is, people think that your stakeholder involvement program stops when you start running your plant. So that's wrong. When you start running your plant, your stakeholder involvement program ramps up and becomes much more specific in certain areas. As an example, most nuclear organizations have consultation forums. Some of them have to have it by law. It's lit into the regional legislation or national legislation. A couple of countries I've worked in, well, in the US and France and the UK, they all had public consultations. In the UK, we would meet the public every quarter for every three months. And we would talk about what was happening on the plant. We would talk about the future activities. And then we would allow the public to talk to us. Typically, the public were full of anti-nuclear organizations, very professionally managed, very professionally run. So this became really quite a challenging meet every quarter we used to meet with them. And it's a really interesting experience because you understand why they are anti-nuclear. You understand where their challenges are coming from. It was also legislated in the UK that the regulators had to sit alongside the operators and talk to the public. So it's a really interesting meeting because fortunately, the anti-nuclear people would also have a pop at the regulators as well as the owner operator. But those were routine dialogues that run to this day in most nuclear power organizations. And I would argue that's indeed a really good healthy culture. If you're willing to sit in front of the public every quarter, in front of the anti-nuclear demonstrators and talk to them about what you're doing and why, and listen to their arguments and understand them, I think that's a really, really good way to show transparency and openness. We would not sit there and say, this is safe, trust us. We would talk about the plant. We would talk about some of the events we'd had on the plant and what we were doing as a consequence. So establishing that openness and transparency is really effective. These people are never gonna support nuclear power. You will have them in your countries. They will never support nuclear power. But they're one of your stakeholders, one of your key stakeholders. You want them to say the truth and you want them to be honest when they tell their side of the story. Some will, some won't. But all you can do is provide them with the right facts in those discussions. So if you're building up a nuclear power program, your state-of-the-art involvement strategy should start well before a national decision is made. Because it may support the evidence that you're putting forward for a pro-nuclear program. It's very complex, national norms, standards and cultures will all influence your state-of-the-art involvement program. You will know that. No, you can't read that in a book. You will know that better than anybody from your own country. They will change over time. It may well be people who really have concerns about your nuclear power program. Once it's up and running, their involvement may be, well, what's in it for us? What supply chain opportunity is gonna come? What other social benefits will we get? Will you build roads? Will you build schools? Will you build hospitals next to the plant? Will my family get jobs there? So their expectations will change. When you're decommissioning or when you're thinking of moving radioactive waste, where will you store it? Will it be in my community? Will it go through the rail track in my village? All these things will be part of their question. So it will change over time. The media, not the only stakeholder of importance. Media play a big part, obviously now, but actually almost the power of social media, we'll talk about it in a minute, but it's kind of almost circumnavigated the press. We would all watch television or read the papers. Now we can just go on the phone, Facebook, WhatsApp, Google, all this stuff. So social media has become enormously powerful in stakeholder involvement. It's an amazing tool that's at your disposal. Good stakeholder involvement, and it's an essential requirement, a fundamental requirement of a nuclear power program, we would argue, and it will continue all the way through the working life. Indeed, when I used to go to this state kind of involvement meeting with the public, I used to go as a technical manager on one of the sites, the site next door to us was approaching decommissioning. So all they talked about was what you're gonna do with the waste, when will all the fuel be gone, what will be left, will there be jobs after you've moved the fuel, what will that look like in terms of local employment for the people in the surrounding towns. So it will continue beyond its working life. Who are stakeholders? Well, you said these in your public politicians, regulators, special interest groups, investors. Investors are really interesting stakeholders because if you can't demonstrate or prove to investors that this is a viable financial return, you're not gonna get the money. Probably one of the biggest challenges, fair to say, to new bill projects is show me the money. I want the money to start out the bill. Economic developers, media. Electricity customers. Quite significant in some countries. Local communities, regional communities, national communities, employees past and present. Don't underestimate their positive impact that employees can have when they're in the community, talking to the local people, talking about what's happening at the plant, talking about the benefits they get from it. Labour unions, suppliers, education institutions, neighbouring countries, really important neighbouring countries. I'll give you an example. I went to one country recently. I won't give you the names. We were doing