ML20206T259
| ML20206T259 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 04/13/1987 |
| From: | Cole S, Harris D, Jerrica Johnson, Mayer M, George Minor, Saegert S, Sholly S CALIFORNIA, UNIV. OF, LOS ANGELES, CA, SUFFOLK COUNTY, NY |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20206T188 | List: |
| References | |
| OL-3, NUDOCS 8704230146 | |
| Download: ML20206T259 (184) | |
Text
'
?.'
?*
b.l
.. x: :.
- ? ~ '. ',..
w; '
- +
..(
. cc, -
4 f
z. ~a., R g_,.....:
_:. (..,
. g.
w "
}
- o :
sf,'.3., ' ',,,
' g,
,, w, *. ' ' ', '..
/. ' ' ;,
p,' ;
.- - g
(
3
_ y,,. g.,g
?.gy : y.,-
.e d
e T :. ; te l-
"'3"-
..v e
r y M..}
4-
.l:,
3.
.. e
.. f.
1
. - (.. c. g
~l.,.
- - y..
+
. esp...
- 1... :,-l..,,
+
~,..'j -.
E'
. b. ;
- l.k
.* :A.
.. f
. 'y:
-I.
jo.
~*
A;,.
w s.-
1, d
4
.. 4...
~s,.
s*
i * *
. ~.. * *,, '
t,
- A w.
h a
+
.g
.. g;,...-
.y
- t. <
.:;4. -.
. ~. '.,
[-.. -nys.
. ;.;.....k, t.
- C...
.p -.....
s.
t'
,).E,,.......
. _h
..., +.
N s.
i s
',[,
' [ *'
T'l lemy.,; -
i g.
%....: 7
'. =.. '. ~
^ '
^.%.;-;
' ;..)..' f
.L
.. - L g
. v.
.S, 3 9. m ;. 3 ; y.%,. _ k... :y g;.y 9,g g :; m n ; ;.; ;
... t...
y.M. L:s. 2.,; 2. 9...I.4. y. m;
~ g..J L... L J. g ~ ? y [: 3
...o:=
M,.
- : 7
....,.g
. y.,
~
r
~
- ' 'lI S.
Y
?*
'j. ;..
l ll:' ',
- f ',, ;t.j-[, . '. * *
',G
_ _ L'
{'l '.
'. ~
~
- y
_.,. N..
x,. - ;:..
~.,_
,m-
. },.;
- sv
,j. ;.
L'
[,. -
p.
.; : '.. f e..t3g.
l.** g; c.f.,....:
f.
,. : N.. '.>,.; ; -
,.}
i s' p
e
., 7.
}
[.,., ' -....;
'3
[
'.'. e).
y,-
7
- p...; -,..._ -...: -
/
c y.e ;,,, ;,
. og-
,'s c.;
v
..-c.,-
u.
,y a..
s.-
l,f i,M ' '. 4 ( ~;. d.. n.
,.p s
e +.
K<
~
.s..
%7 ;
5
.[
-.... Y '. ', ) ' ','
-f., L f N 'st, q..,', J 1,,e;.
- ' : '., [
- y. '.g.e
%.,(_ _ [' ;,[ _
w Q.,. -
.. J. L :.c '
e
.,. - 3._..
...A
- .,. 1 e
>.. Q Q 'K,g Q. '.. _.f. v).;__',:: [ '..,. :n.., f ; [_., [.J. N. _. ( !. q ;...%..
..;;. ; ;......y,_
s
..=f; e
s..
'.E
: ' 'y. ' -'
- I *
.. ' l.Qh
,?. ],t
.},
k,
- ' ; g h [ ' ; ' ' j s". '...f J
V{ (,
- 6. '.'#
- ('
r, 3:{
~..
./
1 -
l'(.
C f
- 1 a. ev.. v.. : +,:.. n ne ; a,.n mw.,e. ' a;....
w:.
.. a.. _x
....c g
.. n.
4.>..,..*
......v u
- . y.,,, ap'L.. J *. ~
.s. _.
n :.. - :
p
.Fs
- p
,6 g
.. ) j'.t a ;
- O.'. - ;,-
o m i fs.:
ic
- t.. -'
-x
- a..y 2
. p&(g * ',.,.,.. ; g
,_j,
- ",'.2.'-. '.,,,..
- g.,
e.i ' p,
' t} 1.
. A., 1 J,.;.. x,.
.m'e-. w s 4..
u.;
,. ~
A
.;t -
22
,....'. ' '- ~ -.
.r
^f 9' %,,o.;
.,t e,;[.1
-; r
, ~... '. }.7.
...f+-
m >.;:..
.Q,;
b
- -[
,.y.,,p',,..
..l*:4 w'.
3 3,
L
- W,
..,v,s
..,4_
.. ; y j fl.-. - * ** ~ ;,.
y &
y.
,y
...,8'
'R.= ; ;.,
M. %,
g..
4
.;s:'
s.
' ',.',.'.'.A.',
.) L, _-h.
M L.},.l,,\\, C, '
- ?' a..
'r 1
. *, 4f.j.. -.
.j f. ' ", f,;, - :.
?** gf'..
I ' ; ; i' ?'s.
?
'O q_,
,e
.C.
a, " '&,.,.'.. R_'H4,-
c; \\', i ;." _ -
-e
- A
.c
,.;~ :'..:, T... J
~ c'r
-'....',.h,,,/,'a,-(:f..L ',,. J y v ?.y.w:J q
',"....t*.. - -,
T,,,
y,';.:.k c
-},
j. '.
y
,. r.
-'.,n.
e
- ., I,,
- .. 3..
y
, g,i <. - '..,
{,
,' ?..
n'. :. b
.i V,*
.y.'.
P
_m;....n
~. :. :... ;,
, s p.
~c_
e
.y T.'. - -
. ~,.
c-
~4
'..,y, Q.
), k )I'R,f.,_ $),s.. '. ,5
'.7 s:
e.,,
.x _- '
'.l*'~
, 9%
.. p'j,
' e
- i.N.:. '.s
-.. '. '. '. '~
'^
_. ' ;, '*. ?.
% '..'. '{ ;:.p t.
1 l
e f ; :. **', ', ;, - -
. s r
- sO '.. ' '
^
..gva 7?'..;.
m ' ;.,.', '.:,... ,
n,".
s
~
+
.w.','...
l L
.'f,*,
E l
4 e
,4
- l.
'6 '. -.
.w, 9.'
,p l w "+'
g, g
a
- I
',' [ g,
,'_8
['
9
"* ~
8
.4
,;f*
- s.,
, *'.' : ;. -.'p,7, s. :,,,,,+;_.
~t, 4
,,3 27, L;;.;,, y a,.. b +i. r
.f 3,
._ K;,.. :n, v e _.
.v y
- ..a ; g
- .y 7-
./ ~;. :'
v.
n m.
. (
..
- i,,,,, ;+., p.. ; z.[.;. g.,.:
.% - 4
..g.. y j.,.-.*.
e,,p T, 4 -
,..y y
..s
. g[
.c i, 3
't C.
~, f 4.
- '. h;. '....t. _ ' %' u.
- 3..g C.
'}.
c p,
a*.-' j y;.. A.. ".1p';s
. #. c' r - ; =
i.-:....,.:*
+
. - s' 7. r.
.*y
..,.. w r ',,, :,....,7...~,,s i
y,c s,. c,' i. r.-
s
.e
.. / f ~n
.,,p,,
.:v. - * -* ',
4-
..... j:Q. *b z.[' ' ( L..
t F
. ~ i..., ;-
..'M v.-
f..
,..2 c
m y..y.4 jpe.qb,[t. g,1 t ',. w d e:r,,V:;p, ;;,,,, g. 9,
' y; 1
w..
J n.
t,,
.e
...a 4
f t
c.; 3 ;; i..g :g:::.p p. g q ql q
[ ~ y' /j, &ayy nx ;
l y:;[m.3 ~...[. g.; *
>, Q; g,... ;.m -
- r, 1.
\\ ; '...
1.yjrn.gn,p g.g;y j.
q : s p. ;.~
n u,,.
. _ i w
, _ w...., =,,,
.,.y,. /, ;. p.g,q
's p :..; p.
.. v v...,,..
, y ~.;..,
L1;.f f{ j ff.wl;;Q?..(,L Q Q,..; f. m:
, +....,.
e.k,u..y..
4y.
~
.w~
a.
yp3 :. t u., a
,4,. p..._..
pm myw(mWugll g ;[> Q).)g.v,;M ( y.n?.,,Q 2-& _ }m n[; ;.. g::.t_ ...e .c ,.s ?. Q -;
- L_
- y... ? 3 g. 4, _4
- .,. p.y + r.
- ....
-( m:. w .'. ]. '..O ^ J f-QQQ,Qg9QQ 'gdQ j y.Niyjpy&;yqf Q:: :.f ; (w w A .; j;.1 ..a.:a. wl.q;x,. m% m. m u s u e%; a m m& mq w:;0x V _ yh/ w w s a_ W.n w -
- a: s.:3 c ;;. W.e.,..w wn; 2 9;%q'.W:y :p..g. >. ~' q.W % '.:.W; ;;y 5 3., %...; w:
g ...r' a .. p-wmng ? f ap o%pi., '.g. 3.. p;yg3%, g. :. m.; n. " w y y " 4. f;. 4, 3 i e dW n.* ._ ;;4.W; W. Q:u.... ;s %m,.Q $....R.,S.] m i.. 9 M g. +N y,,. o. o %. s J... O. WQ y r _ u. n r.~.
- y. k
..V..m m %. m.n .s.....r % -. a. .,., ;myq .,g.. _y.y (A ;. c e) ~ 9 y.s. ,g;,..,,. s 4
- a. v.
1_ M_ __U d d
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Before the Atomic Safety and_Licensino Board ) In the Matter of ) ) LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY ) Docket No. 50-322-OL-3 ) (Emergency Planning) (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, ) Unit 1) ) ) TESTIMONY OF STEPHEN COLE, SUSAN C. SAEGERT, JAMES H. JOHNSON, JR., DAVID HARRIS, MARTIN MAYER, GREGORY C. MINOR AND STEVEN C. SHOLLY ON BEHALF OF SUFFOLK COUNTY , REGARDING LJLCO'S RECEPTION CENTERS (PLANNING BASIS) I'. IDENTIFICATION OF WITNESSES Q. Please state your names and positions. i (Cole) My name is Stephen Cole. I am a professor of soci-ology at the State University of New York at Stony Brook. I am also President of Social Data Analysts, Inc., a consulting firm engaged in conducting applied sociological surveys and polls. (Saegert) My name is Susan C. Saegert. I am Professor of A' Psychology and Environmental Psychology at the City University of New York Graduate School. k e ,w-t- w e, -..i m-
(Johnson) My name is James H. Johnson, Jr. I am Associate Professor of Geography, University of California, Los Angeles. I am also Director of UCLA's Institute for Social Science Research, Environmental and Population Policy Studies Program. (Harris) My name is David Harris. I am the Commissioner of Health Services for Suffolk County, New York. (Mayer) My name is Martin Mayer. I am the Deputy Director of Public Health in the Suffolk County Department of Health Services. (Minor) My name is Gregory C. Minor. I am Vice President of MHB Technical Associates of San Jose, California, a consulting firm specializing in energy related issues. (Sholly) My name is Steven C. Sholly. I am a consultant with MHB Technical Associates of San Jose, California. Q. Briefly summarize your experience and professional qualifications. A. (Cole) I graduated from Columbia College with majors in both sociology and history in 1962. I received a Ph.D. in sociology from Columbia University in 1967. l -
Since 1962 I have been professionally involved in conducting social surveys. For the last 15 years, first under the name of Opinion Research Associates and starting in 1977 as Social Data Analysts, Inc., I have conducted more than 150 social surveys for various clients, including Newsday, The Boston Globe, The Balti-more Sun, Columbia University, the University of California at Irvine, the National Bureau of Economic Research, Brookhaven National Laboratories, and the Long Island Lighting Company ("LILCO"), among others. Since 1979 I h_ ave conducted more than 10 surveys on public attitudes towards nuclear power. I am the author of more than 30 articles appearing in such journals as Scientific American, Science, Public Ooinion Quarterly, American Socioloaical Review, and American Journal of Socioloov. In addi-tion, I am the author of seven books, including a textbook on 'research methods, The Sociolocical Method, Third edition (New York: Harper and Row, 1980). My work in sociology has been recognized by the receipt of a Guggenheim Foundation Fellowship, appointment as Fellow to the Center for Advanced Studies in Behavioral Sciences, and receipt of a Ford Foundation Faculty i Research Fellowship. For a more complete description of quali-fications and publications, agg my Vita, which is Exhibit 1 hereto. (Saegert) I received a B.A. degree in Government from the University of Texas at Austin, and a Ph.D. in Social Psychology from the University of Michigan in 1974. As Professor of i i
Environmental Psychology, my responsibilities include teaching graduate courses in environmental psychology, advising Ph.D. students, and serving on dissertation committees. I regularly teach courses and conduct research on environmental stress and behavior related to environmental crises. i I serve as a member of the executive committee of the Center for Human Environments, which provides a forum for research and exchange of information in environmental research, and as asso-ciate editor of Environment and Behavior. In addition, I am President of Division 34 (Population and Environment) of the American Psychological Association. I am also Co-Chair of the Board of Directors of the Environmental Design Research Associa-tion. I have authored over 25 articles and book chapters in envi-ronmental psychology, including a chapter entitled "The Stress Inducing and Stress Reducing Qualities of Environments" (in Proshansky, H. Ittelson, W.H. and Rivlin, L., Environmental Psycholoov: Man and His Physical Settino, second edition; Holt, l Rinehard and Winston, 1976). I have also edited a book entitled Crowdino and Real Environments, Sage Publications, 1975. My qualifications, professional experience and publications are described in more detail in my Vita, which is Exhibit 2 hereto. -
(Johnson) I received a B.S. in Geography from North Carolina Central University in 1975, an M.S. in Geography from University of Wisconsin - Madison in 1977, and a Ph.D. in Geography from Michigan State University in 1980. I am currently on sabbatical, during which time I am conducting research as a Ford Foundation Post-Doctoral Fellow. Among my areas of expertise are energy policy and planning. In particular, I have conducted extensive research and written numerous articles on evacuation behavior, as well as the public's perception of risk associated with radiological and other hazards. For a more detailed description of my qualifications, see my vita which is attached as Exhibit 3 hereto. (Harris) I have been Commissioner of the Suffolk County Department of Health Services since 1977. From 1975 to 1977, I was Deputy Commissioner of Health Services for Suffolk County. I was Associate Director of the Mt. Sinai Hospital from 1971 to 1975, and prior to that I was associated with the New York City Department of Health where I was Deputy Commissioner of Health from 1969 to 1971. I am board certified in the medical specialities of pedi-atrics and preventive medicine. I am also Professor of Clinical Community and Preventive Medicine and Professor of Clinical Pediatrics, at the State University of New York at Stony Brook. l _
In addition, I hold academic appointments at the New School for Social Research in New York City and at the C.W. Post Center of Long Island University, and I lecture at Columbia University School of Public Health. I am a member of the New York State Mental Hygiene Planning Council, and the Governing Council of the American Public Health Association. A copy of my professional qualifications is attached as Exhibit 4 to this testimony. (Mayer) I have been the Deputy Director of Public Health in the Suffolk County Department of Health Services since 1972. I am a Clinical Assistant Professor in the Department of Com-munity and Preventive Medicine at the State University of New York at Stony Brook. A copy of my professional qualifications is Exhibit 5 to this testimony. (Minor) I received a BSEE in electrical engineering from the University of California at Berkeley in 1960 and a MSEE in electrical engineering from Stanford University in 1966. I have 27 years experience with nuclear power. In particular, for six-teen years I was employed by the General Electric Company where I worked on matters relating to the design, construction and opera-l tion of nuclear monitoring and safety systems, including hands-on experience at reactor sites. I have been a consultant with MHB Technical Associates for eleven years, during which time I have I l ! l
been involved in a wide variety of projects, many of them related to the operation of or emergency planning for nuclear power plants. I have testified as an expert witness in numerous proceed-ings before the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and other bodies, including both the health and safety and prior emergency planning proceedings in this Shoreham litigation. I am a member of the Nuclear Power Plant Standards Committee of the Instrument Society of America, and I served as a peer reviewer with the NRC's TMI Accident Investigation Report. I am also co-holder of a patent on a nuclear monitoring system. The details of my education, experience and professional qualifications are included in my resume, which is affixed as Exhibit 6 to this testimony. (Sholly) I received a B.S. in Education from Shippensburg State College in 1975 with a major in Earth and Space Science and a minor in Environmental Education. I have seven years experi-ence with nuclear power matters. In particular, for four and one-half years I was employed by the Union of Concerned Scien-tists where I worked on matters related to development.of emer-gency plans for commercial nuclear power plants and the use of probabilistic risk assessment in the analysis of safety issues related to commercial nuclear power plants. I have been a con-sultant with MHB Technical Associates for one and one-half years, during which time I have been involved in a variety of projects
- I
related to the safety and economics of nuclear power plants, including the assessment of severe accident issues for the Shoreham Nuclear Power Station. I have testified as an expert witness in proceedings before the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and other bodies, including the safety hearings on Indian Point Units 2 and 3 and the licensing hearing on Catawba Units I and 2. I have served as a member of a peer review panel on regulatory applications of PRA (NUREG-1050), as a member of the Containment Performance Design Objective workshop, and as a member of the Committee on ACRS Effectiveness. The details of my education, experience and professional qualifi-cations are included in my resume, which is affixed as Exhibit 7 to this testimony. II. OVERVIEW Q. What is the purpose of this testimony? A. (All) The purpose of this testimony is to address certain issues relating to the suitability of the three LILCO-owned facilities which are designated as reception centers in Revision 8 of LILCO's Plan. geg Plan, at 3.6-7.1/ The reception centers are located in Nassau County in the villages of Bellmore, Roslyn and Hicksville. Id. The LILCO Plan provides that during a Shoreham accident involving a release of fission products, 1/ All references to the Plan are to Revision 8 unless otherwise noted...
members of the public residing in the EPZ may be instructed to proceed to the reception centers for monitoring to determine whether they have been contaminated. Id., OPIP 3.6.1, at 2. Specifically, this testimony will address the number of people who are likely to seek monitoring in the event of a LILCO instruction that such monitoring is advisable for some or all EPZ residents. The magnitude of the public response to such a LILCO advisory is relevant to a number of issues before this Board, including: 1. Whether LILCO's new monitoring procedures are adequate; 2. Staff requirements, given LILCO's new reception center scheme; 3. Traffic congestion along the roads and routes leading to the reception centers; and 4. Whether the proposal to send evacuees to LILCO parking lots could or would be implemented in a way to protect the pubic health and safety. Eeg Memorandum and Order (Rulings on Motion to Reopen Record and Remand of Coliseum Issues), (December 11, 1986) at 17-19. The adequacy of the facilities, resources and staff which LILCO has committed to provide monitoring to the public is dependent on the l demand likely to be placed on them. Likewise, the adequacy of the roads leading to the reception centers, and the possibility of traffic congestion in and around the reception center sites, depends upon the demand placed by the public on available road capacity. t l,-
Revision 8 of LILCO's Plan does not state how many evacuees i are expected to arrive at the reception centers in the event of an emergency. However, some documents obtained during discovery, dated February 20, 1987 (hereafter referred to as the " Draft Materials"2/) indicate that LILCO is providing planning, resources and staffing to monitor 30% of the EPZ population within the time constraints of NUREG 0654 Section J.12.3/ Draft Materials, at 3.9-5. LILCO's testimony confirms this planning basis. Written Testimony of Charles A. Daverio, et al. on the Suitability of Reception Centers (March 30, 1987) at 3-12 ("LILCO l Testimony"). The estimated summer population of the EPZ is i approximately 160,000; 30% of that figure is approximately 48,000 people. If more than 30% of the EPZ population arrives at its reception centers, LILCO will be reduced to attempting to cope with the excess demand by using ad hoc measures. Id., at 3.9-5A. NUREG 0654 Section J.12 states: Each organization shall describe the means for registering and monitoring of evacuees at reloca-tion centers in host areas. The personnel and equipment available should be capable of monitor-ing within about a 12-hour period all residents and transients in the plume exposure EPZ arriving at relocation centers. (Emphasis added). 2/ The Draft Materials are Attachment P to LILCO's prefiled testimony on this issue. 3/ Egg, however, the testimony of the witnesses from New York State's Radiological Emergency Preparedness Group stating that LILCO has the staff and resources to handle only a much smaller fraction of the EPZ population. Direct Testimony of James C. Baranski, Lawrence B. Czech, and James D. Papile on Behalf of the l State of New York Regarding LILCO's Reception Centers (April 13, l 1987). I l _ - - ~.._,,_ _
Q. Do you believe that LILCO'S 30% planning assumption is reasonable? A. No. In our opinion, LILCO has severely underestimated the number of people likely to arrive at its relocation centers. For the reasons discussed below, in almost any accident scenario involving a need for monitoring the public, far more than 30% of the EPZ population will seek monitoring at LILCO's three reception centers. This is true even if LILCO advises only 30% or less of the EPZ population to proceed to the reception centers. Indeed, not only will more residents of the EPZ seek monitoring than are advised to do so, but many people from outside the EPZ will also seek to be monitored. The result will be that the limited facilities, resources and personnel committed by LILCO for monitoring purposes will be overwhelmed during an accident as the demand for monitoring far outstrips LILCO's ability to provide it. In addition, the huge demand on the roads and intersections leading to the reception centers will result in widespread traffic congestion which will delay the arrival at the reception centers of those who need monitoring and decontamination.1/ l The ultimate result of the overwhelming demand on LILCO's limited resources and on the limited road capacity will be delays i in identifying those members of the public who are actually con-l l 1/ Egg Direct Testimony of David T. Hartgen and Robert C. Millspaugh on Behalf of the State of New York Regarding LILCO's Reception Centers (April 13, 1987). (
taminated. This violates the relevant planning guidance (NUREG 0654 Section II.J.12) and, in-turn, could lead to adverse public health consequences.1/ III. DATA, RESEARCH AND EXPERT OPINIONS i Q. Have you conducted any research on the magnitude of the public response if an accident actually were to occur in which members of the public were advised to seek monitoring? 1.. Survey of Public's Response to LILCO Instruction to Seek Monitorina A. (Cole) Yes. I recently conducted a survey which, 4 among other things, was aimed at determining how Long Island l residents both inside and outside of the EPZ would respond to a i LILCO advisory to seek monitoring at reception centers. The survey instrument I used incorporated the EBS messages and acci-dent scenario which were used in the February 13, 1986 exercise I of the LILCO Plan. 5/ Egg Testimony of Edward P. Radford, gi al. on behalf of Suffolk County regarding LILCO'S Reception Centers (Monitoring and Decontamination Procedures) (April 13, 1987). l ! . _ _ _. - _.. ~.. _ _,._._.., e
The purpose of this survey was not to measure orecisely what i percent of Long Island households would seek monitoring.
- Rather, the purpose was to obtain some ceneral estimates of the size of the group that would attempt to travel to LILCO's reception cen-l ters for monitoring.
l a. Description of Survey 1 i Q. Please describe how the survey was conducted. A. (Cole) This was a telephone survey in which we inter-viewed 1,500 Long Island residents.5/ The methodology of the survey is set forth in detail in our report, which is Exhibit 6 hereto. I prepared a draft of a questionnaire which included, among other things, a question designed to elicit responses about intended monitoring-seeking behavior. I then pre-tested to determine how long it would take to administer the questionnaire on the telephone and whether its wording was clear. The final questionnaire used in the summary appears at pp. 53-61 of Exhibit 8 of this testimony. 5/ (Cole) I should point out that when the data from the three different geographical areas were aggregated, we weighted the data so that each geographical area would represent the same pro-portion in the sample as it does in the population. Otherwise, the EPZ would have represented a disproportionately large portion of the sample. Thus, when considering the sample as representa-tive of all of Long Island, it is roughly equivalent to a random sample of between 1,100 and 1,200. But even a sample of this size is a relatively large sample. Generally, nationwide political surveys such as those conducted by Time magazine are about the size of this survey. Of the more than 150 surveys I have conducted, only about one dozen have had samples larger than that used for this survey. (.
