CASE STUDY 3

Public Perceptions of Improved Management

This large (2,300-MW) nuclear-generating plant, presently under construction in the Midwest, is owned by an investor-owned utility and a consortium of rural electric cooperatives. The largest community near the plant has a population of 13,081, and the surrounding county is predominantly urban. The plant site was announced in 1973, and construction began in 1978.

Since the 1950's, this area has been the site for numerous powerplants, including what were for some time two of the world's largest coal-fired plants. Because local residents place a high value on the beauty and recreational assets of the surrounding countryside, the number of plants in the valley has been a source of local resentment for more than 30 years. When several utilities announced plans in the mid-1970's for developing additional plants nearby-both coal-fired and nuclear-some local residents became alarmed and organized an areawide citizens group (ACG). The group's chief goal was to prevent further deterioration of air-quality due to over-industrialization of the river valley. Thus, ACG at first did not oppose the planned nuclear plant because of its perceived air-quality benefits when compared with a coal plant.

By 1975, economic and environmental issues led ACG to oppose the proposed plant. During construction permit hearings that year, ACG and other intervenors claimed the utility did not show a clear need for the additional capacity. They argued that local demand was not growing and questioned why local ratepayers should be required to pay for a new plant when the electricity would be used in other States. In contrast to other parts of the United States, even the city closest to the plant opposed it, fearing the "boomtown" effects of such a large construction project. Local residents were also concerned about the environmental and health and safety impacts of the plant.

Despite these concerns, many county residents had a favorable attitude toward nuclear power. In a 1976 utility-sponsored poll, almost 60 percent of those surveyed favored the nuclear plant because of the perceived job opportunities and local economic benefits. However, events in 1979 led to a rapid shift in these attitudes. That year, allegations of concrete defects and a utility coverup of those defects at the plant construction site led to a State grand jury investigation and an NRC investigation. Coming on the heels of the Three Mile Island accident, these events caused brief national publicity and local headlines for over a year. Polls taken that year indicated that only 47 percent of the utility's customers favored construction of more nuclear plants in the State, and even fewer people favored nuclear powerplants within 5 miles of their community. Survey respondents indicated that the major problems associated with nuclear powerplants were waste disposal and the health effects of possible radiation leakage. Customer confidence that the utility could build the plant safely appeared to have been shaken.

Between 1979 and 1981, the utility responded to NRC requirements by making major changes in its quality-assurance program and management structure. The onsite project management staff was increased from 70 to 850 people, training was stepped up, and workers were encouraged to report nonconforming practices. By March 1981, NRC allowed all safety-related construction to resume, and in July 1982, NRC awarded the utility a superior performance rating on safety construction.

Since 1980, the utility has made a concerted effort to communicate with the public about its management improvements. A local information center has been set up, and utility staff have presented slideshows and videotapes throughout the area. All of these programs acknowledge the specific concrete problems and broader quality-assurance problems identified in 1979 and outline the utility's efforts to overcome them. The utility also emphasizes the State grand jury investigation's findings that the company was not guilty of covering up quality-assurance problems. These public relations efforts, combined with the placement of an NRC inspector onsite, appear to have had some effect. A 1982 utility survey indicated that those polled had more confidence in the utility's management efficiency than did the average utility customer nationwide. However, the utility's customers also appeared to have less confidence in the company's construction ability than the national average. These results seem to reveal both a local awareness of the plant's construction problems and some confidence in the company.

CHAPTER 8 REFERENCES