ML20073R351

Affidavit of KT Erickson & Aj Solnit Re Radiological Emergency Response Plan

ML20073R351
Person / Time
Site:	Indian Point
Issue date:	04/26/1983
From:	Erickson K, Solnit A PUBLIC INTEREST RESEARCH GROUP, NEW YORK, UNION OF CONCERNED SCIENTISTS, YALE UNIV., NEW HAVEN, CT
To:
Shared Package
ML20073R287	List: ML20073R305 ML20073R326 ML20073R332 ML20073R347 ML20073R351 ML20073R353
References
NUDOCS 8305030646
Download: ML20073R351 (42)

Text

_ _ _ .

Page 4 region.

One possible way to go about it is to ask people directly to predict what they would do, for example, if asked to evacuate.

Ordinarily, a psychologist or sociologist does not take the responses at face value, translating them directly into his own predictions. In predicting elections, for example, the forecaster often does not report the raw percentages, but takes into account the degree of a respondent's declared intention to vote, the strength of feeling for and against the candidates, and trends over time (which may affect the interpretation of the undecided vote). Similarly, in attempting to predict how well an evacuation plan could be carried out, one probably would want to use infonaation of all the kinds just described, and not simply rely on the respondents' own predictior.s.*

7.

As to the validity of information gained from surveys, it is difficult to give a simple answer, since the kinds of information are so variegatea.

Sample surveys are in many respects like a census, except that they use statistical sampling techniques to draw representative small groups of a population of interest, from whose responses predictions can be made accurately about an entire population. The tecnnology of sampling is highly developed and amazingly precise. Even #

40 years ago, when I was conducting surveys of the American public's buying of war bonds for the U.S. Treasury Department, we were able to draw samples of about 1,000 respondents and project from their answers the amount of bonds sold in a nation-wide drive to within a few "The most common tack to increase the predictability of behavior from attitude has been the 'other variables' approach. In addition to the central attitude, measures are also obtained of related and possibly conflicting attitudes and of the individual's perception of situational constraints" (Kiesler & Munson, 1975).

8305030646 830419 DR ADDCK 05000g47 PDR

. . page 5 J

l percentage points. Tne basic technique of probability sampling is to give every member of a population an equal chance to be included. That  ;

l can be done so accurately that the degree of precision attained is a i simple function of the number of persons in the sample.

8. In recent years, methodological research has shown that a  ;

population can be sampled to a degree of adequacy satisfactory for most i i i purposes by taking a sample of telephone numbers, since 97% of households in the U.S. now have telephones. The validity of data obtained by this j

] cost-effective method has proved to be equal to that from face-to-face interviews.  !

l l 9. When it comes to obtaining demographic information, like the  ;

number of families having children in school, the numbers of persons in

} an area who own cars or who live alone, there simply is no better way to  !

find out than to ask people, as a census does. The amount of lying or  !

f dissimulation on most items of information that are not self-incriminating is truly negligible. There can hardly be any doubt that i

emergency planning could be carried out more effectively in the presence of full information of this relatively objective kind than without it.

t Unfortunately, the U.S. Census does not provide a great deal of the kinds  ;

of information needed. For example, the census does not tell how many persons in the EPZ do not have a fluent grasp of spoken or written l English; hence, we do not know how many people would be unable to read the information brochures distributed by the licencees or to understand i emergency instructions given in English over the EBS. The only feasible way to estimate the size of the problem is a sample survey.

l

. e page 6 I

10. Likewise, there is no better way to ascertain a person's beliefs than to ask him or her directly. Values and attitudes can to some extent be inferred indirectly from observations of behavior, but few psychologists would rely wholly on such observations if it were possible to ask questions.

11. Statements of intention, especially intentions to buy or save, are considered such a valuable basis for economic prediction that both the government and industry have invested a good deal of money in ar.nual surveys of spending and saving behavior. The best known are those conducted for iaaily years under the direction of the late George Katona at the University of Michigan's Survey Research Center, which began during tne years when Katona and his colleagues worked at the Divison of Program Surveys in Washington. I had the privilege of working with Dr. Katona on the first of these studies.