a mission to look at the lifetime extension programmes for a plant in that country. So the agency puts a team in and we look at their engineering programmes, technical programmes. We look at their maintenance schedules, their safety case, their people plans. Is everything gonna be in place so they can be sustainable for the next 10 or 15 years? And actually, in some of these countries, the regulators look at the agency report to kind of poke around, is this organisation ready for life extension? So it's quite a key political kind of mission that we're running here. So we go into this country the day after we started the mission, which is a Tuesday, the Wednesday morning, the neighbouring country lodged a formal protest with the UN and with the IAA that the agency was gonna verify the life extension of this plant and this other country was totally opposed to this nuclear power plant running. They thought it was unsafe and it was five miles from their boundary border. So neighbouring countries are a key factor as a stakeholder. International organisations, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. So anybody who wants to be can be a stakeholder. You don't get to pick. And this is ever changing and the priorities will change so you need to feature that in a stakeholder plan. You need to run a really live stakeholder plan with experts to do this. Okay, I'm just gonna run another little video. So we just talked about stakeholders, who they are, what they do. We're gonna kind of now lead into how should we talk to stakeholders? So I want you to watch this video because this is really interesting from a number of aspects that we've talked about but certainly from the stakeholder involvement area. An accident in the water cooling system at the Three Mile Island nuclear power plant in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania forced the company to call a general emergency and shut down part of the plant for an unspecified period. It roared with a tremendous roar of releasing steam. It woke me up and I looked out the window and I saw this huge column going up in the air and roaring. Everything is under control. There is and was no danger to public health and safety. There was a small release of radiation to the environment. All safety equipment functioned properly. Metropolitan Edison has been monitoring the air and the vicinity of the plant constantly since the incident. No increase in normal radiation levels has been detected. And the situation is more complex than the company first led us to believe. We are taking more tests and at this point we believe there is still no danger to the public health. Metropolitan Edison has given you and us conflicting information. The new information is this. The accident sent ionized radiation beaming through the plant four foot thick walls. Consequently the metal shield that protects the nuclear fuel may have been damaged. There's a bunch of leakage radiation is coming from our facility building and some water that's just accumulated on the floor. We're presently pumping that up. That'll be contained in cash. And once that's accomplished well then the radiation level should stop. We have absolutely no question about the safety of nuclear plants as a result of this mishap. We do not refer to it as a nuclear accident because it was not that. And as I say all these systems went into operation as they should have. We think the record of the nuclear industry stands for itself. We do have a new development. It is not clear yet the extent of this development. There was an uncontrolled release of radiation from the facility approximately 20 minutes ago. We were notified by the island. Right now I think the wind has shifted and I don't know I'm getting my radiological man in now. He's supposed to come in and we have a geiger counter. We want to check things out. And instructed them to develop a higher state of readiness with the possibility of evacuation. The whole idea of being able to event. We are advising the people on the basis of information on the basis of a recommendation from the chairman of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission that they simply ought to stay indoors as a precautionary measure, you know, until they hear further word from it. That's simple. Yeah, a lot of people are leaving the Harrisburg area right now. My own family is on their way to New York City right now to stay with relatives. A lot of people, the gas stations are flooded. The banks were busy people were throwing some of their money so they could get out of here. We closed all the windows in the building like we've been told and we've turned off all our unit events, heating and conditioning system. The release that was made, there may have been xenon, but xenon can be released to water if it's within acceptable limits. The release that was made yesterday was within the limits that were acceptable. And was, I don't know why we need to, we need to tell you each and everything that we do. Specifically when we make it. I don't know, people heard it on their desk. They were playing. This is a hard one. They used to say it was a relation. This is a hard one. Well, we feel a responsibility for millions of people living around the plant. These have informed us every last facet of this operation. We certainly feel responsible to the people that live around the plant. But one of the things that the people that live around the plant have to recognize is that we have to get on with our job. We're trying to keep everyone informed on an ongoing basis. We're on special alert. We don't know if there are going to be further uncontrolled emissions. I don't like the sound of the pressurization letting that bubble creep down into the core. Not yet. I don't think we want to be pressurized