ML20149E948

Applicant Exhibit A-27,consisting of Undated Chapter 3, Social Survey of TMI Area Residents

ML20149E948
Person / Time
Site:	Seabrook
Issue date:	12/16/1987
From:	AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED
To:
References
OL-A-027, OL-A-27, NUDOCS 8802110325
Download: ML20149E948 (7)

Text

,

'*. f)' b w 19 $0 $ L/ftf -l? C i / /4/27 00CMETE0 CHAPTEn 3

_gl USNRC A SOCIAL SURVEY OF T"! AREA RESIDENTS FEB -2 A9 28 3.1 Introduction OCKbNgh['

BRANCH l'ost of the reports regarding the nuclear mishap on Three "ile Island near Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, on "arch 3,1979, have focused on the technological causes of the accident. The social and environmental impacts of the accident have been largely ignored. That the technological causes of the breakdown should be 1ientified and corrected is unquestionable, as they may affect the operation of other nuclear power plants either in operation or under construction. There are also, however, a nunber of social questions

--questions related to the perceptions , attitudes , and behaviors of the resi-dents of the area before, during, and after the accident--that also nerit investigation and analysis. They include:

-- When did the residents of South Central Pennsylvania find out about the accident and how?

-- 4ho evacuated and why did they choose to do so?

- 'Jhere did the evacuees go and how long did they stay ~?

-- Did the accident have any social and psychological effects on the residents of the area?

-- What are the perceived impacts of the nuclear accident on the area's environment and economy?

-- How did the accident affect the residents' opinions toward nuclear power and nuclear related issues?

Answers to these and other related questions are irportant in order to assess the impact of the accident on the T'!! area population and the local environment, and for develooing efficient and effective plans in the event that a similar accident should occur again on T"! or at sore other nuclear power plant.

'2

. 'he Curvey Because answers to tu questions posed above could only 5e obtained from the residents themselves , a questionnaire was designed and a social survey was taken. The questionnaire was nailed to a sample of households 8802110325 071216 '

PDR ADOCK 0500 4 3 h g( ,</hf 2 f

\e h)

LJ to in the Tii! area of South Central Pennsylvania within two weeks after the accident. It was critical to query area residents as soon after the acci-dent as possible because they might forget details about their actual behav-f ors which may be important in planning subsequent evacuation strategies.

. 3.3 The Survey Instrument The survey was comprised of five different sets of questions, all of which were of a forced response nature:

3.3.1 The Accident The first set of questions inquired about the residents' knowledge of the nuclear reactor on Three Mile Island, the distance of their homes from the plant, and when and how they found out about the accident.

3.3.2 The Evacuation Decision A second series of questions focused on evacuation: who left the area during the crisis , when and why did they leave, where did they go, and when did they return. Conversely, those who remair.ed in the area during I

the crisis were asked why they chose not to evacuate, did they ever consider evacuating, and if so, where would they most likely have gono. They were also queried with whom they would have stayed. In this section of the ques-tionnaire, the respondents were also asked if they thought there should have been a full scale evacuation, and under these circumstances , where would they have cost likely gone.

3.3.3 Attitttdes Toward '!uclear Enerny and Confidence in 9eporting the Accident The third set of questions concerned the residents' attitudes toward nuclear-related issues. The respondents were queried about their opinions l

l about having some of their e'ectricity generated 5y nuclear power both be-fore and after the accident :- ~":; whether they would like to see the U.S.

l generate more or less electri c tf from nuclear power; wtether they had friends or relatives working at t e '"! plant ; who should pay for the clean-up operations; what group of officials dii they have nost confidence in during l

l l

l C

gg

(

[ V V

4 the crisis; and finally did they favor more citizen input in nuclear-related decisions.

9 3.3.4 Personal and Environnental Impacts of the Accident _

Questions pertaining to perceived personal and environmental impacts of the accident on the area and the residents comprised the fourth group of questions. Concerning the impact on the environment, the respondents were asked whether or not they felt the accident would (1) depress property values in the area; (2) discourage people from noving into the area; (1) stifle business and industrial growth, (4)have a negative impact on agri-culture; and (5) tarnish the overall inage of the area. They were also asked whether or not they felt the accident would affect (1)their personal health; (2)the future well-being of their children; (3) reduce the value of their property; (4)make then consider moving out of the area; and (5) drive up the price of electricity.

3.3.5 Social and Demographic Characteristics The fifth and final series of questions relate 1 to the socioeconomic and demographic characteristics of the respondents: length of residence in South Central Pennsylvania; automobile ownership; occupation; political ideology; nunber of people in the household; number of children under 18 and under 5 years of age; age of heads of household; and gross annual family income. A copy of the survey is included in this report as Appendix 1.

3.4 The Sarpling Design Two di fferent randon sampling techniques were used to select M0 South Central Pennsylvania households in the vicinity of Three .' tile Island. Ilithin 3 15 mile (24 kilometer) radius of the pisnt,178 households were selected j using a stratified random sampling procedure. Three concentric circles, spaced l at 5 mile (8 kiloneter) intervals from the plant, were drawn on a nap of South l Central Pennsylvania. House 9 olds were selected for the individual communitics within each zone from the ~1erisburg (tiay 1973) and York (April 1978) telephone j directories (Table 3.1) . Nge numbers , colunns , and names in each directory were identified using a ran:cm numbers table. Since federal, state, and n -

22 TABLE 3.1 COPHUNITIES WITHIN 15 MILES OF THREE MILE ISLAND 1-5 Miles 6-10 Miles 11-15 Miles Middletown Harrisburg (part) Harrisburg (p? ') Columbia Royal ton Steelton Hershey Marietta Falmouth Humels town Union Deposit Mount Joy Bainbridge New Cumberland Linglestown York Goldsbom Elizabethtown Camp Hill Hallam York Haven Manchester Lemoyne Wrightsvi11e Yocumtown Mt. Wol f Wormelysburg Dover Strinestown Emi gs ville West Fairview Mt. Royal Lewisberry Grantham Palmyra source: TMI Survey, MSU , April ,1979.

6 M

O

" O

. i local officials generally agreed that the residents within five miles of the plant were in the greatest danger, the largest number of households were sel-ected from zone 1 (Table 3.2). Beyond 15 miles (24 kilometers), a simple random sample of households from the Carlisle, Duncannon, and Lancaster urban areas was drawn from the Harrisburg and Lancaster (October 1978) telephone di rectori es . Again, a random numbers table was used to identify page numbers ,

columns, and names in the directories.

While post office distance from Three !!ile Island was used as the basis for sampling, the perceived distance from TMI as obtained from the questionnaire was used for the analysis of results. Each respondent was asked how far he or she lived from the reactor. 'thether accurate or not, this was the estima-tion of distance which figured into cach household's decision-making process.

Thus, while two measures of distance (post office distance and perceived dis-tance) were recorded for each respondent, the latter is the most compatible for use in a behavioral analysis such as this one.

3.5 The Response Rate Of the 300 questionnaires mailed to the sample households, 267 or 89%

actually reached their destinations 33 or 11% were returned by the post o f fi ces , fiore than half (150) of the number reaching their destinations were completed and returned for a 565 response rate (Table 3.3). The response rate for each of the distance zones and the outlying communities was greater than 50% in every case except for zone 3 (11-15 miles) from which only 424 responded.

a O

" O i

TABLE 3.2 NUMBER OF QUESTIONNARIES MAILED BY ZONE Number of Number Which Number of i Questionnaries Reached Replies l Sent Out Destination Received ,

Zone 1 ,

(1-5 miles) 63 55 32 Zone 2 (6-10 miles) 58 48 30 Zone 3 (11-15 miles) 57 48 20 Subtotal 178 151 82 Carlisle 40 35 24 Duncannon - 41 40 23 Lancaster 41 41 21 Subtotal 122 116 68 TOTAL 300 267 150 Source: TMI Survey , MSU , April ,1979.

s

O e O

i I

f TA8LE 3.3 l RESPONSE RATE TO THE THREE MILE ISLAND QUESTIONNAIRE Zone Rate of Response Zone 1 (1-5 miles) 58.2%

Zone 2 (6-10 miles) 62.5%

Zone 3 (11-15 miles) 41.7%

Subtotal 54.3%

Carlisle 68.5%

Duncannon 57.5%

Lancaster 51.2%  ;

Subtotal 58.6% '

i' ,

TOTAL 56.2%  ;

Source: TMI Survey, MSU, April, 1979.

l i ,

i i

t 5

_ _ _ . _ . _ . _ _ _ _ .__ . _ _ _ _ __ .