12. If the question is asked, "How well can overt behavior be 3

predicted from attitudes?" an answer is given by Ci2ldini, Petty and Cacioppo (1931) in the autnoritative Annual Survey of Psychology. They write: "The attitude-behavior probiem has continued to generate a great deal of research, but no longer are researchers questioning i_f f attitudes predict behaviors, they are investigating when attitudes predict benaviors. ... attitudes have a great deal of predictive utility." The research of Ajzen and Fishbein (1977) in particular shows that poor results in past studies are largely attributable to a failure to zero in on the particular behavior precisely enough. Thus, one could not predict very accurately now many people would evacuate an area in case of a l

page 7 specific accident scenario on the basis of answers to a general question about attitude toward nuclear power. Asking something like, "What would you do--go about your usual business, stay indoors, or leave the area--in case of an accident at Indian Point?" would permit somewhat more accurate prediction because it would match the behavior in terms of what Ajzen and Fishbein call action (the specific act of evacuating) and context (that of an accident at Indian Point), but is still vague on target and time, i

and the context lacks specificity. The Suffolk County survey is exemplary in tilis respect, for (in terms of context) it spells out a

! series of precise accident scenarios, and in follow-up questions it i clarifies target (where the respondent would go and by what means). Only i

the time referent is necessarily unspecified; it is doubtful that it i

would have made much difference if the question had included something i

like this: " Suppose that Shoreham were to start operations next month, and three weeks later there were an accident..."

13. In short, it means nothing to invoke a vague concept of

" authenticity," when research has zeroed in on the specific aspects of behavior that must be invoked in a question to maximize predictability.

Indeed, when there is a good match between attitude questions and the r behavior being predicted as to action, target, context, and time, it is possible to predict behavior in situations the respondent has not yet l

experienced. The objection by Drs. Lecker and Dynes to the use of sample surveys to aid in emergency planning on the ground that the situation is too hypothetical thus lacks cogency.

l l

l

'

• page 8

14. Tne Suffolk-Shoreham study gives a good example of the difference made by specificity concerning the hypothetical situation. In the first scenario presented, respondents were asked to imagine that as a result of an accident at the Shoreham nuclear plant, persons within 5 miles of tile plant were advised to remain indoors; 40% of those surveyed living witnin tnat area said that they would evacuate, plus 40% of those living froa 6 to 10 miles from the plant. When the scenario closely matched the actual accident at TMI (pregnant women and pre-school children asked to evacuate within 5 miles, those from 6 to 10 miles advised to remain indoors), the percentages indicating they would leave tne region went up to 57 and 52. These rather closely match the actual figures obtained by Flynn (1979) in a telephone survey at TMI: within 5 miles, 60% evacuated and from 6 to 10 miles, 44%. (In the next more remote zone, the figures are 30% for Shoreham ano 32% for TMI--a close correspondence, even though the areas were not defined in exactly the same way.) llate also that Houts el al. (1981) report "approximately 60 percent" of the respondents in their telephone survey of the 5-mile zone had evacuated. It is striking that the Suffolk results from the TMI-like scenario more closely match the actual TMI results than they do the results frcm their own, slightly less severe, first scenario.

15. Tne TMI data are noteworthy also for the degree to which the two 1

! l page 9 i l

i i independent telephone surveys replicate one another, though they were i

! done at slightly different times. Even the reasons given for leaving sho.ed great agreement:

I Flynn Houts l

Situation seemed dangerous 91 % 82%

1 Information on situation was confusing 83% 78%

To protect children 61 % 50%

To protect pregnancy 8% 8%

To avoid confusion of forced evacuation 76% 68%  !

Pressure frou someone outside familly 28% 22%

Trip planned before incident 5% 7%

i Other (free response)* 41% 4.1%

I

• No other reason, not even 'It was a nice spring weekend for a trip,'

! occurred often enough to be tabulated in either survey.

