A review of the Generic Design Assessment (GDA) Public Dialogue Pilot (2015) for new nuclear build in the UK: lessons for engagement theory and practice

Abstract

We have discussed previously that a community-based, asset-based approach is required to achieve any sense of how social sustainability can be defined in a community setting within the context of energy developments. Our approach aims to initiate a lasting change within 'energy' communities through building social capital; focusing on community assets not deficits to define their social priorities. Through deliberation, we develop an understanding of social sustainability so that a community is well placed to enter discussions with government and industry regarding large energy developments that will directly affect them.We review the 2015 Generic Design Assessment (GDA) Public Dialogue Pilot process for potential new nuclear reactors in the UK. We examine the aims of the dialogue, giving particular attention to a comparison between the national sampling of citizens for the GDA and the local community-based, deliberative approach we have proposed previously. We find an ongoing tension between 'national' engagement processes (such as the GDA Public Dialogue Pilot process) and the specific requirements of those energy communities that live adjacent or close to energy infrastructure, manifested here by a conflict between the requirements of the convenor and those of participants regarding priority issues for discussion. We also reveal a paradox; despite participant Society for Radiological Protection

Challenges, dilemmas, and quality criteria for safety reviews

“…Step 2 there was a fundamental safety review of claims that had been made. Step 3 followed with a review of arguments in the overall design safety review, with Step 4 involving a review of evidence to support the detailed design assessment (Whitton et al 2016).…”

The role of dialogue in social licence to operate in the extractives sector

“…An explicit examination of dialogue, as part of the stakeholder engagement process that is central to so many NRM issues, is a crucial matter, given that stakeholders often place differing values on the topic and the process of engagement through dialogue (Whitton, Parry, Grundy, Lillycrop, & Ross, 2016;Williams & Walton, 2014). Similarly, the philosophies that underlie company rhetoric around dialogue can differ among companies, resulting in significantly different implementation approaches (Pero & Smith, 2006 Dialogue as a factor of the SLO stakeholder engagement process, however, has commonly been treated implicitly -for example, as a post-hoc consideration, a technique used in the fieldrather than being examined explicitly in its own right as being conceptually core to the engagement process.…”