ML20069H501

Proposed Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law on Contention 17/26(1)(a) Re Evacuation Brochure,In Form of Opinion.Explanation for Late Filing & Certificate of Svc Encl

ML20069H501
Person / Time
Site:	Waterford
Issue date:	04/01/1983
From:	Groesch G JOINT INTERVENORS - WATERFORD
To:
References
NUDOCS 8304060161
Download: ML20069H501 (16)

Text

__

o kdb3 33 A'R -5 ndo:co, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board In the Matter of )

) Docket No. 50-382 LOUISI ANA POWER E< LIGHT CD. )

) April 1, 1983 (WatErfcrd Steam Electric Station )

Unit 3)

EXPLANATION FOR LATE FILING 4

j Joint Intervenors are filing the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law on Contention 17/26 (1) (a) on April 1, 1983

instead of March 30, 1983 because of difficulties in replacing a l

l member of our volunteer secretarial staff. Joint Intervenors would not oppose reasonable extentions of time for Applicant or Staff to respond.

Respe-tfully Submi'ted,

/

l e

/$4V' 2 '

Gar L. Groesch Joint Intervenors 8304060161 830401 PDR ADOCK 05000382 g PDR

o UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board In the Matter of )

) Docket No. 50-382 LOUISI ANA FOWER & LIGHT CO. )

) March 30, 1903.

(Watereo-d Eteam Electric Statin, )

Unit 7)

JOINT I *JT ? RVi.!JC.;:5 ' PROPOSED F INDI'!',5 OF F ZT AC CONCLUEIONS OF LAW ON CONTENTION 17/26 (1, (a)

OPINION

1. THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE BROCHUFE The development of the second brochure (Applicant exhibit 13 and 14) was necessitated after the first brochure was extensively and thoroughly criticized by the Joint Intervenors' enperts.

Clearly, the first brochure (Applicant exhibit 11) was incomprehensible to the vast majority of people in the risk

parishes of St. John the Baptist and St. Charles. The Applicant hired a " readability' e:: p er t , Dr. George Klare to rewrite the initial brochure down to a lower readability level.

The Staff and Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) experts found little wrong with the first brochure (or the second).PF 5 Joint Intervenors have attempted to have the entire communication procers - including the brochure - viewed as an integrated whole but have been prevented by Board order. PF 1

2. THE PUEPOSE OF THE EROCHURE The purpsse of the brochure is a motivational and educational tool. It has a primary (nct priming) funct2on to in orm people of the proper pr accdure in the event of evacuation.

Dr. Saundra Hunter, a social psychologist, places great weight on the communication process - the communicator, the mescage, and the target - in order to assess the effectiveness of the brochure. Dr. Hunter feels all tnree aspects of the communication process were lacking or unknown in this brochure.

Dr. Hunter believes that a study of the communicator credibility should take place because there is no inf ormation presently on the credibility of either Louisiana Power & Light Co. (LPLL) or state and local governmentu.

She also feels that the brochure should give an opti m al fear level - neither too high nor too icw. Too high a fear level in the message would bring awout a denial of the threat . Too low a 1cvel

would make it too easy to dismiss. Dr. Hunter feels that the threat in the brochure is too low.

The target of the brochure, according to Dr. Hunter, has to be finely discriminated because fear levels closest to the Waterford 3 facility would be high; farther away fear levels of the population would be lower. Thus a brochure would have to be designed for each group in order for the brochure to act as a motivational tool.

Dr. Hunter also believes a practice evacuation should take place in order to assist the people in taking the brochure seriously since they will soon have to act on it. A practice evacuation would also help those people wi th low self-esteem to respond ef f ectivel y in a situatio that requirec action. PF 13-16 The Applicant s expert Dr. Denis Mileti feels that the brochu e is net a c otivational document but instead a ' p r i mi ng '

document . Dr. Mileti feels that the information available at the time of the accident is the most important . Dr. Mileti feels the primary function of this brochure is to inform people to turn to other sourcess of information, (the radio or television)upon hearing sirens. However, he believes they would do this in any event. According to Dr. Mileti,, the brochure is good simply because it exists and if someone sees the brochure prior to an event, they will know someone in authority has thought about what to do and will be reassured. PF 17 i

3. THE CONTENT OF THE BROCHURE

>J

[  ;

The brochure contains inaccurate tecnical information about radioactivity and nuclear power plants in general.PF 6 Although the primary purpose of the brochure is to get people to turn to the media for information, this is given a secondary role to the large format design to accommodate a specific evacuation scheme. Ironically, too much specificity about what actions or routes to take in an emergency is bad, according to Dr.