L i

16. It is true that the less time elapsed between the survey and the benavior to be predicted, the better the prediction (Davidson & Jaccard, 1979; Schwartz,1978). The implication is that surveys like the Suffolk County study need to be done frequently. I would advise an annual survey in the Indian Point area; if the results of the second study are very close to those of the first, and if relevant conditions in the area do not change markedly, a third study could be deferred somewhat.

17. It might be added that a considerable body of research has validated Fishbein and Aizen's (1975) theory that the best predictor of i

i l

l t - - - _ _ _ _

l pcge 10 behavior is the actor's intention to perform the behavior. It has been successfully applied to predicting family planning behavior (Davidson &

Jaccard,1979; Vinocur-Kaplan,1978), use of alcohol by adults (Kilty, 1978) and adolescents (Schlegel, Crawford & Sanborn,1977), and voting on a nuclear power plant initiative (Bowman & Fishbein,1978).

18. The principal alternative theory attracting current research effort in this field is that of Triandis (1977,1980). It uses a combination of a person's intentions, habits (often measured by a record of past behavior), psychological arousal, and facilitating conditions in the environment. Though some research supports this theory, in the only direct comparison of predictions based on the two approaches, the Fishbein-Ajzen theory proved superior in predicting students' church attendance (Brinberg,1979). Note that even in this alternative theory (that of Triandis,1977), predictions are based on the past behavior in the same situation of the particular persons in question, not that of other people in other situations, as is advocated by Dr. Dynes. It would be impossible to apply the Triandis theory to predicting evacuation behavior at Indian Point, since there is no history of such previous behavior by the persons involved on which to build.

19. Let us consider, by contrast, the procedure urged by Drs. Dynes and Lecker--one could hardly dignify it by calling it a theory--namely, that the future behavior of people during a radiological emergency at Indian Point can be best predicted on the basis of the behavior of other people at other places in different types of emergencies taking place some years ago. It relies upon three obvious fallacies.

Page 11 l

l

20. First, it ignores the major role of the situation in detemining behavior, which has been thoroughly established in a large body of recent h psychological research stimulated by the radical situationalism of Mischel (1968). In my unpublished review of TMI research, I have identified no less than six ways in which responses to an important aspect of the situation--the radiological r.ature of the threat--brought about behavioral findings unprecedented in previous disaster research.

21 . Second, it assumes that people everywhere are the same, in all relevant respects, but especially that they have a uniform dominant response to stress, which is to become conforming and dependent upon constituted authorities. The literature to the contrary is so enormous that it would be tedious indeed to document more than a representative fraction of it. Surely the extraordinary diversity of human responses to stressful situations like emergencies is well known (see, for example, Goldberger & Bretnitz,1982; Janis & Mann,1977; Menninger,1963; Grinker

& Spiegel,1945; Hamilton,1979). A substantial subdiscipline in psychology for many years has been devoted to the study of individual differences (see, for example, Anastasi,1958; Tyler,1956). A great deal of the work done at the Research Center for Mental Health has been focused on important dimensions of individual difference called cognitive styles (Gardner, Holzman, Klein, Linton & Spence,1959). We have demonstrated over and over that people of contrasting cognitive styles react to precisely the same situation in diametrically opposite ways (see, for example, Klein, 1954; 1970). Likewise, a large part of the literature of abnormal and clinical psychology, like that of psychiatry,

prge 12 is devoted to elucidating the extremely variegated ways in which people break down under various types of stress (see, for example, Holt,1968; Janis, Mahl, Kogan & Holt,1969). Dr. Lecker's uniformitarian stance is not supported by any serious scientific literature known to me.