yet. Some of the key issues that we talked about, how you involve your stakeholders and how you talk to them, there's some real classic examples that's quite not what to do. Especially the line, I don't know why we need to speak to you about this. So they've got all this news. Can you imagine your response going? You've got all the TV stations with nuclear Armageddon posted on them. And the guy that's running the plant says, I don't know why we need to talk to you. We just need to get on with our job. So some real classic cases of what you don't do. Unfortunately, we've been able to learn those lessons from through my island. That was through my island and wind scale and even Chernobyl about how we speak to the public. It's a major challenge for newcomer countries speaking to the public. I think the one thing sometimes it gets underestimated is how intelligent the public is. And the public really are much more intelligent than we give them credit for in lots of these areas. It's a major concern for newcomer countries. So embarking countries, you really have to work hard to get that acceptance. Decision makers themselves underestimate the public stakeholder challenges. Just by going out to talk to them might not fix anything. It might make your situation worse. So you have to have a very good stakeholder involvement and managing strategy. They're heavily influenced by the legacy of the past. So what happened at Chernobyl? What happened at through my island? You said it was safe. You spent billions of dollars telling me how safe it was. And look what happened. Fukushima cost billions of dollars. And look what happened when a big wave hit it. So there's lots of legacy issues. There's a fear of often anti-nuclear people will subconsciously link a nuclear explosion to an atomic power plant. Sometimes their presentation to start with an atomic bomb. Have you ever seen that from the presentation? So psychologically, there's lots of psychological management going on. And public trust. You're the government. You're the officials. We never believe what the government tells us. You never tell us the truth. So you really have to understand what their legacy issues are and what the public trust is in the government. Very challenging. Lots of lessons to be learned in all of these areas. So Fukushima happened in a very mature nuclear power program scheme with a very advanced community. They were used to high tech stuff. They had a pretty good understanding of risk. Even there, the nuclear sector didn't get their communications right. Some key messages. Why is nuclear energy essential for the country? What does it do? Really important that message goes across. You really have to demonstrate that all these options have been analyzed. And often, certainly I was used to an environment where we talked about nuclear energy being part of an overall low carbon energy mix. So we had some hydro. We had some wind. We had some solar. We had nuclear. Low carbon. Comparative assessment of benefits and risks is really important. And we were just discussing ourselves, actually, some veterans of the nuclear. We're honored to have some of these veterans here. Even we had some interesting debates about risk. How do we talk to the public on risk? Over coffee. You need to use plain language. I think we've got a quote in here. Trust me, I'm a scientist. I know what I'm doing. Almost what the guy said on the screen. It's really useful to get it presented by a trusted source. And that's about involving those sources in some of the discussions. Understanding the concept of risk is so important. I don't know if any of you guys attended, but we held there about two months ago a technical meeting on state ground involvement in Vienna. And we got people to come and do presentations. And they said, can you give us feedback? Because these are what we give some of our public outreach meetings. Nearly all of them said, this plant we're going to build is completely safe. It's so safe you don't have to worry. So talking about safe and how safe the plants were is a real challenge for embarking countries. Because nothing is completely safe. There is risk of everything. So presenting that model in a simple language that people accept and understand is very challenging. And typically it takes a long time. It takes years and years to build up that kind of, yes, I believe you now. You've been saying it often enough in different ways. I kind of believe in you've demonstrated it to me. We've got some risk graphs on in a minute. No technologies without risks and waste. So often you can compare to chemical industry wastes. You can compare to some of the risks of other industries as part of those discussions. Energy security and economics are really good points of that argument. By having nuclear as some of your base load capability, you guarantee electricity for your developing industries. The economics, you know, it's sound employment, long-term employment for countries that often don't have those opportunities in other industries. It's actually one of the most environmental safety industries that exist in the world. Although you wouldn't know that, listen to the anti-nuclear people. You know, we're one of the only industries that thinks about how we're going to treat our waste in 100 years before we even build the plan. That's an amazing commitment to environmental safety. You know, 100 years' time when none of us are here. The company might not even be here, but where's you still plan? How are you going to process the weight? How are you going to manage it? How are you going to legislate for it? A tremendous commitment to environmental safety. And operating safety and public health. So really explaining to the public about what the radiation exposures are from discharges, if effluent, gaseous, liquid solids, and the exposures to the public. Interestingly enough, have any of you heard of the nuclear worker syndrome? You know what I mean by the nuclear worker syndrome? So it's really interesting. So what do you think? If you thought there was a risk of radiation exposure to human beings, who do you think would be the first affected group? The workers. If you're working in the plant, you're going to have a higher exposure than the general public. Which generally is true, you're going to have a slightly higher exposure. Not much. So when they run the numbers, statistically on health, cancer, early deaths through heart disease, typically in almost all countries, the nuclear workers have a lower cancer rate, have a lower heart disease rate. They've got that healthy worker syndrome. Now arguably, the anti-nuclear people say, ah, that's because you do health screening and you only pick healthy people to work in the industry. Which in part is true, we do health screening, but that doesn't, you know, in my experience, the number of countries, the number of companies, that's not about excluding people who are unfit. That's making sure your fits to work. Is that correct? Professor Condado, is that true? Healthy worker syndrome? We're very lucky actually, this is how this is a senior member of the ICRP. So that's a world commission that decides what radiation exposure we can get. So you're very lucky to have somebody from that organisation come and talk. Anyway, it's another story. So here's some facts. Let's talk about fatality facts. So this is taken from some US stuff, Centre for Environment and Risk Management, University of East Anglia, some stuff they did around sustainable development. Electricity generation counts for about 40% of total primary energy. So let's look at coal fatalities from 70 to 92, natural gas hydro, which is significant and nuclear. That's just amazing, isn't it? So workers, workers in the public, public and workers. Amazing kind of comparison. So if we were going to base our decision on electricity generation on risk of death to the public or workers, we wouldn't even consider those, would you? We're in two orders of magnitude high. That's real statistical facts. I made this up. This is really interesting. This is a graph taken from the UK and their attitude to new nuclear build. So the question was, to what extent would you support or oppose a building of new nuclear power stations in Britain to replace those which are being phased out over the next few years? This would ensure the same proportion of nuclear energy is retained. Because the UK nuclear industry said, look, we want to balance low-carbon energy model for security. So we'll have some wind, some hydro, some solar, which is a bit of a joke in the UK, you don't get much done, and some nuclear. So what you can see is, firstly, there's 2002 to 2014. It takes a period of time to get the right kind of belief in the public. The red is oppose green is support. So it takes, you have to put years of working to get this. You have to build this trust up. Because the public's smart. They're not dumb. You need to really, really show them a build up. That's the first point I learnt when I looked at this graph. The other one was here. What happened here? Fukushima. So the public dropped from 47 to 30%. It was still positive though. And opposition went up in the short term and then dropped back down again. So what do you think happened here in the UK? This is really interesting. There's papers written on this, really interesting. Social science stuff. So the day after Fukushima, the CEO of the nuclear generating organisation, and some of his equivalents in the other nuclear organisations, went on the TV and they went right into the limelight with questions from all the nuclear opposition and questions from a very smart journalist asking what happened at Fukushima, could it happen here? What are you going to do about it? And they were very humble. They said, look, this is a surprise. We didn't know this was going to happen. We thought we'd put all the steps in place for the design of the plant. Clearly, there's other lessons to learn. We'll look at this event. We're very humble. We'll take those lessons away and we'll build it back into our plant. But we don't have any answers at the moment. They were just straight up and honest. Our plants are different. It won't happen here. We don't have big waves in Britain. None of that stuff. They just said, look, we don't know. This is a real challenge. We need to take that away. So they were very open. They were very transparent. And the British public thought, okay, that's fair enough. We believe you. We trust you. So it takes a long time to get into that position to be able to make that happen. We're an interesting graph. Do you think the German graph was like that? I don't think so. And the other interesting point is this crossover. When did it start to become kind of acceptable? Kind of 2003, 2004-ish. So that's kind of 26, 25 years after Chernobyl. It's a long time. So the implications of a big accident you can see in that. So, some lessons to learn. For newcomers, you need to have an understanding of the benefits and the risks and make it clear to the public. You have to build confidence and trust. And it's not easy to build, but it is easy to break. Ongoing activities through all the milestone phases. So you need to... Your stakeholder plan needs to be really, really active all the time. Some organizations are using marketing companies, which maybe isn't... have marketing companies come with you and work on your plan, which isn't a bad idea. But you have to be... You have to maintain integrity of the plan if you do not. Because this isn't just about conning the public. It's about genuinely getting their support. One size doesn't fit also. You need to tailor it to suit your requirements. Small groups are much easier to work with than large groups. Often, if you go to a large group audience, you can get bombarded by anti-nuclear protesters and you take away the opportunity to communicate effectively. You need to meet them on their territory. You need to get the communities involved. You need to listen to understand their concerns. So this is a two-way thing there. I have to say, I think this is really important for an operating organization. Having a critic tell you what they think every quarter isn't a bad thing really. It makes you really keep on your toes in your business. So for me personally, actually I quite enjoyed going to these meetings eventually. I quite listened to what the critics thought and what their viewpoints were. So I agreed with some of their viewpoints. I wasn't obviously not anti-nuclear, but I understand what they're getting at. So having organizations do that is not a bad thing really. Somebody hold an emirate over you. Not many industries get the opportunity to learn from that. To be frank, if you paid consultants to do that, it would cost you a hell of a lot more money. So it's not a bad thing. There is no shortcut towards gaining maintaining public acceptance and nuclear energy. They follow the media. They follow the media to see what the voters want. Media can and will influence perceptions of truth. This was written before Trump, but this false news stuff, Brexit and the US they will influence. Half truth, misinformation, one side of views can be publicly accepted if repeated enough. Decisions in modern society are not left only to experts and the media will choose their own experts. So potentially the media can be quite powerful advocates of your point of view. Persistent public information with clear, honest messaging by the media can have positive results in the long term. This is really traditional and modern media. So understand the influence of social media on the public. You did emergency planning this week, didn't you? This week, emergency planning? So one of the things I was involved in emergency planning when I was having my career with Junior and we used to have very elaborate emergency plans and if we had an event, we had media centers, we had them set up with TV cameras and all sorts of issues and then we called in some people from the fire service, actually some of their experts managing the public and we said, what do you think about our shiny new media center? TV cameras, we can put the press in there and we can put the press there and the kind of police and the fire people kind of laughed at us and I said, what do you really think? There's an event at one of your power plants. The media are going to sit here 25 miles away and talk to you. No, no, the media are going to be hanging from helicopters on your site fence. They're going to be trying to cut the wire to get into report live from the scene. So the traditional media and the power of the media are very significant. If you're having an event on one of your plants then you can bet your bottom dollar that you will have members of the local community or your employees or some anti-nuclear people taking a video of it and posting it live on Facebook or social media. The minute is happening. So that brings a whole different perspective to understanding that public interface. So we've got lots of guidance on this. I'm going to just briefly go through one which we would recommend and this is a bit of a foundation document. Have a read of this document. It identifies the six principles. So accountability, recognize stakeholder involvement purpose, understand stakeholder issues, concern to build trust. So there's some tips in here about openness and transparency and understanding of the evolving role. So we've got this document. There's a number of other documents that sit above this and indeed there's a whole new suite coming out on stakeholder involvement. One in particular for embarking countries is the infrastructure team. So the team that Shaun works with that was here earlier, they're running once specifically for embarking countries. It talks about all things we've talked about. Accountability cycle, have that open communication, trying to minimize accusations of secrecy and develop trust. It talks about really understand the purpose of stakeholder involvement is so you get to understand your stakeholders as much as them understanding what we want them to understand. It's very rare you're getting consensus or 100%, but you want to understand, you want them to understand the basis of your decisions and you want to understand the basis of their concerns as part of that process. Here's an example of them. I'll just put this up quickly. Here's an example of how the agency tries to recognize that we have millions of stakeholders who will read our web pages if there's an event anywhere. Here's one, not from a power station but from a release of some low-level radioactive iodine gas. I think it was in Hungary. This is about inform, reassure, explain, take action. This is almost a systematic way in which we try to put together our public information releases. Very straightforward. Inform them what the problem is, reassure them, explain, tell them what action you're taking and then be very transparent about what's going to happen in the future. I'll show you that in detail. Don't worry I'm a scientist, I know what's happening, everything's under control. Tradition, that's what we think though because we're all scientists and engineers and we know what we're talking about. It's a really common kind of thing. As we saw in the TMI clip, in no case should a stakeholder difficulty to understand be an excuse to withhold information because the public are really smart. The public's got doctors and astronauts and astrophysicists and all these, they're pretty smart. People are working the factories manual workers, they're pretty smart. I understand about life, they understand intuition. It's really important that we don't think we know better than them. Here's a really interesting graph. This demonstrates, really understand the kind of marketplace you've got with stakeholder. This is men and women and they were asked a question, this isn't from the US, they were asked a question. I'd like you to tell me if you think the US should increase the amount of this type of energy or decrease it or produce the same amount. The public were asked about nuclear energy. Men were asked, do you think we should increase it? Stay the same or decrease it? So obviously, men thought they should increase it. Small number decrease it. Women are much different circumstances. There will be different in perception amongst men and women on the same question because of what drives men and women our biological norm and environmental norm. So that's really interesting because it's not just the group of the public but you may find men and women have different issues that need to be understood and explained. Probably the most important, actually the most important comment the stakeholders and the leadership build trust. So we talked about risk and the challenges of it. They'll make up their own minds about risk. They'll rely on people they trust if they haven't had experience of it. Trust and credibility is fundamentally important. You can demonstrate that by technical competence and adherence to high standards in performing and operating. I would like to think, certainly the CEOs and all the big guns from the nuclear industry in the UK post Fukushima sat in front of the television cameras in front of the UK public and said, we understand this but we're not sure what happened. We have to go and look at our plants to see what we need to do to fix. So trust and transparency was there. As you saw from the public perception of the graph, two months on where nuclear power was largely acceptable and very easy to destroy that by underventing events. So trust is probably the golden ticket really in any of this stuff. Lots of, some of you guys hand up if you've been involved in a public meeting like this to discuss nuclear power. Some of them could be really good, some of them could be very challenging. So you need to prepare for them, the people you've got in the audience, the people you've got alongside you, you need to anticipate where that's going to flow and have contingencies in place for that. The old kind of communications always decide what we're going to do, announce it and then defend that announcement. We would like to move away from that and drive openness and transparency, get the public involved in the decision making. Much more engaging, much more interactive, much more cooperative. So social media, hugely powerful, hugely powerful in all our lives and in all forms. I think the most important comment on this slide for me is one, it's a massive tool for nuclear communicators. So this morning, I flipped through Twitter, there's half a dozen IAA events running around the world. I can read about all of those right now, there's another one. I wouldn't have to wait weeks and weeks and weeks to go to get that information. So I can see what's happening everywhere and so can the world. The younger generation, so I'm like really, oh, you guys are really young. So the younger generation in here are decision makers of the future. Something that will influence their decision making is social media, so you need to understand how we involve ourselves in social media in a positive way. And there's actually lots of previous events that we can consider and review. We've done some today, haven't we? We looked at Winscale, we looked at Three Mile Island, we looked at Chernobyl, all the lessons that we've talked about, we've tried to build into how we run the industry. And this, I'm really, the social media is one that I can't underestimate, really. 96%, this is a year old or so, so probably more than that. 96% of 18 to 35 year olds are on social media. 3.5 billion pieces of information on Facebook. I can't get my head around that, 3.5 billion. So social media is one of the most powerful communication tools that argue the most powerful communication tools of the future. So we really need to understand how it works and get in amongst that to really make sure we get our messages over. So IAA support. I talked about SAM's website. I've been telling it, no pressure SAM, but I've told everybody about your website. We do have a number of publications that can help. I mean, we've got one on some specialist areas, environmental remediation projects. So what special areas might you want to look up there? Building a national position for new nuclear programs. Stakeholder involvement in decommissioning. So there are some focus publications in this area as well with specific lessons for specific groups. Okay. What's a stakeholder and what's stakeholder involvement? So we talked about stakeholder involvement whoever it wants to be, really. People who have an interest in the topic. Stakeholder involvement is making openness, transparency and trust in engaging them in communication about the topic of interest. We talked about the importance of stakeholder being vital to nuclear power programs and we talked about the six principles of involvement. Accountability, recognize the purpose of stakeholder involvement activities, understand stakeholder issues, build trust, openness and transparency and recognize it has to evolve, methodology has to evolve to support what we're trying to achieve. Okay. Any questions?