Mileti. However, since the brochure is not motivational (according to Dr. M11eti), specific evacuation procedures cannot hurt. PF 7 The part entitled 'What Radiation Is' only says one must be careful if the rediation in the air in 'largc'. It makes no mention of cancer, mutations, or radiation sickners. Applicant assumes that the word ' Safety' in the title is sufficient incentive for pecple to be interested in the brochure and te know that radi ation can harm humans.oF 6 The part entitled 'Re- stion Emergencies' is confusing because the definition known by most fourth graders for

- ' emergency' as 'need for quick action' is contradicted by the definition of two of the four radiation emergencies, unusual event and alert. These two definitions end with the phrases "You will l not have to do anything" and "It i's not likely that you will have l

1 to do anything", repectively. PF 4 l

4. THE READABILITY OF THE BROCHURE l

Dr. George id are si gni f i cantly reduced the readability level of the Applicant's brochure. However, 2909 adults (25 years or i

l l

I i

l

m.

cider) in St. John the Baptist and St. Charles parishes could not comprehend the document. Similarly. 216 peopic (adults 18 years and older) who do not speak English at all or not well also would not have a brochure coa.prehensible to them since the brochure is written only in English.PF 9. PF 12 Dr. Klare asserts that f ri ends and nei ghbors or f amily acabers would help peoplc with low reading skilld acquire the information. Dr. K]src bases this analysis on one study done in New England. No study has ever been done in rural souther n Louisiana to give validity to this assertion.FF 3

5. CONCLU.10N Applicant does not bclieve the brochure is a matter of ' life and death' but only ' health and safety'. Joint Intervenors believe this is linguistic ' hair splitting'. The record is clear:

(1) the brochure is not comprehensibic to 2909 adul ts PF 9 (2) the brochure is written in only one language leaving out 266 peopl e who do not speal: english well or at allPF 12 (3) the brochure contains admitted technical inaccuracies about radiation and nuclear power FF 6 (4) the opening sentence in the secticn entitled "A Message to our Friends and Neighbors" asserts that the brochure has been prepared by state and local governr.ents is clearly misleading since no member of the state and local government even testified about the brochure PF 2; and (5) The single most important function of the brochurc - to get L

1 l

)

people to turn to the media upon hearing sirens - takes a secondary role to the large format design of a highly specific map PF 11 (6) Confusing terminology was left in the brochure relating to the word ' emergency' and the f ederally mandated radiation action levels, unusual event and alert PF 4 (7) the attitude of the Applicant that the brochure is not a cotivational tool allows gay shcrtcoming to be dismi ssed as not important.

Accordingly, for the fo egoing reasons, the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board orders the Applicant to produce a brochure (or series of brochures) worthy of distribution to the people in St.

John and St. Charic parishes.

PROFOSED FINDINGS OF FACT Joint Intervenors concur in the Applicants' proposed Findings -

of Fact 1 - 5 only. All other Proposed Findings of Fact are in dispute,

1. Joint Intervenors were not allowed to crossexamine the witnesses on the communication process as an integrated whole even though Applicant's own expert agreed this it the way it should be done (Tr. 4160 - 20thru23). Even FEMA counsel Cassidy asserted that it is "rather difficult to assess a porti on of the plan in a vacuum" (Tr. 4903 - ISand19). Applicant counsel Churchill admitted that an adjunct to the brochure - the Special Needs Information

Card - was rewritten to a lower readability IcVel without input by the Joint Intervenors (Tr. 4569 - 21thru23) although Joint Intervenors specifically asked to criticice this document.

2. The or i gi nal sentence in tha brochure."Your State and F'arish governments have prept-d this booklet to tell you what to do if the c is an emergency at Waterford 3..." is misleading in the entrcmc. Perry admits that LPSL is responsible for the document'Tr. 4132 -11)(Tr. 4130 -7). Then Perry cives rearons why LPLL is not responsibic for the document (Tr. 4134). Klare admits that the first draft was LP&L's document (Tr. 4105). He admits to meeting onl y LPtL's peopi c in Washingtc, concerning the second document (Tr. 4108 - 4) and not talking to state or parish people at allfTr. 4104 - 25). Perry admits responcibility "in pa-t" but not for the removal of the LP&L l og o (Tr . 4129 -19) Applicant rebuttal witness Mileti says a lie would affect the credibility of the docun,ent and the peopic will not believe ittTr. 16thru18).

3. Dr. Klare acmitt no pretesting to find out hcw people know words in St. J ot n and St. Chsri es pari shes (Tr. 4141). He al so admits doing ne t ests on comprehensi on (Tr. 4156 -7). Dr. Klare predicts that the peopic who can not read the brochure will get the information from friend and relatives (Tr. 4164 - 15). Hc says later that no document: similar to the New England study exist for southern rural Louisiana (Tr. 4165 - land 2). He cIso admits no pretesting for motivation, for interest, or for prior knowledge (Tr. 4192 - 16) (Tr. 4185 - 23 I

4. Dr. Klare says that the word ' emergency' means "need for quick action" by most fourth graders (Tr. 4193 - 13and1*i.. The section ' Radiation Emergencies' in the brochure has four c at egor i cs : unusual event, alert, site emergency, and general emergency. The first two categories, unusual event and alert, end with the sentences "You will not have to do anything" and "It is not likely that you will have to do anything", respectively. Dr.

Klare does not believe that the definition known for

' emergency' (need f or quick action) will be conf usi ng with the final sentence in the f:rst two categories of events (Tr.

4193thruG203).

5. FEMA expert Lookabaugh says NUREG-0654 and commonsense are two criteria used to judge evacuation brochures (Tr. 4575 - 22).

Lockabaugh admits that he didn't bothcr to count the words in making the statement that the second brochure had fewer words(Tr.

4573 - 17). Lockabaugh admits that neither common sense nor NUREG-0654 dictates a FEMA reviewer to check the educational attainment levels of the target population (Tr. 4577 - 11).

6. NRC expert Perrotti says the sentence, "If the amount of radiation in the air is large, you must protect yourself from it" is enough information to satisfy NUREG-0654 criteria "some information about radiation"(Tr. 4612 - 8). Perrotti admits that there are technical errors in the brochure concerning radiation l

and nuclear power (Tr. 4617 - 16) (Tr . 4620 - 8).

~. . -

7. Applicant rebuttal witness Mileti does not know of any tendency of people in St. John the Baptist and St. Charles to turn on the radio or television (Tr. 4752 - 20thru24). He does not know how many people turn on the radio or any other media in an emergency (Tr. 4757 - Ithru8).

8. Although Mileti does not know what motivates people to read (Tr.4795 - 7andB), he does not see the brochure as a motivational toolfTr. 4807 - 1thru8).

9. Dr. Klare agrees that 2909 adults (25 years and cider) n St.

John the Baptist and St. Charles Parishes cannot comprehend the brochure according to the 1980 Census (Tr. 4258). He also does not know if there are discrepancies between educational attainment and reading level in the risk parishes (Tr. 4290 - 22).

10. Dr. Klare assumes that people are likely to know if their children's school is within the 10 mile radius without any testing of thi s assumpti cr, (Tr . 4325).

11. Dr. Kl are says that the critical information that the brochure should convey - turning to television and radio stations

- tskes a secondary role to the large f ormat accommodating a map specifying one evacuation procedure (Tr. 4361). Mileti does not know whether one map plan is enough or too much (Tr. 4772 - 5) nor does he believe it is a mistake to be too specific in outlining cnc evacuation plan (Tr. 4778).

12. Perry admits that 166 adults (18 years or older) in St.

Charles parish and 100 adults in St. John the Baptist parish do not speak English well or not at al l (Tr. 4250 - 24)(Tr. 4281 - 4).

Perry admits that a decision to exclude all other languages was made by the local governments (Tr. 4265 - 24and25).

13. The purpose of the brochure is a motivational and educational tool. Its function is to inform people of trhe proper procedure in the event of evacuation. Hunter Direct Testimony p. 1

14. Dr. Saundra Hunter, a social psychologist, places great weight on the communication process - the communicaticr, the message, and the target - in order to assess the effectiveness of the abrochure. Dr. Hunter f eels all three aspects of the tcmmunication process was lacking or unknown in this brochure. Dr.

Hunter believes that a study of the communicator credibility should take place in order because their is no information presently on the credibility of either Louisi ana Power & Light Co.

or state and local governments.

She al so f eels that the brochure should give an optimal fear l evel - neither too high nor too low. Too high a level would mke it too easy to dismiss. Dr. Hunter feels that the threat in the brochure is probably too low. Hunter Direct Testimony

15. The target of the brochure, has to be finely discriminated because fear levels closest to the Waterford 3 afacility would be

high; farther away feare levels of the population would be lower.

Thus a brochure would have to be designed for each group in order for the brochure to act as a motivational tool. Hunter Direct Testimony.

16. Hunter also believes that a practice evacuation should take place in order to assist the people in taking the brochurt scricusly since they will soon have to act on it. A pracatice evacuation woeid also help those pcople with low self-esteem to respond effectively in a situation that requires action. Hunter Direct Testimony

17. Mileti believes that a pre-emergency brochure is not wi thout somt benefit. It has a positive effect that those who have read the brochure prior to an accident will recall in an emergency that public officials have planned for such emergencies (Tr. 4797-98).

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The Board has considered all of the evidence submitted by the parties and the entire record of this proceeding. Based on the Findings of Fact set forth herein, which are supported by reliable, probative and substantial evidence in the record, this Board finds that the emergency brochure of the Applicant has major deficiencies and this Board instructs the Applicant to generate another brochure in light of the following criticisms:

(1) Appendin E, Part 50 specifies ... general information as to the nature and effects of radiation..". This Board finds the

section on radiation to be inadequate in the extreme. There is no mention of the effects of radiation whatsoever. No one reading that section could possibly guess that radiation could threaten your life.

(2) In the Initial Decision in the Matter of Consumers Power Conpany for the Big Rock Point Reactor (Docket 50-155-OLA; August 6, 1982) states:"...One attribute of an effective pamphlet is accuracy. I .mpor t ant inaccuracies may become dnown and may detract from the credibility and the necessary acceptance of the pamphlet...". This Board does not feel that the technical inaccuracies found in the pamphlet could not be states simply but correctly.

(3)The question raised by the ASLB in Big Rock concerning the radiation hazard " ...After all, why respond when no har m could cone to one anyway?.." parallels the question posed by Joint Intervenors expert Hunter in her direct testimony, "Why should you protect yourself if there is no danger from radioative material?"

This Board finds the Applicant considerably underplaying the radiation hazard.

(4)In the Big Rock Point decision a number of changes were made from the original pamphlet in order to reflect the special situation of women and unborn children. Thi s Board f eels that a special section outling the special sensitivity of women and unborn children would be appropriatel (5)The most disturbing part of the pamphlet that this Board feels will seriously diminish the credibility of the brochure is the initial sentence in the section entitled "A Message to our friends

I

- l l

l and neighbors". This sentence does not give the Applicant as a prime preparer of the document. It is our opinion that when the people see this document they will find out who prepared it (LP&L) '

and possibly not trust it.

'n- -ctfully - .itted,

/ *

/ ,l .

M t' ,

Gary . Groesch Joint Intervenors 2257 Bayou Road New Orleans, LA 70119 dated March 30, 1983 i

(

i 4

f 4

, . . , . ,. - . . - . _ - _ . _ _ _ _ ~ _ _ . , _ _ , _ _ . _ _ , , _

SERVICE LISI

<1)Sheldon J. Wol f e Chairman, Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555

<2>Dr. Harry Foreman Administrative Judge University of Minnesota Mi nneapol i s , MN 55455

< !. > D r . Walter Jordan Administrative Judge 881 West Guter Dr2ve Oak Ridgc. TN C.7830

< 4 ': Sh er wi n E. Turi.

Office of the E::ecuti ve Leas 1 Di ret t or U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington. DC 20555

5> Atomic Ssfet, and Licentina Buard Panel U.5 Nut] ear Recul a t or / Commi2ticn Wach2ngton, DC 20555

<6:: Atomi c Saf etv and Licensing Appeal Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555

<7) Docketing & Service Section Office of the Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555

<8> Bruce Churchill Shaw. Pi ttman, Potts .t Trowridge 1800 M Street Washington, DC 20036

<95 Brian Cassidy Federal Emergency Management Agency 442 J.W. McCormack Boston, MA 02109

t e

1 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby assert that a copy of JOINT INTERVENORS FINDINGS OF FACT i

AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW ON CONTENTION 17/26 (1) (a) , REQUEST FOR 9,

j AND EXTENSION OF FILING DATE, EXPLANATION FOR LATE FILING has been i

) placed into first class mail on this, the first day of April, 1983 l to members of the enclosed service list.

i Re- ett '2' mt, .itted.

' . A ,

Gary . Groesch l Joint Intervenors 4

4 t

J j

i

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ , . . _ _ , _ _ _ _ ,, _