Text

Public Opinion in PA Toward Accident at TMI & Its Aftermath, Interviewing Period June-Sept 1980
	ML20050C755
Person / Time
Site:	Crane
Issue date:	09/30/1980
From:	; FIELD RESEARCH CORP.
To:	;
Shared Package
ML19268D181	List: ML20050C750; ML20050C751; ML20050C755; ML20050C758;
References
	NUDOCS 8204090329
	Download: ML20050C755 (63)
	v • d • e

,-

d ser.russmaarsraenesut:ssac=rsawn PUBLIC OPINION IN PENNSYLVANIA TOWARD THE ACCIDENT AT g

i THREE MILE ISLAND AND ITS AFTERMATH

{

t i

a survey conducted for I

f I

'[

GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITIES CORPORATION xtsms.sse:3x:.msrr.mv. rease an:.r.ne=mr.zanacasand First Wave Interviewing Period:

June 1980 Second Wave Interviewing Period:

September, 1980 l

l l

l Field Research Corporation w

SAN FRANCISCO: 234 FRONT ST.,94111.1415) 392 5763 LOS ANGELES: CENTURY PARK CENTER. 9911 WEST PICO BLVD. 90035. (213) 552-0916 l

8204090329 820329 PDR ADDCK 05000289 P

PDR

.. - ~. _. ~ _ _

i l

i I

COMTENTS i

l FOREWORD.

i THE FINDINGS I.

Most serious problems in county.

1 s

^s I

II.

Availability of electric power in the next 1

few years.

3 i

III.

Electric power utility charges during the l

past year.

5 IV.

Perceived danger from radiation exposure during the accident 7

V.

Perceived future dangers of receiving a dangerous dose of radiation from TMI.

9 3

VI.

Degree of satisfaction with the handling of i

TMI clean-up so far.

11 VII.

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

13 l

VIII.

Who is doing a proper job in the clean-up.

15 4

IX.

Confidence that the problems of c1 caning up TMI will be solved.

17 1

X.

Technical job done by Met Ed in venting the krypton gas 19 XI.

Job done by Met Ed in keeping the public informed about the venting.

21 XII.

Awareness of radioactive water inside the damaged reactor 23 XIII.

Importance of removing the radioactive water from the damaged reactor.

25 i

XIV.

Confidence that radioactive water will be removed safely.

27 XV.

Attitudes toward starting-up Unit #1 while repairing Unit #2 29 l

XVI.

Attitudes toward restarting Unit #2 after it is repaired 31 4

XVII.

Who should pay for the clean-up costs at TMI.

33 I

1

,,m

,__~

-_____,_,,m..

XVIII.

Positions about nuclear power and TMI situation (Primary Region) 35 XIX.

Positions'about nuclear power and TMI

, situation '(Secondary Region) 37 XX.

Reliability of information sources on nuclear power (Primary Region) 39 XII.

Reliability of informatica sources or nuclear power (Secondary Region) 41 THE SURVEY METHOD Al THE QUESTIONNAIRE B1 1

l

b

!:k

~ ' ' Y:h,$:$ld?bW)f.shh!,? : g;;d.&pnE}?q['mqn. R.3 %C$$1??QQ&Qf.Ph.2 DtfQgh WRD N Q f tv.14 +

f

-(:

14 %

.Wsvup- %

k f

f N

j M q a3ThfsSrapott d4AtainWp.: sjunmary$,.o6EheVf1ndingsl# tea syub ic ogym 3m

' W.... %.MW,;%a %y ig%!g${M.MPT.W.h@@

,M%Q.Y;%-@4%%in..@v w'syNW3MQQ4NfNQW 9

1 e e-e p.

NM wc s.,, e.

J fme e i

r 0' thers t.atevo.frPet4y1vania e ef NW Q

MD2M g!MMWiMh OY$w:

H....'M;opphion,a,s tudy,. -4,Q-@33I4g.h*fngg.Q'7 f@pE g g p.f g~,% yy h ' y M y

.a -

, 3,I M ib Thhh h d[eM kt:hb.' Qpg $ dci g Lg dMd EktiN5dil$d [u61fc pinff:!n 3 % k s k $

h' QrogardincJ, a/numbeg s[issuesgelat hg;g.'h,'dA.b.dh fY.bhNjM$hh MkdMN$$$E N

kihh' identqn.N,pWG(,

,. hk-)b:MMfMkk@7$dhikfbk)h.N b

p,ponwamps,JofQtelephonet gntbrvieb[fh.k' +.h j

MbN Nb N2W.M@nd y tsfg;4M.$p@C.Wh@e a et gI~a ermati ng pg w

3 wo.r6.u.condu@ctedWr.Thettirs d

kWM,WpAW R:.

g g

cted h f.M,1.\\tq V e.

g y m%y g h. W 2,. m:n

.y: nc' ;4,d:y:.' %nwp%sne::. w%1930XTh ia n

re

,d s';:

w 9y

.yn.yWi', Wb::n@m:.

%v.

~ m s. m c

s

..n...-

MQ d

&'d kh ~ v vdva.veloMi,nk. erviewing;a.y%m,g7 M

2 Mf..,twein,;r

'Juhg %8 tandg 60 D

+ J tie

.l, b ' %;w. a.w%z.sQ~.y:nX%g v..pPQ.p5*49ncon r

r<1jgan.c.dSept: ember %:~Q~h$Q:..> r!

... a w

_MM.s ~

pp y.

3 he

$.',[3. was ' conduc tedi botween < Sep%@y.Q w[(:gKd.o cyQ 727.;A1980n g ga 73 p

~

a..,,3..... Q.%g.h. [.Mh!.{

k

~ : w.w s o,"m,..:,,%..w%,+iIg5 jQ,}[jMh hj

&4n floc.ludeddhree, :q e yhm.,,,:;. n&.

f regions--L,$. A *..O

~

n

,p

.o.

w m

.. e m

,M. h. e s am,a. wwf y.+n ~h, e o,.f ir.s. tW way

.e w

~

w.y. m.

e: '

t-T ple4rcar forit w a.a..-:,. w..... w L M. 7. m.x.r. %m.

1 a m

.~.

n~. p w. w,.y y

a<

a.-

... o <.. p ~.. ;g..e

- 4 / k U die d'I%mJ. A. ww,f %..,., %,,.n ;,, ~

,C.' m, c.

y ep,r: w, p

e p.c%y phd ;;Ter;.tigy.N The. sa.b'le

-a.. i'a...,4RR Al. y. eq*r,m,h f or:.",:

.c a bt

..m.

" ;, PrimaryWSeWU/dar.

a?*

gr. }t"N 'y+

v

~u

.I mp re s ft u>

m,. & ;'n. con fy. p:.w.

the~Pr.ur.ary'7and Secon. dary.. ?\\b', g. m.y

's.: yO, w 4,,, ~.,rk% W ~ "...!

su'.W e. <,,%!rf:.x? c:.

s

; % L, 'd MveWas(1,1mlumto4

% Y..

t

. r...:. c.4.

22 Reglonst

' M. 't',...

-secon r

>. w;Os,9pp Mupnpiw,w

w.Qs W

..S Q r3

/.b,'n.:W:.erc de r ined+ An yt iebf oll. $v1.y.. m. c,w.,. yw,q,b v,- :

~ M&: Reg 6m,0;mrE W:.+ ecw, %;w&g

e. - 4

.

a n. m n J. w,a:,. A W W M ; e

....,e..-

Pm s

.GPn.Ing:~. manner r p.s R,gcp:-9.P. %.~.y;y.

f s Theca icns w cw z

$ a y WMjQin.

y. i a ;.6,;>:'s a v q

' b h h (f I h h v! b h h h h.h N h g h

kb' hhk[

h,; [t.[

, 3:e ?

g.;m;g:.,4 y.

.W.l.,.i.'.0 ;%p w m:?!.yr: Q :th*M,y m, &..m y..:. m.; y.: p ;;,

+w.. M y g.w.;x.yitliiCa'; radius';of?

y.

P r1ma ry.,Realen r-jgCover,.g.tno.,are. c..y; C. v%.. :xl J @ h.d. :'

rQ C 49 XX' 9

A.a..,Q.d-

? 4.y

,, c. y w

i. m y u z.;

e; v.

es1 N be3

.s -

7.; 4.- ff'g. a.l;g,g,,

rom gheiT8 rec,Miloj Ibland.;n'uc1daif pagei; )lan t:; 7ys [J q;g;,fcA g hichf si % !;g,jdorQ,ancl'ude.9 parts ::of. ',Dauphi. M;,andabter' 'and

d6;!!TQ, n

p

,E ountiles.N/.A ; total-of :623 iht'erviksZwas ' / WW2 cd a, Q p T[;fyptakentgindthisfE'egiof,dUringIthe>first Mav

f. ;. 9

[

~

3^

.,,;.GJ.

m, u

,7 y S e c o,4, w,... '. x.,.,. m,. e,. w m...m.v, e.. a,.. w.. 3,.

y-Regiong,. gcNer,sj tneyteagithinM6diudNf.abou.tjfive [NW 6

,t,..,,.

....i

. m, w....

e. <

mw wm. g...,,,.. ;g, <

n.

.., w

.c

~., w.

e w...:,r.

, n3 a r..

c l

t6 W'

gM&Q" tye, n,tyd

3. tom'thst.:Three" Mile'us.ldn'd f

'uJ

' %., ' ' ; ;Dy'NN5EM@N(PAughlQ,@proimi,lep[tJcrQpol1d 2%C 4,hh D.t.

TUpiar,ei. isic'lUd5WypMancahtehnd~j[fM'M{

phi % f 7 ' TP.6 E CNM.WiQ'p@fg,.Cumbe%);e,nl;in 2tCf Regi6n,7ddrid ini

eibgngn, W@),

~

Qi

( y' y J. $ W p %.

nd ;fountiesQ.sE5 totaT%E 40.5 Midtiniks.r}Mh.' '

S r W Mch.v..

W Fita tw p awn.magg;jGtefv'i'67.M.l dfis {c, ths ( s $Eond MycF'a ve'l D

);, 3 6 7MCM.MW$p%nd':

g..-

6 p

MJ lf'NE w.x,q$.i. 'N pashyy yxp

, Tert.la ry-Reolon: ${ 'Tho,[brgervan'dPremaini'ng Mod en

.D ~

l not included in either th'e'Pri;Ury er Seconda::/.w p p.%. ty.y' - ' Reg i on'..A total.of P05'intervfe n was'taken: 2n J

e 3

.<-iN

.,3 y Q

.y this Region during.tho'first save.'.s/This peqihn ["

~

J

^

%.j:g;'Q.y.4's; wy%. not covez ed' in, the secoi4)wfveb s.. C:, q.. ' * %:, : G f.

v

..r 4w*

p.. p

n.H < s.

9 t.,:'- 9.,;.y

. nr',,:

.;. : g : ~::

us.

n,.'?;....,. f;.l, ~, g.~

., d.~;,j %.; 4..n

. 4 :.,.7,,a :. g,

. *. :. : n..

1 (4 c m,' #

v., ' 'g g ;%y 1

,,,. q q. g.3 :.q.-

9:,, 7 g,,

, =

... ~; s -

~

.c 1,;,;.,

.,7 j - ;, g ; g 7-

~

g 3;

-g

.w q.. iw ;4t..rt ;e ;p.y. 3. v. 0. ;.

., - 1.g,., g. #

s.

s

,-*,p.

...c.

.s a.

>3

s' y, %

~

- ;;.,a;. q :. a ::.m,- ~. M,, f z. '.. '; 1 G. < t, o; '

,o m *'

e o

h. 'l..* *w t y ;. *

,f

.N: -

s fs. :

'-c-(

p.*.qc

?,,s

.n t

a n

l

, ' i'.,%+ -l,,,,t

=?er e

s

~

";~i *

> 7 ** *:r -....n

..,+,

.1-

,,.,t

.~,7 ty y a 1

s

.Y '--. v ',. -.

.s 4

.4 9

P' 4

9.

a l

J I

,~

n l

'{

.4m. i a

dh.

Am haA ra Usame.edsm[,,[.I

. w,

.aa.

4'=

as.ba..

u

- e.'

. mm 4 -

m.-

a

>.-b.f.. hu.a:..'?.

s q,, '3. y v.ge&j: tg$n@v b,:.%. ~,

M. - p,g.r.g& gw, &-..n;g+Ml7 w,;

)..

.,4.qw M%..g "'

W 8.Q.& %w p. M.A fq,lh.. f..

ma qJ yrr%t

- hx v

I 9f.

o.

p t

C.QiaWig Ob hir mA?iM

%u&m.y,ry.m$lM.y,;. {;g@p.,p?,.gf%%

,dW.WQ'&"

vR

%y h;f M.s&..rf.. M<...-e, i.Q.

D & j & g.1 0 ? E h;>.c &c y g %. y % N r?

,-n M 7. g. n.

n=

M..

.'t.. e -

a n

g

,,,y.. e p

k%

d IO M(i k

.Qg 4 %asWmm w,

gQ

%. QQ,ggsej cjg s Q%., Q;?fQgk,,f.gd;&gog,Q

.Ohhh4I9.y$ 3 4kdopm Qlffkrego.QQW&g@bo.%

&gsag -. g.

g e

rppfaj g

r hph d ~f s

A oneres rgan1%tilo; hall qqw y

. r 1.MY'A

.~.pWw.an0in8dpendety.p, ny and.Ay.t.,..i. m..... a m.- p- %. 9. M t s t.

ob, Metro ~ W. r,. w.m =

w1w,..

w go re m

[W. A@MNU$dl.M/S)$M,y$og.bNhithMYGMih3Td

.;. 4.g,$

po Atag,pdi,e.

,.c

.gm p

g y

r.w sgparen m.fg era sP cp f sog MM N' g..

~

'.M:,0 l

. w;; S$ tim t'1 4 s a Efon'aL'Inher d

d n,5.frorrFRCp 'c ittal)j% /.

V

.. Y,. t:4.; e1 n v e,.s @.c o r p o r a

."#ww,,.,f.o n yri.o,&$;& g c.11.[2c;,:nh; a n, m..mo~i. s.yAx..w.c2Lo..sga

.mm 4

4.w:

.. ww cem ie w r c,i.c'snin 3E,yd,A. p g Q s.t W,:

1 Q.,-

%in.teb. @ vin. @Ms;g w

goles1, A, g eM q

'F.n i.

F@Gyd/ M A,g;rp 7. h.a.v,4e:. e+,Im ANq&

.i a.

anc qb an

.A)fe t..

q

y.s.. g @...

u

s r.

ma.

sqm%g~.m

$p, surge->c.m..

.g g t

/WQ,W.

'N *'h p

M.. QA4 v et % dol.gyica @fvw,t3.W.M

-3 $

hU WY.

r fk o ! ? W h W $ 5 W.

6 I

W gcoti desces ption

" h k h k h k &.?b.Y.Y,N_k W b

'Nh N

tNw e..,4.f.o d':in-th. erappe d 0 o with t

W

y T. j.y: e, o,un..~i,, %g-J ~::a m. n

1. g.<.. m n.# n..e..o, r.b..'.a.,.u. ngo M m W M m w&theM;p m;femben;.,m. w p w n w w$urydy W i.,v.n.w.r'.

q

,-1.9,,y.r.,4.,c.p "p+w

..w. 4 ph.; 2g g g

g. m,

, ~;:.4<.v,w y;y m #.j %..!.%

a.

s

+a,. - A. y.v,,

.m.,

, r,z.

.- O',

,av

.,c..y

.:.t rp v.

t

. W ep second v t oiquestionnaireDuhed,xin

@iw %..p N' vofDcomputetlpdnt; ~odts 'contaInk theMadtd2.l~et tab'ulatieniofd.he %.yh a?.,v;nypytp. y;ksa.wwrgk%pN-yym;mS49 g.;Qg.

~s

,~

l A cp$.

ib.

t y.%. e.. &. [... d p.'f e.20 ;.m.-,y. c,;m-W :.N :. n. sons.N.a:.s.;, %-

, T 4:yf.fQ,n,. %" e&.fM.. yj.f. 7+r,G:.;Q

>q.y.

w J

.m

" ', WQ., MC,op.ic.a.4.o,.f.sthd.TJ.u. nMp%,, fAK.5,m.pQ %w-7,h:

. pp ws

,-ff 5i:

mw tw

.c

=

.g putop g F.N yy. ' c.

.,m..,..a.4,

, e sp;. lW. *y,,..,gw.,s,. w., m.....

m~w* g,w,.m* u. < n&,,,

1... r,....,s,f *., -) k. *w 3:.m a.a o ein;LE o,e eQ',.a;W... n,,,.%~. w,r.

,e,,

t.. x. s.

i

a..y

%*v

.* ;b.. m.

. n.c.

I e;6 Q f.

,. o.n '* ? y.

.c q

es A r.y,p

.a

, t r

wo. n y L.n'. M ?. :vp,}:%n 'Ws,o fVtbut f.iYs t;,'wavg Tof3

'ih f f

/;

W J' e 11yetc '.i' Q.s.w, y. om%,.M)J #pgd,M w.vW. y uts-

.z.

.s M:..,

M i

., a,;,

. 9 w

r wv e

p m,.,..

n

,..,.W..- #...+

r

,4

. M.Th,.3.. p. 4WA Nyr

> ;. 4<~. - MvoJnm. +ees!;

...i, mq

',e>*.f wp;!.a '.j O...

ar11g. /

3

.y.

hga

.'.s. : r..

r E-

. s :.,.a',:n.; q ~*r.g. W yx. W. g.g y F y'h q**k W,.1% p.

m' N%,

jng.&W gh.

yc

?>N M

K.

L,, C,. - 'e;q: : " ? W4')o. ;m,Q%;. Q* :.3c{ kp$.g. c.:f~ d.v.**,,Q. $5 yM,f, :.,: t. ;g'>%. 7. ,~

-e, i.1.f,f, 'rhC'.l4*~[a

'G. %.': t.0 '. 4.

, <, ;:..n P. :

,,,m W,,

,p;-',.y y.r f.

y

n

<a y

W w 4:

-c y78..ycry P.':e;,,.r;gs

. e,1,;s.4;,. u;.. ;, pa sbm1m e.M '1,,y y m?;

R - c 4 (- m*! y...L.yr

,m

,g, W,QVf y~,w.b g.x g,y.,~. % A'5.N'.kp,g,%NfM'y,c-MD I,*;/; n if, m 4.. W- - 9 .*v hr A'- ~ s h.., N;w',h[^%,. *r~h.Q~;.M,y%'s*[s,)19 N.. 8 .. p,. n 9' kp.g!.,7 U".

s,;.'y,. ~.9e

. o; ; v. g,p.,4yeg. W _ / rq v

3..~. n;.s,4. p t$gg :

L y9 ee n, by 'Y,e*;"%. kY. 's ;te.g* Y

fif ' " ' /(.,m,: *. s ~L*%.: f *,,**?',G

o; a. '

a*

y*C Q % V,y.c & % j.a,C'+ @f w

. v. :L '1 <,,sy ! v e m -..e, s. . ~ % ;R,eQ 2'1"0.W N.m%; .~ w. 9

f n 7_. fl;*.l' p. n 3\\* h f,.Q i..;R [2. W l

,.?>.='>'*,)u+

I< k,:fr.9 w "" '.,,y ' Q '.s(f (W W *i ( 't ;'* *?W 2 M . 5.. i yI 3 .n,e... m&.<.. - ' + * -: e ,s :

f'P q

.,+- ,,.-w.... v .. f,,c.r -. m. e. A,w. 9.o

t,., =Ss

,,c.:,

. n.,

, t,

c., m~i ' 4. -....

y ...,A.. a 7 f,3 j g , p y ,.h r; < 4 (c. r r .x at..

fs

u.,, 4..s.d; 7) -
c. t., ;, M%,, QQ'jfpf, gq,,,

M Q g ;,j - L; g'.c

,g t - 5
8. * - - - *. p,

,f. .es +-*- 4gV /.% g

' r

~7 b [.,f;[ f(y,y& **.ja {',.h;y'Q 4 d w.'.<: w. ci J m4*p. p. s. A ff.,.* w,;L..,+ mA,e [w&: %.n'.n,~~...+ w U,..; m,z -s 9 vem er c e.m ~a r. X,%. /. A;.g.w[w,e.., ~ - w -:- J '- y. , s.u. z.,, g., a,.,. ;.c.r+ a ~ e s A.. e, p..e.n, ? <. m..e s.. w y..&n {e.% .a-~

e

,:.g- .- - t. v. .g 4,u..g.p. r.,.,y.m;w.m.n,,,,.: s?..,,, y'.: v. '. .r.. u n. v y ..: y g y s

i=e,, n, k,M.: t 7c%:*

y +A..

W{4..a y'.. r&. - * : , A,, w

c..., r;,.1 -

M <s: p w,< v ?.' n a e a s r -, 1 .a. -a s ' ; A W p u,., ~& * :w 3ly ..%.,,,org . u., g.a.. 2.W?

4'2:%;y&. J Wl:@N.4Q& %.ej.y.,y

,u--r. f) &., jy.., % %i;l,~, Q >.i M,.,9} q.,, ,e.9- -5 e * ~ q;}$ ,.s. 4.- m '..- t. y *r ~* y ,.p t? y.. g.ci'q %,TU Q, %e M; y w.., n-. M. sy.4.. s cg..,

f. ak-yS ',C.,r,.,: n i a

Q. .,Y y& 1 b kr ,....w.y..,.., m,,w7.. p p,a. gw ..Ac. 4 w 3 o u. ,. g. g. g4 j ,9 m . y p. N k' *!((,h h h.Y h*

h h 7y-.m

.h t' . v. s,u k..,a.*:'$. M.,w,,#[*~h, xve.-? A, ,,..h,, y -...A(,%..hINNh (('. A,*h qm., k,N'h.n.. (. -. e,r' n ?y e - & M r. G t . y, A - \\ + w*,,:.,..s. ;.c. m g w epi. 4s,p.:. h, r y1n. *,~pec.a <.e

Ar O..,b s.% ',1.,,,. m /., 1*,^*,:.. W.h d e

. m -.... m. qi = e+ ~ 8,.q e v.. + n e N h/ A h,'. '5 ^# *N.

Ih,

, M'o,-),,,k' % rh

,v. 4.. :r+s. s..A.m.<.w?y.%wm., f 3. ; v 4...h.n

~.: m .,y T .s'.,. y: t v *x 4 , 2.c n* q-. e.... A., 4 a 4...,s aus, n.-. w wp - r ., ~ ~ 3..r.,.. Or-

u. s... ',. y

%.e},s ,,3 v.n,,h, ::7 3...: ser:t ..'a..^ Q;..G. < g- ',~.,, 4.. f"%,-.~ ,M.~ if*-- .v, An.a g ;. ( 3 n M . s ' =su* ss . ; ; g3 m. *.4..n '^ -.*i'.~. ;.- {,, - a *.s-r g u.s e.

5,e *,p s.-

,6 ' s .s A, r ,s* 3 C [.y, %,s, sy v", --~-t- .y, ' 'p, ,.,(..

v*-

- J,E './. %.- - a- . a. .s E. 9

e-

..h!:; y* ;^ \\;==[ e. g%*'. w ;'.Q b l

hI.,: f. D

-, d._ '-d y Tp '.. #. _.=,,s .,'..p ...,7 , n f.-:.@b. t, b,,,/ < ;.k.l;m. ; d.$*4 ', L %s */.s'tg/Q.;'.1..9t>,* L , le t, ', Y' .,c d.s, .q , 7 s,. a- -+ . ~ ' @ ? l.f((;[,,3cff t,:;p Mu; 4 4.' 'y,; 5,. ,7 -* M. 5.@, /,.; %,.. _ e .p, - x V Q' [,a' : 't; v, j., 3 7;. . -.., ~.,.p]u ', s o-. {,$e ~.,'W. u...,,. v,e.. c&n$.w,&' vlJ K,'%l;-l ;.jf *~ Y "'l' . I,..,4-. ' w((c',.-

e P'.G,*['l,f'lf&A
$Nc.' an u u.~. ~ T t ? ' ' ' %.. ;,},:. Y, ,??t
?
.,9 s - . \\._ *
k - 3.
.,.' n,. m.w.p. $ e t,.o : + ;r w, ; r --~+ s, s. y~.es w u p, w w . n.. n* .ye..
s ?,
w ...A w q. . v f.,p..a l- -. m4., yeu.n. n x r,, .. s- .... n. 2 e w a ..., n .sI s . (j'[-*. w,y.) ;,:s y....-,7; Q... r,.. o .o s m .+ ,, s .y ., c ,.n s, y,4 ?
w.
V.,, L's.. 7 : lf. ', ; g *, >s., * ~ * ' :,} e w,o ).), L' '. [ {., T,,,*,' (
;K

w 9
..e. e .~ , m. . w. - w: n> '.g,-~ ~: ]v* ;" *.. m. f *A ', t an ' )
>..,. :, \\
. a e. gy - 3 s
s x
r o s ."
h p, ;,
, } g.- [. ^ n o '.t s o, N ^ -.g.
s
,i t l . '. e a ....s.i 4 samub er eed M + ^ se==he ei4& *Eh.mps e m.e. Le 44.8-a e. gm &&. ed. w.. sesw b % awe
e. = - -..
r as m..
..i=-E
+=-.=='e t 4a. f p
a -s .m 3 THE FINDINGS
e 1 4 I. Most serious problems in county Among those livit,g in the Primary Region concern about the problems relating to the Three Mile Island nuclear power plant (i.e. the clean-up, its dangers, etc.) exceeded all other local concerns. Nearly half (46%) of the public cited TMI as a serious problem in their county in the September wave of interviews. Other serious problems frequently mentioned were " inflation / cost of living" (21%), " unemployment" (21%), " taxes / big govern-ment" (13%), and " crime / law enforcement" (13%). Residents in the Secondary Region also cited Three Mile Island among their principal concerns in September. TMI related concerns were mentioned by 20% as a serious county problem compared to " inflation / cost of living" (24%), " crime / law enforce-ment" (21%) and " unemployment" (20%). The proportion of people citing Three Mile Island as a major concern declined somewhat from 55% to 46% in the Primary Region and from 27% to 20% in the Secondary Region in the June-i September comparisons. Just 1% of the public residing in the Tertiary Region cited Three Mile Island as a principal concern., L
l Tablo I - Region -- Most serious problems facing county today Pr h Secondary Tertiary Septenber June Septanber Jun(s June TMI related problems (dangers, clean-up etc.) 46% 55% 20% 27% 1% Inflation / cost of living 21 22 24 31 34 Unemployment 21 ?0 20 28 42 Taxes / big government 13 10 12 11 16 Crime / law enforcement 13 8 21 12 13 Use of drugs / alcoholism 6 6 7 6 8 Air, water pollution 4 2 4 4 5 Cost of utility bills 3 2 3 3 2 Poor roads / lack of maintenance 3 3 5 5 13 Health care needs 3 3 4 2 7 Energy problems 2 3 3 2 2 Need for social services 2 5 3 8 8 Lack of affordable housing 2 2 6 6 5 Dangers of nuclear power 1 3 2 2 1 Influx of Cubans, refugees 1 4 1 6 1 Education /the schools 1 2 6 6 6 No problems 3 4 3 3 3 Other mentions 15 6 21 15 24 (Base) (409) (623) (407) (605) (805) (Adds to more than 100% due to multiple mentions) II. Availability of electric power in the next few years In both the September and June studies, a large majority of residents in the Primary and Secondary Regions felt that there would be enough electric power available for household needs in the next few years. Greater than three out of four (76%) of those in the Primary Region and 67% of those in the Secondary Region felt that the future supply of electricity in their area would be adequate. The public residing in the Tertiary Region also expressed high confidence about the availability of electricity in the next few years. Among the minority who believed that there is likely to be a shortage, residentt of the Primary and Secondary region mentioned the " shutdown, closing of TMI" as a main cause along with a " lack of conservation / inefficiency" and " rapid growth / new building." The shutdown of TMI was mentioned by just 1% of those living in the Tertiary Region as a reason for a likely electric power shortage. 4 -.
Table II - Region Availability of electric power for household needs in next-Primary Secondary Tertiary few years September June Sept a l June June Enough available 76% 74% 67% 68% 71% Likely to be a shortage 16% 15% 20% 18% 15% Lack of conservation / inefficiency 5 3 6 5 6 Rapid growth /new building 4 4 5 4 2 Shutdown, closing TMI 4 5 6 5 1 Poor planning by utility 1 2 2 1 Failure to explore other energy alternatives 1 1 1 2 1 Resistance to nuclear power 1 2 2 2 2 Shortage of oil 1 1 1 1 1 Not enough coal production 1 1 1 2 Other mentions 1 1 2 1 2 Don't know _8_% 11% 13% 14% 14% (Base) (409) (623) (407) (605) (805) Adds to more than subtotal due to multiple mentions. i _4_
III. Electric power utility charges during the past year i About seven in ten residents in both the Primary and Secondary Regions in September said that their electric utility rates had increased during the past year. The "added cost of the TMI accident" was the most frequent reason cited for the rate increases (28% and 25% in the Primary and Secondary Regions). The next most frequently cited reason was " inflation" mentioned by 13% in each Region. 1 I l t -~
Table III Electric power utility charges Regi<m - for electricity during the Primary Secondary Tertiary past year September June September June June Rates have increased 74% 68% 72% 74% 80% Added cost of TMI accident 28 29 25 29 6 Inflation 13 13 13 12 15 Waste / profiteering by utility 8 6' 10 5 9 Rising cost of fuels / energy 8 7 8 8 12 Utility has to buy from other sources 8 6 5 7 3 Higher labor costs 7 6 8 -7 14 Higher taxes, surcharges 6 4 5 4 4 People using too much 3 3 4 3 6 Higher production costs 3 2 5 7 6 OPEC oil price increases 2 3 3 6 9 Increased cost of building new plants 1 1 2 2 3 Increased cost of coal 1 1 3 2 6 Shortage of natural resources 1 1 1 1 2 Other mentions 3 2 3 2 5 Rates have remained the same 19% 24% 23% 19% 15% Rates have decreased 1% 1% 1% lt Don't know 6% 6% 4% 5% 5% (Base) (409) (623) (407) (605) (805)
Less than one half of one percent (Adds to more than subtotal due to multiple mentions)
IV. Perceived danger from radiation exposure during the accident About one in five (22%) of those living in the Primary Region and 14% of those living in the Secondary Region said in September that they believed they received a dangerous dose of radiation during the TMI accident. The proportion reporting this has risen since the June survey measurement -- from 14% to 22% in the Primary Region and from 8% to 14% in the Secondary Region. Four percent of those living in the Tertiary Region said they received a dangerous dose of radiation during the TMI accidet.t in the June survey. 1, .. ~.,
Table IV i ~~~~ ~ Do you believe you got a dangerous dose of radiation Primary Secondary Tertiary q during the TMI accident September June Septernber June June Yes 22% 14% 14%' 8% 4% i No 50 60 64 ~72 78 ~ Don't know/Not in area 28 26 22 20 18 (Base) (409) (623) (407) (605) (805) i 1 l t 4 a 1 r _m_..._,,
V. Perceived future dangers of receiving a dangerous dose of radiation from TMI In September a majority of residents in the Primary and Secondary Regions believed they stood a chance of receiving a dangerous dose of radiation from TMI sometime in the future. Fifty-three percent of those in the Primary Region and 52% of those in the Secondary Region reported this. Apprehension about future radiation dangers from TMI increased between June and September in the two Regions. Among Tertiary Region residents (in June) about three in ten (28%) believed they stood a chance of receiving a dangerous dose of radiation from TMI in the future. l . l
i j i Table V 3 Do you think you stand a chance -= Region i of getting a dangerous dose of Primary Secondary Tertiary radiation from TMI sometime in September June Septenber June June the future? ~ Yes 53% 49% 52% 41% 28%~ No 30 32 36 39 55 Don't know 17 19 12 20 17 (Base) (409) (623) (407) (605) (805) l r I i l t. - ~ - -. =
VI. Degree of satisfaction with the handling of TMI clean-up so far A majority of the residents living in the Primary and Secondary Regions in September said they were dissatisfied with i how the problems of cleaning-up TMI were being handled so far. -In the Primary Region 55% were dissatisfied while 33% said they were satisfied. In the Secondary Region 52% were dissatisfied and 35% said they were satisfied with the clean-up thus far. These proportions represent an increase in the public's degree of dissatisfaction with the clean-up compared to what it was in June. Then, public opinion in the Primary and Secondary Regions was more evenly divided. Residents in the Tertiary Region (in June) were more satisfied with the TMI clean-up (50% satisfied - 34% dissatisfied). -
~, Table VI "~~ Satisfaction with how problems of cleaning-up TMI are being Primary Secondary Tertiary handled so far September June SeptErnber June June 3 3 3 3 Strongly satisfied 11 13 9 13 14 '33% ,41% 35% 41% 50% Somewhat satisfied 22
28J, 26 28 36
( ( Somewhat dissatisfied 24 18 25 21 16 '55% 48% 52% ,46% 34% Strongly dissatisfied 31 30 27 25 18 s s J Undecided / Don't know 12 11 13 13 16 (Base) (409) (623) (407) (605) (805) _ _
VII. Who is not doing a proper job in the clean-up Among those residents who were dissatisfied with the clean-up the most frequent organization mentioned as not doing a proper l job was the Metropolitan Edison Company. Met Ed received 28% mention in September in the Primary Region and 24% mention in the Secondary Region. The next most frequent organization cited as not doing a proper job was the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (mentioned by 12% and 10% in the two Regions). 1 _ _. _
l Tablo VII l Region -- Who is not: doing a proper job Primary Secondary 'Ibrtiary in the c1ean-up? Septauber June September June June Dissatisifed with clean-up 55% 48% 52% 46% 34% Not doing a proper job Met Ed/the Utility 28 24 24 23 13 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 12 17 10 14 8 Federal government 7 6 6 5 5 Everyone connected with it 4 4 5 4 1 Government officials (general) 3 3 3 5 7 Whoever is in charge 2 3 2 2 2 State government 2 4 2 4 2 Anti-nuclear groups 2 2 1 Local officials 1 1 1 Other mentions 2 5 2 3 1 Don't know 6 5 8 7 5 (Base) (409) (623) (407) (605) (805)
Less than one half of one percent
( Adds to more than subtotal due to multiple mentions.) --_
VIII. Who is doing a proper job in the clean-up Among those residents satisfied with the way the clean-up has been proceeding the. Metropolitan Edison Company received the most credit. (Met Ed mentions were 9% and 12% in the Primary and Secondary Regions.) The Nuclear Regulatory Commission received a 6% mention in each region as having done a proper job in the clean-up. 6.
e Table VIII

Region --------

Primary Secondary Who is doing a proper job in September September the clean-up? Satisfied with clean-up 33% 35% Doing a proper job Met Ed/the utility 9 12 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 6 6 Everyone connected with it 2 1 Federal government 2 1 State government 1 Builders, designers of plant 1 3 Other mentions 3 3 Don't know 15 14 (Base) (409) (407) (Question not asked in the June survey).
Less than one half of one percent
( Adds to _nore than subtotal due to multiple mentions.) IX. Confidence that the problems of cleaning up TMI will be solved Majorities of 57% of the residents in the Primary and Secondary Regions said in September that they were confident that the problems of cleaning up TMI would be solved, This compares to majorities of 63% in the Primary Region and 60% in the Secondary Region who felt this way in June. About two out of three (67%) of those in the Tertiary Region said in June that they were confident that the problems of cleaning up TMI would be Eolved. l
Table IX " ~~ ~~ Confidence that problems of cleaning up TMI_will be Primary Secondary Tertiary solved September June September June June 3 Very confident 19 3 0 21 '57% '63% '57% '60% '67% Somewhat confident 38 40 37 39 44, ( ( Not too confident 24l 19 6 3' 19 Not at all confident 35 15 '34%'14 ' 4 0 "* '35% '30% '39% 12 111 J No opinion 4 3 3 5 3 (Base) (409) (623) (407) (605) (805)
X. Technical job done by Met Ed in venting the krypton gas Public opinion of the technical job done by Met Ed during the venting of the krypton gas was generally favorable. In September 44% in the Primary Region said that Met Ed had done either an excellent" or " good" job compared to 16% who said Met Ed had done a " poor" or "very poor" job. About one in three (32%) in the Primary Region gave Met Ed a " fair" job rating. The opinions of residents in the Secondary Region were comparable to those in the Primary Region with 40% rating the job Met Ed did as " excellent" or " good", 29% rating it " fair", and 16% giving it " poor" or "very poor" marks. _
Table X

Region -------------

Technical job done by Met Ed Primary Secondary in venting the krypton gas September September Excellent 9 44% >40% Good 35 33 Fair 32 29 Poor 9 .0 >16%
16%
Very poor 7 6 No opinion 8 14 (Base) (409) (407) (Question not asked in June survey) I
XI. Job done by Met Ed in keeping the public informed about the venting Large proportions of the public also favorably rated the job done by Met Ed in keeping the public informed about the vent-ing of the krypton gas. A majority of residents in the Primary Region (53%) rated Met Ed as having done an " excellent" or " good" job, 23% felt it had done a " fair" job, and 23% felt it had done a " poor" or "very poor" job. i Public opinion in the Secondary Region was also positive toward Met Ed but by a somewhat smaller ratio. ( l e Table XI

Region -----------

Job done by Met-Ed in keeping public informed about venting of Primary Secondary the krypton gas September September Excellent 14 53% 12 46% Good 39 34 Fair 23 23 Poor 12 23% 17 28% Very poor 11 ll i a No opinion 1 3 (Base) (409) (407) (Question not asked in June survey). l i l I r i I l l ,e- .n--.-,-.
XII. Awareness of radioactive water inside the damaged reactor Greater than three in four residents in the Primary and Secondary Regions said in September that they were aware of the radioactive water inside the damaged reactor at TMI. A somewhat lower proportion of residents in the Tertiary Region (56%) said in June that they had heard or read about the water inside the damaged reactor. 3 1 1..
Table XII - Region Awareness.of the radioactive er inside the damaged Primary Secondat/ wrtiary September June Septmber June June Have heard 79% 74% 76% 74% 56% Have not heard 21 26 24 26 44 (Base) (409) (623) (407) (605) (805) I l i s 1 f, t
XIII. Importance of removing the radioactive water from the damaged reactor Very large proportions of the public expressed the fe'eling that it was important to remove the radioactive water from the damaged reactor as soon ,possible. In September 79% of those in the Primary Region and 77% of Secondary Region residents termed the removing of the water from the damaged reactor as being " extremely" or "somewhat" important. The importance of removing the radioactive water appears to have increased slightly since June among residents in the Secondary Region. k
Table XIII --- Region Importance of removing water from damaged reactor Primary Secondary Tertiary September June September June June 3 3 s Extremely important 56 54 48 43 45 '79% 76% 29J'77% '69% '70% 26 25 Somewhat important 23 22 Not too important 6 6 7 9 11 9% 10% 10% 15% 15% Not at all important 3 4 3 6, 4 Don't know 12 14 13 16 15 (Base) (409) (459) (407) (448) (452)
June question was asked only of those reponsdents aware of the water inside the damaged reactor..-.
o XIV. Confidence that radioactive water will be removed safely Majorities of those in each of the regions expressed confidence that the radioactive water inside the damaged reactor would be removed safely. In September the proportions saying this were 55% in the Primary Region and 58% in the Secondary Region. r } i 4. -. _ - _. _ _.
Table XIV ~ "-~ ~ Confidence that radioactive water will be removed Primary Secondary Tertiarv safe 1y Septernber June September June June 7 Extremely confident 15 1 0 '55% '56% 47J,'58% 61% '58% Somewhat confident 40 38 43 38 4 1 Not too confident 26 21 24 '39% '37% '37% '34% '36% Not at all confident 13 16 13l 12 11 ) Don't know 6 7 5 5 6 (Base) (409) (459) (407) (448) (542)
June question was asked only of those respondents aware of the water inside the damaged reactor.
I e XV. Attitudes toward starting-up Unit #1 while repairing Unit #2 4 A small plurality of the public in both the Primary and Secondary Regions said they would approve of allowing Unit #1 to be re-started while the clean-up coatinues at Unit #2 if it were operated under improved safety standards. Fifty-one percent of those in the Primary Region approved of re-starting Unit #1 in September, while 45% disapproved. In the Secondary Region 55% said they approve of re-starting Unit #1, compared to 39% who disapproved. - - =
Table XV Assuming improved safety Rqgion standards position as to Primary Secondary Tertiary re-starting Unit #1 while September June September June June cleaning up Unit #2 Approve strongly 30 51% 49% 55% 53% 51% Approve somewhat 21 21J 25 23J 25 Disapprove somewhat 9 8 8 45% 46% 39% 41% 41% Disapprove strongly 36J 38! 31 34 30l J s No opinion 4 5 6 6 8 (Base) (409) (623) (407) (605) (805) D.
XVI. Attitudes toward re-starting Unit #2 after it is repaired Larger pluralities of the public in both the Primary and Secondary Regions said they approved of the eventual re-starting of Unit #2 if it could be repaired and rebuilt to improved safety standards. Fifty-six percent of those in tne Primary Region and 59% of residents in the Secondary Region said in September they would approve of re-starting Unit #2. On the other hand, about four in ten in each region (424 in the Primary Region and 38% in the Secondary Region) said they disapproved of re-starting Unit # 2, most of whom disapproved "strongly. " Residents in the Tertiary Region in June were somewhat more favorable to the idea of re-starting Unit #2 with 64% approving and 29% disapproving. i -- _
Table XVI ~~~~~~~ Assuming repaired and rebuilt to improved safety standards Primary Secondary Tertiary position on re-starting Unit #2 Septaber June September June June s 3 3 Approve strongly 31 27 29 31 30 25J,'56% 24J' 51% '59% '59% 64% Approve somewhat 30 28 34 3 4 s Disapprove somewhat 6 7 5 5-6 42% 43% '38% 3:t)36% '29% Disapprove strongly 36l 36l 33 23 s No opinion 2 6 3 5 7 (Base) (409) (623) (407) (605) (805) ! 3 m ,,,...x., x-,,
XVII. Who should pay for the clean-up costs at TMI? Five groups were posed to respondents as possible sources in paying the costs of cleaning up TMI -- customers of Mei Ed, customers of other nuclear power utilities, Met Ed stockholders, the Pennsylvania state government, and the Federal government. F Large portions of residents in both the Primary and Secondary t Regions said that Met Ed stockholders should incur "all" or "most" of the TMI clean-up costs (45% in the Primary Region and 41% in the Secondary Region). I By contrast nearly seven in ten residents in both regions felt that Met Ed customers or the customers of other utilities j r should incur "none" of the clean-up costs. l The predominant view of those in the Primary and Secondary Regions was that the Federal government should contribute to the costs of the clean-up, although there was no agreement as to the amount that it should pay. About half of the public thought that the Pennsylvania state government should pay at least "some" of the clean-up costs, but about half felt it should incur "none" or the costs. i f f I.--
l Table XVII PRIMARY REGION (September) Met Ed Customers of Who should pay for the stock-Federal State Met Ed other nuclear costs of cleaning up TMI? holders gov't gov't custaners power utilities All 26% 5% 1% 1% Most 19 8 3 1 About half 15 17 9 2 3 Some 29 38 35 24 19 None 7 28 49 71 74 No opinion 4 4 3 1 4 (Question not asked in June survey.) SECONDARY REGION (September) Met FA Cusers of Who should pay for the stock-Federal State Met Ed other nuclear costs of cleaning up TMI? holders gov't gov't custaners power utilities All 24% 5% 1% 1% 1% Most 17 12 2 1 1 About half 15 15 8 4 2 Some 33 38 41 28 20 None 8 28 45 64 72 No opinion 3 2 3 2 4 (Question not asked in June survey.).
j XVIII. Positions about nuclear power and the TMI situation in the i Primary Region A series of position statemants about nuclear power and the Three Mile Island situation were tested to determine the public's degree of agreement and disagreement to each. Results are listed in P- '7 j XVIII according to the rank order of agreement. A strong consensus exists among residents in the Primary Region that repairs to the damaged reactor at TMI are needed. Eighty-four percent in September agreed that "if repairs are not made as soon as possible to the damaged reactor there could be further equipment failures which could cause new dangers." A similar proportion (84%) disagreed with a parallel concept posed in the negative, that "there will be little or no safety risk if the damaged reactor at TMI is left as it is and nothing else is done to fix it." Nearly three out of four residents (74%) concurred that the " residents living in the vicinity of nuclear power plants will be much safer in the future as a result of the lessons learned at TMI." A majority (57%) also agreed that " people who oppose the I clean-up operations at TMI are simply in a panic and do not have a realistic view of what needs to be done." Greater than six in ten (61%) maintained that "not nearly enough is being done to deal with serious emotional and psychological problems that TMI has caused among the people in the area" and i 55% disagreed with the view that "the Three Mile Island events showed that even in a major accident the science and technology of nuclear power was adequate to cope with the problems that arose before anyone was hurt." Opinion was divided as to whether the release of radioactivity from TMI caused some miscarriages and birth defects with 35% agreeing, 43% disagreeing and 22% not sure. Table XVIII PRIMARY REGION i i i No Agree Disaaree opinion r l If - repairs are not made as soon as possible to the damaged reactor there could be further equipment September 48% 11 5 failures which could cause new June 74% 14 12 dangers t Residents living in the vicinity d of nuclear power plants will be much safer in the future as a September 74% 23 3 result of the lessons learned at June 79% 19 2 TMI l Not nearly enough is 1;eing done to i deal with serious emotional and lasychological problems that TMI September 61% 33 6 has caused among the people of June 59% 29 12 the area 4 a People who oppose the clean-up 1 operations at TMI are simply in i a panic and do not have a realis-Septenber 57% 40 3 tic view of what needs to be done June 56% 38 6 i The Three Mile Island events showed that even in a major accident the science and technology of nuclear Septenber 41% 55 4 i power was adequate to cope with the June 49% 46 5 problems that arose before anyone was hurt i The release of radioactivit'; from TMI since the accident has caused September 35% 43 22 some miscarriages and birth defects June 28% 44 28 i i l There will be little or no safety j risk if the damaged reactor of TMI g4 4 is left as it in and nothing else une is done to fix it r (* Not asked in the June survey)
XIX. Positions about nuclear power and TMI Jituation in the Secondary Region Opinions of residents in the Secondary Region paralleled those in the Primary Region in respect to the nuclear power and TMI situation. i Greater than seven in ten agreed with the statement "if repairs are not made as soon as possible to the damaged reactor there could be further equipment failures which could cause new dangers" and that " residents living in the vicinity of nuclear power plants will be much safer in the future as a result of the lessons learned at TMI." Greater than three in four disagreed that "there will be little or no safety risk if the damaged reactor at TMI is left as it is and nothing else is done to fix it." Nearly six in ten agreed that "not nearly enough is being i done to deal with the serious emotional and psychological problems i thac TMI has caused among the people of the area" and 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." a Slight pluralities of residents in the Secondary Region disagreed with the statement "the Three Mile Island events showed that even in a major accident the science and technology of nuclear power was adequate to cope with the problems that arose 1 before anyone was hurt" and that "the release of radioactivity from TMI since the accident has caused some miscarriages and i birth defects. " 3 1, ---4, , ~,,.,,, --,,w .,,--,,,- -, - - - _,.,.. _ ~ - - -,,,, _ - -, _ -. _,, - - - _ _ -,.,-m ,_---,,,,,_,,,,y.-
Table XIX S3CONDARY REGION No Agree Disagree opinion If repairs are not made as soon as possible to the damaged reactor there could be further equipment Septa ber 72% 18 10 failures which could cause new June 71% 13 16 dangers Residents living in the vicinity of nuclear power plants will be much safer in the future as a re-Septerrber 74% 25 1 sult of the lessons learned at June 76% 21 3 TMI ) Not nearly enough is being done to deal with serious emotional and psychological problems that Septenber 58% 35 7 TMI has caused among the people June 59% 29 12 of the area People who oppose the clean-up operations at TMI are simply in a panic and do not have a September 58% 38 4 realistic view of what needs to June 56% 36 8 be done The Three Mile Island events showed that even in a major } accident the science and tech-nology of nuclear power was j adequate to cope with the Septcuber 47% 49 4 l problems that arose before any-June 18% 17 5 one was hurt f i The release of radioactivity from TMI since the accident has caused some miscarriages and Septaber 38% 40 22 June 32% G 23 birth defects There will be little or no safety i risk if the damaged reactor at TMI is left as it is and nothing else September 12t 78 10 June l is done to fix it (* Not asked in June survey) '
e a XX. Reliability of ir .ation sources on nuclear power in the Primary Regiol. Ten sources of information about nuclear power were tested for their degree of credibility and reliability in both the September and June surveys. .l On matters relating to nuclear power, scientists from both the nuclear power industry and from universities and independent laboratories were rated as being most reliable. Statements made by officials of the Metropolitan Edison Company along with those made by anti-nuclear groups and in daily newspaper editorials were rated least reliable. More people in the Primary Region described nuclear power statements made by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and environmental protection organizations as being reliable than as being not reliable. kesidents ranked statements about nuclear power by officials of the Babcock and Wilcox Company, by state and local officials and in T.V. news editorials in the middle range of reliability relative to the other seven information sources, i 5 s l
t Table XX PRIMARY REGION Very sanewhat Not too No reliable reliable reliable opinion Scientists from the nuclear Septsaber 17% 43 8 1 j power industry June 44%. 39 12 5 Scientist from universities Septanber 41% 49 7 3 and independent laboratories June 39% 47 8 6 Nuclear Regulatory Septanber 38% 45 15 2 Luc.aission June 31% 43 21 5 Environmental protection Septenber 25% 61 12 2 organizations June 27% 51 16 6 State and local officials Septanber 13%- 55 31 1 June 11% 49 35 5 1 TV news editorials September 12% 49 38 1 June 10% 57 30 3 l Babcock and wilcox Septonber 11% 41 46 2 i officials June 11% 39 43 7 i Newspaper editorials September 9% 46 43 2 June 5% 51 39 5 Anti-nuclear groups Septenber 8% 44 44 4 June ~ 8% 38 47 7 i Metropolitan Edison Septenber 7% 40 51 2 Company officials June 8% 36 51 5 i a 1 I i i 1. 1
1 2 XXI. Reliability of information sourcas on nuclear power in the Secondary Region 4 The ratings of the ten information sources among residents in the Secondary Region were similar to those in the Primary Region. Scientists from both the nuclear power industry and from universities and independent laboratories were considered to be most reliable. Next were statements made by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and environmental protection organizations. 3 Statements made in newspaper editorials, by Met Ed officials and by anti-nuclear groups were seen as least reliable. i 6 i t
1
Table XXI i SECONDARY REGION i 1 l Very Somewhat Not too No retiable reliable reliable opinion f Scientists frem the nuclear September 49% 39 10 2 l power industry June 47% 37 11 5 Scientists from universi-September 47% 46 4 3 4 ties and independent June 44% 44 6 6 l laboratories Nuclear Regulatory September 30% 50 16 4 Commission June 32% 47 16 5 Environmental protection Septenber 26% 56 13 5 organizations June 23 56 13 8 i TV news editorials Septerber 12% 54 32 2 i June 9% 57 28 6 Babcock and Wilcox Septenber 11% 49 36 4 officials June 12% 42 39 7-State and local efficials September 101 55 32 3 June 9% 54 35 5 i Anti-nuclear groups Septanber 7% 41 48 4 l June 6% 42 45 7 Metropolitan Edison September 7% 41 50 2 Company officials June 6% 38 50 6 i I Newspaper editorials September 6% 50 41 3 June 4% 51 40 5 i { l i l l i 1 f "w-,-%. w.- ..,-<--.---,_-,--e _.,r_,,m. .w-- ,-%-.-..+v-e. =e re ww -=+m.--awa.
as, w----w-,--4--
.---+~v+- + - - * * + -
THE SURVEY METHOD Purpose of the study The purpose of the study was to examine public opinion regarding a number of issues relating to the March 1979 accident at TMI and its aftermath. Sample size, interviewing dates, and overall sample design Two waves of interviewing were conducted. The first wave of interviewing was conducted by telephone with a representative sample of 2033 adults residing in Pennsylvania between June 18 and June 30, 1980. Interviewing spanned the period just prior to and during the ventino of the krypton gas from the damaged TM1 reactor and included the Primary, Secondary and Tertiary Regions. The second wave of interviewing was conducted by telephone with 016 adults between September 19 and September 27, 1980. The sample was limited to the Primary and Secondary Regions. The sample regions were defined in the following manner: Primary Region: Covers the area within a radius of five miles from the Three Mile Island nuclear power plant, which incudes parts of Dauphin, Lancaster and York Counties. A total of 623 interviews was taken in this Region during the first wave and 409 interviews during the second wave. Secondary Region: Covers the area within a radius of about five to twenty-five miles from the Three Mile Island plant. The area includes large portions of Dauphin, Lebanon, York, Perry, Lancaster and Cumberland Counties. A total of 605 interviews was taken in this Region during the first wave and 407 interviews during the second wave. Tertiary Region: The larger and remaining areas of Pennsylvania not included in either the Primary or Secondary Region. A total of 805 interviews was taken in this Region during the first wave. This Region was not covered in the second wave. -Al-
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 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 al.1 residential telephone households, including unlisted telephone numbers and those recently installed which are not 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 case that when interviewing a random number of households a somewhat greater chance exists that the person at home anssering will be a woman, generally a younger woman. Least likely to be at home a re males, younger males in particular. To compensate for this, a systematic procedure was employed by each interviewing 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. If no males are -A2-
available, the interviewer then asks to speak with the oldest female in the household. In dcing so, the most difficult i 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 used 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 l In order to obtain the designated number of completed inter-views in June (600 in the Primary Region, 600 in the Secondary Region and 800 in the Tertiary Region), a total of 11,758 numbers 1 were called. Of these 5423 (46%) proved to be invalid numbers ] (not in use, business or non-working numbers) and the remaining 5021 (43%) were deemed as " usable numbers". Of the usable i 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: 1 -A3-
RESULTS OF INTERVIEW ATTEMPTS - JUNE WAVE Tertiary Region Primary Secondary Western Eastern 'IUPAL Region Region Pennsylvania Pennsylvania 'Ibtal numbers dialed 11,758(100%) 2579 (100%) 3483 -(100%) 3065 (100%) 2631 (100%) Ect usable 6,737(57%; 1,002(39%) 2,000 (57%) 2079 (68%) 1656 (63%) Not assigned, disc. 5423 (46%) 795 (31%) 1610 (46%) 1715 (56%) 1303 (SG%) Business 980 ( 8) 167 ( 6) 320 ( 9) 217 ( 7) 275 (10) Busy all attempts
334 ( 3) 40 ( 2) 70 ( 2) 147 ( 5) 77
( 3) Usable numbers 5021 (43%) 1577 (61%) 1483 (43%) 986 (32%) 975 (37%) 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% No answer all attempts 1024 (20%) 358 (23%) 290 (19%) 198 (20%) 178 (18%) Busy last atxanpt(s) 154 ( 3) 67 ( 4) 48 ( 3) 17 ( 2) 22 ( 2) Adult not available 179 ( 4) 78 ( 5) 58 ( 4) 20 ( 2) 23 ( 2) Cami. Barrier 51(1) 18 ( 1) 14 ( 1) 11 ( 1) 14 ( 2) Refused /tenninate 1574 (31) 433 (27) 468 (32) 331 (34) 342 (35) Canpleted interviews 2033 (41%) 623 (40%) 605 (41%) 409 (41%) 396 (41%)
Assumed to be non-working nurrbers.
In the process of obtaining the designated number of completed interviews for the September survey a total of 2474 numbers were called. Of these 702 (28%) proved to be invalid numbers (not in use, business or non-working numbers) and the remaining 1772 (72%) were deemed as " usable numbers." Of the usable numbers, 816 interviews were completed, an overall completion rate of 46% The disposition of all attempts overall and within each region is shown on the following page: I l t I _aa_ l
RESULTS OF INTERVIEW ATTEMPTS - SEPTEMBER WAVE I Primary Secondary TOTAL Region Region Total numbers dialed 2474 (100%) 1139 (100%) 1335 (100%) Not usable 702 ( 28%) 288 ( 25%) 414 ( 31%) Not assigned, disconnected 397 (16) 149 (13) 248 (19) Business 178 ( 7) 71 ( 6) 107 ( 8) Busy all attepts* 127 ( 5) 68 ( 6) 59 ( 4) Usable numbers 1772.( 72%) 851 ( 75%) 921 ( 69%) 100% 100% 100% No answer all attempts 252 ( 14%) 88 ( 10%) 164 ( 18%) Adult not available 48 ( 3) 22 ( 3) 26 ( 3) Cm m. barrier 66 ( 4) 26 ( 3) 40 ( 4) Not eligible /other 18 ( 1) 9 ( 1) 9 ( 1) Pefused/ terminate 572 (32) 297 (35) 275 (30) Ccmpleted intervieas 816 ( 46%) 409 ( 48%) 407 ( 44%)
Assumed to be non-working numbers.
Data Processing Finished interviews were edited for completeness and open-end questions were coded by FRC's staff of professional coders. Questionnaire information was then keypunched to data cards for computer processing. The data deck was checked with a special card cleaning program to uncover incomplete, incorrect, 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 was subjected to a statistical weighting procedure. Statistical weighting was performed to bring the sample within each region into conformity wit.h census-established population parameters with respect to age within sex. l -AS-i
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 distributions for age within sex for each target region 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). The sample proportions for each of the weighting categories is then calculated. The proportion within each category is transformed by a weight to bring it into conformity with the established population figures for the category. The following is the representation of this stage of weighting: P ik W = Pjk l where Pjk is the population proportion for the jth sex and the i kth age group, and pjk is the sample proportion of interviews found in that category. ,I i I l 1 -A6-
. _ _ ~ ,. Estimates of Sampline Error In any survey based on a sample, some variance or " sampling error" is introduced into 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 that figure as an estimate of the percentage of the l total adult population holding that opinion using i 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 inter-view the whole population of interest.) For example, suppose 30% of the respondents in the Primary region (sample size = 409) answered "yes" to a particular question. From Table A a statistic such as this has a plus/minus tolerance of about 4.8 percentage points. This means that the "true value" would have a 95% chance of being found between 25.2% and 34.8%. The same i procedure can be used to estimate the sampling tolerance of any other data from the survey. Table A Sampling Tolerance (plus and minus range) for Data at the 95% Confidence Level l Percentage division of replies j Sample base 50-50 70-30 90-10 i 100 9.8 9.0 5.9 400 5.0 4.8 3.2 600 4.0 3.7 2.4 1000 3.1 2.8 1.9 4 2000 2.2 2.0 1.3 -A7-
Sampling Tolerances Between Two Different Sampling Periods The sample bases for the Primary and Secondary Regions in the June interviewing wave were approximately 600 each. The sample bases for these twc Regions were approximately 400 each in the September interviewing wave. Each sample is subject to a statistical tolerance. The plus or minus percentage range of smapling tolerance for each of the 600 samples is approximately 4% (at the 95% level of confidence). The plus or minus percentage range of the sampling tolerance for each of the 400 samples is approximately 5%. When comparing percentages in a Region from June to September whose division of opinion is near 50% - 50% there should be at least 7 percent difference to be sure that the shift in the direction indicated has any real meaning. Differences less than this may be due to random sampling factors rather than real changes in opinion during that period. More one-sided division of opinions (e.g. 70%-30% or 90%-10%) are subject to sampling tolerances somewhat lower than 7%. -A8-
e Other Accuracy Considerations l 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 I relate to the phrasing of the questions, question sequence, and other aspects of the survey method. 4 The PRC research executives who had responsibility for the conduct of this survey took considerable care and time in i formulating and testing the questionnaire to produce in its judgement 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. i 1 l l -A9-i i
Field Fesearch Correration 465-008 234 Front Streat 091680 San Francisco, CA 9411] FI.W, T!:ne started: Pegion: PRD'ARY... 1 M~ FENFCYLVANIA CPINIW Si,RVEY II la. First of all, how Icry have you lived in Fennsylvania (RECCRD Ut'OER la) lb. Ibw long have you lived in this County? (RECCFD UNDER 16) tQ.la) (Q. lb) Pennsylvania This County 11.- og - 1 YEAR CH LEOS. 1........ 1 OVER WE YEAR - F IVE YF>RS... 2........ 2 0'dR FIVE YEARS - TDI YEARS.......... 3........ 3 CWR TDJ YEARS - WD*Tt YEARC. 4... 4 C'dR i'eDITY YEARS.... 5........ 5 2. Miat do you retronally feel are some of the most serious prcblens facirq people in your County today? (PRCBE) Miat are some of the other issues facityg people in your area that you are concerned about? If /2. It(s s 22/2 y h. Io you think there will be enough electric power available for hous(bold needs in this area of Pennsylvania in the next few years, or is there likely to be a shortage of powr ? 1r-ENotEH AGIUPLE..... 1 LIKELY 10 BE A SHCOTACE... 2 (ACK Q.3b) No CPINION.........C (IF " LIVELY TO BE A CHORTME", ACE): 3b. f s you understand it, wtiat '*til cause this shortage at elect ric Iower? (PRN E FCR SFECIFICS) b(. I 1
t 7 1
4a. In the Fast year have the rates that your elect ric lust utility charges for elect r icity increased, decreased, or rematr:ed atuut the sare? i l 29-I!KmFK ED. Il 2/ (AEK Q.4b) i CECRFMLD. RL"AINED Tl!E F/#F.. DON'T RKM. C (IF "!NCRFEFC* OR "[ FCREAcEC", AFF) :
b. what do y>u think the reasons were that caussi elwtric per raten (to go up) (to ccr.e down)?
l l l
d

30

Jr
-B l_ 1 l
. o Now I would like to ask pu some questions about the nuclear power plant at ':hree Milt' Island and the events occurrify at the tirne of last year's accident and af terwards. 9-5. Do you believe you got a dangerous dose of YES. radiaticn durirg the '..I accident? NC........ 2 DON'T IC;0W.... 3 NOT IN 'IME APEA. 4 6. En y>u think you stand a chance of gettirg a YES. ......I darg(rous dose of radiation frcn WI sometime NO. 2 in the future? DON 'T Fla.... 3 NOT I!J T!!E ASEA. 4 7a. Atout the crobims of cleanirq up 3ree Mile Islend--how satistied or dissatisfied are you with how the problems of cleanirn up WI are beirn handled so far. Would you say you are stronaly (satisfied)(dissatisfied) or just somewhat (satis fied) (dissatisfied) ? -, s v - C'!90rCLY SATIEFIED.... 1 SO O HAT SATISFIED....2 SCFPAHAT DISSAT!SFIED... 3 f (AEK Q.7b) STRCtJCLY DISCATISFIED...4i (UDECIDED/DCN'T ICKW. I (CKIP 'ID Q.P) f!F SAT!SFIED CR DISEATIEFIED, ASV): 7b. Who, or tat organization, do you believe (is) lis not) doina a proper Jcb? 2f/st. 37/31 sf - 8. itw confident are you that the prohhes VERY CCNFIDDff.. ...... 1 of cleaniry up "MI will te solved -- very SJifMiAT CONFIDD:T. 2 confih nt, somed.at ccnfident, not too
.UT TOO CCt:FICt>4T.
3 confident, or not at all confident? Nr/T AT ALL CC*;FICENT. .4 NO CPINICM. .5 9. In Jur.e of this year, the Nuclear Regulatory G.rnission uthorized Petrcrolitan tdison, th(. conrany op? rating the [. lent to release ot vent the accmulated kryptun gas f rom tt.e d w yd reactor at "NI. Involved in the creration wre the technical esp ets of the optration itself and the way the pib!!c was infc;med prior to crd durirg the v(nting ope r a t ion. Yo - e. Iow muld you rate the technical job that FXrELLENT.. 1 Vetro alitan Edison (Met-Ed) did in ventiry the GOCD. 2 krypten gas--wuld you say it did en exceJ Ient, FAIR. 3 good, fair, poor, or very p>or in the technical K00 4 aslects of the venting op ration. VERY F ut. .5 DCri'T F?RN. 6 +t= b. Ibw about the way the put;lic ms infor ed about FXCELLIST . I the ventiry of the kr',T. ton gas. Would yrau say that GOCD. 2 P. t-Ed did an excellent, 00% f air, p'or, or very FAIP. 3 p;or job in the way it kept the piblic inf orr><rtant, scre.ta t imir3 r u nt, not im LOT IsT A LL IMICl T!JiT. 4 impirt ant cr nct at all Irp:rtant' [ItJ 'T FLN... 5 -D e
W~
13. how ccnfident are you that tha water inside EXTRDiELY COJFIDE:C..
1 the damaged reactor will be tcmoved cafely -- SCNDRAT CCf.TILENT.. 2 extremely confident, somewhat confident, not 273 'IDO CmFICDC.... J too confident, or not at all confident? tJCT AT ALL CCt.TICENT. 4 DON'T ITCW. 5
14. As you knew 'IMI consists 2f tm nuclear pwer generating units that are in separate buildings. Iast year's accident occurred at Unit #2 while Unit #1 was not damaged.
Asstriing that it would be operated under ireproved safety standards, would Wu approve er disapprove of allowing Unit il to be started up again while they continue to clean up Uhit 42? Do you (approve)(df upprove) strongly or just sonewhat? n-APFRCVE S'IROCLY......... 1 APFROVE SCp & TAT.. 2 CISAPFROVE SCNEhHAT.. 3 C!SAFPRCVE STRO CLY....... 4 NO CPINIC6. C
15. Asstr irq that the damaged Unit #2 at 'Itree Nile Island could be repaired and rebuilt to improved safety standards, would you approve or disapprove of allowing it to be started up ag3in? rc you (approve)(disaFFrove) strongly or just somewhat?
47-AFFRCVE S'IBC!CLY......... 1 AFFSOVE SCNEhHAT......... 2 DIFAFFitCVE SCFEhM/T. 3 CISAFFROVE STRC CLY....... 4 NO CPINICN.............C 16 Goirg back to the matter of tr.e cleen-up at 'IMI. It has been estimated that by the time the necessary clean-up o F rations have been ccepleted, and apert from Wether the plant is re-started or not, the total costs for the clean-up operations will amount to about one billion dollars. Five c'rcups have tecn suggested as possible sources in payinJ for the cost of the clean-up -- Nt Ed custccers, Met Ed stockholders, custoners of other nuclear rewr utilities, Fennsylvania state goverrrent ard the U.S. Government. vf-a. Ibw nuch of the clean-up costs do pu feel / LL........ I stnuld te mid for by Met FA cust mers-- MIT. 2 all of the costs, rest of tr e costs, bl.LF. 3 about half of the costs, sore of tr.e costs, FmE. 4 or none of the costs? '20NE. 5 NC OPINICN. .... 6 vy-b. Iow nuch of the clean-up costs do you feel should ALL........ I te paid for by Nt Ed stockholders-all of the FCST. 2 costs, ncst of the costs, arnut half of the HALF. 3 costs, scce of the costs, or none of the costs? S&F....... 4 NCA E. 5 NO OFINICt!. 6 I ~ c. Ibw much of the clean-up ctsts W you thuA ALL chould he Feid for ty custerers of other MCST. ....... 2 nuclear powr utilities--all of the costs, nost HALF. of the costs, atout half of the costs, sore of E&E........ 4 the costs, er ncne of the costs. .EE.. 5 NO Cl IIIICN... 6 $1* d. Inw ruch of the clean-up ctsts & you think ALL. I should tv paid for by the l'ennsylvanL' state M. 2 gcverrrent-all of the ccsts, mst of the msts, HALF........ 3 about half of the costs, sore of the costs, SWE. 4 or none of the costs? Nm F. ..5 NO CFINICN.... 6 e. Mcw much of the clean-up custs s you t!u. A ALL,..... . I (2 - r should N paid for by the Fe h ral yverrrent--ril Wt:T.... ... 2 of the costs, mcst of the ecsts, Arut talf of the HAtF. 3 ccsts, some O f the costs, or nere o f t!.e m"' <W E. NW E. 5 No 0FINItt... 6 - b 17 Next, I'm going to rud you sera statements that have been mada about the 'hree Pile Islard situation and I'd like you to tell re whether you agree or disagrea with sach one .~IN WITH ITE.N CHECVED) -- Io you (agree) (disagru) strongly or just somedat? (C%7INUE Uhi!L ALL ITfNS ARE RT)D) / GEE / GEE DIS / GEE DISACREE NO S*PCtCLY SOMEWHAT SCFIWHAT STROCLY OPINION I] a. sf repairs are not made as econ as possible to the danaga3 reactor there could be further equirrent failures which could cauce new dangers.......... 1... 2... 3... 4 5 [] b. Not nearly enouin is bain) done to deal with serious er.ctional and psychological prcblerv that 'IMI has caused anong the TV" FoFle of the area....... 1. .2... 3... 4....S [] c. Fesidents liviry in the vicinity of nuclear powr plants will te much safer in the future as a result of the lessons Icarned p a t 'IM I............. 1... 2....J. 4... 5 [] d. 'Ite release of radioactivity from 'IMI since the accident has caused scee miscarriages fg. and birth defects....... 1... 2... 3.... 1 .5 f ] e. ':he *: tree Mile Island events showd that even in a major accident the science and technology of nuclear powr was adecuate to core with the problers that arose g7 before anycne was burt. 1... 2... 3...
4...
5 [] f. " tere will be little or no safety risk if the &:mancti reactor at W I is left as it is and nothing else is ts, done to fix it......... 1... 2... 3...
4...
5 [] g. reople wto oprose the cleanup cierations. at ':MI are simply in a panic and c'o not have a realistic view of wtot 49 needs to be done. 1. .2. 3... 4. 5 le. As ycu know, various [rople ard groups have syken up +tnut nuclear rewrr and tre pros *rxi cons of wtet to do ateut it. I'm going to r,c.e sorae of theso groups ard I w uld like you to tell re how reliable you think each one w old be 's a source of infor ation attut nuclear Pwer. As I neno each group, plane tell re stether you think they muld be very re fable, sor4what reliable or not too reliable en a cource of infernation ainut nuclear powr. Ibre is the first one: (STAET WITH ITEM MAiWLO WITH "X") (CCtGINUE U'#IL ALL IT!PS AFE EEAD. ) VLDY S(fd!bt'AT NUT TOO NO I1
a. Statants nade by of ficials of the Babecek end W!!ccx Cornrany, buil.ders of the 1MI rir.nt 1...
2... 3....C []
b. Editor ials in tr e daily nevreWr....

1...
2... 3.... O W I }
c. Environnental protection organizations.

1...
2... 3. C 62* []
d. EMitorials on the TV news ErmJrams...
1....2.... 3... . O sP I]
e. relentists from the nuclar pwr industry...............
1... 2. .3. .0 'f-II
f. rcientists f rcn universiti >r and indqvndent laterator ies..
1 .I. 3... C 'T' []
g. "he interal Nuclear R+9ulatory O"~
Commission. 1. .2. 3. l]
h. Ctate and local.yencies and offrei31r..
1... 2.
3...0&
Ii
1. Statements rxte ty of f icials of t! e Me t r o po l i t an Ed i son Cogan y......
1... 2 3.... C 68- [] j. Etat ments made ty anti-nuclear jroups. 1... 2 3... 0
T' t; P
,e o Now, just to we can te sure w're getting a gecA cross-s.ecticn, I'd like to ask you a few tackground questions - e02
19. What w s the last grade you 11TH GRACE CR LESS
......... I completed in scrool? CWPLETED HIGH SClKOL........ 2 1-3 YEAPS COLLEGE, UiALE OR TECINICAL SClK)CL......... 3 CCPPLETED CCLLECE.......... 4 ADVAPCED EECREE........... 5 23 M.at is the occupaticn of the head of your household, please? hbat type of work does that perron do? (occupa t t on) 21. C (irdustry) 22. M.a t is your ago? 1 'T / a 2 33 Inclurfiro yourself, Mw rin, p<i., in this houahold ? are t.dults over 182. 4-h. ibw r,any are teenegr.rs t ot w. er !! and I? /7-c. Inw many are cf.11dre t, t.t.. arct 12?. ,y. .f. Isaw many are childr. ura t o' /f_ e. Irt's see, trat totalc _r ltvirq in thic ho ur.do ll. is that MnbL !!NTERVlihEb: EE EURL N!.r4 Ek IN Urb C5%P ACIT TO *T'".? L IN IC4JXiw .' 4. lk'w, we oc n ' t cara tc enow yom uNt incme, tot w uld ',ru tell re rie=re wrether l your total cnnual leuaduli t reu., b,11o r.: t<./rs, is lecA then fif,LUD e F er, or 015,'00 cr mre? M' LLEL 7t' 3 C1,ffr n YD' F ......f J I C 15,000 CD M; F E. [ } l l FffLTEC. ..... X y T t l fLEr ti/fJ SIS,cro, A s): (IF 015,C00 on n RF, E n : ( e. Is it undfr cr ever 01(,um t:. Is it t w t u t n f ! ?,' Lo crd f.T, t (?t:, 1 ', C a r ? or t* N en f20,PCC and #25,0ro l or note than $25,(00? I UNCFR 010,000 .i 015,000 - C2P,000. ? O\\TR SIC,CCC. 02t,000 - f25,(PC. .. 6 .] MtTE Tl;AN f 25,0f W. REFLUED.... 7 F E E UE El' -E.;_ l l
I e e. y3, 25. Eex of resrendent: PALE..... I F& ALE... 2 4 g g 2r. Zip code l I_ l l I I av-JF 1 Sat's all tie questicrs I bec. v. m ver y ruch for your coo [ereticn. Io thy ry sigerviror can verify this ir.te r 1=y I please have your nace ard addrest ? (If N.5 CtfuSY, f/.Y): 11.is :refotw i ', ' all to rcmial free the questiorreire ord discarded af t n the interviews t eve t/+n w !! Icted. .tf r insures that rfy wrk ms done horr;stly and ecur+tely, b fSfCf4EhT !J.P.E /trFESS: T &.t CH CI!Y: 'T : I F.FtmE r*C. : '*TimLklT tJPE: r/1 r's i P'i 'Tf P: t , ciel (F IN1ERVIEN: I. t ____a 29/30 kJ of cu s) '.T ' :1*<?TicO -- Fcr Cffin % rr l -c s,rit ~.' b .m W g . +. -}}

ML20050C755

Text

Navigation menu

Search