Text

Public Opinion in PA Toward Accident at TMI & Its Aftermath
	ML20050C751
Person / Time
Site:	Crane
Issue date:	06/30/1980
From:	; FIELD RESEARCH CORP.
To:	;
Shared Package
ML19268D181	List: ML20050C750; ML20050C751; ML20050C755; ML20050C758;
References
	NUDOCS 8204090326
	Download: ML20050C751 (88)
	v • d • e

r

~

,2-E

, awrauww==u cuurwc:swras:munsaauun cre::=m t

e g

PUBLIC OPINION IN PENNSYLVANIA g

TOWARD THE ACCIDENT AT l

THREE MILE ISLAND AND ITS AFTERMATH k

a survey conducted for

- J GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITIES CORPORATION

't

- 1 A

A

)

% e n - a a w n a : w -=,,-

-+. _ =.namec7 0

June, 1980 Field Research Cort oration f'

f u

SAN FRANCISCO: 234 FRONT ST,94111, (415) 392 5763 LOS ANGELES: CENTURY PAM CENTE9. 9911 WEST P!CO BLVD. 90035 (213) 552-0916 8204090326 820329 DR ADOCK 05000289 PDR j

e

s CONTENTS FOREWORD i

THE FINDINGS I.

Most serious problems in County.

1 II.

Availability of electric power in the next few years.

3 III.

Electric utility charges during the past year.

5 IV.

Reactions to the accident at Three Mile Island.

7 V.

Six dimensions of personal reaction to the TMI accident A.

Feeling frightened for one's safety.

9 B.

Feeling angry at the of ficials or other people.

11 C.

Feeling confident of coming out okay.

13 D.

Feeling confused by what was happening.

15 E.

Feeling helpless about what was happening.

17 F.

Feeling satisfied that everything possible was being done 19 VI.

Perceived danger from radiation exposure during the accident 21 VII.

Perceived chances of receiving a dangerous dose of radiation from TMI sometime in the future 23 VIII.

Residents who left the area because of the accident 25 IX.

Perceived radiation exposure from krypton gas release 27 X.

Satisfaction with handling of TMI clean-up so far 29 XI.

Who is not doing a proper job in the clean-up.

31 l

l XII.

Confidence that the problems of cleaning j

up TMI will be solved 33 l

XIII.

Awareness of water inside the damaged reaction at TMI l

A.

Hazardousness of the water.

35 B.

Importance of removing the water.

37 C.

Confidence that the water will be removed safely. 39 XIV.

Awareness of procedural and other changes at the TMI plant 41 l

XV.

Attitudes toward starting up Unit #1 while l

repairing Unit #2 43 XVI.

Attitudes toward re-starting Unit #2 after it is repaired.

45 i

A

r 1

1 XVII.

Reaction to pro-nuclear arguments in the Primary region.

47 XVIII.

Reaction to pro-nuclear arguments in the Secondary region 49 XIX.

Reaction to pro-nuclear arguments in the Tertiary region 51 XX.

Reaction to anti-nuclear arguments in the Primary region.

53 XXI.

Reaction to anti-nuclear arguments in the Secondary region 55 XXII.

Reaction to anti-nuclear arguments in the Tertiary region.

57 XXIII.

Reliability of information sources on nuclear power in the Primary region.

59 XXIV.

Reliability of information sources on nuclear power in the Secondary region 61 XXV.

Reliability of information sources on nuclear power in the Tertiary region 63 XXVI.

Public involvement in community activities associated with TMI.

65 THE SURVEY METHOD

. Al THE QUESTIONNAIRE

. A2 1

l

s FOREWORD This report contains a summary of the findings of a survey of public opinion in the state of Pennyslvania.

The purpose of the study was to examine public opinion regarding a number of issues relating to the accident at the Three Mile Island nuclear power plant which occurred in late March, 1979, and its aftermath.

The survey was conducted by Field Research Corporation, an independent public opinion research organization in behalf of Metropolitan Edison Company and its parent, General Public Utilities Corporation.

FRC was solely responsible for all phases of the survey -- design, implementation and the report.

The survey was conducted by telephone with a represen-tative sample of 2033 adults between June 18 and June 30, 1980.

The sample design called for dividing the state into three regions -- Primary, Secondary and Tertiary -- relative to the proximity of residents to the TMI plant.

These regions were defined in the following manner:

Primary Region:

the area within a radius of five miles from the Three Mile Island nuclear power plant, which includes parts of Dauphin, Lancaster, and York Counties.

-A-

c.

Secondary Region:

the area within a radius of about five to twenty-five miles from the Three Mile Island nuclear power plant which includes large portions of Dauphin, Lebanon, York, Perry, Lancaster and Cumberland Counties.

Tertiary Region:

the larger area of Pennsylvania not included in either the Primary or Secondary Regions.

The Tertiary Region was sub-divided into Eastern and Western Pennsylvania.

The East-West dividing line was roughly the county lines separating Potter, Clinton, Mifflin, Huntingdon and Fulton Counties from Tioga, Lycoming, Union, Snyder, Juniata, and Franklin Counties.

In order to produce adequate statistical bases for each of the regions, sampling was done on a disproportionate basis, that is, the number of interviews allocated to each region was not proportionate to the statewide population of adults.

When the three regions were combined to produce the

" Statewide" base, appropriate statistical weighting was used to restore each area to its proper population proportion.

Interviewing was done from FRC's two central telephone interviewing facilities in San Francisco and Los Angeles.

A complete description of the survey methodology can be found in the appendix of this report along with a copy of the questionnaire used in the survey.

A second volume of l

computer print-outs contains the detailed tabulations of the data.

I

-ii-

e THE FINDINGS

I.

Most s erious problems in county At the beginning of the interview, respondents were asked to state in their own words what they felt were the "most serious problems" facing people in their county today.

Answers were recorded verbatim and were coded into general categories.

During the period of the interviewing (prior to the release of the krypton gas at TMI) it is clear that TMI and the krypton gas venting was the major concern of residents near the plant.

In the Primary region a majority (55%) mention the " dangers of TMI/ venting of the krypton gas" among the most serious problems facing their county.

Next most frequently cited are " inflation / cost of living" (22%) and

" unemployment / lack of work" (20%).

Other issues raised by people in this region include " taxes / big government" (10% ), " crime / law enforcement" (8%), "use of drugs / alcoholism" (6%) and the "need for social services" (5%).

Residents in the Secondary region also included TMI among their principal three concerns.

" Inflation / cost of living" ranks first with a 31% mention, followed by " unemployment / lack of work" (28%) and the " dangers of TMI/ venting of the krypton gas" (27%).

Other problems cited by those in the Secondary region are: " crime / law enforcement" (12%),

" taxes / big government" (11%), "need for social services" (8%)

The same high degree of concern with TMI and the venting of the krypton gas, however, does not extend to residents in the rest of the state.

Just 1% of residents in the Tertiary region mention the dangers of "TMI/ venting of the krypton gas" among their most serious problems.

The problems most often cited in this region are "unemploy-ment / lack of work" (4 2%) and " inflation / cost of living" (34%).

Other problems reported frequently are: " taxes / big government" (16%),

" crime / law enforcemon' (13%), " poor roads / lack of road maintenance" l

(13%), "use of drugs / alcoholism" (8%), and " health care needs" (7%).

I A listing of the problems mentioned by residents in all three regions and on a statewide basis is shown in Table 1 opposite.

l l l

Tablo 1 What do you personally feel are some af the most serious problems facing people in your county today?

Primary Secondary Tertiary Ibaion Pegion Pegion Statewide Dangers of TMI/ venting of krypton gas 55%

27%

1%

3%

Inflation / cost of living 22 31 34 33 Unemployment / lack of work 20 28 42 41 Taxes / big government 10 11 16 15 Crime / law enforcement 8

12 13 13 Use of drugs / alcoholism 6

6 8

8 Need for social services 5

8 4

5 Influx of Cubans, refugees into U.S.

4 6

1 2

Poor roads / lack of road maintenance 3

5 13 13 IIealth care needs 3

2 7

6 Energy problems 3

2 2

2 Cost of gasoline 3

4 6

6 Dangers of nuclear power 3

2 1

1 Education /the schools 2

4 6

6 Lack of housing 2

6 5

5 Air, water pollution 2

4 4

4 Cost of utility bills 2

3 2

2 No problems 4

3 3

3 Other mentions (less than 2%)

6 15 18 17 (Base)

(623)

(605)

(805)

(2033)

(Adds to more than 100% due to multiple mentions.)

2

.c s

TIo Availability of electric power in the next f ew years A large majority of residents in all three regions believe that there will be enough electric power available for household needs in their own area during the next few years.

Nearly three out of four (74%) of those in the Primary region, 68% of those in the Secondary region and 71% of residents in the Tertiary region feel that the supply of electricity in their area will be adequate.

Just one in six persons in each of the regions think that there is likely to be a shortage of power in the next few years.

Those who feel that an electric power shortage is likely during the next few years were asked what they believed would be the main causes of the shortage.

The reasons offered varied somewhat by region.

Among those in the Primary and Secondary regions the " shutdown, closing of TMI" is mentioned most frequently.

i i

i 1

j Table 2

]

Do you think there will be enough electric power available for house-hold needs 3n this area of Pennsylvania in the next few years, or is there likely to be a shortage of power?

(IF SHORTAGE LIKELY) What will cause this shortage of electric power?

I 4

i Primary Secondary Tertiary Ibgion Ibgion Begion Statewide _

Enough availability 74%

68%

71%

Likely to be a shortage 15%

18%

15%

j Shutdown, closing of TMI 5

5 1

2 Rapid growth /new building 4

4 2

2 I

Lack of conservation /

inefficiencies 3

5 6

6 Resistance to nuclear power 2

2 2

2 Lack of low cost oil /

shortage of oil 1

1 1

1 i

Failure to explore other energy alternatives 1

2 1

1 Not enough coal production 1

1 2

2 2

1 1

l Poor planning by utility Gov't regulations 1

1 Other mentions 1

1 1

1 Don't know 11%

14%

M 1 43 (Base)

(623)

(605)

(805)

(2033)

(Adds to more than subtotal due to multiple mentions)

Less than one half of one percent I

l l

t

.4

o III.