22. The tnird fallacy is to assume that the American people have not changed in any important respects during the past few decades. It happens that one of the most striking and consistently reported long-term trends in American public opinion ever reported is the steady erosion of public faith in authority figures. Long reported in various journals of public opinion, it is now the subject of a full-length book, by Lipsit &

Schneider (1983). In Appendix I, I present some representative data from a variety of reputable polling firms, which document this trend. All aspects of "the establishaent," from governmental institutions like the Congress and Supreme Court to the mass media, big business, labor unions, and toe universities, have lost the trust and faitn of the public over the past 20 years. It is not difficult to understand why people would have been disillusioned about the credibility of duly constituted authorities when the President of the United States was shown up to have j deliberately lied and covered up the Watergate affair, and when so many f

l figures in a previous administration were shown in the Pentagon Papers to have behavec in a similar way about the war in southeast Asia, l

l 23. It is difficult to understand how anyone who lays so much stress on the role of faith in authorities and leaders in an emergency could shrug aside as of no importance such massive evidence of widespread attitudinal change over time. One manifestation of it in human response

page 13 during emergency is the looting and other forms of public disorder during the New York City blackout of 1977. Dr. Dynes himself has written about looting as a new phenomenon of public behavior. It can hardly be disregarded as a portent that the growing mood of alienation in America will make it considerably less certain that the public will believe what authorities and experts tell the in case of an accident at Indian Point, dnd tnat they Will Comply With instructions. Tnese data help us to understand the surprising new phenomenon of shadow evacuation at Three Mile Island. In this instance, people did not follow the cource of behavior indicated by the authorities when at least 150,000 of them

. outside the 5-mile zone (where a limited evacuation was recomended) decided on their own to leave the area.

24. In relation to Dr. Lecker's repeated statement during his cross examination that in an emergency at Indian Point, people would turn trustingly and obediently to the constituted authorities because of the existence of an emergency plan, certain data from the studies of Altscnuler (1982) and Yankelovich, Skelly and White (1981) are especially important. They agree in finding thatmost people in the EPZ do not trust Con Edison, and that very substantial minorities indicate that they would give little credence to statements by PASNY, the NRC, or elected governaental figures. Those are clear warning signals that many people will not behave in the traditional fashion of publics in nonradiological emergencies of bygone years, and that the smoothly coordinated, lockstep evacuation presumed by the licensees' consultants will be seriously disrupted by unpredictable and rebellious behavior of substantial numbers of people.

I a

• page 14

25. Given tnis state of affairs, it is ever, more urgent that a thorough and adequately funded study of the entire affected area be i conducted by a fina of impeccable reputation for objectivity, such as i Yankelovich, Skelly & White, along the lines of the Suffolk County survey.

State of I.'ew YorR' County of flew York SWORt1 BEFORE ME , *. ,

misd.. .. DAY OF. )b d km

. Robert R. Holt I

w w m is.e .el. M M best i

gesngw le nesses Ce s ee ndres Saret En i I

)

s f

\

_ - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ {

REFERENCES i

Ajzen, I. & Fishbein, M. Attitude-behavior relations: A theoretical  !

analysis and review of empirical research. Psychological Bulletin, 1977, 84, 888-918.

Altschuler, R. J. Ready or Not: Public Preparedness for an Accident at at Indian Point. New York: NYPIRC,1982. i Anastosi , A. Differential psychology. (Third edition.) New York: j f bbcmillan,1958.

l Bowman, C. H. & Fishbein, M. Understanding public reaction to energy proposal s: An application of the Fishbein model. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 1978, 8, 319-340.

Brinberg, D. An examination of the determinants of intention and behavior: A comparison of two models. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 1979, 9, 560-375.

Cialdini, R. B. , Petty, R. E. , & Cacioppo, J. T. Attitude and attitude

, change. Annual Review of Psychology, 1981, 32, 357-404.

Daviason, A. R. & Jaccard, J. J. Variables that moderate the attitude-behavior relation: Results of a longitudinal survey. Journal of l

l Personality and Social Psychology, 1979, 37, 1364-1376.

i Fishbein, M. & Ajzen, I. Belief, attitude, intention, and behavior: An l introduction to theory and reasearch. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 1

1975.

Flynn, C. B. Tnree Mile Island telephone survey. NUREG/CR-1093.

Washington, DC: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,1979.

l l

Gardner, R. , Holzman, P.S. , Klein, G.S. , Linton, H. , & Spence, D.P. Cog-nitive control. Psychological Issues,1959,1 Monograph No. 4.

Goldberger, L. & Breznitz, S. (eds.) Handbook of stress. New York:

Macmillan/ Free Press,1982.

Grinker, R. R. & Spiegel, J. Men under stress. Phil adel phia: Blakiston, 1945.

Hamilton, V. ' Personality' and stress. In V. Hamilton & D. M. Warburton (eds.) Human stress and cognition. New York: Wil ey , 1979.

Holt, R. R. Revised edition of D. Rapaport, H.M. Gill, & R. Schafer's Diagnostic psychological testing. New York: International Universitie: Press , 1968.

Houts, P. S. , Miller, R. W. , Tokuhata, G. K. , Ham, K. S. , di Sabella, j R. M. , & Gol dhaber, M. K. Health-related behavioral impact of the Three Mile Island nuclear incident. (Parts I--III). Hershey, PA:

Pennsylvania State University College of Medicine,1981.

Jani s , I . L. , Mahl , G. F. , Kagan, J . , & Hol t, R. R. Personality 1 Dynamics, development, and assersment. New York: Harcourt, Brace and World,1969.

Janis, I. L. & Mann, 1. Decision-making: A psychological analysis of conflict, choice,and commitment. New York: Free Press,1977.

Kiesler, C. A. & Munson, P. A. Attitudes and opinions. Annual Review of Psychology, 1975, 26, 415-406.

Kil ty , K. M. Attitudinal and normative variables as predictors of drink-ing behavior. Joernal of Studies of Alcohol, 1978, 39, 1178-1194.

Klein, G. S. Need and regulation. In M. R. Jones (ed.) Nebraska symposium on motivation: 1954. Lincol n: University of Nebraska Press , 1954.

i ~ a-

Klein, G. S. Perception, motives, and personality. New York: Knopf, 1970.

Lipsit, S. M. & Schneider, W. The confidence gap: Business, labor, and gernment in the public pind. Nw York: Free Press,1983.

Henninger, K. A. (with Mayman, M. & Pruyser, P.) The vital balance. New York: Viking,1963.

p Hischet, W. Personality and assessment. New York: Wil ey,1960.

1 l Schlegel, R. P., Crawford, C. A., & Sanborn, M. D. Correspondence and mediational properties of the Fishbein model: An application to I adolescent alcohol use. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, I

1977, 13, 421-430-I Scnwartz, S. ii. Temporal instability as a moderator of the attitude-behavior relationship. Journal of Personalittand Social fsychology, 197d, 36, 715-724.

Tri andi s, H. C . Interpersonal behavior. Monterey: Brooks / Cole,1977.

Triandis, H. C. Values, attitudes, and interpersonal behavior. Nebraska Symp6-ium on Motivation: 1980. Lincoln: University of Nebraska i Press , 1980.

Tyler, L. E. The psychology of individual differences (second ed.) New York: Appleton-Century-Crof ts,1956.

Vinocur-Kaplan, D. To have--or not to have--another child: Family plan-ning attitudes, intention:., and behavior. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 1978, 8, 29-46.

Yar:kelovich, Skelly and White, Inc. Final Report--Results of Emergency Planning Survey Around Indian Point Power Plant. Unpublished report, New York,1981.

APPEllDIX 1 tietsures of confidence in institutional representativeness, trustworthiness and accountability.

1) "The government is run by a few big interests looking out them: elves."

1958 1980 AGREE 18% 76%

2) "Tne government in Washington cannot (only some of the time /none of the time) be trusted to do what is right."

1964 1980 AGREE 25% 71%

3) Feel tnat "quite a few of the people running the government don't seem to know what they're doing.'

1958 1980 AGREE 28% 63%

(SOURCE: Center for Political Studies, Institute for Social Research University of Michigan Election Studies)

4) "Most public officials (people in public office) are not really inwrested in the problems of the average man."

1980 AGREE 73%

DISAGREE 27%

(SOUKCE: llaticial Opinion Research Center; General Social Surveys,1980)

5) "As far as people in charge of running (READ EACH ITEM) are concerned, viould you say you have a great deal of confidence, only somo confidence, or hardly any confidence at all in them?"

I a .

CONFIDENCE IN INSTITUTIONS 1981 1980 1979 1978 1977 1976 1975 1974 1973 1972 1 971 1966 Medicine 37 34 30 42 43 42 43 49 57 48 61 73 Higher educational institutions 34 36 33 41 37 31 36 40 44 33 37 61 The U.S Supreme Court 29 27 28 29 29 22 28 34 33 28 23 50 The military 28 28 29 29 27 23 24 29 40 35 27 61 The White House 28 18 15 14 31 11 X 18 18 X X X The executive branch of die fed. government 24 17 17 14 23 il 13 18 19 27 23 41 lelevision news 24 29 37 35 28 28 35 32 41 X X X Major companies 16 16 18 22 20 l< 19 15 29 27 27 55 Congress 16 18 18 10 17 9 13 16 X 21 19 42 The press 16 19 28 23 18 20 26 25 30 18 18 29 (X = not asked)

SOURCE: Harris Survey: Trends in Confidence in Institutions; 1981/#85; as of Oct. 22, 1981)

I

6) "Do yoit tnink public officials have been honest in telling the people all they know about the danger from the Three Mile Island accident, or was the danger greater, or less than they said?"

1979 More danger then they 55%

saia Told all they knew 20%

Danger was less than they said 8%

No opinion 17%

(SOURCE: CBS/New York Times Poll; April,1979)

7) "How much trust do you have in what the government tells you about the risks of nuclear power?"

1978 A great deal 16%

Some 42%

Very little 42%

8) "How much trust do you have in what the opponents of nuclear power tell you about the risks of nuclear power?"

1978_

A great deal 8%

Some 51 %

1 Very little 41%

\

(SOURCE: Bureau of Social Science Rese4rch, for Resources for the Future; July /Aug.,1978)

I l

I- -

i Curriculum Vitae ROBERT R. HOLT Personal Information Born in Jacksonville, Florida, December 27, 1917 Address: 20 East 8th Street, New York, NY 10003 Married; 4 children Education Princeton University, B. A., 1939 (Highest honors)

Harvard University, M.A., 1941 Harvard University, Ph.D., 1944 Attended courses and seminars for several years in the Washington School of Psychiatry and the Topeka Institute for Psychoanalysis (1944-53)

Certification Diplomate in Clinical Psychology of the American Board of Examiners in Professional Psychology, 1952 Certified Psychologist, New York State, 1958-present Honors / Fellowships / Awards Phi Beta Kappa,1938 Sigma X1, 1943 Fellow, Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences, Stanford, Calif., and Special Research Fellow, National Institute of Mental Health, 1960-61.

Research Career Award, National Institute of Mental Health, 1962-present.

Great Man Award, Society for Projective Techniques and Personality Assessmer.t.1969.

Psychologist of the Year Award, New York Society of Clinical Psycholo-gists, 1973.

William V. Silverberg Memorial Lecturer, American Academy of Psycho-Analysis, Decnber 1973.

Award, Distinguished Contributions to Clinical Psychology for 1974.

Division of Clinical Psychology, Division 12 of the American Psy-chological Association, August, 1974.

Sandor Rado Memorial Lecturer, Columbia University Institute for Psycho-analysis, 1978.

Philips Distinguished Visitor, Haverford College, Nov. 20-21, 1980.

i I

l .. .-

Holt--2 Positions Held 1941-44 Research Assistant, Harvard Psychological Clinic, Cambridge, MA 1941-44 Tutor and Teaching Fellow, Harvard and Radcliffe, Cambridge, MA 1944-46 Study Director, Division of Program Surveys, B.A.E., Wash., DC 1944 Instructor, American University, Wash., DC 1946-49 Clinical Psychologist, Winter V.A. Hospital, Topeka, Kansas 1946-50 Clinical Assistant Professor, University of Kansas, Lavrence, Kansas 1947-49 Associate Psychologist, The Menninger Foundation, Topeka, Kansas 1949-53 Senior Psychologist, Research Department, The Menninger Foundation, Topeka, Kansas 1949-53 Lecturer, Topeka Institute for Psychoanalysis, Topeka, Kansas 1951-53 Director of Psychological Staff The Menninger Foundation (A1:;o served as Acting Director, Department of Research, June-September, 1952; June-September, 1953) 1953-58 Associate Professor of Psychology, Graduate School of Arts and Science, New York University 1953-63 Director, Research Center for Mental Health, New York University 1953-60 Part-time private practice of diagnostic testing, New York, NY 1956-61 Member, Fellowship Comittee, Foundations Fund for Research in Psychiatry 1958- Professor of Psychology, New York University 1963-69 Co-Director, Research Center for Mental Health, NYU 1963-65 Member, National Institutes of Health, Mental Health Fellowship Review Panel 1964-68 Member, NYU Arts and Science Research Fund Comittee 1967-68 Visiting Professor of Clinical Psychology, Harvard University 1968-69 Member, NIMH Mental Health Extramural Research Advisory Comittee 1969- Senior Staff Member, Research Center for Mental Health, NYU 1969-72 Member, Board of Trustees, Psychological Service Center, New York Society of Clinical Psychologists 1970-74 Member, NYU Institutional Grants Comittee 1975-76 Member, NYU Arts and Science Research Fund Committee 1976-77 Member, hYU Center for Humanistic Studies 1981- Member, NYU Human Subjects Committee 1982- Member, NYU Graduate Curriculum Comittee Professional Society Participation American Psychological Association: Associate, 1941-51; Fellow, 1951-present (Divisions 8 and 12).

Member, Advisory Comittee on Psychological Bulletin and Psychological Monographs, 1954-55.

Member, Council of Representatives, 1954-56, 1961-63.

Representative, World Federation for Mental Health, 1954-56.

I

e. .

Donald A. Wells Maaager Qua% Ass /aace (313) 237 % 57 2000 Second Avenue 31 3- 0 April 15, 1983 EF2-63499 Mr. James G. Keppler, Regional Administrator Region III U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Cm mission 799 Roosevelt Road Glen Ellyn, Illinois 60137

Subject:

Interim Report of 10CFR50.55(e) It s on Fisher Control Valve Actuators (#37)

Dear Mr. Keppler:

This interim report on the Fisher Control valve actuator problem has been prepared to provide the current status of this problem.

Titis its was originally reported to Mr. R. Knop of NRC Regica III by Detroit Edison's Mr. H.A. Walker, Supervisor - Construction Quality Assur-ance, on December 31, 1980. At that time, it had been determined that there was a problem with Fisher Control valve actuators at the Fermi 2 site.

Control valves were purchased fran Fisher Controls per Detroit Edison speci-fications. Iater, l'etroit Edison Engineering determined that cut-off fre-quencies had not been adequately specified to assure that seismic design of the valves accounted for the Fermi 2 peak response frequency. An investi-gation by the manufacturer revealed that the original valve actuators did not meet the necessary seismic requirements.

Era valve actuators have been ordered via a revised purchase order. The engineering specifications for Class 3 valves were revised for future pur-chases. Of these eight (8) new actuators, four (4) are scheduled to arrive in May,1983, and the remaining four (4) in June, 1983. These new actuators, when installed, will meet seismic requirenents.

Another report on this it m , either interim or final, will be sent when fur-ther information is available. If you have questions concerning this matter, please contact Mr. G.M. Trahey, Assistant Director - Project Quality Assur-ance.

Very truly yours, DAW /DF/pn 8305030476 830415 PDR ADDCK 05000341 hg 2, 'l N

S PDR

1 Holt--3 APA Division of Clinical Psychology (Division 12): President-elect, 1961-62; Past-President, 1962-63 Comittee on Examinations in Clinical Psychology: Member, 1947-48; Chairman, 1948-49 Comittee on Nominations and Elections: Member, 1948-50, 1954-58; Chairman, 1956-57, 1962-63 Committee on Publication Outlets in Clinical Psychology: Chairman, 1949-52 Executive Comittee: Member-at-large, 1951-53; Member and Council Delegate, 1954-57, 1960-63 Comittee on Divisional Reorganization: Member, 1961-62 Organizing Comittee, Conference on an Idealized Training Program for Psychotherapists: Chairman, 1961-63 Awards Comittee: Member, 1964-65 Society for the Psychological Study of Social Issues: Member, 1941-60; 1961-present Comittee on Atomic Education: Member, 1948-50 Comittee on Arms Control and Disarmament: Member, 1961-64 Topeka Psychoanalytic Society: Associate Member, 1947-54 Society for Projective Techniques and Rorschach Institute, Inc.:

Fellow, 1948-58 Comittee on Membership: Member, 1949-51 Executive Comittee: Member, 1949-53 Comittee on Ethics: Member, 1954-58 New York Chapter: Executive Board Member, 1954-55 American Association for the Advancement of Science: Member, 1949-62; Fellow, 1962-present Council for the Advancement of the Psychological Professions and Sciences:

Member, Board of Governors, 1971-74 New York State Psychological Association: Member, 1955-1972 Comittee on Peace: Member, 1961-62 Comittee on Mental Health Clinic Licensure: Member, 1962-63 Comittee on Response to Social Issues: Member, 1969-71 World Federation for Mental Health: Associate, 1956-63 American Association of University Professors: Member, 1958-present Psychonomic Society: Member, 1960-70 Association for the Psychological Study of Sleep: Member, 1961-71 Congress of Scientists on Survival: Interim Council Member, 1962-63 Federation of American Scientists: Member, 1962-present Council on Research in Bibliography: President, 1965-73 Peace Science Society (International): Member, 1965-present Environmental Research Fund: Member, Board of Scientific Advisors, 1971-present Society for General Systems Research: Member, 1976-present 1 . I

Holt--4 Editorial Experience The TAT Newsletter Editor, 1946-52 i Journal of social Issues, Member, Editorial Advisory Board, 1949-51 i

Journal of Projective Techniques, Member, Editorial Advisory Board, 1949-60 Journal of Abnormal and Social Psycholosy, Consulting Editor, 1955-60 Journal of Psychological Researches (Macras, India), Editorial Board, 1956-56 l Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, Member, Editorial Board, 1957-

! present i Psychological Issues, Member, Editorial Board, 1958-present American Imago, Member, Board of Consultants, 1963-present

> Handucok of Clinical Psychology, Member, Editorial Board, 1963-65 i Psychoanalysis and Contemporary Science, Member, Editorial Board, 1969-77 Core Information Series: Psychology, Member, Editorial Advisory Board, 1974-75 I

Psychoanalysis and Contemporary Thought, Member, Editorial Advisory Board, 1978-present Journal of Mental Imagery, Hember, Editorial Advisory Board, 1981-present Imagination, Cognition and Personality: The Scientific Study of I

Consciousness, Member, Editorial Advisory Board, 1980-present Review of Psychoanalytic Books, Member, Editorial Board, 1980-present International Forum of Psychoanalysis, Member, Advisory Board, 1982-present

! Consultantships I

l Consultant to Research Department, Henninger Foundation, 1953-60 l Training Consultant, New York Area Veterans Administration, 1953-64 l Consultant to Bank Street College of Education, Advisory Committee for Teacher Selection Project, New York, NY, 1953-58 Consultant to Society for the Investigation of Human Ecology, New York, NY, 1957-58 Chairuan, Comuittee of Consultants, Mental Health Book Review Index, l 1958-73 l Consultant to New York State Psychiatric Institute, 1958-59

Consultant to Psychology Panel of the Armed Forces--NRC Committee on l Bio-Astronautics, 1959-60 Consultant to Pregnancy Research Project, Beth Israel Hospital, Boston, i MA, 1959-60 j Consultant to Department of Psychiatry, City Hospital at Elmhurst, Queens, 1

NY, 1960-61 Consultant to Milledgeville State Hospital, Milledgeville, Georgia, 1962-63 Consultant to PANE (People Against Nuclear Energy), Middletown, PA, 1981-present

._ .- _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _