78

Int. J. Nuclear Law, Vol. 4, No. 1, 2013

Public awareness and stakeholder engagement in

Indias nuclear energy regulatory process
Lukasz Dariusz Mlynarkiewicz
Sosnkowskiego Street 7a/5,
80-041 Gdansk, Poland
Email: mlynarkiewicz@gmail.com
Abstract: The accident at the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant has
shown that the generation of nuclear energy involves an inherent risk of failure
irrespective of undertaken precautions and safety measures. Therefore,
members of the public the principal stakeholders shall be provided
with significant opportunities for their engagement in the nuclear regulatory
process. In general, openness for public participation not only strengthens
the legitimacy of regulatory decisions, but it also establishes trust and
understanding in reference to policy-makers activities. This paper analyses
public involvement system in the nuclear regulatory process in India.
In reference to the best international practices settled by the IAEA and
national authorities like the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the author
recommends certain solutions for the improvement of the public participation
mechanism regarding the Indian nuclear decision-making process.
Keywords: public participation; nuclear regulatory process; regulatory process
in India; stakeholder involvement; nuclear education; public hearings; safety
standards; nuclear law; nuclear energy.
Reference to this paper should be made as follows: Mlynarkiewicz, L.D.
(2013) Public awareness and stakeholder engagement in Indias nuclear
energy regulatory process, Int. J. Nuclear Law, Vol. 4, No. 1, pp.7894.
Biographical notes: Lukasz Mlynarkiewicz holds a Masters degree in law of
the University of Gdansk (Poland). He is a graduate of the International School
of Nuclear Law (Montpellier) and the Academy of Young Diplomats of the
European Academy of Diplomacy with specialisation in the International
Institutions (Warsaw). He serves as a Board Member of the Centre for Political
and Legal Studies based in Gdansk (Poland) and also a member of the
International Nuclear Law Association. Lukasz is a receipt on the Scholarship
of Ministry of Science and Higher Education in Poland for outstanding
academic achievements, awarded many times for his outstanding contribution
to scientific activity.

Introduction: understanding the need for public involvement

On 11 March 2011, an 8.99.0 magnitude earthquake struck the north-east coast of

Japan, triggering a massive tsunami and affecting the cooling system of Fukushima
Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant (Japan Meteorological Agency, 2011). As it has been
pointed out, the plant was tested and designed to withstand only 7.9 magnitude
earthquakes (International Atomic Energy Agency, 2011d). Thus, it might be said that
Copyright 2013 Inderscience Enterprises Ltd.

Public awareness and stakeholder engagement

79

the operator failed to anticipate the worst-case scenario, even though, a tsunami of a
comparable magnitude had hit over 1,000 years ago. Nonetheless, as the accident has
shown, unpredictable force majeure events of which occurrence and consequences can
neither be avoided nor overcome may threaten nuclear reactors.
The disaster at Japans Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant has brought the past
tragedies of Three Mile Island (1979) and Chernobyl (1986) into the spotlight once
again. As it turned out, despite constant development of technical solutions, all nuclear
reactors are still vulnerable to the risk of a catastrophic failure irrespective of precautions
and safety measures. Therefore, public concerns about the generation of nuclear energy
which have been raised after the aforementioned misfortune are fully justified and
cannot be underestimated. Moreover, thanks to this lesson public involvement in the
nuclear regulatory process shall be greater than ever before. In reference to the nuclear
energy development, members of the public bear an inherent risk of an accident, which
may be caused by a single failure. Sudhinder Thakur distinguished scientist and fellow
at Nuclear Power Corporation of India Limited (NPCIL) suggests that after Fukushima
the nuclear community should restore public confidence in nuclear safety since public
perception about the safety of nuclear power, has taken a beating (Thakur, 2011).
Hence, the principal stakeholders shall be provided with significant opportunities for
their participation in the decision-making process, as provision of adequate information
is no longer seen as entirely sufficient.
The information system shall be recognised as the first stage of a multi-step
procedure of reaching public involvement. Undoubtedly, not all information should be
made available to the general public (e.g. proprietary or safeguards information;
International Atomic Energy Agency, 2010a) so that it has to be assured that under no
circumstances safety loses its primacy. Nonetheless, in reference to the particular project,
public needs to have an easy access to any information which do not fall under specific
exemptions laid out in the law. This especially refers to agendas or schedules of an every
planned meeting or public hearing which should be made available to the society within a
time frame that allows for its meaningful use. Consequently, any important information
shall be put at publics disposal in a routine, transparent and timely manner without
undue delay. Such mechanism should include communication tools like: formal
briefings, public meetings, staff accessibility, external correspondence, reporter contacts
and much more.
Direct involvement, which is considered to be a desired state, should be a
combination of information campaigns, public consultations and other forms of
participation. It is crucial to provide broad range of individuals and organisations that
have legitimate interests in impacts of nuclear projects with an opportunity to express
their concerns and receive credible answers. This should be done at all steps of nuclear
regulatory process, i.e. from siting to decommissioning of each nuclear facility, as well as
when modifying an old one.
This paper is an attempt to make the assessment of the public involvement in Indias
nuclear energy regulatory process. In order to do so, author presents a comparative
perspective, in many cases referring to mechanisms settled by International Atomic
Energy Agency or The Nuclear Energy Agency (OECD/NEA), which are described in
the second chapter of the article. Moreover, some issues concerning Indian public
involvement policy are compared with those established by the US Nuclear Regulatory
Commission or the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission. Protests against the opening
of nuclear power reactors in Koodankulam and against Jaitapur Nuclear Power Project

80

L.D. Mlynarkiewicz

have shown that not everything has been done to develop the public confidence.
Stakeholders have neither received fully comprehensive answers for their concerns, nor
have they been equipped with adequate tools to express them. Therefore, communication
and consultation with the public failed at some point. It may be stated that the public is
being passively informed instead of directly involved into the nuclear regulatory process.
In some cases, public hearings were held improperly and conducted without observing
provisions of Indian statutes or best international practices. These practices are constantly
evolving, mainly being developed by International Atomic Energy Agency in so-called
Safety Standards or by The Nuclear Energy Agency in many reports, for example issued
by the Working Group on Public Communication of Nuclear Regulatory Organisations
(WGPC).1
In the authors view, based on the literature review of public involvement process in
India and in comparison with best practices elsewhere, there is a great need to strengthen
transparency and accountability of the decision-making procedure. Irregularities are not
only due to insufficient information system, which should provide members of the public
with data that is understandable and easily accessible for any citizen. It is also caused by
the lack of education programmes and information campaigns at national level, which
would improve public awareness of nuclear issues since interested parties often have
incorrect perceptions of them. However, it has to be pointed out that many initiatives for
this purpose have recently been undertaken in India and further development seems to be
just a matter of time. A small steps strategy may prove supremely cost-effective, thus
even smaller initiatives of Indian decision-makers should be appreciated.
The author gives also an insight into various public involvement tools, which
successfully function in other countries like USA or Canada, and in reference to
international good practices recommends certain solutions for Indian public engagement
system. Additionally, it is analysed why the nuclear regulatory process should be put
under public scrutiny and what factors may negatively affect the communication with
stakeholders.

General guidelines for stakeholder engagement IAEA Safety

Standards

Openness for public participation not only strengthens the legitimacy of regulatory
decisions, but it also establishes trust and understanding in reference to policy-makers
activities. This has been widely recognised by the International Atomic Energy Agency
(IAEA) in its many important publications. For instance, IAEA Specific Safety Guide
(No. SSG-G 12) entitled Licensing Process for Nuclear Installations determines that:
[2.43] Transparency, along with public participation and involvement in the regulatory
process, reinforces the credibility of the regulatory body and enhances local public
confidence in the nuclear regulatory regime.
The IAEA plays a significant role in the nuclear community by stipulating and
developing so-called Safety Standards, which are of a regulatory nature and cover issues
associated with nuclear safety. The value of these is undisputed since Safety Standards
not only include relevant and practical norms of conduct, but they are also supported by
consistent and well-founded arguments. Although they are not legally binding, Member
States may adopt them at their own discretion. The standards are only binding on States

Public awareness and stakeholder engagement

81

which are assisted by IAEA in a particular operation and also on the IAEA in relation to
its own activities. Gathered in the Safety Standards Series, they are separated into three
different categories and described as follows:
1

Safety Fundamentals reflect the fundamental safety objective and principles of

protection and safety.

Safety Requirements establish the requirements that must be met to ensure the
protection of people and the environment, based on the objectives and principles of
the Safety Fundamentals.

Safety Guides refer to best practices by providing recommendations and guidance

on how to comply with the safety requirements, indicating a worldwide consensus
that it is necessary to take the measures recommended.

Although each State will have its own procedures for the stakeholder engagement, there
are some fundamental rules which are recommended to be incorporated by national
authorities. As suggested by the International Nuclear Safety Advisory Group,
stakeholder involvement should cover all major nuclear regulatory decisions, which are,
inter alia: incorporation and development of legislation defining nuclear regulation or the
national energy plan, decision to install a new power plant or other nuclear facility,
dismantling and closure of nuclear installations, environmental restoration of old nuclear
sites; management and transport of radioactive material, security of nuclear sites and
material (to a limited extent) (International Nuclear Safety Advisory Group, 2006, p.8).
As for an issue of public involvement, there are many guidelines which are placed
throughout the whole system of the IAEA Safety Standards. As a matter of fact, such
requirements can be found on every stage of the nuclear fuel cycle process. Sample set of
IAEA Safety Standards, dealing with an issue of stakeholder participation, is presented
below:

Establishing the Safety Infrastructure for a Nuclear Power Programme (No. SSG16) actions 39-47 Transparency and openness devoted to actions which are
recommended to be completed towards the full implementation of relevant IAEA
Safety Requirements in the field of societal acceptance and accessibility to
information.

Licensing Process for Nuclear Installations Specific Safety Guide (No. SSG-G 12)
in the part 2.42-2.45 entitled Public Participation devoted to stakeholder
involvement during the licensing process.

Organisation and Staffing of The Regulatory Body for Nuclear Facilities (No. GSG-1.1) para. 3.39 entitled Public Information about the necessity of establishment
of a specialised public information unit.

Governmental, Legal and Regulatory Framework for Safety (No. GSR Part 1)
Requirement 34: Promotion of regulations and guides to interested parties
[para. 4.61-4.62]; Requirement 36: Communication and consultation with interested
parties [para. 4.66-4.69] about the establishment of appropriate means of informing
and consulting stakeholders about possible radiation risks, as well as about the
processes and decisions of the regulatory body.

82

L.D. Mlynarkiewicz

Fundamental Safety Principles (No. SF-1) Principle 2 entitled Role of the

government in para. 3.10 stipulates that the regulatory body must consult and
inform parties in the vicinity, public and other interested parties about the safety
aspects, either health or environmental, of facilities and activities or about the
regulatory body.

The Management System for Facilities and Activities (No. GS-R-3) Requirements:
3.6 and 5.26 about the satisfaction of interested parties in the context of management
responsibility and about a communication during the process implementation.

Radiation Protection and Safety of Radiation Sources (No. GSR Part 3 Interim)
Requirement 3 [para. 2.30 (f)] devoted to public involvement in the system of
protection and safety of radiation sources.

Apart from Safety Standard Series, the IAEA issues many other publications, which
provide practical advice to States on how to meet their international requirements and
obligations. There are three major publications produced by IAEA which deal with an
issue of public participation: Stakeholder Involvement in nuclear issues (INSAG-20),
Stakeholder involvement throughout the life cycle of nuclear facilities (No. NG-T-1.4)
and An Overview of Stakeholder Involvement in Decommissioning (No. NW-T-2.5).
India has been a Member State of the IAEA since 1957, therefore it is crucial to
analyse Indian public participation system in accordance with specified Safety Standards,
which provide best international practices. In addition, Indian Atomic Energy Regulatory
Board has its own codes and guides, but none of them relates to the stakeholder
involvement in the decision-making procedure. Hence, it is necessary to refer to IAEA
Standards since these may provide an outline for Indian legislature. As a matter of fact,
there is still much to improve in India to fulfill requirements settled by IAEA Safety
Standards. The purpose of these guidelines is not only to facilitate the establishment of
nuclear programmes, but they are also important from the societal acceptance
perspective, which in accordance with IAEA Specific Safety Guide (No. SSG-16) is
a prerequisite for the implementation of nuclear power programme (International
Atomic Energy Agency, 2011a, para. 2.84). In the event of neglecting this important
matter, further development of nuclear programme might be very difficult, if not
impossible. The public, as a main stakeholder, should be given a realistic and credible
picture of benefits as well as risks involved, and of the environmental impacts of the
operation of the nuclear power plant and associated activities (International Atomic
Energy Agency, 2011). Thus, learning the failures and successes from others might be
the best way to identify methods of promoting efficient engagement.2

Public involvement in the nuclear regulatory process

The public engagement should be viewed as something more than just the right to be
informed or to object through the system of political representatives or opinion polls.
One of the most important issues concerning good governance is that the decision-maker
shall provide stakeholders with ability to define and pursue their interests. As described
in the Safety Standards Series No. GS-G-1.1: The public will only have confidence in
the safe use of nuclear technologies if regulatory processes are conducted and decisions
are made openly (International Atomic Energy Agency, 2002a), whereas No. SSG-16 in

Public awareness and stakeholder engagement

83

Action 40 stipulates that: The government should establish a process to ensure that the
comments arising from consultation with relevant interested parties are considered, and
it should communicate the results of these considerations to the interested parties
(International Atomic Energy Agency, 2011a, Action 40, p. 38).
So far, India has established legally binding mechanisms related to public
involvement in the nuclear regulatory process only in reference to Prior Environmental
Clearance procedure specified in the Environment (Protection) Rules (1986) and the
Environmental Impact Assessment Notification (2006) issued by Ministry of
Environment and Forests (MoEF) (The Environmental Impact Assessment Notification,
2006). In these terms, the Atomic Energy Act from 1962 conveys the impression to be
outdated for the current nuclear reality as there are no means for stakeholders
participation in this statute.
Furthermore, it should be realised that Indian nuclear polity and nuclear engagement
mechanisms are of specific nature. Thus, public participation regimes for nuclear
regulatory process should be institutionalised in the separate statute, which would make
them mandatory for national authorities. For example, US Nuclear Regulatory
Commission set forth Rules of practice for domestic licensing proceedings and issuance
of orders which govern conducting of almost all proceedings (in particular hearing
procedures) under the Atomic Energy Act (1954) and the Energy Reorganisation Act
(1974) for: rulemaking under these acts; granting, suspending, revoking, amending, or
taking other action with respect to any license, construction permit, or application to
transfer a license etc.3 In order to interpret the NRCs Rules of Practice, the Commission
and other relevant national authorities, issued a digest of significant decisions made by
these bodies, which can be found in United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Staff
Practice and Procedure Digest: Commission, Appeal Board and Licensing Board
Decisions July 1972 September 2010 (NUREG-0386, Digest 16). There are
generally three ways to participate in the NRC hearing process and this can be done by:
requesting intervention or a hearing, requesting to make an oral limited appearance or
submitting a written limited statement. All major provisions as for the hearing process
can be found in the document Rules of practice for domestic licensing proceedings and
issuance of orders, which is divided into fifteen subparts. It is a very complex and
detailed set of rules, which includes not only basic issues like hearing initiation or
availability of documents, but we may also find subparts devoted to e.g. Special
Procedures Applicable to Adjudicatory Proceedings Involving Restricted Data and/or
National Security Information. De lege ferenda, as for direct participation, Indian
regulator should implement independent statutory basis.
Moreover, there is an urgent need for a greater transparency in the policymaking
process. In particular, Indian decision-makers should establish an effective procedure to
ensure pre-legislative scrutiny by the citizenry, as it is a pre-requisite of responsible and
participatory democracy. Although, Indian Right to Information Act (2005) imposes
general obligation on the public authority to publish all relevant facts while formulating
important policies or announcing the decisions which affect the public,4 it does not lay
down any practical schemes, which might be successfully used in reference to
stakeholder involvement in the nuclear regulatory procedure. Because nuclear regime is
of peculiar nature, it should be realised that general provisions are not always suitable
and there is a necessity to create specific terms of sharing information with the public.
The Indian Right to Information Act stipulates a legal duty, however, there are some
examples of disobeying the general provision and thus it fails to fulfill its role.

84

L.D. Mlynarkiewicz

For instance, Nuclear Liability Bill drafting process which was criticised by national
media like The Hindu magazine serves such evidence. As it was pointed out, the
legislation procedure of that bill had been affected by the lack of transparency from the
very beginning. The major objection was that the decision-makers formed the law in
secrecy, without concerning any suggestions (Varadarajan, 2010). As a matter of fact,
acts made without prior consultation with stakeholders often meet strong protests after
approval of Parliament. Thus, Indias members of the public should have an opportunity
to consult and to give feedback on proposed legislations before their enactment. As
indicated in the report devoted to stakeholder involvement in nuclear issues: credibility is
very hard to earn and very easy to lose (INSAG20, 2006). Therefore, public engagement
in India should never be treated as a persuasion campaign by which policy-makers try to
gain public approval for their decisions. In particular, every draft bill shall be placed in
the public domain in a routine and timely manner, so that it is possible to receive
valuable comments and suggestions. Finally, all comments and suggestions should be
publicly available and it might be considered whether they should be appended to text of
the bill before the act is adopted.
Undoubtedly, public involvement is not an entirely cost-free undertaking since it may
lengthen the duration of the decision-making procedure; however, stakeholders input is
invaluable for many reasons. For example, it is an effective enforcement tool to achieve a
high level of safety performance since plant operations are under public scrutiny.
Creation of such awareness, not only compels the operators to be more efficient but it
also encourages maintaining all the highest standards.

Long-term approach towards education

Effective public involvement shall be recognised as a process of coordinated activities

that seeks to generate a broad understanding of public interests and values. Therefore, it
cannot be achieved through any single event or loosely connected series of events
(US Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 2002a). Long-term approach to the education
programme should lead to growing societal awareness on nuclear-energy and safetyrelated matters. This would enable Indian members of the public to participate more
actively and consciously in the nuclear regulatory process.
When it comes to Indian approach to nuclear education and its assessment, it has to
be divided into two separate categories. Firstly, public education programme at national
level, which refers to improvement of comprehension of a basic knowledge related to
nuclear technology. The second category is devoted to the academic education system,
which is a prerequisite for further development of Indian nuclear energy research. Such
distinction is necessary in order to provide more accurate evaluation and objective
judgement of educational performance in India.

4.1 Building a common public awareness

The establishment of educational programmes is indispensable to build general public
awareness on nuclear technology. Without a long-term information campaign, it is not
possible to convince members of the public about soundness and benefits of the
generation of nuclear energy. Therefore, policy-makers approach should be more far-

Public awareness and stakeholder engagement

85

reaching than being focused on here-and-now. If so, there is a great chance that in a
couple of years, the society will consider nuclear facilities as a reliable tool for energy
purposes.
Generally, when it comes to public awareness on nuclear technology, there are
several myths to be dispelled since interested parties very often have incorrect
perceptions. In fact, for the vast majority of people, nuclear power is a black box
technology and it is therefore a big challenge for Indian nuclear community to give a
clearer picture of it. For this purpose, it is necessary to conduct surveys in order to
determine the level of interest throughout Indian society in nuclear-related matters.
Among the basic facts to be discussed openly are information on e.g. radiation, nuclear
wastes management or environmental issues (International Nuclear Safety Advisory
Group, 2006, p.4).
It is of utmost importance to describe in simple terms potential consequences
connected to generation of nuclear energy. These activities are indispensable for better
understanding of the nuclear topic as a whole and may prove supremely cost-effective as
for public confidence. If taken seriously, there is a higher probability of social acceptance
of a particular nuclear project.
Subsequently, the basic nuclear knowledge should be included in the school
education programme since it may help to avoid misinformation of the public. At the
beginning of December 2011, NPCIL has launched Want to know more about Nuclear
Power portal with an online form for institutions, colleges, schools and any other groups
that wish to invite NPCIL representative to provide them with any information or
clarification on nuclear power. Moreover, members of the public are given a possibility
of visiting power stations by filling an e-application. These positive actions show that
some initiatives to develop communication channels with interested parties in India are
being taken day by day.
Such activities like mentioned above are crucial to fight misconceptions about
nuclear power, but in reference to young people these may also attract them to choose a
nuclear related career. In fact, nuclear industry is facing an actual challenge related to
aging of nuclear personnel. Statistics from 2009 made by Nuclear Energy Institute show
that, in reference to five consecutive years, there is a threat of 48 % total loss in current
generation of nuclear workforce.5 As a result, replacing retiring staff and attracting
talented youth in view of alternative career option are some of Indian key challenges.
Additionally, having some basic nuclear technology knowledge would be beneficial
to careers indirectly associated with the nuclear industry; such as politicians,
economists, journalists etc. at national and international levels (International Atomic
Energy Agency, 2011c). Thus, building real public awareness requires focused
educational programmes that would cover individuals and groups from various
standpoints in society. This guideline is not only an issue for India, but for the vast
majority of the countries with the nuclear power programmes. The document entitled
Stakeholder Involvement Throughout the Life Cycle of Nuclear Facilities (2011)
provides a following conclusion:
It has long been recognized that there is a serious imbalance in the perception
of environmental and societal risks of nuclear technologies from the lay public
and that found in scientific and policy experts. With regard to nuclear power
and nuclear waste management, the general public tends to have deep rooted
concerns about safety and risk regarding what those who work in the industry
consider to be an eminently safe and reliable technology. Training in risk
communication should be encouraged for policy makers, implementers and
regulators (International Atomic Energy Agency, 2011b, p.20).

86

L.D. Mlynarkiewicz

In order to acquire basic knowledge, the information on nuclear issues should be

understandable and easily accessible for any citizen. However, it is a problematic task
since interested parties are not always acquainted with scientific terms, hence (where
possible) use of technical language which is difficult to understand should be avoided.
Without objective and transparent communication mechanisms it is not possible to
achieve a societal consensus in reference to a specific nuclear project. Furthermore, it is
of paramount importance to familiarise Indian members of the public with opportunities
to get involved at every step of the decision-making procedure. For example, US Nuclear
Regulatory Commission in the brochure entitled Public Involvement in the Nuclear
Regulatory Process (2004) briefly describes ways that the public may participate in the
NRCs regulatory process on each stage of the nuclear fuel chain (US Nuclear
Regulatory Commission, 2004). Such brochure should also be issued by Indian regulator.
It is also recommended to use a variety of methods to identify public concerns and
interests, so that the Indian information system may be more accurate. By using diverse
approaches to reach the public, the decision-maker gains an initial opportunity to develop
relationships and involve stakeholders into informal dialogue (US Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, 2002a, p.26). In particular, the most effective method to obtain desired
information is to conduct interviews with members of the public regarding their
adherence and reaction to a planned nuclear project. For this purpose, it is also
encouraged to hold focus groups, which are considered to be a sort of informal discussion
meetings, in which the interaction between the moderator and the group serves to gather
information in response to carefully designed questions. Moreover, professionally carried
out community surveys might be a strategic tool in designing public participation
programmes. Although it is not as interactional as other face-to-face techniques, it cannot
be underestimated as it strongly helps to define interests common to a particular group of
people.
Unfortunately, India seems not to have developed a well-organised education
programme at national level, which would provide the majority of the public with the
basic nuclear knowledge. Although NPCIL and the Department of Atomic Energy
changed their policy towards public involvement and we may observe a greater number
of public information campaigns, these are addressed to a very little number of people
(tens or sometimes hundreds).6 It is encouraged to launch a programme, which would be
affecting a bigger group of society since it would generate mutual benefits.
Consequently, without fundamental information on nuclear topic, members of the public
cannot consciously and effectively participate in the nuclear regulatory process. The
diversity of educational backgrounds causes that some of the technical issues should be
explained in a manner that ensures sufficient understanding of the context to discuss the
full implications of the alternatives.
Such methodology may encourage participants of a particular meeting to re-evaluate
their own positions and adopt an enlarged viewpoint. That is why, appropriate training in
communication skills (especially in answering questions from the public and the media)
should be provided by an Indian regulator or other responsible authority to each
person that will have contact with the public. As pointed out in the IAEA Nuclear Energy
Series No. NG-T-1.4 (Stakeholder Involvement Throughout the Life Cycle of Nuclear
Facilities) it is of utmost importance to develop competencies needed for stakeholder
involvement. The technical staff called upon to take part in the various activities should
be provided with training in effective communication skills consistent with their
communication roles, particularly those who interact with the media and the public

Public awareness and stakeholder engagement

87

(International Atomic Energy Agency, 2011b, p.20, para. 3.3.7). This has also been
recognised by US Nuclear Regulatory Commission in the Report of the Public
Communication Task Force (2003) The staff should receive training in developing
and using communications plans, and additional training on responding to public
inquiries and interactions with the media and public (US Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, 2003).

4.2 Educational networks

As for academic education system in India, it has significantly developed over the past
few years and much has been done to maintain a high level of nuclear competencies. It is
crucial to keep this trend moving forward as sustainable supply of qualified staff is
required for safe use of current nuclear applications. In addition, it has to be realised that
India is facing an increasing demand to recruit nuclear scientists and engineers in
reference to e.g. construction, technical support or development of nuclear facilities. This
requires a growing number of experts in nuclear specific areas such as nuclear power
engineering, nuclear and reactor physics, radiochemistry, radiation detection etc. The
Bhabha Atomic Research Centre (BARC) Training School is recognised as Indian
nuclear industrys leading training institution. With funding support provided by the
Department of Energy (DAE), BARC Training School recruits annually about 300
people for employment as engineers, scientists and research fellows (US Nuclear
Regulatory Commission, 2003, p.84). It also provides the highest amount of academic
programmes related to nuclear R&D in India.
Currently, India stands fourteenth in the world with regard to nuclear power
generation (4385 MWe net). Nonetheless, it has to be pointed out that India has the
second largest (after China 51) number of reactors planned (18 for now), which are
expected in operation within 810 years. Although India was for 34 years largely
excluded from trade in nuclear plant or materials, as statistics show it has the potential to
become one of the worlds leading nuclear energy users. As a result, demand for certified
experts in nuclear area will considerably rise in the future. If not taken into consideration,
it may lead to shortages in the nuclear workforce in India.
Going further, there is an intensified need for international cooperation between
educational and training institutions. Indo-US Nuclear Energy Summit, held in Mumbai
(30 September1 October 2011), serves an ample evidence of increasing necessity for
global educational networks. The Framework for Indo-US Nuclear Education
Cooperation adopted during the summit initiated the first Indo-US nuclear education
programme, whereby both sides will gain possibility to share information on nuclear
safety research and development. Student and academics exchange programmes should
provide a better nuclear knowledge management, it is therefore encouraged to continue
creating similar initiatives. As stated in the report entitled Status and Trends in Nuclear
Education (IAEA Nuclear Energy Series No. NG-T-6.1): Maintaining a qualified,
competent workforce is a critical element in the safe and efficient operation of nuclear
power plants and other nuclear R&D organisations (International Atomic Energy
Agency, 2011c, p.4, para. 2.1). Indo-US Education Cooperation is also valuable in the
context of overall awareness policy and it serves evidence that nuclear education in India
is in the moment of unprecedented expansion.

88

L.D. Mlynarkiewicz

Apart from conducting projects in nuclear engineering and technology, it is also of

importance to provide qualified nuclear specialists for regulatory authorities in India.
Undoubtedly, nuclear law is of peculiar nature and original specificity. Thus, high
priority should be placed on establishing close partnerships between educational
institutions, government and the nuclear industry to support the development of policies
and strategies in the nuclear education. Such cooperation between many entities seems to
be important for many reasons. However, one of the most accurate arguments was
outlined in the Executive Summary of the Blue Ribbon Report issued by the Blue Ribbon
Commission on Americas Nuclear Future (Blue Ribbon Commission on Americas
Nuclear Future, 2012). As it has been stated: Experience in the United States and in
other nations suggests that any attempt to force a top down, federally mandated solution
over the objections of a state or community far from being more efficient will take
longer, cost more, and have lower odds of ultimate success. This guideline should also
be reconsidered by Indian government since current situation in India resembles state
described in Blue Ribbon Report.

Public hearings the voice of the voiceless

In general, public hearing is one of the most widespread venues of direct participation in
the regulatory process by which members of the public may express their actual concerns
and influence the final decision regarding an important issue. It is an effective way to
reach interested parties since public hearings mostly focus attention on the vicinity of the
affected community and the persons residing in the close proximity of the nuclear facility
site. During the formal meeting, typically organised by the decision-maker, stakeholders
have an opportunity to make submissions and voice their opinions. However, it is not a
loose forum for questions or discussion, because there are strict procedural rules which
govern each public hearing. For example, the list of speakers is ordinarily established
before the meeting and previously filed written submissions are read aloud during it. US
Nuclear Regulatory Commission in the brochure NRC Public Meetings (2002
NUREG/BR-0297) divides public meetings into three categories, depending on the level
of participation given to the public. From a role of observer with a possibility to raise
questions at the end of the meeting, through a discussion at designated points identified
on agenda, to widest possible participation in the third category (US Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, 2002b).
In India, nuclear regulatory process contains legally binding mechanisms for public
hearings only in reference to Prior Environmental Clearance (EC) procedure.
Specifically, the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Notification (2006) determines
public hearing as one out of two components of the public consultations in the EC
process.7 The public hearing is generally confined to locally affected persons in the close
vicinity of the project site, however, EIA Notification does not preclude or prohibit
others from participating in such forum.8 The second aspect of the public consultation
relates to obtaining responses (in writing) to Summary EIA report from concerned
persons, other than locally affected, who have a plausible stake in the environmental
aspects of the project or activity. Nevertheless, it is not clear who and how determines
whether or not a person has met the requirement of a plausible stake.9 Thus, Indian
regulator should make a clearer explanation of this condition.

Public awareness and stakeholder engagement

89

According to the appended schedule, all nuclear power projects and processing of
nuclear fuel shall undertake public consultation, however, public hearing stage may be
omitted due to partly indefinite circumstances connected with impossibility to conduct
the public hearing in a manner which will enable the views of the concerned local
persons to be freely expressed. Such incomplete provision may lead to serious misuses,
therefore Indian regulator should clarify all necessary terms for its proper application.
As for the environmental clearance process, public hearings are conducted by the
State Pollution Control Board (SPCB) or the Union Territory Pollution Control
Committee (UTPCC). After the completion of the hearing, the project proponent shall
make appropriate changes in the draft EIA and Environment Management Plans10 in
accordance with all the material environmental concerns (Roshan et al., 2008). Finally,
the EIA report should be submitted by the applicant to the concerned regulatory authority
for appraisal.
An analysis of some public hearings, made by Legal Initiative for Forest and
Environment (LIFE), has drawn a conclusion of several violations of the Notification
provisions during the procedure of conducting the public hearings (Ghosh, 2010).
Particularly, as it was pointed out, these irregularities resulted from: unavailability of
required documents at the designated offices or websites, insufficient measures to ensure
widest possible stakeholder engagement and improper reporting of the hearings.
One of the meetings (held on 16 May 2010) related to Jaitapur Nuclear Power Project
(JNPP) at Ratnagiri District in Maharashtra, which may become the largest nuclear
power generating station in the world by net electrical power rating (six reactors planned
1650 MW each). As it was noted by the interested parties, the set of documents was not
made fully available to the stakeholders before the public hearing e.g. the draft EIA
Report and its summary were not published on the websites of the MoEF, Maharashtra
Pollution Control Board or the Project Proponent. As it is contradictory to transparency
policy, all relevant information should be made available in accordance with appropriate
provisions, otherwise no effective public hearing may be conceived by the locally
affected people.
Moreover, it is reported in the newspapers that the meeting for Jaitapur project was
organised on a day of Akshaya Tritiya, which is considered to be one of the most
auspicious days of the Hindu Calendar. Despite the request to postpone the date of the
public hearing due to religious activities undertaken on that day the district
administration did not take it into account, forcing the people to choose between the
participation in a debate or the celebration of Akshaya Tritiya. If this is the case, by
undertaking the public hearings process on such a date, members of the public may have
felt excluded from the meaningful dialogue. Thus, it is essential that Indian authorities
respect the societys cultural diversity and its availability when it comes to planning an
open debate. Specifically, stakeholders should have an ability to determine some of the
terms of the upcoming meeting jointly with the decision-makers. That is why, it is crucial
to create a detailed plan of the public hearing based on previously identified expectations
of the interested parties.
What is more, EIA Notification stipulated that the proceedings of the public hearing
shall be accurately minuted. In particular, all the views and concerns expressed during
the meeting ought to be recorded by the representative of the SPCB or UTPCC and read
over to the audience at the end of the proceedings. However, as for Jaitapur public
hearing these minutes were entirely inaccurate and did not cover several points raised
by the public (Ghosh, 2010). It must be clearly understood that such irregularities not

90

L.D. Mlynarkiewicz

only affect the quality of the hearing proceedings, but they also have a negative impact
on further communication with stakeholders. It is highly recommended that responsible
authorities select an independent and experienced public involvement practitioner who
may lead the meeting with stakeholders.
As for the venue, the meeting held on 16 May 2010 was organised at the top of a
plateau which was three to five kilometres away from all of the five project-affected
villages (Shirodkar and Ghosh, 2010). Public hearings, if conducted in close vicinity of
the proposed nuclear facility site would provide an opportunity for a more conducive
deliberation where more number of people could have participated. Although the venue
should be easily accessible, in relation to Jaitapur public hearing no special transportation
arrangements were made by the local administration (Shirodkar and Ghosh, 2010).
Finally, it is of paramount importance not to make any distinction or favoritism when it
comes to public involvement. This may lead to a situation in which one part of the public
is put against another. All stakeholders should have the same possibility to reach
particular information. Nevertheless, the EIA report of JNPP was not made available
before the public hearing in all project-affected villages and in some cases the vernacular
version was not provided.
Last but not least, it is important to mention about public hearing organised by
Haryana State Pollution Control Board on 18 July 2012. The open house session for an
Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) on setting up a nuclear power plant at Gorakhpur
village was expected to continue about four hours. As it turned out, it did not even last an
hour and many people could not participate as the administration had started barricading
from a distance of over four kilometres from the venue. The purpose of the meeting was
to clear all doubts about the nuclear power plant; however, almost all questions raised by
the stakeholders were left without a concrete answer. The administration also failed to
inform villagers about the public hearing, which should be done a month in advance.
Moreover, The Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) report was leaked by the Centre
for Science and Environment (CSE) a day ahead of the public hearing.

The role of the internet in regulatory process

The proliferation of the internet has given the public greater opportunities of engagement
in both local and national field. However, there is also a great threat of misinformation.
In the energy-planning process, web-based public participation should be recognised as
the decision support tool that has significantly facilitated the dissemination of important
data. As stated by John Ritch, encyclopedic papers concerning nuclear technology and
other offerings published at World Nuclear Association website are hit at a rate of once
every 5 seconds.11
Although many people do not have access to the internet, it is rapidly increasing
around the world. As statistics show, there are about 61 million regular internet users in
India (almost 49 million urban users and over 16 million rural users),12 a 28% raise
comparing to previous year. It is still a drop in the ocean; however, a dynamic growth is
clearly just a matter of time.
It might be stated that web-based public participation offered by Indian nuclear
governmental bodies is irregular in its quality. Analysis of selected websites of
key Indian institutions13 related to nuclear energy management brought a conclusion
that hardly any information can be found via internet about upcoming public

Public awareness and stakeholder engagement

91

hearings/meetings or the ways that members of the public may get involved in Indias
nuclear decision-making procedure. Some of these might be obtained from State
Pollution Control Boards websites, but there are no universal standards that would
ensure same dose of information at all of them. Moreover, limited information is
provided in reference to recent activities or public awareness programmes. To improve
quality of these, appropriate Indian authorities should gather all necessary information in
one place. This has been done by countries like Canada or USA (Nuclear Regulatory
Commission www.nrc.gov) on their websites, where the user may find all relevant
information necessary to participate in nuclear regulatory process. In these terms, US
NRC website may serve as a model for web-based public participation in India, because
it clearly emphasises the role of stakeholder involvement in the decision-making
procedure. As for nuclear industry and regulators, there are several other websites around
the world that are interactive and offer a possibility of engagement in the regulatory
process. For example, the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC) welcomes
public participation by offering many ways to get involved. CNSC provides
stakeholders with consultation documents which can be downloaded from its website
(www.nuclearsafety.gc.ca). The user may comment online on each document which is
made available for a specified period of time Moreover, the public may easily find a
calendar of all upcoming public hearings (same for US NRC). After reviewing all public
input, CNSC publishes feedback on its website together with names and affiliations of
those who submitted comments. Thereby, it is demonstrated how public inputs affect
final decisions or develop specified policy, making the regulatory process available for
public scrutiny.
An important role of the Web is also emphasised in the US NRC Report of the Public
Communication Task Force (2003), which was described as a tool that has a potential to
reach a significant portion of our stakeholders. Moreover, we may find in this Report
that The evolving role of the Web in peoples lives requires that the agency continuously
seek new and innovative ways to incorporate the Web into its daily business
(US Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 2003). Such innovative way is offered by
Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, which gives a possibility of Webcast of its
Commission Tribunals public hearings or meetings.
In general, it has to be realised that there is a whole range of public participation tools
successfully functioning in other countries and which are merely or improperly used in
the nuclear regulatory process. In the Report of the Public Communication Task Force
(2003), it might be found that as for public involvement generally successful tools
are: public meetings, staff accessibility, external correspondence, formal briefings and
reporter contacts. The second group, which needs to be constantly improved, includes
instruments such as: internet communication, regulatory documents, public comment
process or press releases. There is also a third group of tools which are ineffective or
underutilised and these are: news programs, public speeches, informational materials or
press conferences (US Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 2003). A very comprehensive
analysis of these methods can also be found in the short guide entitled Stakeholder
Involvement Techniques (2004 OECD/NEA).
It is encouraged to establish in India effective procedures for mandatory discussions
on inputs received from the public in order to maintain best international standards.
Moreover, the analysis of drawn conclusions (not only public views and concerns) should
be posted on websites of key institutions responsible for nuclear regulatory process in
India. In the document entitled Establishing the Safety Infrastructure for a Nuclear

92

L.D. Mlynarkiewicz

Power Programme (No. SSG-16 IAEA Safety Standards Series), Action 40 stipulates
that The government should establish a process to ensure that the comments arising
from consultation with relevant interested parties are considered, and it should
communicate the results of these considerations to the interested parties (International
Atomic Energy Agency, 2011a, Action 40, p.38). It is crucial to give a clear picture of
whether and how stakeholders have influenced the decision-making process, because it
shows their factual degree of participation.

Conclusion

After Fukushima accident, the need for review and restart on public perception of nuclear
energy has widely been recognised in the nuclear environment. As pointed out by John
Ritch (former DG of WNA) during the IAEAs post-Fukushima ministerial conference
(Vienna, 21 June 2011): The challenge is how best to use facts to alleviate fears, instill
confidence and enhance awareness of nuclear powers environmental value
(International Atomic Energy Agency, 2011a, Action 40, p. 38). Therefore, it is of utmost
importance that the public has a good understanding and is given a clear picture of all the
circumstances, which led to a serious emergency at the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear
Power Station. It should be an effort of the whole Indian nuclear community (i.e. nuclear
operators, regulators, nuclear associations and international agencies) to provide Indias
citizenry with credible and unbiased information about what happened and what
precautions or safety measures are to be taken to avoid similar situations in reference to
Indian nuclear facilities (International Atomic Energy Agency, 2010b).
As stated by Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency (Summary of Safety Regulation in
Japan, 2011) the assurance of safety is an essential premise in securing stable and
efficient energy supply. Thus, it is necessary to convince the public of the technical
competence of operator since accidents and incidents occurring anywhere in the world
result in subsequent public loss of confidence in nuclear energy. Because of failures like
the one in Japan, people generally do not trust the technical approach to risk assessment,
which is expressed in mathematical terms and associated with events of low probability
but high consequences. Notwithstanding the general dispute concerning nuclear
technology, it has to be realised that the public often considers itself as relatively
powerless when confronting a government agency or a large corporation.
As for now, Indias stakeholder engagement mechanism seems to be incoherent and
managed in an unscheduled manner. Thus, it is necessary to prepare the document for
public involvement plan, which would cover all relevant procedures and other issues,
such as expected level of public participation, a schedule of venues for engagement,
specific guidance for these procedures, and provision of appropriate resources for public
involvement (International Nuclear Safety Advisory Group, 2006, p.11; International
Atomic Energy Agency, 2002b). However, the vision and plan for stakeholders
involvement should be reviewed periodically to ensure that satisfactory progress is being
made (International Atomic Energy Agency, 2011b, p.21).
Undoubtedly, India has the potential to become one of the worlds leading nuclear
energy users, but that cannot be done without a public support. Although there are a lot
of activities to improve the current state, there is still a long way for effective and open
public participation in Indias nuclear energy regulatory process.

Public awareness and stakeholder engagement

93

References
Blue Ribbon Commission on Americas Nuclear Future (2012) Blue Ribbon Report, Executive
Summary, p. ix.
Ghosh, S. (2010) Notes from the field: public hearings in Maharashtra, eRc Journal, Vol. V,
pp.1619. Available online at: http://www.ercindia.org/files/erc_vol5.pdf (accessed on
17 September 2012).
International Atomic Energy Agency (2002a) Organization and Staffing of the Regulatory Body for
Nuclear Facilities, IAEA Safety Standards Series No. GS-G-1.1, IAEA, Vienna, para. 2.10.
International Atomic Energy Agency (2002b) Documentation for Use in Regulating Nuclear
Facilities, IAEA Safety Standards Series No. GS-G-1.4, IAEA, Vienna, para. 2.27.
International Atomic Energy Agency (2010a) Licensing Process for Nuclear Installations, IAEA
Safety Standards Series No. SSG-12, IAEA, Vienna, para. 2.44.
International Atomic Energy Agency (2010b) Governmental, Legal and Regulatory Framework for
Safety, IAEA Safety Standards Series No. GSR Part 1, IAEA, Vienna, Requirement 15 (3.5):
Sharing of operating experience and regulatory experience.
International Atomic Energy Agency (2011a) Establishing the Safety Infrastructure for a Nuclear
Power Programme, IAEA Safety Standards Series No. SSG-16, Vienna.
International Atomic Energy Agency (2011b) Stakeholder Involvement Throughout the Life Cycle
of Nuclear Facilities, IAEA Nuclear Energy Series No. NG-T-1.4, Vienna.
International Atomic Energy Agency (2011c) Status and Trends in Nuclear Education, IAEA
Nuclear Energy Series No. NG-T-6.1, Vienna.
International Atomic Energy Agency (2011d) The Great East Japan Earthquake Expert Mission,
Japan, p.77.
International Nuclear Safety Advisory Group (2006) Stakeholder Involvement in Nuclear Issues,
INSAG Series No. 20, IAEA, Vienna.
Japan Meteorological Agency (2011) The 2011 off the Pacific coast of Tohoku Earthquake first
report. Available online at: http://www.jma.go.jp/jma/en/News/2011_Earthquake_01.html
(accessed on 17 September 2012).
Roshan, A.D., Shylamoni, P. and Acharya, S. (2008) Monograph on Siting of Nuclear Power
Plants, AERB Mumbai, India.
Shirodkar, G. and Ghosh, S. (2010) Report on Public Hearing, EIA Response Centre and TAI
India. Available online at: http://www.accessinitiative.org/blog/2010/06/india-public-hearingworld%E2%80%99s-largest-nuclear-power-marked-irregularities (accessed on 17 September
2012).
Thakur, S. (2011) Beyond Fukushima, Power Today, 24 June 2011. Available online at:
http://www.npcil.nic.in/pdf/Nuclear_article_Power_Today.pdf (accessed on 17 September
2012).
The Environmental Impact Assessment Notification (2006) Ministry of Environment and Forests,
Appendix IV. Available online at http://forest.and.nic.in/Guidelines-MoEF.pdf (accessed on
17 September 2012).
US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (2002a) Best Practices for Effective Public Involvement in
Restricted-Use Decommissioning of NRC-Licensed Facilities.
US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (2002b) NRC Public Meetings (NUREG/BR-0297).
US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (2003) Report of the Public Communications Task Force,
p.17. Available online at: http://www.nrc.gov/public-involve/stakeholder-involvement/finalreport.pdf (accessed on 17 September 2012).
US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (2004) Public Involvement in the Nuclear Regulatory Process
(NUREG/BR-0215, Rev. 2).
Varadarajan, S. (2010) This is no way to write a law, The Hindu Magazine, 24 August.

94

L.D. Mlynarkiewicz

Notes
1

2
3

4
5
6
7

8
9
10

11
12

13

See OECD/NEA reports: Society and Nuclear Energy: Towards a Better Understanding
(2002), Public Information, Consultation and Involvement in Radioactive Waste Management
(2003), Stakeholder involvement techniques (2004), Society and Nuclear Energy: Case
Histories of Practical Communication Experiences (2005), Building, Measuring and
Improving Public Confidence in the Nuclear Regulator (2006), Transparency of Nuclear
Regulatory Activities (2007).
See http://www.oecd-nea.org/nsd/cnra/wgpc.html (accessed 17 September 2012).
See NRC Regulations, Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations: part 2 Rules of Practice for
Domestic Licensing Proceedings and Issuance of Orders, available at http://www.nrc.gov/
reading-rm/doc-collections/cfr/part002/full-text.html (accessed 17 September 2012).
Section 4(1)(c) of the Right to Information Act 2005.
Source: 2009 Nuclear Energy Institute Pipeline Survey Preliminary Results, Contractors not
included.
Based on information provided by NPCIL on its website (www.npcil.nic.in).
The Environmental Impact Assessment Notification (2006), as described in the paragraph 7 (i)
sub-clause III (i), public consultation refers to the process by which concerns of local affected
persons and others who have plausible stake in the environmental impacts of the project or
activity are ascertained with a view to taking into account all the material concerns in the
project or activity as appropriate.
Decision of the High Court of Delhi in W.P. (C) No. 9317/2009, Samarath Trust and Another
vs. Union of India and others, Para 11 of the Judgement.
Ibidem, Para 13 of the Judgment.
The Environmental Management Plan consists of all mitigation measures for each item wise
activity to be undertaken to minimise adverse environmental impacts as a result of the
activities of the particular project.
IAEA Ministerial Conference on Nuclear Safety (21 June 2011), The Fukushima Challenge:
Shaping a Sound Response, IAEA, Vienna.
Regular internet users who use internet at least once a moth. Statistics based on India
Online 2011 released by Juxt (research company in India). Annual land survey was
conducted between Apr-Mid June 2011.
Based on analysis of: www.dae.gov.in (Department of Atomic Energy), www.aec.gov.in
(Atomic Energy Commission), www.npcil.nic.in (Nuclear Power Corporation of India
Limited), www.aerb.gov.in (Atomic Energy Regulatory Board).