Electric power utility charges during the past year i

A substantial majority of residents in all regions state that their electric utility charges have increased during the past year.

This is reported with somewhat greater f requency by those in the Tertiary region where eight in ten (80%) report an electric utility rate increase.

Sixty-eight percent of residents in Primary region and 74% of those in the Secondary region say that their electric utility charges increased during the past year.

Residents who reported increases in their electric utility charges were asked what they felt caused their electric power rates to rise.

In the Primary and Secondary regions "the added cost of the TMI accidents" is mentioned most of ten.

Next most frequently mentioned is "inflatiod' in each region.

Other ranking reasons for the rate hikes include: the " rising cost of fuel / energy", that the

" utility has to buy electricity from other sources", " higher labor costs", and "wasce/ profiteering by the utility."

In the Tertiary region the primary factors which residents cite for rate increases are: " inflation" (15%), " higher labor costs" (14%), the " rising cost of f uels/ energy" (12%), " waste / profiteering by the utility" (9%) and " OPEC price increases" (9%).

" Added costs of the TMI accident" receive a 6% mention in the Tertiary region. _-_-_____-_---

Table 3 1

In the past year have the rates that your electric power utility charges for electricity increased, decreased, or remained about

(

the same?

(IF INCREASED) What do you think the reasons were that caused electric power rates to go up?

i Primary Secondary Tertiary l

Begion Begion Begion Statewide Rates have increased 68%

74%

80%

79%

2 Added cost of TMI accident 29 29 6

8 Inflation 13 12 15 15 Rising cost of fuels / energy 7

8 12 11 Utility has to buy from other sources 6

7 3

3 Higher labor costs 6

7 14 13 Waste / profiteering by utility 6

5 9

9 Higher taxes, surcharges 4

4 4

4 OPEC oil price increases 3

6 9

9 People using too much/

failure to conser've 3

3 6

6 Higher production costs 2

7 6

6 Increases in cost of coal 1

2 6

6 Increases in cost of building i

new power plants 1

2 3

3 Shortages in natural resources 1 1

2 2

1 1

Worker strikes Other mentions 2

2 4

4 Rates have remained about the same 24%

19%

15%

Rates have decreased 1%

2%

1%

Don't know 6%

5%

(Base)

(623)

(605)

(805)

(2033)

(Adds to more than subtotal due to multiple mentions)

Less than one half of one percent f

i. -

.=

IV.

Reactions to the accident at Three Mile Island Respondents were asked to think back to the time of the accident at the Three Mile Island nuclear power plant and recall what their main feelings and reactions were as word about the accident was coming out.

The volume of the responses received, especially among those living near the plant, illustrate the depth and range of feelings that prevailed at the time.

Among residents of the Primary and Secondary regions the type and frequency of comments are similar.

The most frequent l

reactions have to do with " evacuation plans / preparing to leave" l

and " fear / worry / anxiety" each cited by approximately one in three.

About one in four in each region say they were " confused / heard conflicting reports".

Another one in four in each region however say they were " skeptical /it didn't bother me".

l An assortment of other comments are offered in significant proportions most of which have to do with concerns for either one's personal safety or the safety of others:

" concern about family, friends near the plant"; " anger at those in charge / lack of precau-l tions"; " feeling of helplessness"; " concern about radiation / health dangers"; and "a concern about children, pregnant women".

The reactions to residents in the Tertiary region, though not so much oriented to their own personal safety, were nearly as if not more, diverse.

The most frequent responses were " anger at l

those in charge / lack of precautions" (27%); " concern for family, friends near the plant" ( 24%) ; " concern about radiation / health dangers" ( 23%) ; " fear / worry / anxiety" ( 21 %) ; and " felt lucky I didn't live too near the plant" (18%).

Another 15% say they were

" skeptical /it didn ' t bother me".. -.

. _ = _ -

j Table 4 Now, I'd like you to think back to the time a little more than a year ago when the accident occurred in the nuclear power plant at Three Mile Island.

As you recall that time, what Stere your main feelings and reactions as word about the accident at Three Mile Island was coming out?

Primary Secondary Tertiary Region Ngion Ngion Statw ide Evacuation plans / preparing to leave 37%

37%

5%

7%

Fear / worry / anxiety 33 32 21 22 l

Confused / heard conflicting reports 27 23 8

9 Skeptical /it didn't bother me 26 23 15 16 Concern for family, friends near the plant 18 23 24 24 Anger at those in charge / lack of precautions 16 16 27 25 Feeling of helplessness 15 18 6

7 Concerned about radiatioq/

health dangers 14 14 23 22 Concerned about children, pregnant women 12 7

6 6

Amazed /didn't realize its seriousness 7

11 4

4 i

Overplayed / blown out of propor-tion by media 7

6 7

7 Felt truth was being covered up 5

7 7

7 Against nuclear power / feel all plants should be closed 4

7 9

9 Put my faith in God / religion 3

4 1

1 Concerned about effects on environment 3

6 7

7 Relieved that it didn' t become a disaster 3

3 2

2 Felt lucky I didn't live too near the plant 2

9 18 17 Concerned about possible decline in property values 1

1 Other mentions 4

6 24 22 No answer 1

1 (Base)

(623)

(605)

(80 5)

(2033)

(Adds to more than 100% due to multiple mentions)

Less than one half of one percent

)

V.

Six dimensions of personal reaction to the TMI accident 1

In addition to the free response question, a second battery of six additional questions attempted to measure six dimensions of resident reactions to the accident.

These included the degree to which residents: (1) felt frightened for their safety; (2) felt j

angry at of ficials or others; ( 3) felt confident that they would

~

come out okay; (4) were confused by what was happening; (5) felt

{

helpless about what was happening; and (6) felt satisfied that i

everything possible was being done.

l l

A.

Feeling frightened for one's safety A majority of those in the Primary region (52%) report that they were frightened for their safety at the time of the accident with 29 % stating that they were "very frightened".

On the other hand, 47% say that they were "not at all frightened" for their safety.

In the Secondary region half of the res_ 'ents (50%) say that they were frightened, 21% of whom say they were "very frightened".

Forty-nine percent say they were not frightened at the time.

Residents in the Tertiary region, by their own account, were comparatively less frightened.

Two out of three (66%) report that they were not frightened for their safety at the time of the accident.

lioweve r, one in three (33%) do report being either "somewhat" or "very frightened".

l _

. ~.

s Tablo SA Were you frightened for your safety?

Prinnry Secondary Tertiary Region Beaion Region Statewide Yes, very frightened 29%

21%

11%

12%

52%

50%

33%

34%

Yes, somewhat frightened 23 29 22 22 No,not at all frightened 47 49 66 64 No Answer 1

1 1

2 (Base)

(623)

(605)

(805)

(2033) i l

l i

i I

l l

l t __

I B.

Feeling angry at the officials or other people A majority of residents in the Primary region (53%) report being angry at either the of ficials or others at the time of the l

accident, with many (31%) saying they were "very angry".

Forty-six percent of those in the Primary region, however, say they a

were not angry at officials during the accident.

.I l

llalf of the residents in the Secondary region (50%) also report being angry at officials or others, 28% of whom describe themselves as being "very angry".

Public cantiments of anger at officials or other people extend to the Tertiary region in significant proportions.

Forty-seven percent of those in the Tertiary region (and on a statewide basis) say they were angry at officials or others at the time of the accident.

I e

l l

6 9

I 1

h l

4 -

=

Table 5B Wers you angry at the officials or other people?

i Primary Secondary Tertiary Ibgion Ibgion Begion Statewide Yes, very angry 31%

28%

20%

21%

53%

50%

47%

Yes, somewhat angry 22 22 27 26 No, not at all angry 46 49 50 50 No answer 1

1 3

3 (Base)

(623)

(605)

(805)

(2033)

C.

Feeling confident of coming out okay Despite the fact that most residents in the Primary and Seconda y regions reported feeling frightened and angry, about two out of three felt confident that they would come out of it okay.

In the Primary region 36% say they were "very confident",

while 29% say they were "somewhat confident" of coming out okay.

One in three (33%), however, were "not at all confident" that they would come out okay.

In the Secondary region 39% were "very confident" of coming out okay, 30% describe themselves as being "somewhat l

confident", while 29% say they were "not at all confident" of coming out of it okay.

1 Residents in the Tertiary region who as shown before did not feel as threatened, also felt more confident that they would come out okay.

Greater than three out of four (78%) felt they would be okay, while just 18% were "not at all confident" of coming out okay.

i 1

l l l 1

Tablo SC Were you confident that you would come out ok?

Prinary Secondary Tertiary Region Ibgion Region Statewide Yes, very confident 36%

65%

69%

78%

77%

Yes, somewhat confident 29 30 30 30 No, not at all confident 33 29 18 19 No answer 2

2 4

4 (Base)

(623)

(605)

(805)

(2033) i 1

l f

.i i,. _..,

D.

Feeling confused _by what was happening A large majority of people in all regions say they were confused by what was happening at the time of the accident.

Three out of four residents in the Primary region (75%)

say they were confused, 40% of whom were "very confused".

Nearly as many residents in the Secondary region. (72%) say that they were confused at the time of the accident, with 34% saying they were "very confused".

A relatively high degree of confusion also extended to those in the Tertiary region.

Nearly two out of three residents (63%) in the Tertiary region said that they were confused by what was happening, although a smaller proportion (26%) say they were "very confused". _

Table SD Were you confused by what was happening?

Primary Secondary Tertiary Begion Begion Begion Statside

-Yes, very confused 40%

34%

26%

75%

g 63%

64%

Yes, somewhat confused 35 38 37 37 No, not at all confused 25 27 35 35 1

2 1

No answer (Base)

(623)

(605)

(805)

(2033)

Less than one half of one percent t

I _ -. _ -

u E.

Feeling helpless about what was happening The results also reveal a widespread feeling of helplessness among Pennsylvania residents relative to the events at TMI at the time of the accident.

Greater than seven in ten residents in all three regions report that they felt helpless about what was happening with more than four in ten statewide saying they felt "very helpless"...............

Tablo SE Did you feel helpless about what was happening?

Primary Secondary Tertiary Region Region Region Statewide Yes, very helpless 46k 45%

42%

Yes, somewhat helpless 26 j 29 31 31 No, not at all helpless 27 24 25 25 No answer 1

2 2

2 (Base)

(623)

(605)-

(805)

(2033) r.

F.

Feeling satisfied that everything possible was being done Despite the widespread feeling of helplessness, confusion, fright and anger a majority of the public in each of the regions was satisfied that everything possible was being done.

Slightly greater than one in three, however, say they were "not at all satisfied" that everythinri mssible was being done.

Tablo SF Were you satisfied that everything possible was being done?

Primary Secondary Tertiary Ngion Region Region Statewide Yes, very satisfied 27%

28%

58%

60%

58%

Yes, somewhat satisfied 31 32 30 30 No, not at all satisfied 38 35 36 36 No answer 4

5 6

6 (Base)

(.6 23)

(605)

(.80 5 )

(2033) i i

VI.

Perceived danger from radiation exposure during the accident Among those in the Primary region 14% believe they got a dangerous dose of radiation at the time.

Six in ten (60%) say they did not receive a dangerous amount of radiation; another 25% aren't sure.

In the Secondary region 8% of the public feel they received dangerous amounts of radiation, 72% say they did not and 19%

aren't sure.

In the Tertiary region (4%) feel they received a dangerous dose of radiation during the TMI accident.

i l

Table 6-Do you believe you got a dangerous dose of radiation during the TMI accident?

Primary Secondary Tertiary Ibgion Region Begion Statewide Yes 14%

8%

4%

No 60 72 78 78 Don't know 25 19 10 10 Not in area 1

1 8

8 (Base)

(.6 2 3)

(605)

(805)

(2033) xt

r VII.

Perceived chances of receiving a dangerous dose of radiation from TMI sometime in the future A substantial proportion of residents living near the l

plant believe they stand a chance of getting a dangerous dose of radiation from TMI sometime in the near future.

f In the Primary region nearly one-half (49%) of the residents believe this is a possibility.

Forty-one percent in the Secondary area believe they do stand a chance of getting a dangerous dose of radiation from TMI in the future.

Among those in the Tertiary region about one in four (28%)

think there is a chance of receiving a dangerous dosage of radiation from TMI in the future.

t Tablo 8 i

Do you think you stand a chance of getting a dangerous dose of radiation from TMI sometime in the future?

Primary Secondarf Tertiary Begion Ibgion Beoion Statewide i

Yes 49%

41%

28%

29%

No 32 39 55 53 Don't know 19 20 17 18 i

(Base)

(623)

(60 5)

(805)

(2033) i l

1 1

[

4 i

L

+

1 r

1

.o VIII.

Residents who left the area because of the accident Two out of five residents (40%) in the Primary region say they left the area for more than a day specifically because of the TMI accident.

,%out one in six (17%) of the residents in the Secondary region and 2% in the Tertiary area say they left the area at the time.

i I

t

_ = = -

~

Table 7 Did you leave this area for more than a day specifically because of the TMI accident?

't Prbnary Secondary Tertiary Canbined Region Region Region Stats ide Yes 40%

17%

2%

3%

No 58 81 89 88 Not in area 2

2 9

9 1

(Base)

(623)

(605)

(805)

(2033) 1 l

f i

A i

I 1

t j

l I.

IX.

Perceived radiation exposure from krypton gas release Residents offer varying opinions when asked to compare the radiation levels that would be received during the impending

]

release of the krypton gas to the amount of radiation received in a typical chest X-ray.

About one in four of those in the Primary and Secondary regions (22% and 25% respectively) felt that the krypton gas release l

would expose people within a mile of the plant to more radiation than a typical chest X-ray.

flowever, a similar proportion in each l

region (27% and 24% respectively) believed the amount of radiation j

exposure would be less than a chest X-ray.

Another twenty-one l

percent said they felt the amount would be "about the same", while the largest group (30% in both the Primary and Secondary regions)

^

said that they didn't know.

i l

A somewhat greater proportion of residents in the Tertiary j

region feel the krypton gas will expose them to more radiation than a typical X-ray.

Nearly 37% of the residents in this region felt the amount of radiation exposure to those within a mile of the plant I

would be more than a chest X-ray.

Eighteen percent feel it would be less and another 19% of the residents in the Tertiary region feel i

it would be "about the same" as a chest X-ray.

Among those who feel the radiation exposure would be greater than a typical chest X-ray, estimates of what that amount would be range from "slightly more" to "more than ten times l

more" than a chest X-ray.

l Similarly among those who felt that the amount of l

radiation exposure from the krypton gas release would be less than a typical chest X-ray, there is no agreement as to how much less it would be with estimates ranging from "one half as much" to "less than one tenth as much".

Table 9 opposite shows the wide range of estimates made on this matter. _

Table 9

As you understand it, what level of radiation exposure would people i

within a mile of the damaged nuclear power at Three Mile Island receive when the Krypton gas that is inside the plant is released into l

the atmosphere -- would it be less than a chest X-ray, about the same, or more than a chest X-ray?

(IF MORE OR LESS) How much (more) (less) would it be?"

Primary Secondary Tertiary aegion Region Statewide region __

More than chest X-ray 22%

25%

37%

36%

4 Slightly more 5

5 4

4 Twice as much 3

4 8

7 j

Three times as much 3

4 3

3 Four times as much 2

2 2

2 Five to ten times as much 3

3 6

6 More than ten times as much 1

3 5

5 Don't know 5

4 9

8 About the same as a chest X-ray 21%

21%

19%

19 %

l i

i Less than chest X-ray 27jL 24%

18%

One half as much 5

5 3

3 One quarter as much 4

3 2

2 One tenth as much 3

4 3

3 Less than one tenth as much 6

4 3

3 i

Don't know 9

8 7

7 1

Don ' t know 30%

30%

26%

27%

i (Base)

(623)

(605)

(805)

(2033) l i _. -.

1

)

X.

Satisfaction with handling of TMI clean-up so far i

l More people in the Primary and Secondary regions say l

they are dissatisfied than satisfied with the handling of the

]

TMI clean-up so far.

Forty-eight percent of those in the Primary I

region say they are dissatisfied with the clean-up, 30% of whom i

are "strongly" dissatisfied.

This compares to 41% who are either "strongly" or "somewhat" satisfied with the TMI clean-up thus far.

1 i

Sentiments toward the clean-up in the Secondary region are somewhat comparable.

Forty-six percent say they are dissatisfied i

i and 41% say they are satisfied.

Residents in the Tertiary region appear to be more

)

satisfied with the way the clean-up at TMI is proceeding.

Half (50%) report being either "strongly" or "somewhat" satisfied with the clean-up, while about one in three (34%) say they are dissatisfied.

l, 4

l 1

l r

1 1

_. - - -., ~

~.

Tablo 10 Are you satisfied or dissatisfied with how the problems of cleaning up Three Mile Island are being handled so far?

Primary Secondary Tertiary Ibaion Ibgion Begion Statewide Strongly satisfied 13 1

14 14 41%

41S 50%

49%

Somewhat satisfied 28 28 36 35 Somewhat dissatisfied 18 21 16 1

48%

46%

34%

35%

Strongly dissatisfied 30 25 18 18 Undecided / Don't know 11 13 16 16 (Base)

(623)

(605)

(805)

(2033)

=

l XI.

Who is not doing a proper job in the clean-up 4

Residents dissatisfied with t.he clean-up were asked who or what organization was not doing a proper job in the TMI clean-up.

The most frequent mention made in all of the regions are the Metropolitan Edison Company and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Twenty-four percent of residents in the Primary region, 23% of those in the Secondary region and 13% of those in the Tertiary region cite Met Ed as not doing a proper job.

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is mentioned by 17% in the Primary region, by 14% in the Secondary region and by 8% in the Tertiary region.

1 i

Other organizations cited frequently as not doing a proper job are the federal government, state government and government officials in general.

i l

t Table 11 (IF DISSATISFIED) Who, or what organization, do you believe is not doing a proper job?

Primary Secondary Tertiary Region Ibgion Iegion State. Wide Dissatisfied with clean-up (4 8%)_

(46%)

(34%)

(35%)

Met Ed/The Utility 24 23 13 14 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 17 14 8

9 Federal gov't 6

5 5

5 State government 4

4 2

2 Gov't officials (general) 3 5

7 7

Whoever is in charge 3

2 2

2 Everyone connected with it 2

2 1

1 Babcock & Wilcox/ builders of the plant 1

1 Local officials 1

1 1

Anti-nuclear groups Other mentions 4

2 1

1 (Base)

(623)

(605)

(805)

(2033)

( Adds to more than 100% due to multiple mentions)

Less than one half of one percent XII.

Confidence that the problems of cleaning up TMI will be solved Substantial majorities of the public in all regions are confident that the TM1 clean-up problems will be solved.

Sixty-three percent of those in the Primary region, 60% of residents in

' the Secondary region and 67% of those in the Tertiary region say that they are either "very" or "somewhat" confident that the problems of cleaning up TMI will be solved.

I 1

l i

i r

l Table 12 How confident are you that the problems of cleaning up TMI will be solved -- very confident, somewhat confident, not too confident, or not at all confident?

Primary Secondary Tertiary Region Begion Pegion Statewide Very confident 23 2

23 23 63%

60%

67%

Somewhat confident 40 39 44 44 Not too confident 19 23 19 19 34%

35%

30%

Not at all confident 15 12 11 11 No opinion 3

5 3

13 (Base)

(623)

(605)

(805)

(2033) s a

J __.

a

.e i

XIZI.

Awareness of water inside the damaged reactor at TMI There is high awareness that there is water inside the damaged reactor at TMI among residents of the Primary and Secondary regions.

In each region nearly.three out of four (74%) say they have heard or read something about the water in the TMI reactor.

Awareness is not as high in the Tertiary region but a majority of people (56%) say they know about it.

I i

A.

Ilazardousness of the water Those persons aware of - the water in the TMI reactor were asked a series of questions having to do with the hazardousness i

of the water, the importance they attached to removing the water, and the confidence they had that the water would be removed safely.

l, Large proportions ~of residents in each region believe that the water is the reactor is hazardous.

Less than 5% in any region I

feel it is not hazardous.

l l

l l l l

Table 13A Have you heard or read anything about the water that is inside the damaged reactor at TMI?

(IF AWARE OF THE WATER) As you understand it, is this water hazardous or not?

Primary Secondary Tertiary Region Region Region Statewide Heard about water in TMI reactor 74%

74%

56%

58%

Believe water is hazardous 64 63 48 49 Believe water not hazardous 4

4 3

4 Don't know 6

7 5

5 Have not heard about water in TMI reactor

.26%

26%

44%

42%

(Base)

(623)

(605)

(805)

(2033) l' t-l i

1

I B.

Importance of removing __the water Large proportions of residents in each region feel it is important that the water be removed from the damaged reactor as soon as possible.

Majorities of 56% in the Primary region and 52%

j in the Secondary region feel it is either " extremely" or "somewhat" important that the water be removed.

In the Tertiary region, where awareness about the water in the reactor is somewhat less, 39%

l say it is important that the water be removed as soon as possible.

Fewer than one in ten residents in any region describe the I

removal of the water in the reactor as not important.

l

~

Table 13B (IF AWARE OF WATER IN THE REACTOR) How important do you feel it is that the water be removed as soon as possible?

Primary Secorvin,(

Tertiary Region Region Region Statewide Heard about water in TMI reactor 74%

74%

56%

58%_

Extremely important to remove water 40 32 25 26 Somewhat important to remove water 16 20 14 14 Not too important to remove water 4

6 6

6 Not at all important to remove water 3

4 2

3 Don't kncw 11 12 9

9 Have not heard about water in TMI reactor 26%

26%

-44%

42%

(Base)

(623)

(605)

(805)

(2033)

{

i-l l

l _. _ - - _

4 C.

Confidence that the water will be removed safely Large proportions of those aware of the water in the reactor also feel confident that it will be removed safely.

However, minorities of between 20% and 30% in each region say they are not confident that the water will safely be removed.

l Table 13C (IF AWARE OF WATER IN THE REACTOF.) How confident are you that the water will be removed safely?

Primary Secondary Tertiary Region Begion Region _

Statewide Heard about water in TMI reactor 74%

74%

56%.

58%

Extremely confident it will be removed safely 13 13 11 11 Somewhat confident it will be removed safely 28 32 21 22 Not too confident it will be removed safely 16 16 14 14 Not at all confident it will be removed safely 12 9

6 6

Don't know 5

4 4

5 Have not heard about water in the TMI reactor 26%

26%

44%

42%

(Base)

(623)

(605)

(805)

(2033) l I

4 XIV.

Awareness of procedural and other changes at the TMI plant Respondents in the survey were asked if they had heard of various changes in procedure and operations at TMI since the accident.

The four changes posed to respondents included:

j equipment changes to improve safety; improved training of operators; improved public notification procedures during emergencies; and the reorganization of the company's management set-up at the plant.

Relatively large proportions of the public in the Primary j

and Secondary regions are aware of two plant changes.

These are the improved public notification procedures to be used during an emergency and the improved training programs for operators at the plant.

Recognized by less than one in three of those living near the plant are the reorganization of the company's management set-up at TMI and the equipment changes to improve the level of safety.

i t

Among persons in the Tertiary region none of the changes in procedure and operations at the TMI plant are known to more than one-third of the public.

i l. _

o Table 14 Aware of procedural and other changes at the TMI plant Primary Secondary Tertiary Region Region Region Statewide Level of awareness Improved public notification procedures to be used during an emergency 58%

54%

31%

33%

Improved training program for the operators 50 43 32 33 Reorganization of the company's set-up to improve management 33 25 22 23 Equipment changes that have or are being made to improve the level of safety 27 25 27 27 (Base)

(623)

(605)

(805)

(2033)

The proportion of residents not aware of the changes listed above equals the difference between the awareness percentage cited and 100%. _

XV.

Attitudes toward starting up Unit-#1 while repairing Unit #2 Residents in all of the regions are sharply divided on allowing Unit #1 to be re-started while clean-up operations are underway at Unit #2.

Opinion in the Primary region divides 49% to 46% in favor of re-starting Unit #1.

However, of those who disapprove most say they disapprove "strongly".

Narrow majorities of the public in the Secondary and Tertiary regions approve of re-starting Unit #1 while cleaning up Unit #2.

However, as is the case in the Primary region, among those who disapprove, significant proportions of Secondary and Tertiary residents say they disapprove "strongly".....

,i 1

Table 15 Assuming that it would be operated under improved safety standards, would you approve or disapprove of allowing Unit #1 to be started up again while they continue to clean-up Unit #2?

Prinnry Semndary Tertiary Conbined Ibgion RxJ on Region Statewide i

Approve strongly 28 30 26 26 4 9,"

53""

Sla Sla Approve somewhat 21 23 25 25 10k Disapprove somewhat 8

11 46a 41a 4 1,

41 Disapprove strongly 38 34 30 31j No opinion 5

6 8

8 (Base)

(623)

(605)

(805)

(2033) f 4

l l

r I

L

,_r..._,

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

_-n.-._ _ - - -.- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -, - - - -, - - - - -

XVI.

Attitudes toward re-starting Unit #2 after it is repaired A similar sharp division exists in the Primary region in respect to the eventual re-starting of Unit #2 if it could be repaired and rebuilt to improved safety standards.

About half (51%) of those in the Primary region say they approve of re-starting Unit #2 if such repairs could be made, but 4 3%

disapprove, with 36% saying they disapprove "strongly".

Residents in the Secondary and Tertiary regions appear to be more favorable to the idea of re-starting Unit #2 if it could be repaired and rebuilt to improved safety standards.

Fifty-nine percent in the Secondary region approve of resuming operations at Unit #2, and nearly two out of three (64%) in the Tertiary region approve of re-starting Unit #2. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _

Table 16 Assuming that the damaged Unit #2 at Three Mile Island could be repaired and rebuilt to improved safety standards, would you approve or disapprove of allowing it to be started up again?

Primry Semnda r y Tertiary Conbined Ibgion Iblion Tbgion Statewide Approve strongly 27 31 30 30 51 ".

5 9,,

6 4 a.

63 ?.

Approve somewhat 24 28 34 33 Disapprove somcwhat 7

6 4 37.

367, 297.

307.

Disapprove s trongly 36 31 23 24 No opinion 6

5 7

7 (Base)

(623)

(605)

(805)

(2033) t XVII.

Reactions to pro-nuclear arguments in the Primary region Eleven statements about nuclear power were read to respondents in each region and respondents were asked whether they agreed or disagreed with each one.

Reactions to the pro-nuclear arguments in the Primary region tre listed in Table 17 l

opposite according to their rank order of agreement.

There is substantial agreement with five of the six pro-nuclear positions in the Primary region.

Nearly eight in ten j

( 79 %) agree either "strongly" or "somewhat" that " residents living j

in the vicinity of nuclear power plants will be much safer in the future as a result of the lessons learned at TMI."

About three out of four (74%) agree that if repairs aren't made soon ut TMI, further equipment failures could cause new dangers.

Sixty-two percent of residents in the Primary region agree j

that the media coverage of the accident at TMI was not fair and

" blew things out of proportion." overall, a similar proportion agree that "we will have to rely on nuclear power as an important energy source for many years to come."

Also the state-ment that " people who oppose the clean-up operations at TMI are simply in a panic and do not have a realistic view of what needs to be done" is supported on the order of about five to three (56% to 38%).

l The one pro-nuclear position to which residents in the Primary region are sharply divided has to do with the idea that the events at TMI prove that "the science and technology of nuclear power was adequate to cope with the problems that arose before anyone was hurt."

Forty-nine agree with this position, but 46% disagree.

i i

' i

Tablo 17 Pro-Nuclear Power Arguments Primary Region Agree Agree Disagme Disagree NO Strongly Somewhat Somewhat Strongly' Opinion Ibsidents living in the vicinity of nuclear power plants will be mudi 79 19 safer in the future as a result of the lessons learned at TMI....... '48%..

31'... b...

11...

2 I

If repairs are not made as soon as possible to the damaged reactor there 74 14 could be further equipnent failures T

r T

which could cause new dangers.....

48%..

26...

8..

6..

12 Newspapers and television reporters were not fair in their coverage of the 62 34 accident at TMI and have blown thin

^

out of proportion.........gs

. 41%... 21).

16...

18...

4 7

3 We will have to rely on nuclear power 62 35 as an inportant energy source for many

^

T r

years to conn....

36%... 26..

13...

22..

3 People who oppose the clean-up operations at TMI are sinply in a 56 38 panic and do not have a realistic

^

3 s

view of what needs to be done.....

30 %..

26..

19...

6

'1he 'Ihree Mile Island emnts showed that even in a major accident the science and technology of nuclear power was adegtute to cope with the 49 46 problens that arose before anyone was r

3 r

3 hurt..................

17%..

32..

17...

29...

5 XVIII.

Reaction to pro-nuclear arguments in the Secondary region The responses of residents in the Secondary region to the six pro-nuclear statements are similar to the results obtained in the Primary region.

Five of the six statements are supported by substantial proportions of the public.

As in the Primary region, more than seven in ten agree that " residents living in the vicinity of nuclear power plants will be safer in the future as a result of the lessons learned at TMI" and that "if repairs are not made soon to the damaged reactor further equipment failures could cause new dangers".

l The belief that nuclear power will be an important energy

)

source for many years to come is affirmed by 66% in the Secondary region.

Also, overall 56% agree that media accounts of the TMI accident "were not fair and blew things out of proportion,"

and that " people opposed to the clean-up operations at TMI do not have a realistic view of what needs to be done."

l l

One pro-nuclear position also sharply divides residents i

in the Secondary region.

Forty-eight percent agree that " th e TMI events showed that even in a major accident the science and

(

technology of nuclear power was adequate to cope with the l

i problems that arose before anyone was hurt," but 47% disagree.

1 f L

Table 18 Pro-Nuclear Power Arguments Secondary Region Agree Agree Disagree Disagree No Strongly Scznewhat Smewhat Strongly ' Opinion Besidents living in the vicinity of nuclear power plants will be much safer 76 21 in the future as a result of the r

3 r

3 lessons learned at TMI 46%..

30..

10...

11..

3 If repairs are not made as soon as possible to the damaged reactor there 71 13 could be further equignent failures r

3 r

which cruld cause new dangers.....

46%..

25..

10....

3....

6 We will have to rely on nuclear power 66 30^

as an important energy source for 7

many years to come.

39 %..

27,..

11...

19....

4 Newspapers and television reporters were not fair in their coverage of the 56 38 accident at TMI and have bicwn things 7

s 7

out of proportion..

33%..

23..

17...

21.... 6 People who oppose the clean-up operations at TMI are sinply in a 56.

36 panic and do not have realistic view 3

r of what needs to be done.

28%..

28'..

17..

. 19....

8

'Ibe Three Mile Island events showed that even in a major accident the science and technology of nuclear power was adequate to cope with the 48 47 problems that arose before anyone was r

hurt..................

16%.

. 32..

20...

27..

5 XIX.

Reaction to pro-nuclear arguments in the Tertiary region The rank ordering of the responses of those in the Tertiary region is essentially the same as in the other regions, although in this region all six pro-nuclear statements receive majority support.

l l

l l l l

l

Table 19 Pro-Nuclear Power Arguments Tertiary Region Agree Agree Disagree Disagree No Strongly Scmuhat Somewhat Strongly Opinion Residents living in the vicinity of nuclear power plants will be noch 76 20 safer in the future as a result r

r T

of the lessons learned at TMI.

42%...

34.... 9..

11....

4 We will have to rely on nuclear 69 28 power as an inportant energy source

^

r for nuny years to come........

42%.

27....r10..

18....

8 3

If repairs are not made as soon as possible to the damaged reactor there 66 17 could be further equiptent failures r

3 r

which could cause new dangers....

38%...

28...

11...

6...

17 Newspapers and television reporters were not fair in their coverage of 51 39 the accident at TME and have blown 3

things out of proportion..

27%.

24....~19..

20...

10 People who oppose the clean-up l

operations at 'IMI are sinply in a 57 35 l

panic and do not have a realistic

^

r 3

vim of what needs to be done. '.

. 27%.

30.

17..

18.

8

'Ihe 'Ihree Mile Island events showed l

that even in a nujor accident the science and technology of nuclear p wer was adequate to cope with the 53 39 problens that arose before anyone was l

hurt.

19 %...

34.

. 18..

21....

8 l

l O

6 XX.

Reaction to anti-nuclear arguments in the Primary region Five anti-nuclear statements were administered to respondents in the survey.

Two are supported by large majorities of the residents in the Primary region.

By a 59% to 29% margin residents agree that "not nearly enough is being done to deal with serious emotional and psychological problems that TMI has caused among the people of the area."

Similarly by a 54% to 28% margin residents of the Primary region agree that "a nuclear power plant can fail and the nuclear materials can come together to cause a massive nuclear explosion."

Opinion in the Primary region is divided on two anti-nuclear positions.

A slight majority (52%) disagrees that "all nuclear power plants in the country should be closed down until the federalgovernment knows more about the safety risks involved in them."

However, 44% agree with this position.

A plurality (44%) disagree with the assertion.that the release of radioactivity from TMI has caused some miscarriages and birth defects.

However, 28% say they agree and another 28%

are not sure or do not have an opinion on this argument.

There is strong disagreement that "all nuclear power plants should be shut down permanently and no more should be allowed to be built."

Two out of three residents in the Primary region (66%) disagree with this position, 40% of whom disagree "strongly."

Table 20 Anti-Nuclear Power Arguments Primary Region Agree Agree Disagree Disagree No Strongly Smewhat Somewhat Strongly Opinion Not nearly enough is being done to chal with serious enotional and psychological prchlens that 'IMI 59 29 has caused among the people of th

^

r T

area.................

37%....

22...

16..

13...

12 A nuclear power plant can fail and the nuclear materials can oom 54 28 together to cause a massive I

T nuclear explosion......

34%..... 20.... r10..

18'...

18 All nuclear power plants in the country should be closed down until the federal goverment 44 52 knws nore about the safety risPS A

A T

I involved in them

.I30 %.

. 14.... f25..

27.

.4 The release of radioactivity from 28 44 TMI since the accident has caused

^

sme miscarriages and birth defects 11%

17...

17.

. 27' 28 All nuclear p wer plants should be 28 66

^

shut down permanently and no more r

should be allowed to be built.

20%.

8 '....r26..

40'.

6 i _

XXI.

Reaction to anti-nuclear arguments in the Secondary region Reaction to the five anti-nuclear positions in the Secondary region does not vary much from the Primary region.

Two of the arguments are accepted by a majority of the residents.

These are that "not enough is being done to deal with the serious emotional and psychological problems caused by TMI" (59% agreement) and the belief that "a nuclear power plant can fail and can cause a massive nuclear explosion" ( 53% agreement).

Slight pluralities of the public in the Secondary region disagree that all nuclear plants should be shut down until more is known about their safety risks, and that "the release of radioactivity from TMI since the accident has caused miscarriages and birth defects," although significant minorities agree with these statements.

By a three to one margin residents in the Tertiary region disagree that "all nuclear power plants should be shut down permanently and no more should be allowed to be built." Nearly half (45%) disagree "strongly".

w Table 21 Anti-Nuclear Power Arguments Secondary Region Agree Agree Disagree Disagree No Strongly SansWat Samwhat Strongly Opinion Not nearly enough is being done to deal w

with serious emotional and psychological 59 29 probleus that 7MI has caused anong the c

people of the area.............. b5%... 24,..

17...

12..

12 A nuclear power plant can fail and the 53 28 nuclear materials can otrne together to

^

w 3

cause a massive nuclear explosion.....

31%... 22.

. I3...

15.., 19 All nuclear pcwer plants in the country should be closed down until the federal 39 58 governnent knows nore about the safety

^

3 7

risks involved in them...........

726%..

13..

27...

31...

3

'Ihe release of radioactivity from TMI 32 45 since the accident has caused scue miscarriages and birth defects.......

15%... 17..

22...

23..

23 3

All nuclear power plants should be 24 72 shut down permanently and no nore should 3

r be allowed to be built...........

15%...

9.

. 27...

45...

4 1

1 i

1 f 1

r XXII.

Reaction _to anti-nuclear arguments in the Tertiary region Public opinien to the five anti-nuclear arguments among residents in the Tertiary region is comparable to the attitudes Icf' those iri the 'other regions.

Several of the arguments, however, appear to have somewhat more currency.in the Tertiary region.

These include the arguments that "not enough is being done to deal with serious emotional and psychological problems caused by TMI," which receives 64%

agreement in the Tertiary region; and the belief that "the releas'e of radioactivity from TMI has caused some miscarriages and birth defects" which receives 43% agreement among Tertiary region residents.

s nuclear power plants should be shut The statement down permanently ant

. ;rt should be allowed to be built" is firmly rejected by resident.n in the Tertiary region.

Seventy-four disagree with th,is position, 49 % of whom say they disagree "strongly".

s

\\

h l

[

I s,

A

q 12 Tablo 22 Anti-Nuclear Power Arguments Tertiary Region Agree AJree Disagree Disag1m No Strongly Somewhat Scrnewhat Strongly Opinion Not nearly enough is being done to deal with serious emotional and psychological problems that 'IMI has caused ameng the pecple of the area... 40%..

24..

11....

7...

18 A nuclear power plant can fail and the nuclear materials can cme together to cause a massive nuclear explosion...............

27%..

25..

10...

14...

24 All nuclear WWer plants in the country should be closed down until the federal gavernnent knows nere about the safety risks involved in them........

. 28%..

14..

23...

30....

4

'Ihe release of radioactivity frm TMI since the accident has caused sme miscarriages and birth defects.....

22%... 21..

15...

12...

30 All nuclear power plants struld be shut down perTnanently and no more should be allowed to be built.

. 15%.

5..

25...

49....

6 i

XXIII. Reliability of information sources on nuclear power in the Primary region i

Ten sources of information about nuclear power were tested for their degree of credibility a' d reliability.

The n

responses of residents in the Primary region to these ten groups are rank ordered in Table 23.

Scientists from both the nuclear power industry and from universities and independent laboratories are rated as the mos t reliable sources of information on nuclear power.

Greater than eight in ten of those in the Primary region feel that information from such scientists is either "somewhat" or "very" reliable.

Next most credible as a source of information on nuclear power are environmental protection organizations and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Both are seen as reliable by greater than seven in ten residents of the Primary region, while less than one in four describe them as "not too reliable".

More people in the Primary region describe statements made by the Metropolitan Edison Company officials and anti-nuclear groups as being unreliable than as being reliable on matters having to do with nuclear pow?r.

Fi f ty-one percent feel Met Ed officials are "not too reliable" compared to 44% who describe them as being "somewhat" o r "ve ry " re li ab le.

Anti-nuclear groups are rated not reliable by 47%, whereas 46% feel they are a reliable source of information.

t Statements made by officials of the Babcock and Wilcox Company and daily newspaper editorials are also viewed cautiously by residents in the Primary region.

While 50% rate Babcock and I

Wilcox of ficials as reliable, 43% feel chey are "not too reliable".

Similarly, 56% say that editorials in their daily newspapers are t

reliable, while nearly four in ten ( 39 %) do not.

Residents rank the statements of state and local of ficials and those made in television news editorials in the middle range of reliability relative to the other eight information sources..

Table 23 Reliability of various sources Primary Region Not tco Sanewhat Very No Reliable Reliable Beliable Opinion stropolitan Edison Conpany officials.....

51%.... 36...

8....

5 Anti-nuclear groups..............

47%.

38...

8....

7 Babcock and Wilcox officials..........

43%.

39..

11....

7 Daily newspaper editorials...........

39 %...

51...

5....

5 State and local agencies and officials...... 35%...

49..

11....

5 T.V. news editorials..............

30%.... 57..

10....

3

'Ihe Federal Nuclear Pegulatory Ccmnission.... 21%.... 43..

31....

5 Environnental protection organizations.....

16%.

. 51..

27.... 6 Scientists from the nuclear pce r industry...

12%...

39..

4 4....

5 Scientists from universities and independent laboratories........

8%.

4 7..

39.... 6 XXIV.

Reliability of information sources on nuclear power in the Secondary region The views of those in the Secondary region as to the reliability of information sources on nuclear power are quite similar to Primary region residents.

Scientists from both the nuclear power industry and from universities and independent laboratories are most reliable.

Next are statements made by environmental organizations and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Statements made by Met Ed officials and by anti-nuclear groups are the least reliable, with editorials in daily newspapers and Babcock and Wilcox officials next in order of least reliability.

Table 24 Reliability of various sources Secondary Region Not too Smewhat Very tb Beliable Peliable Ibliable Opinion Metropolitan Edison Cbrpany officials...

50%.

38....

6....

6 Anti -nuclear................

4 5%....42....

6....

7 Daily netspaper editorials.........

40%...

51....

4....

5 Babcock and Wilcox officials........

39%.... 42...

12.... 7 State and local agencies and officials...

32%...

54....

9....

5 T.V. rows editorials............

28%...

57.

9....

6 The Federal Nuclear Begulatory Ccmnission.

16%...

47...

32....

5 Environmental protection organizations...

13%...

56...

23....

8 Scientists fran the nuclear power industry.

11%.

. 37...

47....

5 Scientists from universities and independent laboratories...

6%.

. 44...

44...

6 XXV. Reliability of information sources on nuclear power in the Tertiary region The view of residents in the Tertiary region to each of the ten information sources are comparable to the other regions.

Scientists from both the nuclear power industry and from universities and indepenant laboratories are rated as the most reliable, followed by environmental protection organizations and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

In contrast to the other regions, however, public opinion of the Metropolitan Edison Company officials on nuclear power is not as negative.

In the Tertiary region 53% rate statements made by Met Ed officials on nuclear power as being either somewhat or very reliable, compared to 36% who describe Met Ed as "not too reliable".

Assessments of the Babcox and Wilcox of ficials is also somewhat less negative in the Tertiary region, as 58% rate them to be reliable and 33% feel they are "not too reliable".

Least reliable as information sources about nuclear power in the Tertiary region are anti-nuclear groups, daily newspaper editorials and state and local officials.

l l

Table 25 Reliability of various sources Tertiary Region Not too SamJiat Very tb Feliable Ibliable Reliable Opinion Anti-nuclear groups..........

4 8%...

39....

6....

7 Daily newspaper editorials.......

39%.

. 47.

9....

5 State and local agencies and officials.

37%.... 48..

9....

6 fttropolitan Edison ampany officials.

36%.

. 41...

12...

11 Babcock and Wilcox officials....... 33%...

40...

18.... 9 T.V. news edi^orials..........

31%..

. 52...

12..

5

'Ihe Federal Nuclear Regulatory Catmission..............

15%.

.47..

. 31....

8 Environmental protection organizations.

12%..

. 49...

31....

7 Scientists from the nuclear power industry................

8%.

. 35...

51....

5 Scientists from universities and independent laboratories........

6%..

. 39...

49.... 6 i

I t

f.-

XXVI.

Public involvement in community activities associated with TMI Residents in each of the regions were asked if they have been involved in any public or community activities in connection with the accident at Three Mile Island.

Those residents who stated some involvement were asked to specify the particular activities they had attended.

About one in ten of the residents in the Primary and Secondary regions mention they were involved in an acti"ity having to do with the TMI accident.

Among the things cited are the following:

" attended nuclear protests, marches" (3%) " talked with others at group gatherings" ( 2%) ; " attended meetings for planning evacuation" (2%) ; and signed anti-nuclear / anti-TMI petition" (1%).

Just 2% of residents in the Tertiary region mention any involvement in activities having to do with the TMI accident.

I l

l __ _

Table 26 Have you been involved in any public or community activities in connection with TMI?

Primary Secondary Tertiary Ibgion Ibgion Pagion Statewide Involved 10%

9%

2%

l Attended nuclear protests, marches 3

3 1

1 Talked with others at group gatherings 2

2 Attended meetings for planning evacuation 2

2 l

Signed anti-nuclear /

anti-TMI petition 1

1 Attended NRC local meeting 1

Attended utility company 1

meeting Other mentions 3

1 1

1 Not involved 90%

91%

3 8t' 98*

(Base)

(623)

(605)

(805)

(2033)

( Adds to more than sub-total due to multiple mentions)

Less than one half of one percent. --.--

THE SURVEY METHOD Interviewing Dates This survey was conducted by means of telephone interviews conducted between June 18 and June 30, 1980.

Interviewing was done from FRC's central location telephone interview facilities in San Francisco and Los Angeles.

Interviewers were supervised and monitored throughout the data gathering period by FRC's full-time staff supervisors.

Sample Universe The population universe for this survey is civilian men and women 18 years and older living in Pennsylvania households which have private telephones.

Not included in this definition are persons residing in hotels or transient quarters, persons with no clearly defined place of residence, migrants, drifters, inmates of institutions, or military personnel residing in government quarters.

Sample Design One objective of the study was to compare public opinion among residents living very close to the TMI plant with those in the surrounding area as well as with those living in the distant, more populous parts of Pennsylvania.

The sample was divided into the following three areas.

-Al-

Primary Region:

the area within a radius of five miles from the Three Mile Island nuclear power plant, which includes parts of Dauphin, Lancaster, and York Counties.

Secondary Region:

the area within a radius of about five to twenty-five miles from the Three Mile Island nuclear power plant which includes large portions of Dauphin, Lebanon, York, Perry, Lancaster and Cumberland Counties.

Tertiary Region:

the larger area of Pennsylvania not included in either the Primary or Secondary Regions.

The Tertiary Region was sub-divided into Eastern and Western Pennsylvania.

The East-West dividing line was roughly the county lines separating Potter, Clinton, Mifflin, Huntingdon and Fulton Counties from Tioga,Lycoming, Union, Snyder, Juniata, and Franklin Counties.

In order to produce adequate statistical bases for each of the regions sampling was done on a disproportionate basis, that is, the number of interviews allocated to each region was not proportionate to the statewide population of adults.

When produce the " Statewide" base, the three regions were combineC a

appropriate statistical weighting was used to restore each area to its proper population proportion.

A more detailed dis-cussion of the weighting procedure used is outlined in the

" Sample Weighting" section of this appendix.

Sample Selection Telephone numbers called were generated by a computer randomization process.

First, all telephone exchanges within each region were specified.

Then samples of random four-digit

-A2-

numbers were generated within each exchange.

Each such random telephone number in the sample was then called.

Those numbers which were found to be "not in service" or which were business numbers were discarded.

The remaining sample of numbers represent a proportionate representation of all resi-dential telephone households, including unlisted telephone numbers and those recently installed to be included in current directories.

Interviews were attempted at residential numbers during afternoon and early evening hours ( 3 p.m. - 9 p.m.) on weekdays and on weekends between the hours of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m.

These times were chosen to insure the greatest chance of contacting the widest spectrum of individuals male and female, working and non-working, old and young.

Nevertheless, even during these hours a bias exists as to the characteristics of individuals likely to be at home.

It has traditionally been the cose that when interviewing a random number of households a somewhat greater chance exists that the person at home answering will be a woman, generally a younger woman.

Least likely to be at home are males, younger males in particular.

To compensate for this, a systematic procedure was employed by each interviewer for the selection of a respondent within each household.

The procedure directs the interviewer to ask to speak with the youngest adult male in the household.

l l

-A3-

If no males are available, the interviwer then asks to speak with the oldest female in the household.

In doing so,the most difficult group of respondents to reach, i.e. young males, are given overall a somewhat greater chance of being included to compensate for the fact that they are the least likely to be at home.

Because the procedure is us;d in a strict, systematic manner, the interviewer exerts no personal discretion in the selection of who in a particular household will be interviewed.

Interviewing Results In the process of obtaining the designated number of completed interviews in each region (600 in the Primary Region, 600 in the Secondary Region and 800 in the Tertiary Region), a total of 11,758 numbers were called.

Of these 5423 (46%) proved to be invalid numbers (not in use, business or non-working numbers) and the remaining 5021 (44%) were deemed as " usable numbers".

Of the usable numbers, 2033 interviews were completed, an overall completion rate of 41%.

The disposition of all attempts overall and within each of the regions is shown on the following page.

-A4-

RESULTS OF INTERVIEW ATTEMPTS Tertiary Region Primary Secondary Western Eastern

'IUIAL Regicn Region Pennsylvania Pennsylvania Total ntrbers dialed 11,758 2579 3483 3065 2631 Not usable Not assigned, disc.

5423 46%

79 5 31%

1610 46%

1715 56%

1303 50%

Business 980 8

167 6

320 9

217 7

276 10 Busy all atterpts*

334 3

40 2

70 2

147 5

77 3

Usable nurbers 5021 42% 1577 61%

1483 43%

.986 32%

975 _37%

(100%)

No answer all atterpts 1024 20%

358 23%

29 0 19 %

198 20%

178 18%

Busy last atterpt(s) 154 3

67 4

48 3

17 2

22 2

Adult not available 179 4

78 5

58 4

20 2

23 2

Carm. barrier 57 1

18 1

14 1

11 1

14 2

% fused / terminate 1574 31 433 27 468 32 331 34 342 35 Carpleted interviews 2033 41%

623 40%

605 41%

409 41%

396 41%

Assuned to be non-working nutbers.

l Data Processing Finished interviews were edited for completeness and l

open-end questions were coded by FRC's staff of professional coders.

Questionnaire information was then keypunched to data i

cards for computer processing.

The data deck was checked with a special card cleaning program to uncover incomplete, incorrect, 1

1

l l

or inconsistent data before processing.

Discrepant cards were checked against the original questionnaire data and when necessary were corrected.

Sample Weighting When the questionnaire data were entered into the computer, the data set were subjected to a statistical weighting procedure.

Statistical weighting was performed to bring the sample within each region into conformity with census-established population parameters with respect to age within sex.

Variations in' interview completions and respondent availability can make the survey sample different than designated population distributions.

Population weighting attends to these discrepancies.

Estimates of population distri-butions for age within sex for each of the three target regions were obtained using the most recent population data.

Weighting for the Primary and Secondary regions included four categories of weights each 2 (sex) by 2 (age).

Weighting for the Tertiary region included sixteen categories of weights 2 (sex) by 2 (age) by 4 (area).

The additional refinements in

-A6-

the Tertiary region are predicated on the sizo of the area covered.

In effect the weighting plan in the Tertiary region sub-divides the region into four areas:

Southwestern Pennsylvania including Pittsburgh, other Western Pennsylvania, Southeastern Pennsylvania including Philadelphia, and other Eastern Pennsylvania (excluding the Primary and Secondary Regions).

In order to have the results of each region's interviews more closely reflect its proper proportion of the statewide population, the weights for age and sex within each region were assigned in proportien to the state population as a whole.

The result produced twenty-four categories of weights fer the statewide region:

2 (sex) by 2 (age) by 6 (area).

(The six area categories included the Primary region, the Secondary region, and the four sub-divisions of the Tertiary region.)

The sample proportions for each of the weighting cate-gor 1es is then calculated.

The proportion within each category is transformed by a weight to bring it to conformity with the established population figures for that category.

The following is the representation of thia stage of weighting:

ik W

=

Pjk where P is the population proportion for the jth sex and the jk kth age group, and p is the sample proportion of interviews jk found in that category.

-A7-

Estimate of Sampling Error In any survey based on a sample, some variance or

" sampling error" is introduced in the data by the sampling process.

If the sample has been drawn by a random process, the range of potential sampling error can be estimated to show the degree of precision which figures from the survey has as representations of, or projections to, the population from which the sample was drawn.

The question that this procedure answers is:

If the survey finds that x% of the people interviewed hold a given opinion, what is the tolerance range of the figure as an estimate of the percentage of the total adult population holding that opinion using similar methods.

Table A below shows how much sampling tolerance should be applied to any particular statistic of interest in order to have 95% confidence that it brackets the "true value" (i. e., the value which would have been obtained had the survey attempted to interview the whole population of interest.

For example, suppose 30% of the respondents in the Primary region (sample size = 623) answered "yes" to a particular question.

From Table A a statistic such as this has a plus/minus tolerance of about 3.7 percentage points.

This means that the "true value" would have a 95% chance of being found between 26.3% and 33.7%.

The same procedure can be used to estimate the sampling tolerance of 5

any other data from the survey.

-A8-

I Tcblo A Sampling Tolerance (plus and minus range) for Data at the 95% Confidence Level Percentage division of replies Sample base 50-50 70-30 90-10 100 9.8 9.0 5.9 300 5.7 5.2 3.4 600 4.0 3.7 2.4 1000 3.1 2.8 1.9 2000 2.2 2.0 1.3 Other Accuracy Considerations Sampling error is not the only criterion in judging the validity and reliability of a survey's results and for that reason we caution against citing only the sampling error alone as a measure of this survey's accuracy.

In addition to sampling error, there are other important sources of possible inaccuracies in the survey findings which are inherent in any survey.

These relate to the phrasing of the questions, question sequence, and other aspects of the survey method.

The FRC research executives who had responsibility for the conduct of this survey took considerable care and time in formulating and testing the questionnaire to produce in its judgment an instrument which was objective in its posing of the issues.

Careful scrutiny was also employed in supervising the data gathering and data processing phases as well as the other research operations.

If there were some inadvertent errors committed in those areas there is no standard measure of these effects.

)

-A9-

Fi:Id Research Cbrporitiot.

465-007 234 Front Street 061780 San Francisco, CA 94111 FINAL Time started:

Region Nureers

/C "

1946YLVANIA GPINI N SURVEY la. First of all, how long have pu lived in Pennsylvania (RECmD WDER la)

Ib. Ibw long have you lived in this County? (RfCORD 0NDER lb)

(Q.la)

(Q.lb)

Pennsylvania This County

$1*

19

1 YEAR m IISS................

1........

1 OVER W E YEAR - FIVE YEARS..........

2........

2 OVER FIVE YEARS - M YEARS..........

3........

3 OVER W YEARS - 1WDrrY YEARS.........

4........

4 OVER 1WDirY YEARS...............

5........

5 2.

First, ht do you personally feel are some of the most serious problens facing people in your County today? (IROBE) mat are some of the other issues facing people in your

~'~~

area that you are concerned about?

/f,20

%, 22.

'12,11 3a. Ib you think there will be enough electric power available for hotsehold needs in this area of Pennsylvania in the next few pars, or is there likely to be a shortage of powr?

IN0lEH AMIIABLE.....

1 LIKELY 1D BE A SHORTME..

1 (ASK Q.3b)

NO CPININ

........O (IP "I.IKELY 1T) BE A SH0frTAGE", ASK):

3b. As you trderstand it, tat will cause this shortage of electric power?

(IROBE FUd SPECIFICS)

'2l.

s7 l

4a.

In the past par have the rates that your elect c power utility charges for electricity increased, decreased, or remained about the same?

d-INCREASED.......

1 DECREASED.......

2 (ASK Q.db)

RDiAINED THE SAME....

DW 'T 100i.......

0 (IF " INCREASED

OR " DECREASED", ASK):

l 4b. Wat do you think the reasons were that caused electric powr rates l

(to go up) (to come down)?

"29

n e

5.

Now, I'd like you to think back to the time c litt13 more than a year ago t4wn the accident occurred in the nuclear powr plant ct 2ree Milo Islarv5. As you ree:11 that time, Wt wre your main feelings and reactions as tord about the accident at ihree Mile Island we coming out? (Mt0BE ht else dii you feel at that time?)

SV n'

M ""

ss' '

6 People reacted in many different ways to 1hree Mile Island, or as it has become knone, 1MI. As I describe sane different reactions, I'd like you to tell me whether any of these fit your one feelings at the time of the accident. Here's the first one. (BEGIN WIDI ITIM CHIERID) (IF RESPNDENT AN9dERS 'YES* ASK): Were you very, or seriewhat

? (CDrTINUE INTIL AIL ITDIS ARE RFAD)

Yes Yes No Not No Very Sorm hat At All Answer

[]

a.

Were pu FRIGHTENED for pur safety?....

1...

2..

3..

4

[]

b.

Were you ANGRY at the officials or U~

other people ?...............

1...

2,.

3..

4

[l c.

Were you CONFIDENT that you would come out m?...............

1...

2..

3..

4 JT "

[]

d.

Were you CDGTSED by what tas happening?..

1...

2..

3..

4 37 *

(]

e.

Did you feel HELPLESS about W t ws happening?..............

1...

2..

3..

4 90 -

[l f.

Were pu SATISFIED that everything Yi -

possible was being dcne?.........

1...

2..

3..

4 AL-7 Ib pu believe pu got a dangerous dose of YES........ I radiation during the TMI accident?

NO........

2 DN'T ENCW....

3 N(7T IN DIE AREA.

4 U'

8.

Do you think pu stand a chance of gettirq a YES.......

1 dangerous dose of radiation from 1NI sometime NO........

2 in the future?

DN 'T ENOW.....3 NCYT IN die AREA.

4 9.

Did pu leave this area for more than a day YES........ I specifically taccause of ti.e TNI accident?

NO........

2 DN 'T KNCW.....3 NOT IN THE AREA.

4 10a. Are you satisfied or dissatisfied with how the problems of cleaning up three Mile Island are being handled am far? Would you say you are strongly (satisfied)

(dissatisfied) or just somewhat (satisfied) (dissatisfied) ?

STRCNGLY SATISFIED..

1 SCMDdHAT SATISFIED..

2 l

SCMfMHAT DISSATISFIED..

S1RCNGLY DISSATISFIED..

(ASK Q.10b)

NDECIDEDh0N'T 10KW.

(IF DISSATISFIED, ASR):

10b.

h, or that organization, do you believe is not doing a proper job?

I g-17-( l

[

11. Ibw confident are you that the problems of cleaning up 1MI will to solved - very confident, smeest confident, not too confident, or not at ala confident?

W*

VERY CNFIDENT........

1 SmBfHAT CONFIDENT......

2 NUr 100 CmFIDDrf.......

3 NOT AT ALI, CWFIDENT.....

4 NO OPINION..........

5 12a. Wu may have heard that the Nuclear Regulatory Comunission has authorized the gradual release of the accoulated Krypton gas at 1MI. As you know, almost evergne gets exposed to some radiation from such things as medical X-rays or natural background sources. As y>u mderstand it, dat level of radiation expsure would people within a mile of the dana;ed nuclear plant at 1hree Mile Island receive when the Frypton gas that is inside the plant is released into the atmosphere - would it be less than a chest X-ray, atout the sane, or more than a chest X-ray?

Vf*

MEE THAN ONE CIEST X-SAY..

1 001D Q.12b)

Anotfr SAME..........

2 001D Q.13a)

IZSS 1HAN WE CHEST X-BAY..

3 0010 f.12c)

D m 'T l'N W.........

4 0010 0.13a)

(IF *lDRE*):

50 -

12b. Ibw atch more would it be, SLIGifrLY MORE......... I as you mderstand it?

1WICE AS MUCH........

2 (RFAD CA1TGNIIS IF NECESSARY)

THREE TIMES AS MUCH.....

3 FOUR TIMfS AS MTH......

4 FIVE 1011N TIMES AS MTH..

5 11 10 20 TIMES AS MLCH....

6 MORE 1HAN 20 TIMES AS MTH..

7 DON'T lWOW..........

8 LIP?I.ESS"):

n-12c. ibw much less would it be, WE HAIE AS MLCH.......

1 as you triderstand it?

WE QUAR 11R AS MLCH.....

2 (READ CA1TGCRIIS IF NfrESSARY)

WE 1Drni AS MTH......

3 LESS 1HAN ONE 1Drni AS MUCH.

4 Dm 'T KNN..........

5 t

l

\\

SL=

l 13a. Have you heard or read anythisq about the YES......1 0010 0.13b) l uter that is inside the danaged reactor NO........

l at TMI?

DON'T INOW...

3 (SKIP 10 0.14a)

(IF YES):

f3

13b. As you trderstand it, is this eter YES, HA2.ARIDUS..... I hazardous or not?

NO, ICT HAZARDOUS...

2 DON'T l@CW.......s 13c. Ibw important do Wu feel it is that EX1RENELY IMP @ TANT..

1 the water be removed as soon as possible-SOMEWHAT IMIURTAPTT..

2 extranely important, somewhat imp)rtant, NOT 100 IMPmTAttr...

3 not too imprtant or not at all NOT AT ALL IMIORTMrf.

4 important?

DON 'T KNW......

5 13d. Ibw confident are you that the uter EXIRmE:.Y CmFIDENT... I will be renoved safely - extr,snely SmfMHAT CONFIDmT..

2 confident, sometat confident, not ter 100 cmFIIDTf...

3 too confident, or not at all confident?

NOT AT ALL C@FIDDTP.. a DON 'T FNN......

5 I

s *. g 14a. Hnve pu heard ab>ut any equirment danges YES........... I that have or are being made to improve the NO..........

2 level of safety a-the m I plant?

DON'T 1040W....... O SV

b. Have pu heard ab>ut any improved training YES........... I program for the operators at the 21 plant?

NO..........

2 Dm 'T IGICW....... O

c. Have vou heard ab>ut any improved YES..........

1 public notification procedures to be used NO..........

2 during an amergency period at the mI plant?

DON 'T IGKN....... O

d. Have you seen or heard about any reorganization YES........... I of the company's set-up to improve the NO..........

2 management at the m I plant?

DON'T 100(......

0

15. As pu know WI consists of tw> nuclear power generating units that are in separate buildings. tast year's accident occurred at thit 42 while Unit il was not damaged.

Assimirq that it wuld be operated under improved safety standards, would you approve or disaprove of allowing Unit il to be started tq) again elle they continue to clean up thit 027 tb pu (approve)(disapprove) strongly or just somewhat?

~

APPROVE SMCNGLY.........

1 AP5 HOVE SmfMHAT.........

2 DISAPPROVE SO'DGAT.......

3 DISAPf90VE SM G4 GLY.......

4 NO OPINION............

0

16. Asstming that the damaged thit 92 at three Mlle Island could be repaired and rebuilt to improved safety standards, would you approve or disapprove of allowing it to be started up again? Ib you (approve)(disapprove) strongly or just somedat?

41-APPROVE S1PINGLY.........

1 AP500VE SmDdHAT.........

2 DISAPPROVE SmD4mT.......

3 DISAPPROVE SMCNGLY.......

4 NO OPINICN.............O i

l I

1

.. g 17 Next, I'm going to read you mome statements that have been rade about the 1hree Mile Island situation and I'd '.1ke pu to tell me t4) ether pu agree or disagree with each one (BEGIN WI111 ITEM OECIGI)) - Do you (agree)(disagree) strongly or just somedat?

(CDfrINUE UNTIL ALL ITEMS ARE READ)

MREZ AGREE DISACREE DISACREE NO S110CLY SOMMET SCMMIAT S110CLY OPINION

()

a.

If repairs are not made as soon as possible to the damaged reactor there could be further equipnent failures s ich could cause 42-new danger s..........

1...

2...

3...

4...

5

()

b.

All nuclear powr plants in the cotestry should be closed dom until the federal governnent know more about the safety

(,3 -

risks involved in them.....

1...

2...

3...

4...

5

()

c.

Residents living in the vicinity of nuclear rowr plants will be etch safer in the future as a result of the lessons learned dV-at 1M I.............

1...

2...

3...

4...

5

[]

d.

All nuclear powr plants should be shut dom porrianently and no more should be allowd 4f-to be bui lt...........

1...

2...

3...

4...

5

()

e.

1he three Mile Islard events showd that even in a major accident the science and technology of nuclear powr ws adequate to cope with the problens that arose

(,(, -

be fo r e anyone was hur t.....

1...

2...

3...

4...

5

()

f.

A nuclear po wr plant can fail and the nuclear materials can come together to cause a massive py, nuclear explosion.......

1...

2...

3...

4...

5 (l

g.

People who oppose the cleanup operations at 1MI are simply in a panic and do not have a realistic view of sdiat 4 V, needs to be done........

1...

2...

3...

4...

5 (l

h.

1he release of radioactivity from 1MI since the accident has caused scnne miscarriages 4

and bi r th de f ects.......

1...

2...

3...

4...

5

(]

1.

We will have to rely on ntclear powr as an important energ/

70 "

source for many years to come.

1...

2...

3...

4...

5

[] j. !bt nearly enough is being done to deal with serious eriotional ard Isychological problans that 1MI has caused mong the p.

people of the a r ea.......

1...

2...

3...

4...

5

()

k.

Newpapers and television reporters were not fair in their coverage of the acwident at 1MI and have blo m things out 7A -

o f pro po r tion.........

1...

2...

3...

4...

5 f

g

. s

18. As you know, various people and grotes have spoken te about nuclear powr and the pros ard cons of that to do about it. I'm going to noe some of these groups and I would like you to tell me how reliable you think each one wuld be as a source of information about nuclear powr. As I noe each group, please tell me whether pu think they would be very reliable, somethat reliable or not tro reliable as a source of information about nuclear poter. Here is the first ones START WIDI IHM MARKED WITH "X")

(CDrrIME LNFIL ALL ITotS ARE READ.)

VERY SOMEWHAT N(yf 100 NO

. RELIAB 2 RELIAB M RELIABLE OPINION

(}

a. Statements made by officials of the Rabcock and Wilcox company, builders 73 -

of the 1MI plant.

1...

2...

3...

0 W~

[]

b. Mitorials in the daily newspaper....

1...

2...

3...

0

()

c. Envirormaantal protection organizations.

1...

2...

3...

0 7f-7' -

[]

d. Editorials on the TV new programs...

1...

2...

3...

0 (l

e. Scientists from the nuclear powr 77*

industry...............

1...

2...

3...

0

[]

f. Scientists from universities and D

independent laboratories.......

1...

2...

3.... O (e.Ju)

() g.1he Federal Nuclear Regulatory y

Casum ission..............

1...

2...

3.... O fg-()

h. State and local agencies and officials.

1...

2...

3...

0 13 -

()

1. Statements made by officials of the Metropolitan Edison empany......

1...

2...

3...

0 /Y "

() j. Statements made by anti-nuclear groups.

1...

2...

3.... O fr-k-

19a. Have you been involved in any public or YES.........

1 IGO 10 0.19b) comununity activities in connection with 1MI?

HO..........

2 NO AM5WER......

3 (IP YES):

19b. ht have you done?

17

It -

Ibw, just so w can be sure we're gettity; a good cross-section, I'd like to ask you a few backgromd (pestions -

/1 -

20 Wat ses the last grade you lint GRAM m MSS.........

1 canpleted in school?

CmPLL*!TD HIGH SCHOOL........

2 1-3 YEARS COLIK E, 1BA M N TEClelICAL SCHOOL.........

3 COMPETED COU.ECE..........

4 ADVANCED DE m EE...........

5 21.

Wt is the occupation of the head of your household, please? leat type of work does that person do?

I l

t (occupatton)

(industry) 2o-22.

Wat is your approximate age?

IC - 20........

1 21 - 24........

2 25 - 3 4........

3 35-49........4

% - 59........

5

@-69........6 70 AND OVER......

7 RIRISED........

8 l

o

'. 4 23a. Incita!!ng yourself, how many people in this household a re ad ul ts over 18 7....................

as '

b.

How many are teenagers between 13 ark! 187.........

y, c.

Ibw many are children betwen 6 and 127.........,

p, d.

Ibw many are children under 67 g,

e.

Iat's see, that totals living in this household. Is that correct?

TOM-k/27 INITRVI5fER: BE SLRE NtMb5t IN EACH CROUP ADDS 101UTAI, IN HOUSEHOLD 24.

Ibw, w don't care to know your exact income, but muld pu tell me please hther your total annual household income, before taxes, is less than $15,000 a year, or

$15,000 or more?

Af' I.ESS 1 NAN $15,000 A YEAR........ [ ]

$15,000 CR MmE............. [ ]

REFtEED................. X u

(LESS THAN $15,000, ASK):

(IF $15,000 OR M, ASK):

a.

Is it taider or over $10,000 b.

Is it between $15,000 and $20,000, a year?

or betwen $20,000 and $25,000 or more than $25,0007 LNDDt $10,000.... 1

$15,000 - $20,000..

4 OVDt $10,000..... 2

$20,000 - $25,000..

5 REFLEID....... 3 MORE 1HAN $25,000..

6 REFtEED.......

7 31 "

25.

Sex of Respondent:

MA2....

1 FDELE...

2 26 Zip Code:

34 "

31' SV 3E' Sy=

1 hat's all the questions I have. Thank you very much for your cooperation. So that my supervisor can verify this interview, may I please have your nane and address? (IF NECISSARY, SAY): 1his information will be renoved from the gJestionnaire and discarded after the interviews have been validated. This insures that my nerk tes done honestly and accurately.

RESPONDDff NAME:

ADERESS:

1tMN @ CITY:

1EMPHGE NO.

CIlki11R NLPSIR:

INITRVIEWUt NAME:

DA1E:

TIME ENDED:

VUtIFICATIN - For Office Use only Verified by:

Date Remarks: -

ML20050C751

Text

Navigation menu

Search