=- 4 Upon completion of the questionnaire, the survey was admin-i istered to a stratified random sample of households residing in Nassau and Suffolk Counties. The sample was stratified based upon three geographical areas; we interviewed a random sample of 379 residents living in the EPZ, a random sample of 629 residents j living in Suffolk County but outside of the EPZ, and a random sample of 492 residents of Nassau County. Telephone numbers were randomly generated by computer according to the method set forth in the Technical Appendix. Egg Exhibit 8, at 37-39.1/ After all the interviews had been completed and verified for accuracy, the interview data were entered directly from the ques-tionnaires onto a cor ater. We then verified the data entries, and computed the weights to be used to make sure that when i responses from the three geographical areas were added together, we had a representative sample.8/ Q. Can the results of such a random sample survey be used to generalize to all individuals on Long Island? 1/ The actual interviewing was done by a Long Island research company, Mktg. Inc. The procedures utilized in conducting the interviews are outlined in detail in the Technical Appendix to our Report. Exhibit 8, at 39-47. 8/ The weighting procedure also took into account the fact that some households on Long Island have more than one residential telephone listing. The complete weighting procedure is described l in detail in the Technical Appendix to the Report. Exhibit 8, j pp. 47-49. 1 - - - - -.. ~ -
A. (Cole) The survey was designed to be a random sample of all Long Island households with telephones (more than 97% of households on Long Island have telephones). Within households, we utilized either the male or female head of household as an informant on what the household would do. Thus, the results can be used to generalize to all Long Island households.9/ For this survey, the sampling error for the entire sample is plus or minus three percentage points.10/ This means that in theory if this survey were to be repeated 100 times using the same techniques, in 95 out of the 100 times the results obtained for a particular question would be within 3 percentage points of the results which would have been obtained by interviewing mem-bers of every Long Island household.ll/ 1 9/ In selecting the male or female head of household, we util-ized a sax quota to make sure that the proportion of men and women in the survey accurately reflected their proportion in the population. This is important because past research, including my own, has shown that men and women have differing attitudes towards nuclear power. 10/ The sampling error for the EPZ is plus or minus five percentage points. The sampling error for Nassau County and Suffolk County outside the EPZ is plus or minus four percentage points. 11/ What is called " sampling error" for surveys is highly depen-dent upon the size of the sample. In a survey that is based upon a random sample, you interview a randomly selected group of people. You then look at what those people say in order to make generalizations from the sample to the population. In this case, the population would be households in Nassau and Suffolk Coun-i ties. The sample was the 1,500 heads of household whom we inter-viewed. The larger the sample size is, the smaller the possibil-ity that the actual percentage of people having a certain atti-tude in the population will vary significantly from what is indi-cated in the survey sample.
This sample survey is a very useful and accurate method to find out what the population would do during an accident at. Shoreham in which members of the EPZ population were instructed to seek monitoring. b. Summary of Survey Results Q. Please describe the results of the survey regarding the demands likely to be placed on LILCO's reception centers. A. (Cole) In the survey, we asked the 1,500 respondents how they would respond to a series of EBS messages actually used l by LILCO during its February 1986 Exercise to " inform" the public of the escalating nature of an accident at Shoreham and the protective actions which they should take. One of the questions asked was the following: If at 1:45 p.m. you heard on the radio a LILCO representative say that certain people living within ten miles of Shoreham may have been exposed to radiation during their trip out of the evacuation zone and should go to a speci-fic location in Nassau County to be monitored for possible radioactive contamination, would you: (1) go to the specific location in Nassau to see if you had been contaminated with radiation; or (2) go somewhere else to have your radiation level checked; or (3) would not bother to have your radiation level checked? t Exhibit 8, at 56. The data obtained from the responses to this question are set forth at p. 26 of Exhibit 8. Fifty percent of 1 all Long Island households said that they would go to the 1 - - _ -.,.
specific center, 32% said that they would have their radiation level checked somewhere else, 13% said that they would not bother to have their level checked, and 5% were unable to answer this question. Fifty percent of the population of Long Island repre-sents more than 1.3 million oecole. Of course, I am not testify-ing that in the event of an emergency at Shoreham 1.3 million people will seek monitoring. Surveys are not that precise. Surveys are useful, however, to estimate the approximate magnitude of the public's response to a monitoring advisory. Here, the data show that many times more people will arrive at LILCO's reception centers than LILCO assumes.12/ 12/ Q. LILCO witnesses argue (LILCO Testimony at 13-17) that your survey is not a reliable means to predict what people would do during a real radiological emergency. Why should the Board accept as valid the survey results you have described which support your allegation that many times more than the numbers of people LILCO presumes will actually arrive at LILCO's reception centers? A. (Cole) While it is true that surveys are not perfect tools for predicting exactly how individual people will respond to a future event, they do provide very useful evidence. The point made in this testimony is not that a particular number of individuals, or individuals from a particular location, would seek monitoring or that they would do so at a particular time, but rather that LILCO's 30% planning basis is a gross underestimation of the number of people who could be expected to l arrive at the reception centers. Thus, as noted above, no one suggests that the survey is a crecise instrument which accurately predicts precisely how many, or which, people would actually seek monitoring. But, the survey is the best tool that we have; it gives us a rough idea of the magnitude of monitoring-seeking behavior. LILCO's witness, Dr. Lindell, has used his previous surveys to draw conclusions about future behavior, just as we have. In a real accident, depending upon the seriousness of the accident and other variables, the number of people seeking monitoring might be somewhat larger or smaller than that found in the survey; but I am sure that in any sericus accident, such as (footnote continued) l..
i l Q. What do the foregoing survey results mean in evaluating LILCO's latest reception center scheme? A. (Cole) The overwhelming public response which will occur as a result of a LILCO advisory for even a portion EPZ residents to seek monitoring raises several questions about the workability of LILCO's Plan. First, the data show that evacuees arriving at LILCO's reception centers will not be restricted to EPZ residents. Rather, people from well outside the EPZ may seek monitoring. As discussed further below, this will be true even where such people may have no scientific basis for believing they are contaminated. Since LILCO's Plan provides no means to l distinguish between EPZ and non-EPZ residents, the additional demand placed on LILCO's staff and resources means that it will take far longer to monitor all arriving EPZ residents. Second, LILCO has greatly underestimated the number of EPZ residents likely to respond to its reception centers. Even if it has committed personnel and resources sufficient to monitor 30% of the EPZ population (a point disputed by the State of New York's Radiological Emergency Preparedness Group and Department of Transportation witnesses 3/) the data suggest that a much l l l (footnote continued from previous page) that postulated in the February 13, 1986 Exercise, there would be an extremely large number of people seeking monitoring at the reception centers -- many times more than LILCO assumes -- in l response to an advisory to do so. 13/ See notes 3 and 4.. _ _ _ _ _
greater percentage of the EPZ population is likely to seek moni-toring in an accident involving a monitoring advisory. Third, in light of the sheer number of people who will seek monitoring, many of these people may not be able to reach LILCO reception centers because of clogged roads. Nevertheless, hundreds of thousands of people would attempt to go to the centers to be monitored. LILCO's failure to address and account for the hundreds of thousands of people who would " voluntarily" come to the reception centers makes this part of its emergency plan unworkable. 2. Response to LILCO Criticisms of Survey Q. Dr. Cole, LILCO's witnesses Mileti and Lindell have criticized some of your survey methodology. LILCO Testimony at 13-17. What is your response? A. (Cole) As a preliminary matter, let me first say that it is possible to take virtually any survey and, after it has been conducted, hypothesize that question wording may have led respondents to think certain things or say certain things. The real question is to what extent would the results have been sig-nificantly different had the wording been changed. On this point, there is very strong evidence that the results obtained in the December 1986 survey were not elicited by suggestive wording. i., _ - _ _ _..--
Y This is because the same substantive results have been obtained in many different questionnaires with many different wording i patterns. These include not'only my own survey, but also a survey conducted for LILCO by Yankolovich, Skelly, and White, surveys conducted for Newsday, and a survey conducted by LILCO witness Dr. Lindell and his colleague V. E. Barnes (discussed l further below). All of these surveys show that the magnitude of the public's response to a Shoreham accident would be much greater than LILCO assumes. The consistency of their results refutes LILCO's witnesses' allegations that the December 1986 survey was biased or flawed in any significant way. i l Moving to specific criticisms, Dr. Mileti first argues that i some of the language used in questions leading up to the monitor-1 ing question at issue were " designed to create a mindset that nuclear power is dangerous." LILCO Testimony at 13. This is not i accurate. The language that Dr. Mileti is referring to consists j of an introductory statement to respondents that we were seeking their opinions on " current social problems", and a question l asking people how they perceived living close to certain l facilities including an airport, a mental hospital, a coal-fired plant and a nuclear plant. The possible answers to the question were "very dangerous," " dangerous," or "not dangerous at all." To suggest, as Dr. Mileti does, that this language caused people to say that they would seek monitoring when they would otherwise ( not be disposed to do so is nothing more than speculation. Prior.
research shows that most Long Islanders had strong concerns about radiation well before that question was asked. Dr. Mileti simply has no b& sis, and no apparent data, to support his conclusion. Doctor Mileti next argues that our question on monitoring suggested to the respondents not in the EPZ that they had been exposed to radiation. I disagree. The question said that "Certain people livina within ten miles of Shoreham may have been exposed to radiation during their trio out of the evacuation zone I do not see how this question suggested to anyone other than those who lived within 10 miles of Shoreham (i.e., within the EPZ) that they may have been exposed to radiation (which is precisely what LILCO's EBS message said). What the responses to this question demonstrate is that people on Long Island believe that the EPZ is a fiction and that if people in the EPZ have been exposed to potentially contaminating radiation, many people outside the EPZ will have been exposed to that radiation also. This is consistent with findings from my previous research. Q. Dr. Lindell says that the survey you conducted for Suffolk County inflates the estimate of the number of people who say they would evacuate. LILCO Testimony at 15-17. Will you respond to his statement? ! I
A. (Cole) I disagree with Dr. Lindell. He states several reasons for his opinion. First, he says that because the questions in the survey made eersonal safety salient, it had the effect of biasing responses toward intentions to evacuate. Second, he claims that the response categories provided to respondents were not adequate. LILCO Testimony at 16. He also suggests that when using surveys, as he has done, to analyze evacuation behavior, one should have respondents analyze two different hazards. LILCO Testimony at 17. With respect to Dr. Lindell's first point, I believe that it is true that those who responded to our survey and participated in our focus groups had their personal safety as their primary concern, but I seriously doubt that this was the result of the survey. If there were an accident at Shoreham, some r people might actually be concerned with the protection of prop-i erty, but the data show that the overwhelming concern of most l residents will be their (and their families') personal safety. Thus, Dr. Lindell's point is not persuasive. Regarding his second point, I believe that Dr. Lindell's criticism of the response categories utilized in our evacuation questions is trivial and would have no substantive effect on the outcome. In essence. Dr. Lindell argues that people might do something before evacuating or deciding not to evacuate. This is undoubtedly true. They may listen to Dan Rather, talk to their I l
neighbors, attempt to call LILCO, etc., but that does not tell us what we want to know, which is: after doing these things, will they attempt to evacuate? For the purpose of estimating the size of a voluntary evacuation, one has to divide the respondents into two groups -- those who will attempt to evacuate (or seek monitoring) and those who will not. The intermediate actions suggested by Dr. Lindell as response categories are thus irrelevant. Finally, Dr. Lindell criticizes the December 1986 survey because the respondents do not rate "two or more technologies or hazards on the same set of criteria." LILCO Testimony at 17. Dr. Lindell states that this is what he normally does when surveying people's responses to hazards. However, in his recent article in Nuclear Safetv,ld/ in which people were asked how they would respond to a nuclear release and a dioxin release, some respondents were asked to respond to both hazards, others to only one or the other. He concluded that there were no statistically significant differences in responses whether the respondents addressed both hazards or just one. Therefore, his own research refutes his criticism. i l l l i 11/ Lindell and Barnes, " Protective Response to Technological Emergencies: Risk Perception and Behavioral Intention," Nuclear Safety (Oct.-Dec. 1986) ("Lindell and Barnes"). l
l 1 Indeed, Dr. Lindell's Nuclear Safety article is inconsistent with his present testimony. For instance, he states in his i . testimony: k "In an actual radiological emergency local residents would be very attentive to informa-4 tion disseminated by sources such as the util-ity and. governmental agencies. Moreover, they 1 would be more inclined to seek out additional ) information to clarify any ambiguities that j they felt existed. I exoect the information J obtained durina an emeroency to sianificantiv l outweich orior beliefs." LILCO Testimony at 19 (emphasis added). This statement is in direct contradiction to the conclusion in his Nuclear Safety article where he states: "The data reported here contribute to a crow-ina literature that suggests that the over-response at TMI resulted as much from orior oublic nercention of the risks of a nuclear power plant accident as it did from the con-fusing and conflicting information dissemina-ted during the TMI-2 crisis. Thus, the estab-lishment of measures to ensure consistency in the information released about an accident l addresses only a cart of the oroblem." l l l The cao between accurate Lnformation and the achievement of comoliance with recommended action should be recoanized as a larae one. i Lindell and Barnes at 466 (emphasis added). These statements not only contradict Dr. Lindell's own testimony, but also undercut Dr. Mileti's arguments that behavior during a Shoreham acident would be "predominantly influenced by the emergency information" received during the accident. LILCO Testimony at 26. __.
Another example where Dr. Lindell's testimony directly contradicts the conclusions reached in his article is found on page 25 of the LILCO Testimony where he states: "Once residents leave the ten-mile EPZ many, if not,most of them, will feel that they have, in fact, left the area at risk." In his Nuclear Safety article, however, he reports evidence on the respondents' perception of how far away from a nuclear plant they would have to be to be safe: "The judgments of respondents of the minimum safe distance from the hazardous releases are shown in figure three. A significant diver-gence existed between the two hazards with respect to this minimum safe distance. Less than 25% of the sample thought that remaining within 35 miles (56 km) of a radiation hazard would be safe, whereas about 50% thought this would be an acceptable distance from a dioxin hazard. More significantly, more than 40% of the sample indicated that they would have to travel more than 40 miles (more than 64 km) from the dioxin release to find a safe location, and more than 65% would expect to evacuate over 40 miles (64 km) to avoid radiation risks. Lindell and Barnes, at 466. These conclusions from his own research cast doubt on the validity of his testimony. t __
3. The Causes of the Projected Response to a Monitorina Advisorv Q. What factors will cause the response you anticipate to a monitoring advisory, which is many times greater than what LILCO assumes? i A. (Saegert, Johnson) The most important factor is the pre-existing concern about radiation which exists in the public and in particular among residents of Long Island. Research has shown that they are very concerned about being exposed to dangerous levels of radiation in the event of an accident at l Shoreham and that they are likely to act on those concerns. In particular, they are likely to take measures to determine whether they have been exposed to radiation. Unlike most other hazards, they cannot make this determination for themselves. Thus, they will seek out facilities which will enable them to make that determination. It is simply unrealistic to assume that this l response will be restricted to 30% of the EPZ population. l The public's strong concerns about radiation are well-chronicled in the literature. For instance, much research by Slovic and his colleagues has demonstrated that the public perceives radiation to be one of the most dreaded hazards short of warfare.15/ 1 [ 15/
- ggg, e,q,,
p. Slovic, B. Fischoff, and S. Lichtenstein, " Rating the Risks," Environment Vol. 21, 14-39 (April, 1979). -_-
1 (Johnson) Likewise, my studies of evacuation behavior at TMI have demonstrated that fear of radiation was one of the prime causes for the overresponse which led over 140,000 people to evacuate, although only a small fraction of that number (about 3,500) were advised to do so.15/ 4 (Saegert, Johnson) The public's fear of radiation, and the behavioral consequences of that fear, are also described in Dr. Lindell's Nuclear Safety article. While the behavior he and his colleague were investigating was evacuation, rather than monitoring-seeking, the two behaviors have some similar roots. The authors found that the results of their study are consistent l with those conducted by Slovic et al. "in demonstrating how negatively radiation hazard is viewed." Idz, at 464.
- Thus, l
they concluded, it is pre-existing attitudes toward a hazard -- in this case, radiation released during an accident -- that is the most important cause of overresponse or evacuation shadow. The same fear of radiation will also be the primary factor causing hundreds of thousands of people to attempt to be monitored in the event of a Shoreham accident. 15/ D.J.
- Zeigler, S.D. Brunn, J.H. Johnson, Jr.,
" Evacuation from a Nuclear Technological Disaster," Geocrachical Review 71 (1981); J.H. Johnson, Jr. and D.J. Zeigler, "Modelling Evacuation Behavior During the TMI Reactor Crisis," Socioeconomic Plannino Sciences (1986). i.-
(Harris, Mayer) Our experience in the public health field also demonstrates that in a Shoreham accident a substantial por-tion of the population would voluntarily report for testing, even if such persons had no scientific or objective basis for assuming they had been exposed to radiological particulates. Radiation is colorless and odorless. Therefore, it is impossible for people to determine on their own whether they have been exposed to radi-ation. We also know that the public has a greater fear of radia-tion than of almost any other hazard. This fear, coupled with the fact that one cannot determine without monitoring whether one has come in contact with radiation, would result in people reporting to the reception center to seek testing even if they, were instructed not to do so. I We are aware of many instances where people, who reasonably could not have believed they were exposed to certain infectious diseases or noxious chemicals, nevertheless have requested testing and prophylaxis. For example, this phenomenon has been observed as it relates to Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome, which we all know as AIDS. The groups principally at risk of acquiring AIDS are very well defined: recipients of intravenous blood transfusions, homosexuals, users of hypodermic needles, etc. However, as AIDS has received increased media attention, requests for AIDS testing by persons outside these risk groups have become fairly common. This occurs even where such persons have no objective reason to believe they have contracted AIDS,.
and despite the availability of AIDS-related educ.ational mater-ials and programs. The same principle would hold true in the event of an accident at Shoreham because of the public's percep-tion of the risk of radiation, and its inability to determine, without technical assistance, whether it had been exposed to that risk. Q. Have you conducted research into the perceptions of local residents about radiation hazards? (Cole) The recent survey I conducted, as well as many I have conducted in the past, measured the public's fear of radia-tion as opposed to other hazards. All of the surveys I have conducted on the issue demonstrate a fear of radiation among the general public and a strong correlation between that fear and response to protective action recommendations. For instance, in the December 1986 survey discussed above, we asked the 1,500 respondents how dangerous they thought it would be to live near an airport, a mental hospital, a coal-fired power plant, and a nuclear power plant. Exhibit 8 at 24. Whereas only small minorities thought it would be very dangerous to live near the first three potential hazards, 59% thought it would be very dan-gerous to live near a nuclear power plant. We found similar i results in a survey conducted for Suffolk County in May of 1982. 1 l l l
In the December 1986 survey, we found a significant correla-tion-between the respondents' fear of living near a nuclear power plant and the respondents' stated behavioral intention during a hypothetical accident at Shoreham. We found that among those respondents who said that living near a nuclear power plant is very dangerous, 63% said that they would attempt to evacuate after hearing the first EBS message; among those who said that it was dangerous, 45% said that they would attempt to evacuate; and among those who said that it was not dangerous at all 26% said that they would attempt to evacuate. This research suggests that t fear of radiation is a major cause of overresponse during nuclear accidents. This conclusion was also reached by LILCO witness Lindell and his colleague, V. E. Barnes, who found in their Nuclear Safety article that the public has deep fears of exposure to radiation during a nuclear power plant accident. I I have also obtained qualitative data which help us to understand and appreciate the level of fear which would lead so many people to seek monitoring. As a social scientist, I have long believed in the importance of integrating quantitative and qualitative research methods. In order to orove a particular proposition, it is necessary to have quantitative data. Quali-tative data adds a richness to quantitative data that can help us understand better what people will do. It can, therefore, pro-vide important insight into the reasons behind some of our findings from systematic quantitative research. l l.
In order to understand better the essentially quantitative answers given by the sample of Long Is] n! residents who responded to the survey, I conducted some qualitative group interviews, sometimes called " focus groups." Perhaps one of the most important conclusions to be drawn from an analysis of the transcripts of the focus groups is that Long Island residents have a deep-seated fear of being exposed to radiation released during an accident at Shoreham. This fear is held by a signifi-cant segment of the Long Island population. Although it may be alleged that this fear may be based on misinformation, it is real nonetheless. The transcripts of the, focus groups suggest strongly that fear of radiation is the primary reason why so many people told us in our systematic survey that they would attempt to seek monitoring if there was a LILCO advisory that monitoring was necessary, even if such people were not within the scope of i LILCO's advisory. Q. Could you please describe the procedures which were followed in conducting the focus groups? A. (Cole) I conducted three focus groups with partici-pants living both inside the EPZ and those living in Suffolk County but outside the EPZ.ll/ When the participants arrived, 12/ The first group had a mixture of these people; the second had primarily persons living outside but not far from the EPZ; and the third had a majority who lived inside the EPZ, with some living outside but on the border. In order to recruit the l members of the focus groups, we drew a random sample of telephone (footnote continued),
they were escorted into a conference room where I greeted them. The respondents were first given a one page questionnaire in which they were asked to give their opinion on Shoreham and a few demographic characteristics. I told the respondents that we were interested in how they would react if the Shoreham nuclear plant was put on line and something was to happen at the plant. I explained that I would be playing a series of tape recorded messages and we would then be discussing them. I then played for them the full text of some of the EBS messages issued by LILCO during LILCO's February 13, 1986 exercise. Between each message, there were discussions regarding the participants' perceptions and attitudes about a Shoreham accident, and how they would react to the messages.18/ (footnote continued from previous page) numbers from the exchanges in the EPZ and in Suffolk County bordering the EPZ. These telephone numbers were drawn in the same manner as were those utilized in the systematic survey. Experienced telephone interviewers were used to recruit the participants. Since the analysis of the survey data showed that attitudes toward Shoreham were a very significant determinant of how one would respond to a radiological emergency, we tried to have the composition of the focus groups represent the composition of the population of the areas from which they were drawn on this cru-cial question. Because in the area from which we were drawing the group participants more than 70% of the population is opposed j to the opening of the Shoreham plant, we made a special effort to l recruit pro-Shoreham participants, turning down potential parti-cipants who were anti-Shoreham in order to find pro-Shoreham participants. 18/ In criticizing the focus groups Lindell and Mileti point out that participants were influenced by other participants. LILCO Testimony at 19. This is true and was intended. We could have conducted 50 qualitative interviews with isolated individuals. However, we believe that in a real radiological emergency decision-making will take place in a social context. People will (footnote continued) l.
Q. Have you analyzed the focus group transcripts? A. (Cole, Saegert, Johnson) Yes, we have. They support our testimony that there is a deep-seated fear of radiation -- and the consequences of a Shoreham accident -- on Long Island which would result in a large number of people seeking monitoring even though not advised to do so. Q. Please explain how the focus group data demonstrate that pre-existing perceptions and fears of Long Island residents i concerning nuclear accidents would cause far more people to seek monitoring than LILCO assumes. A. (Cole, Saegert, Johnson) The focus groups showed that some Long Islanders believe that if there is any accident at 1 l Shoreham, they will be exposed to radiation. In general, and I consistent with the findings of LILCO's witness, Dr. Lindell,19/. most Long Island residents would not base their assessment of i risk on such objective factors as the amount of radiation they have been exposed to or the duration of that exposure. In their view, exposure from an accident at a nuclear power plant to any amount of radiation for any length of time is dangerous and (footnote continued from previous page) be influenced by what others say and what they see others do. Therefore, the focus group situation more closely approximates the situation which will exist in a real emergency than do other research methods. l9./ Egg Lindell and Barnes. l - - -. -,..-... -. - -
potentially even lethal. Indeed, for many, the fact that there has been an accident means to them that they have already been exposed. Below are some of the. comments elicited from the focus group participants after hearing various of the LILCO EBS messages -which ranged from simply advising the public of an accident at the Shoreham plant, to advising evacuation and monitoring for people in specific EPZ subzones. I think today that we don't live in any area that is isolated from others, and we don't have buffer zones. We may be injured by a nuclear power plant in Wisconsin or Ohio, and to just base a decision on whether we live near LILCO or not may not be the wisest thing to do. I have to agree with this gentleman that when I heard the second reoort IEBS messaae # 21 I would'already believe that I was affected by it and I am never going to outrun the winds that will take this radiation away. I feel that if I didn't die in the next six months, I would definitely die of it in the next five years. One of my worries would be that oerhaos I had already lost my life and iust didn't know it. There is a certain time delay between this release of radiation by the time all consulta-tions were made and got out to all the radio stations, I may have already been exposed to adioactivity. We may in fact be walkino dead alreadv. I iust don't know. With nuclear oower, we are dealina with an entity that we don't know that much about. As far as the damaces from radiation, and so on. }, -_,_m,,,- -..,__..._,c~.. ... ~ ~
My cousin when she was little was exposed to radiation and twenty years later she had cancer of the thyroid. You don't have to worry about shopping because they wouldn't let you out with any food. No matter what it was. If it is within the evacuation area, it is contaminated. Where is this reception center? Who is going to welcome you with open arms? I always think about the lona term effects. The water sucolv, the animals, the crass, the notatoes, all of it. I do not know if it happened if I would ever come back. 4 Even if you were able to would you be happy coming back? I wouldn't. Look at Three Mile Island and that was a minor situation. Chernobyl is coina to be closed for 1500 years. Somethina on that style. These statements and many others in the transcripts illustrate well the attitudes of many Long Island residents who participated in the focus groups and, we believe, who answered the larger survey. Once an accident has occurred at Shoreham, l and'especially if any radiation has been released, they will believe that their lives are in grave danger.30/ Acting in 30/ Q. Did all the participants in the focus groups have a deep fear of exposure to radiation from an accident at Shoreham? A. (Cole, Saegert, Johnson) No. Some of the participants expressed the opinion that the amount of radiation being released from Shoreham during the hypothetical accident might not be so great as to kill and that indeed they might be able to protect themselves by sheltering. So, not all of the respondents had a strong fear of radiation; but a majority did. And insofar as we can tell from studies such as that conducted by Slovic, et al., this is true in the general population. i
accordance with their fears and beliefs, they will seek monitoring to determine whether they have been exposed to radiation. 4. The Consecuences of Chernobyl i Q. Would the recent Chernobyl accident have an effect on the public's perception of risk? A. (Saegert, Johnson) Without a doubt. In the event of a real emergency, people now have the example of Chernobyl to intensify their fears. The Chernobyl incident -- and its after-effects -- were widely publicized.ll/ People know that far more than the area'10 miles from the Chern5byl plant was contaminated. In fact, the incident was made public by the Soviet Union only l after increased radiation levels were detected by scientists in Sweden. Radiation from Chernobyl affected crops and animals as j far away as Scotland, Lapland and Turkey. The example of Chernobyl would give people far outside the EPZ -- as well as people in the EPZ who had not been advised to so do -- a basis 1 31/ Headlines such as "Chernobyl Doses Across Continent" and maps have appeared in magazines and newspapers showing half of Europe as contaminated. Subsequent to the Chernobyl accident, newspapers have carried predictions and vivid descriptions of potential cancers resulting from exposure. A year after the Chernobyl accident, one headline read "After Chernobyl, Birth Defects Low but Retardation High." Pictures in Life magazine of the victims create terrifying and vivid images. Hohenemser, C.,
- Deicher, M.,
- Ernst, A.,
- Hofsass, H.,
- Linder, G.,
Recknagel, R. (1986) Chernobyl: An early report, Environment 28(5), Washington, D.C.: Heldref Publications, 6-30.
for determining that they should seek monitoring. Even if individuals did not know, or could not recall, the details of exactly how widespread the contamination from Chernobyl had been, those details would no doubt be brought up and re publicized by the members of the media who would cover a nuclear emergency at Shoreham. Q. Does the public believe that an accident such as that which occurred at Chernobyl could happen at Shoreham? A. (Cole) Yes. The first evidence comes from a survey conducted for Newsday in September of 1986. The Newsday survey asked the following question: Several months ago there was a serious acci-dent at the Chernobyl nuclear power plant in the Soviet Union. Do you think that a serious accident like this could happen in the United States? Eighty-two percent of the sample of Long Island residents said they did believe that this type of accident could happen, 16 percent did not, and 2 percent had no opinion. The Newsday survey contained another question which attempted to measure the influence of the accident at Chernobyl on changes in attitudes. It asked: We are interested in how the accident at Chernobyl might have influenced your beliefs about the safety of nuclear power. Which of the following comes closer to your opinion: before the accident at Chernobyl you were convinced that nuclear power plants were not safe; before the accident you believed nuclear _..- -_--- - _ _. - _ -.
power plants were safe and now you believe they are not safe; before the accident you were not sure that nuclear power plants were safe and now you believe they are not safe; before accident you believed nuclear power plants were safe and you still believe they are safe? The Newsday survey found 35 percent saying that they had been convinced that nuclear plants were unsafe before the Chernobyl accident; 11 percent had believed that nuclear power plants were safe before Chernobyl but now believed they were unsafe; 30 per-cent had been unsure as to the safety of nuclear plants before Chernobyl but now believed they were unsafe; and 20 percent believed before and still believed after the accident that nuclear power plants were safe. Five percent said that they "didn't know" in res.ponse to this question. Although people sometimes do not accurately report their retrospective attitudes, if this survey is even roughly indicative of the influence of Chernobyl, it shows how this event led to a major increase in the proportions of Long Island residents believing that nuclear power plants are unsafe. As noted above, in this same Newsday survey, a question was included measuring behavioral intentions during a hypothetical radiological emergency at Shoreham. Based upon the responses, it was possible to estimate that about 62 percent of Long Island households would attempt to evacuate. When an identical question was asked in September 1983 in another Newsday survey, 44 percent had said that they would evacuate. In analyzing the data for l f ' l
Newsday in September 1986, I concluded that this significant change was probably a result of greater concern over nuclear safety as a result of fear generated by the accident at the Chernobyl nuclear plant in the Soviet Union.23/ Likewise, this greater concern is likely to cause an increase in the number of people who would seek monitoring in the event of a Shoreham emergency. The most recent survey I conducted for Suffolk County also contained questions concerning the Chernobyl accident. The great majority of Long Island residents were familiar with that accident at Chernobyl. All respondents were asked the following question: Last spring a major nuclear accident occurred at the Chernobyl nuclear power station in the Soviet Union. Do you think that it is possi-21/ When I cross-tabulated the responses to the question on whether they thought an accident like Chernobyl could happen here with behavioral intentions, I found that among those respondents who thought that an accident such as that which occurred at Chernobyl could happen in the United States, 67 percent said that they would attempt to evacuate in case of an accident at Shoreham. Among those who said that they did not believe that a Chernobyl-type accident could occur in the United States, 40 percent said that they would evacuate in case of an accident at Shoreham. Among those who said that before the accident at Chernobyl they were convinced that nuclear power plants were not l safe, 70 percent said they would evacuate in case of an accident. Among those who said that before Chernobyl they thought nuclear power plants were safe and now believe they are unsafe, 71 per-cent said that they would evacuate. Among those who said that before Chernobyl they were unsure of the safety of nuclear power plants but now believe they are unsafe, 66 percent said that they would evacuate. And even among those who said that before the l accident at Chernobyl they believed nuclear power plants were safe and that they still believe that they are safe, 39 percent I said that they would evacuate. 1 l
l i ble for a serious accident like that to occur at the Shoreham nuclear power plant if the power plant is put into operation? Seventy-eight percent believe that it is possible for such a serious accident to occur at Shoreham, 16 percent said that they did not believe this was possible, and 6 percent had no opinion. Egg Exhibit 8, at 28. Both the Newsday data and those collected for Suffolk County lead me to believe that the accident at Chernobyl made the possi-bility of an accident at Shoreham with harmful consequences, more of a reality for many Long Island residents. Before they had bean told that much an accident was virtually impossible; now they believe that serious accidents at nuclear power plants are not impossible. (Cole, Saegert, Johnson) That Chernobyl played a role in the way Long Islanders think about an accident at Shoreham is also evident from the transcripts of the focus groups. Chernobyl was frequently mentioned and was clearly in the minds of many I participants as they discussed how they would react to the LILCO Exercise EBS messages. Below are some of the comments made about Chernobyl: Of course, it enters your mind that if some-thing really bad did happen, they wouldn't want to panic the people so richt away you think of Chernobyl. They didn't want to tell anybody what happened there. They don't tell you right away.
- l
i I would like to have all my family around me. I would like to know where they are in the event something much more serious came up in another half hour or an hour. And it would lead me to believe that after that little fiasco in Russia there micht be a lot more to j this than meets the eve. i "Do you think that what happened at Chernobyl could happen here at Shoreham?" Yes I do, I absolutely think so. I think it is possible. Maybe not that seri-1 ous. Granted the Russians don't let you know all the details but nuclear power plants are nuclear power plants. j Getting back to Chernobyl. What good is evac-uation when this stuff has gone to countries thousands of miles away? Where can you hide? 4 In summady, the pre-existing fears which Long Islanders have of radiation, which the above excerpts demonstrate have been exacerbated by Chernobyl, will result in a massive number of people converging on LILCO's reception centers for the purpose of being monitored in the event of an accident at Shoreham, i i 5. The Effect of Emeroency Information Q. LILCO suggests, however, that its EBS messages will i j predominantly influence people's behavior during a Shoreham 4 emergency and that therefore members of the public not advised to i seek monitoring will not do so. Egg LILCO Testimony at 14, 19, 25. Do you agree? t 1 :
A. (Saegart, Johnson) No. First, as we have discussed above, people have a strong fear of radiation. We have examined the EBS messages in LILCO's Plan and those " broadcast" by LILCO during the February 13 exercise. They do nothing to calm this fear, or to explain why only some people might have been contaminated. In fact, the contents of the EBS messages themselves would probably lead people to seek monitoring.23/ Second, some people will focus only on the parts of EBS messages stating that the oublic will be monitored for possible radioactive decontamination, or may have been exposed to radia-tion during their trip out of the EPZ, without focusing on the portion of the message intended to limit the size or location of 23/ For instance, in one such message used during the Exercise it is stated that a " major release of radiation into the air" occurred at 12:00, and then gives thyroid dose rates as " percentages" -- 400%, 100% and 40% -- of EPA " evacuation guidelines." There is no attempt to explain the significance or health effects of these dosages in terms understandable to laypersons. During the Exercise, LILCO " broadcast" this message for approximately one hour. Then, the next Exercise message stated that: The Director of LERO, Jay Kessler, recommends that all residents of zones A, B, F, G, K and Q should report to the Nassau Coliseum before going anywhere else. At the Coliseum the public will be monitored for possible radio-active contamination. A short time later, this message was amended to explain that the residents of zones A, B, F, G, K and Q should report for monitoring "since they may have been exposed to radiation during their trip out of the EPZ." Regardless of the implication of these messages -- that people other than those in the named zones do not need to be monitored -- the unclear and potentially frightening information about radiation, dose rates, thyroid doses, and contamination that would be disseminated in a real emergency would lead large numbers to seek monitoring. -.
the public which may have been exposed. This is because some people under stress, as Long Island residents surely would be during an accident, often have trouble comprehending and processing spatial information. Third, even people who understand correctly the contents of the message but were not residents of the named zones, may none-I theless seek monitoring because, assuming people know their own zone, they may not know which zones they have gone through, or ) l travelled near, during their trips out of the EPZ. i I Fourth, large numbers of people are likely to discount i LILCO's zone concept in its EBS messages altogether. People know that radiation in th'e air does not stop at precise geographic i boundaries. Thus, some people would consider the idea of zones -- some safe, some not -- as counterfactual, and would, accord-ingly, ignore any implication or statement in the message that l only residents of certain zones had been endangered. Individu-i als' fear of radiation, combined with their lack of understanding of its effects (a lack of understanding which LILCO's EBS mess-ages do nothing to alleviate) would make it likely that they would seek monitoring. Finally, LILCO's messages that people outside a particular zone would be safe are likely to be discounted by the public due to LILCO's low credibility. As LILCO's witness Dr. Lindell has stated: The gap between accurate information and the achievement of compliance with recommended actions should be recognized as a large one. Persons must attend to, comprehend, yield to, and retain informa-tion before they can act on it. The yielding is likely to occur only if the source of the information is considered credible. Lindell and Barnes, at 466. It is well known, and admitted by LILCO, that LILCO has a low degree of credibility in the Long Island community. We will not repeat at length here the evidence on that subject discussed in the prior litigation.21/ In addition, however, more recent surveys and other data have confirmed that fact. Between 1982 and December 1986, there has been little change in the credibil-ity afforded by Long Island residents to LILCO.25/ l 2d/ In the 1982 survey conducted for Suffolk County, we found only 4 percent of the population of Long Island said that they l would trust a LILCO official to tell the truth about an accident at Shoreham, 36 percent said that they would trust a LILCO official "somewhat," and 58 percent said that they would not trust a LILCO official at all (2 percent had no opinion). 25/ (Cole) In my most recent survey, only eight percent of the respondents said that they would trust a LILCO official "a great deal" to tell the truth about an accident at Shoreham. Thirty-nine percent said "somewhat," and 50 percent said not at all. Two percent had no opinion. When asked whether they would believe LILCO if its stated during an accident that all people more than 10 miles from the Shoreham plant were safe, only 18 percent of the respondents said (footnote continued) l l l
(Cole, Saegert, Johnson) The focus group data also support our testimony that people would not accept instructions from LILCO that.only portions of the population had been endangered or i' exposed.li/ i i (footnote continued from previous page) that they would believe LILCO on this crucial point; 77 percent said that they would not believe LILCO, and 6 percent said that they did not know whether they would believe LILCO. 35/ "Did you believe (the] LILCO (EBS message) that if you were outside that zone that you weren't in any danger?" No. I Absolutely not. They have no way of oredictina wnen and how i the wind is coina to move. You cannot control i mother nature. The radioactivity will effect Mit I don't care how technologically astute they are, they have no way of knowing how j things are going to blow. "You wouldn't believe the message when they said you were safe outside the zone?" i No. 1 Since they finally did say evacuate, I would have to leave. I am almost 30 miles away, it I is 9:39 in the morning and rush hour traffic ] is over. It is definitely much more alarming. As to 4 believability, I think that someone livina ( outside that immediate zone would certainly know that it is time to oack un and ao if you l haven't already cone. t l "Now what did that message tell people who live outside the i 10 mile zone to do?" Not to worry. l [ "Do you believe them?" (footnote continued).. - _ _
Q. If LILCO has such low credibility, why would people indeed more than advised to do so - go to reception centers run by LILCO to be monitored? A. (Cole, Saegert, Johnson) If LILCO were to tell Long Isic.ad residents during an accident at Shoreham that they are in no danger, LILCO would be saying something that, as the data show, the public would initially disbelieve. However, if LILCO were to tell members of the public that they should be monitored for radioactive contamination, it would be telling them something that they woul'd be likely to believe, because it would be con-sistent with their own beliefs. During a real Shoreham accident many members of the public would be frightened that they had been exposed to potentially harmful doses. Thus, they will attempt to be monitored -- in much higher numbers than LILCO assumes. It is also important to bear in mind that in the event of an emergency, LILCO's reception centers will be the only places, under the LILCO Plan, where monitoring will be offered. If LILCO offers that service, people are likely to try to take advantage l of it. In addition, monitoring will be conducted by LILCO using (footnote continued from previous page) l m. "Would you believe LILCO that you were safe if you were outside the zone?" No. It is in the air. !
" objective" instruments which the public will perceive as provid-ing an unbiased indication to them of whether they have been contaminated or not. In short, it is unlikely that LILCO's lack of credibility will deter substantial numbers of people from seeking monitoring at LILCO's reception centers. 6. KRIMM MEMORANDUM Q. Are you familiar with a memorandum authored by a FEMA official, Richard Krimm, dated December 24, 1985 (the "Krimm Memorandum"), asserting that only 20% of the EPZ population can ha avpacted to arrive at reception centerc during nuclear accidents 7 2/ 2 A. (Saegert, Johnson, Minor) Yes. LILCO appears to rely on the Krimm Memorandum to support its reception center planning basis. Egg LILCO Testimony at 3-4, 9-10. Q. Do you agree with the Krimm Memorandum? A. (Saegert, Johnson, Minor) No. The Krimm Memorandum suffers from a number of defects in attempting to assess the number of people who might arrive at reception centers in a 4 radiological emergency. l 22/ The Krimm Memorandum is Attachment L to LILCO's Testimony. i I ,,,.,..,n- ,..,,, -... -,, - -. ~ _,,
The first defect is the Krimm Memorandum's assumption that a comparison can be made between the number of people who will seek shelter at relocation centers and the number of people who will go to reception centers for monitoring. These are two distinct activities, a fact which the Krimm Memorandum ignores. We believe that the Krimm Memorandum has a reasonable basis for concluding that up to 20% of a population may be expected at relocation centers or congregate care centers for the purpose of finding shelter after leaving their homes. But, there is no support for the Krimm Memorandum's conclusion that 20% of an EPZ population would arrive at a reception center for monitoring. Thic Beard, and the.^.ppeal Scard, have already determined that conclusions about monitoring-seeking activity cannot be drawn from sheltering data.2E/ We agree with the Boards in thi's conclusion. Apparently, that point made by the Boards was lost on FEMA. The second defect in the Krimm Memorandum arises from the fact that it draws upon behavior in natural and certain unspeci-fled technological disasters. As we have testified in earlier proceedings, generalizations cannot be drawn about behavior in a radiological emergency on the basis of behavior in a natural disaster. That is especially true where, as here, the behaviors being compared are different and where there is no evidence that 2g/ ALAB 855, 24 NRC (December 12, 1986) slip op. at 9, 16-17; Concluding Partial Initial Decision on Emergency Planning, LBP-85-31, 22 NRC 410, 417 (1985).
people in the cited disasters were instructed to report to reception centers for monitoring (or an analogous procedure) as they would be under the LILCO Plan. In addition, there is no indication that the " technological" disasters which the Krimm Memorandum mentions involved any tehavior analogous to seeking monitoring in a radiological emergency. There is also a third reason that the Krimm Memorandum does not support a 20% (or 30%) planning basis -- a reason which LILCO ignores in its Plan and its testimony. That is, LILCO's reception centers will be performing a dual function. In the event of an evacuation, all people who are in need of shelter will be advised to go to LILCO's reception centers, where they will be processed, monitored and eventually sent on to a congre-gate care center. Egg OPIP 4.2.3, at 3, 7. LILCO estimates that up to 20% of the population may need shelter (congregate care). Id. at 3. In addition, all people who are determined to require monitorina will be directed to the same reception centers. LILCO estimates that up to 30% of the EPZ population might be expected to arrive at its reception centers who need monitoring. There will, of course, be some overlap between those who require shel-ter and those who require monitoring; however, because both groups are being advised to go to LILCO's reception centers, there be far more people arriving at LILCO's reception centers than the 30% that LILCO assumes. In other words, even using LILCO's unrealistic assumptions, under the LILCO Plan up to 30%..
of the population could arrive at the reception centers for monitorina and another significant portion of the EPZ (an additional 20%) could arrive for purposes of seeking shelter. Thus, even using the unrealistically optimistic assumptions in the LILCO Plan, far more people may arrive at LILCO's reception centers than the 30% of the EPZ population LILCO assumes. Of course, as stated earlier, we believe that, using more realistic assumptions, several times this number will actually arrive. Finally, the circumstances surrounding the Krimm Memorandum make one suspect whether it was a serious effort to develop guidelines for Section J.12, or whether it reflects other purposes. In August 1985, this Board ruled that LILCO's Plan was deficient because the Plan did not contain an appropriate plan-i ning basis for the number of people requiring monitoring. Subse-quent correspondence between FEMA and its consultant, Mr. Keller (a FEMA witness in this proceeding), raised the point that this issue would be addressed again in the Shoreham proceeding and j noted that FEMA counsel had previously provided him with an NRC ruling "that 100% of the EPZ population must be considered when l applying the 12 hour time period of element J.12." Egg letter of October 4, 1985, from J.H. Keller to Stewart Glass, which is part of Attachment L of LILCO's Testimony. Mr. Keller's request was forwarded to FEMA headquarters and the Krimm Memorandum was issued, appearing to be intended for use primarily in the Shoreham litigation, rather than as " guidance" which was j l l . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ -. _ _ _ - _ ~. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _, _..
developed by FEMA in the ordinary course of business. Egg Attachment L to LILCO Testimony. We also understand from the testimony of the State's REPG witnesses that, contrary to usual procedure, the substance of this guidance was never conveyed to them by FEMA.29/ These facts make the validity of the Krimm Memorandum suspect. The Memorandum offers no real analysis of the issue. Rather, the timing suggests that it was issued merely to remove Section J.12 as an obstacle to a Shoreham license. 7. Release Characteristics and Meteorological Considerations Q. LILCO's witnesses testify that their 30% planning basis is justified by the likely release characteristics and conse-quences of an accident. LILCO Testimony at 9-10. Do you agree? A. (Minor, Sholly) No. LILCO's testimony states that contamination occurs "only when there has been a release of particulate materials", that such a release "may occur if there has been damage to the fuel elements in the reactor core," and that such particulate material "would be the primary source of l contamination." The testimony also states that NUREG 0654 guidance " addresses itself primarily to noble gases and iodine releases." The testimony concludes: l "There is, in short, very little poten-l tial for a release of particulates that l would cause contamination, and the I likelihood is that, even if a particulate l l l 29./ Sag note 3. I
release ever did occur, the protective action recommendation would limit the exposure to the particulate material." LILCO Testimony at 11. To the extent that LILCO derives its planning basis from this conclusion, LILCO has misinterpreted NRC guidance, and the emergency planning principles and data on which it is based. In both NUREG 0396 and NUREG 0654 it is emphasized that emergency planning is based on the capability to respond to a soectrum of accidents which could result in offsite doses in excess of Protective Action Guides. No single accident sequence is specified as a planning basis. Rather, the planning basis is grounded on the potential consequences, timing, and release char-acteristics of a spectrum of accidents. NUREG 0654, at 5-7. The spectrum of accidents considered by the NRC in establishing the planning basis explicitly included the core melt accident release categories in the Reactor Safety Study (WASH-1400), a number of which are projected to result in the potential release of large amounts of radioactive particulates. In addition, a variety of NRC and industry-sponsored studies, including LILCO's own probabilistic risk assessment of Shoreham and the NRC's recently issued NUREG 0956 and NUREG 1150 reports, have identified a range of accidents which can result in the release of fractions of 1% or greater of the core inventory of particulates (e.g., cesium, tellurium, ruthenium, lanthanum.
i group elements, etc.), which may amount to millions of curies of particulate radioactive material. Thus, to the extent LILCO's planning basis relies on an asserted improbability of a particu-late release, that assertion runs contrary to NRC guidance and the available data on the potential nature of a release at Shoreham. Accidents involving only gaseous releases, which LILCO appears to argue should be the basis for its planning efforts, are at the extreme low end of a spectrum of possible releases, most of which involve some level of particulate release. In general, those accidents which develop most rapidly (i.e., those resulting in containment failure or bypass in the time period before or shortly after breach of the reactor vessel by core debris) are also associated with the largest particulate releases. Those accidents in which a release is delayed several hours beyond the time of vessel breach are typically associated with lesser, although still potentially significant, levels of particulate release. Thus, while it is easy to postulate severe accidents which result in only gaseous releases, it is equally easy to postulate severe accidents involving substantial particulate releases. In the past several years, research has also shown that radiological releases (including particulate releases) are likely to continue for many hours after the initial " puff" release that is typically associated with reactor vessel breach (for accidents involving only containment leakage) or containment failure. Longer-term releases can arise from a number of severe accident phenomena, including re-evolution of deposited materials (due to decay heating effects), interactions between hot core debris and concrete, and re-evolution from pools of water which are boiling away. Such phenomena (and others) can result in release dura-tions of many hours, as opposed to the " puff" releases often discussed in association with severe accidents. Such longer-term releases mean a greater likelihood of contamination. Q. LILCO's Testimony also discusses likely plume dispersal i characteristics and suggests that a plume is unlikely to affect more than three compass sectors (67 1/2 degrees) of the EPZ. LILCO Testimony at 9. Do you agree? A. (Minor, Sholly) No. LILCO's Environmental Report indicates that winds are persistent in one direction for periods of six hours or longer only about 14% of the time. This means that changes in the wind direction are likely to occur over the period of release following an accident. Given that a postulated release of radioactivity due to an accident is a stochastic phenomenon, it is clear that there is a substantial chance of one or more wind direction changes over any given few-hour period. l Moreover, given the potential for long release durations in j severe accidents, as discussed above, it is very likely that at least one wind direction change will occur during an accident. l i Such wind direction changes will expand the areas poten-tially contaminated in the event of a severe accident at Shoreham to include more than the three adjoining compass sectors postula-ted in the LILCO Testimony. Wind direction shifts could easily double the number of sectors potentially affected to six sectors, j rather than the three LILCO contemplates. That is more than 2/3 of the land portion of the Shoreham EPZ. t Q. Do you have any other concerns about the nature of a Shoreham accident that are relevant to LILCO's monitoring planning basis? j A. (Minor, Sholly) Yes. An important geographic consid-eration is that the reception centers at'which LILCO proposes to perform monitoring activities are all located west of the EPZ.. Thus, evacuees from the eastern half of the EPZ may travel through contaminated areas on their way to the reception centers. This factor will serve to increase the number of vehicles and persons which could be contaminated and therefore should be moni-f tored at the reception centers. l 1 IV. CONCLUSIONS i j j Q. Please summarize your conclusions concerning the number of people likely to arrive at LILCO's reception centers. l l
(All) Our research and experience confirm that large num-bers of people, on the order of hundreds of thousands, would seek I monitoring at LILCO's reception centers in the event of a Shoreham accident. They are afraid that exposure to radiation released from Shoreham during an accident would harm them and their family members. They believe that radiation travels far and quickly,2E/ and they believe the EPZ, as well as its subzones, are fictions when it comes to the presence and danger of radiation. For all these reasons many people living in EPZ subzones other than those for which a monitoring advisory is issued, and many people outside the EPZ itself, would seek monitoring in a real accident. Although we cannot fix with precision the number of people who would go to LILCO's reception centers for monitoring in response to an advisory to do so,21/ the data from the recent survey as well as our knowledge and,other research into the nature of human behavior, lead us.to conclude that a far larger 2E/ Egg Lindell and Barnes, for d'ata supporting the view that people believe radiation travels quickly and covers long distances. 21/ (Cole) I should like to reemphasize at this point that surveys such as that I conducted are only rough tools for assess-ing behavioral intentions. Clearly, since many of the people who answered the question about monitoring had no way of knowing where they would be at 1:45 p.m. if the accident were to really take place, we should take their answer only as an indicator that they would want to be monitored and that they would, if possible, l go to one of the reception. centers indicated by LILCO. Given all the unknown variables, it is not possible to come up with a j precise estimate of tne numbers of people who would really show l up at these centers., -.-,-y7-c .-my-y v- =7
number of people than the 30% (or approximately 48,000 people) assumed by LILCO would, in a real emergency seek monitoring and possible decontamination. Indeed, the best available data demonstrate that hundreds of thousands of people would converge on the reception centers, overwhelming their limited capacity and LILCO's limited resources. The Krimm Memorandum, on which LILCO relies for its assump-tion that it need provide personnel and resources to monitor only 30% of the EPZ population, is based on data which have no rele-vance to this issue. Therefore, it provides no support for LILCO's position. Finally, LILCO's argument that NUREG 0654 and probable accident characteristics support its planning basis is wrong. NUREG 0654 requires planning for a range of accidents, including those involving particulate releases. In addition, there are frequent wind shifts on Long Island which could result in wide dispersal of a plume. Thus more than 30% of the EPZ population i could actually be affected by a release from Shoreham involving radioactive particulates. Q. Does that conclude your testimony? A. (All) Yes. 5 _-_
) EXHIBIT 1 1 L
1 Exhibit 1 VITA Stephen Cole Birth Date,: June 1 1941 i Home Address: 1 Evans Lane Setauket New York 11733 Phone. 516-751-9656 Office Address: State University of New York at Stony Brook Department o! Sociology Stony Brook New York 11794 Phone: 516-246-3439 Education: B.A., Columbia College, 1962 ~ Ph.D., Columbia University 1967 A_cademic Appointments: 1964 Lecturer. Larnard College 1965 Le cture r, Columbia University 1966-67 Instructor of Sociology Columbia University 1966-76 Research Associate ureau of Applied Social Research Columbia University 1967-68 Assistant Professor Department of Sociology. Columbia University 1968-70 Assistant Professor, Department of Sociology. State University of New York at Stony Brook 1970-73 Associate Professor, Department of Sociology, State University of New York at Stony Brook 1973-Present Professor Department of Sociology, State University of New York at Stony Brook 1977 -Present Research Associate Center for the Social Sciences Columbia University Honorary Societies and Awards. 1962 Phi Beta Kappa Magna Cum Laude, Columbia Collego 1962 Honorary Woodrow Wilson Fellow 1962 63 Mational Science Foundation Fellow 1963-66 National Institutes of Health Public Health Service Fellow 1963 Bobbs-Merrill Award 1965 66 John W. Burgess Honorary Fellow of the Faculty of Political Science Columbia University 1971-72 Ford Foundation Faculty Research Fellow 1976 Sociological Research Association 1978-79 Guggenheim Foundation Fellowship 1978-79 Fellow, Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences, Stanford, California 1980 l Presented annual paper at Sociological Research Association Dinner 1984-present SUNY Faculty Exchange Scholar I
Paga 2 Professional Activities: From 1966 to the present I have served as a consultant to the following organizations on various applied sociological research projects involving survey research. 1966-68 Social Welfare Research Council, CUNY 1970-71 Center for Research on the Acts of Man, University of Pennsylvania 1973-present Newsday 1973-79 Committee on Science and Public Policy (COSPUP), National Academy of Sciences 1977 Brookhaven National Laboratories 1978 The Baltimore Sun 1979 National Bureau of Economic Research 1981 Long Island Lighting Company 1982 The Boston Globe 1982-83 University o! California at Irvine 1982-present Suf folk County I have also served on the editorial boards of the following journals Sociology of Education, Sociological Quarterly, American Journal of Socioloj{7 The American Sociologist. " I have served as a referee for more than a dozen other jour-nals, for the National Science Foundation, the National Institutes of Health, the National Institute of Education as well as other public and private granting agencies. Over the last fifteen years I have presented more than 30 invited lectures at professional conferences and educational institutions all over the United States. I \\ l l l
Paga 3 Publications: BOOKS 1969 The Unionization of Teachers: A Case Study of the UFT. New York: Praeger Press. (Reprinted b'y Arno ~ Wress, 1980) 1972 The Sociological Method 1980, 3rd enlarged edition. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company. 1973 Social Stratification in Science (with Jonathan R. Cole). Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. (Paperback edition published in 1981). 1975 The Sociological Orientation. Boston: Noughton Hi~fflin 1979, 2nd enlarged edition. 1978 Peer Review in the National Science Foundation: ~Phase I (with Jonathan R. Cole and Leonard Rubin). 5fashington, D.C.: National Academy of Sciences. 1981 Peer Review in the National Science Foundation-P_hase II (with Jonathan R. Cole). Washing' ton, D.C. National Academy of Sciences 1987 Sociologg_and the Demystification of_ Science (with Jonathan R. Cole). Cambridge: Harvard University Press. (forthcoming) PAPERS (an asterisk indicates a refereed journal) 1961 The Charitable Impulse in Victorian England," King's Crown Essays 9, 3-28. 1964 " Inventory of Empirical and Theoretical Studies of Anomie" (with Harriet A. Zuckerman). In l Marshall Clinard (Ed.) Anomie and Deviant Beh,avio,r,. New York: Free Press, pp 243-313. 1967 " Scientific Output and Recognition A Study in the Operation of the Reward System in Science" (with Jonathan R. Cole), American_ Sociological Review 32 377-390 Reprinted as a Bobbs-Merrill lie ~pTI~n~t and as an XIP Publication.
Pcga 4 _P_ APERS, Continued....
- 1968
" Visibility and the Structural Bases of Awareness in Scientific Research" (with Jonathan R Cole) American Sociological Review 33, 397 413. 1968 "The Unionization of Teachers Determinants of Rank-and-File Support " Sociology of Education 41 66-87 Reprinted in Donald A. Erickson (Ed.), Educational Organization and Administration. Werkeley McCutchan Publishing CorporatTon, 1977 4
- 1969 "Toacher's Strike: A Study of the Conversion of Predisposition into Action," American Journal of Sociology 74 506-520.
Reprinted as Warner 3 Modular Publication R809. Reprinted in Donald Gerwin (Ed. ) The Employment of Teachers Some Analytical Views,. Berkeley McCutchan Publishing Corporation, 1974. 1969 " Determinants of Faculty Support of Student Demonstrations" (with Hannelore Adamsons) Sociology of Education 42, 315-329.
- 1970
" Professional Status and Faculty Support of Student Demonstrations" (with Hannelore Adamsons), Public Opinion Quarterly 34 389-394. 1970 " Professional Standing and the Reception of Scientific Papers." American Journal of Sociology 76, 286 306 Reprinted as Bobbs-Merrill Reprint S-678 Reprinted in B.T. Eiduson and L. Beckman (Eds.) Science as a Career Choice. New York Russell Sage Foundation, 1973 pp 499-512. Reprinted in P. Weingart (Ed.), Wissenschaftsso-ziologie I. Athenaeum Verlag, 1973.
- 1971
" Measuring the Quality of Sociological Papers" (with Jonathan R. Cole) American Sociologist 6 23-29. 1972 " Continuity and Institutionalization in Science: A Case Study of Failure." In Anthony Obserschall (Ed.), The Establishment of Empirical Sociologg. New Yore Harper and R6w, pp. 73-129. Repdlnted in Wolf Lepennies (Ed.) Geschichte der Soziologie l Suhrkamp Verlag (Frankfurt am Maid) vol 4, ~ 31-110. 1981. 4 i-i i l l - -.,-.._,-.,.-.,~,- - - _ ~,. - - -.. -,.
Paga 5 PAPERS Continued....
- 1972-
" Illness and the Legitimation of Failure" (with Robert Lejeune) American Sociol,og,ical Review 37 347-356. Reprinted 13i Leo G. Reeder (Ed.), Hand-book of Scales and Indices of Health Behavior, T97' 'R'epri'nted in Cary S. Kart (Ed ) Dominant Issues in Medical Sociology. (First edition) Reading, Mas: AddlioM'Oesley Publishing Co.,1977. (Second Editie 1986. Reprinted in Howard Robboy and Candice Clari (Eds.), Soul Interaction St Martin's Press, New York 1986.
- 1972 "The Ortega Hypothesis" (with Jonathan R Cole),
Science 178 (October), 368-375. Reprinted in hiFe Gebhardt, Sociology of Science. New York: Seabury Press, Tf86. 1975 "The Growth of Scientific Knowledge: Theories of Deviance as a Case Study." In Lewis Coser (Ed.) The Idea of Social Structure: Papers in Honor of Ro6ert K. Merton. New York: Harcourt.. race, JiSvanovich, pp. 175-220. 1976 "The Rcward System of the Social Sciences" (with Jonathan R. Cole). In Charles Frankel (Ed.), Controversies and Decisions: The Social Sciences and Public Policy,. New York: Russell Sage, pp. 55-88. 1977 " Peer Review in the American Scientific Community" (with Jonathan R. Cole and Leonard Rubin) Scientific American 237 No. 4 (October) 34-41. 1978 ' Measuring the Cognitive State of Scientific Disciplines" (with Jonathan R. Cole and Lorraine Dietrich). In Yehuda Elkana Robert K.
- Merton, Arnold Thackray and Harriet A. Zuckerman (Eds-)
Toward a Metric of Science: The Advent of Science }nj[c,a t,o rs. New York John Wiley-1978 " Scientific Reward Systems A Comparative Analysis." In Robert Alun Jones (Ed ) Research in the Sociology _of Knowledge, Science and Art. Greenwich Conn. Johnson Associates, Inc. pp. 167-190.
Page 6 PAPE_R,S Continued....
- 1979
'Which Researcher Will Get the Grant?" (with J. R. Cole) Nature 279 575-576. 1979 " Comment on a paper by Michael Overington ",The jynerican Sociologist 14 (February), 17-19 1979 " Age and Scientific Performance." American Journal o_f Sociol_og 84 958-977. 1980 " Comments on ' Indicators of Scientific Manpower' Scientometrics,. Vol. 2, No. 5-6, pp. 405-409. 1980 The Functions of Classical Theory in Contemporary Sociological Research" (with K. Adatto). In F. Kuklick (Ed ), Research_in the_, Sociology _of Knowledge, Science and Art III. Greenwich. Conn. Johnson Associates, Inc.
- 1981
Chance and Consensus in Peer Review," (with J. R Cole and G. Simon) Science 214, (20 November 1981) 881-886.
- 1983 "The Hierarchy of the Sciences?", American Journal o_f Sociology 89, 111-139.
- 1984 "Little Science Big Science Revisited,"
Scientometrics (with G S Meyer) 7 443-458 1984 Experts' Consensus and Decision Making at the National Science Foundation " (with J. R. Cole) in Kenneth Warren, Selectivity and Information Sy_s tems : Survival oT the Pittest, (Hew York: Praeger Science Publishers)
- 1986
' Sex Discrimination and Admission to hedical School 1929-1984," American Journal of Sociology, 92 (549-567). 1987 ' Formation of Public Opinion on Complex Issues The Case of Nuclear Power" (with R. Fiorentine) in H. O'Gorman, ed. l Surveying _ Social Life: Essays in Honor of Herbert H. Hyman (Mfddletown, Conn.. Wesleyan University Press)ln, press. l 1 l l
Ps.go 7 -PAPERS Continued.... 1987 " Discrimination Against Women In Science: The Confusion of Outcome with Process " in J. R. Cole and H A. Zuckerman, eds. ~ Women in Science (llew York Norton)- in press. I
,--v-:
' ~ " ' ' "
- 1 i
} } EXHIBIT 2
7 Exhibit 2 February 1987 CURRICULUM VITAE Name: Susan Saegert Address: 347 President Street (home) Brooklyn, New York 11231 (business) Environmental Psychology Program The Graduate School and University Center The City University of New York 33 West 42nd Street New York, New York 10036 Telephone: (718) 624-4535 (home) (212) 790-4551 (business) Education: Ph.D. 1974, University of Michigan Field of Specialization: Social Psychology Department of Psychology B.A. 1968, University of Texas Summa cum laude with honors in government Ernerience: September Professor, Environmental Psychology Program 1986 to The Graduate School and University Center, The City present University of New York -1977 Associate Professor, Environmental Psychology Program, to 1986 The Graduate School and University Center, The City University of New York Spring Invited Associate Professor of Urban Planning, 1980 School of Architecture and Urban Planning, Columbia University--NEH sponsored course on Housing and Behavior July 1977 to Director, Center for the Study of Women and Sex Roles, l January 1980 The Graduate School and University Center, The City University of New York September Assistant Professor, Environmental Psychology Program, i 1973 to 1977 The Graduate S3nool and University Center, The City } University of New York l I l l .m
/ Susan Saegert Page Two Ernerience (continued): September Research Coordinator, NIMH Grant: " Household settings: 1973 to Life styles and mental health " Environmental June 1977 Psychology Program, The Graduate School and University Center, The City University of New York February 1971 Research Supervisor, NIMH Grant: " Change in ward to July 1973 design," Environmental Psychology Program, The Graduate School and University Center, The City University of New York Awards and Honorarv Associations: Phi Beta Kappa Alpha Lambda Delta Woodrow Wilson Fellow, 1969-1970 National Institute of Mental Health Trainee, 1969-70 National Science Foundation Fellow, 1970-72 Fellow of the American Psychological Association, elected 1982 G. Stanley Hall Lecturer in Environmental Psychology, American Psychological Association, 1985 Grants and Contracts: 1977 National Science Foundation Travel Award to NATO Conference on Human Consequences of Crowding, Antalya, Turkey. 1977 - 1978 Faculty Research Award, City University of New York, Regional Comparisons. of Experiences of Crowding. 1977 - 1980 National Institute of Mental Health, Residential Density and Adjustment in Low-Income Children. 1978 - 1979 Faculty Research Award, City University of New York, Sex Differences, Spatial Abilities and Environmental Competence. 1979 - 1980 Ford Foundation Grant to the Center for the Study of Women and Sex Roles. 1980 - 1981 Faculty Research Award, City University of New York, The Role of the Environment in the Development of Social Relationships.
Susan Saegert Page Three Grants ar.] Contracts (continued): July 1980 - Contract with Denver Housing Authority, Feasibility November 1980 Study: The Market for Downtown Housing in Denver. January 1981 Contract with Denver Housing Authority, Survey of -October 1981 of Housing Needs of Employees in Downtown Denver. January 1981 Carnegie Foundation (with Marilyn Gittell), Planning - July 1981 Grant for the Study of Women in Urban Communities. September National Science Foundation Travel Award to present 1980 paper at Japanese-United States Seminar: Psychology and the Environment in Tokyo, Japan. February 1984-The Society for the Psychological Study of Social September 1984 Issues, Beyond the Bottom Line: An Evaluation of Low Income Tenant Cooperatives in New York City. September 1984 National Institute on Aging, Lessons From Older Persons - July 1985 Saving Abandoned Buildings. April 1984 - Department of Housing Preservation and Development, December 1984 Evaluation of Department of Alternative Management Programs for Resale of Tax Arrears Buildings Vested by New York City: Resident Perceptions (with Jacqueline Leavitt). Professional Activities: Editorial Associate Editor, Environment and Behavior, ) 1980-present Editorial Board, Environment and Behavior, 1974-1980 Editorial Board, Human Ecoloav, 1976-1980 Member -Americen Psychological Association -Society for the Study of Social Issues -Environmental Design Research Association Elected Office -Member at Large, Executive Committee, Division 34, Population and Environment, American Psychological Association, 1980-1982 -Board of Directors, Environmental Design Research Association, 1983-present
Susan Saegert Page Four Professional Activities (continued): Elected Orrice (continued): Co-Chairperson, Environmental Design Research Association, 1986-87 -President-elect, Division 34, Population and Environment, American Psychological Association, 1985-86; President, 1986-87. University: 1980 to present -Executive Committee, Center for the Study of Women and Sex Roles, The City University of New York Graduate School 1974 to 1977 -Deputy Executive Officer, Department of Psychology,The Graduste School and University Center, The City University of New York l 1976 to present -Executive Committee Member, The Center for Human Environments, The Graduate School and University Center, The City University of New York 1977 t'o 1979 -Executive Committee Member, Institute for Research in Human Affairs, The Graduate School and University Center, The City University of New York 1977 to present -Review Committee Member, Faculty Research Award Program Books and Monorraohs: Saegert, S. (Ed.). (1975). Crowding in real environments. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications (Sage Social Science Monograph l No.25; reprinted from Environment and Behavior special issue
- 1975, 7, Whole No. 2).
Lamont, R., Kaplan, F., & Saegert, S. ( Eds. ). (1980, Spring). Women in public and private spaces. Special issue of Centerooint. l l
l Susan Saegert Page Five Other Publications: m: Saegert, S., & Jellison, J. M. (1970). Effects of initial leve: of response competition and frequency of exposure on liking and exploratory behavior. Journal or Personality and so g Psycholorv. 11, 553-558. (Also presented at Midweseern Psychological Association Convention, May 1970). 1921:
- Rajecki, D. W.,
&' Saegert, S. (1971). Effects of methamphetamine hydrochloride on imprinting in White Leghorn chicks. Psychonomic Science, G, 7 8. 1923: Saegert, S. (1973). Crowding: Behavioral constraints and cognitive overload. In W. Preiser (Ed.), Environmental Desian Research, Proceedings or the EDRA IV Conference. Stroudsburg, PA: Dowden, Hutchinson & Ross. Saegert, S., & Rajecki, D. W. (1973). Effects of prior exposure to animate objects on approach tendency in chicks. Behavioral Bielorv_, Q., 749-754. Saegert. S.,
- Swap, W., & Zajonc, R.B.
(1973). The effects of mere exposure on interpersonal attraction. Journal of Personality M Social Psycholorv, 5, 234-242. Reprinted in T. Blass (Ed.), Contemocrary social osvcholorve Reoresentative readings.
- Itasca, IL: Peacock Publications, 1976.
Holahan, C. J., & Saegert, S. (1973). The psychological impact of planned environmental change: Remodeling a psychiatric ward in an urban hospital. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, QZ,454-462. i 192a:
- Saegert, 3.
(1974). The effects of social and spatial density on arousal, mood, and social orientation. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Michigan. E:
- Saegert, S.,
Mackintosh, E., & West, S. (1975). Two studies of crowding in urban public spaces. Environment and Behavior, 7_, 159-184.
/ Susan Saegert Page Six Other Publications (continued):
- Saegert, S.
(1975). Stress-inducing and reducing qualities of environments. In H. Proshansky, W. Ittelson & L. Rivlin (Eds.), Environmental Psveholorv_, 2nd edition. New York:
- Holt, Rinehardt & Winston.
- Saegert, S.
(1975, May). House and home in the lives of women. Presented at Environmental Design Research Association Conference VI, Lawrenoe, Kansas. (Reprinted in Centerooint An Inter. Disciolinary Journal.) 1971: Saegert, S. (1976, December). Book review of Crowdine and Behavior by J. Freedman. Journal of Architectural Resenreb,1, 40-41.
- Saegert, S.
(Chairperson) (1976. Hay). Toward better person-environment relations: Changing sex roles and changing environmental needs. Workshop at Environmental Design Research Association Conference VII, Vancouver, B. C. Summary in Proceedinas of the Env i ronmental Design Fesearch Association Conference VII,1976. 19.71 :
- Saegert, S.,
& Hart, R. (1977, Spring). The development of environmental competence in girls and boys. The Newsletter for the Society for the Society for the Ethnorrachie Study of Plav. (Reprinted in M. Salter (Ed.), Plav: An anthronological Dersoeotive, 1978, 157-175.)
- Juhasz, J., & Saegert, S.
(1977, April). The significance of symbols in the environment. Research Association Conference VIII.Co-chaired workshop at Environmental Design Summary in the Proceedines of the Environmental Desian Research Association Conferened Ylli, Dowden, Hutchinson & Ross, 1977.
- Langer, E., & Saegert, S.
(1977). Crowding and cognitive control. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35, 175-182. i i
Susan Saegert Page Seven Other Publications (continued): 1911:
- Saegert, S.
(1978). The personal and social consequences of high density environments. In A. Baum & Y. Epstein (Eds.), Human Resoonses to Crowdina. Hillside, NJ: Erlbaum Associates.
- McCarthy, D., & Saegert, S.
(1978). Residential density, social overload and social withe.'awal. Human Ecoloav_, ( (3), 253-271. (Reprinted in J. Aiello & A. Haum, Hieh density residential environments. Hillside, NJ: Erlbaum Associates, 1979.) Love, K., & Saegert, S. (1978). Crowding and cognitive limits. New York Center for Human Environments. ISEE: Saegert, S. (1980). A systematic approach to high density settings: Psychological, social and physical environment factors. In M. Gurkaynak & W. LeCompte (Eds.), Human consecuences or crowdine. New York: Plenum Press, pp. 67-82. Saegert, S. (1980, Summer). Masculine cities and feminine suburbs: Polarized ideas, contradictory realities. Siens An I Interdisciolinarv Journal or Women and Culture, Special Supplement. Reissued as K. Stimpson, M. Nelson., & K. Yaktrakas, Women and the American city. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1981, pp. 93-108. Saegert, S., & Winkel, G. (1980). The home: A critical problem for changing sex roles. In G. Wekerle, R. Peterson & D. Horley 1 (Eds.), New snaces for women. Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press, pp. 41-64. 19.11:
- Saegert, S.
(1981). Crowding and cognitive limits. In J. Harvey (Ed.), Coenition. socini behavior and the environment. Erlbaum Associates.
- Hillside, NJ:
- Saegert, S.
(1981). Re sid en tial density and psychological development. Proceedines or the Jaoan-United States Seminar on Psycholorv and the Environment. Tokyo, Japan: National Science Foundation sponsored publication.Nipon University, e ,,,--..--n
Susan Saegert Page Eight Other Publications (continued): 13.62:
- Saegert, S.
(1982). Environment and children's mental health: Residential density and low income children. In A. Baum & J. Singer (Eds.), Handbook of osvcholony and health, t, Hillside, NJ: Erlbaum Associates, pp. 247-271. Saegert, S. (1982). Towards an androgenous city. In G. Cappert & D. Knight (Eds.), Cities of the twenty-first century. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications, pp. 196-212.
- Saegert, S.
(1982, October). High density society and individual experiences: Problems and resolutions. In Man and Soace, Report of the International Association of Traffic and Safety Sciences Symposium. Saegert, S., & Maltz, N. J. (1982). Girls' and boys' representation of home and neighborhood. New York: Center for Human Environments. 13.6.4: . Leavitt, J., & Saegert, S. (1984, Summer). ' Women and abandoned buildings: A feminist approach to housing. Social Poliev, pp. 32-39. 1325:
- Saegert, S., Liebman, T., & Melting, A.
(1985). Planning the city for working women: The Denver experience. In E. Birch ( Ed. ), The Unsheltered Woman _. New Brunswick, NJ: Center for Urban Policy Research, Rutgers, University. pp. 83-100.
- Saegert, S.
(1985). The androgenous city: From critique to l practice. Sociological Focus, 11 (2), pp. 161-176. l 1SM:
- Saegert, S.
(1986). The role of housing in the experience of dwelling. In I. Altman & C. Werner (Eds.), Home Environments Vol. 8 in the series Human Behavior and Environments. New York: Plenum Publishing Corp. Saegert, S. (1986). Environmental psychology and the world beyond the mind. G. Stanlev Hall Lectures for 1985. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. _ _ _ _ - _ _ - _ - ~ _ - - - _ - - _ - - - - - - - - - -..-,
I Susan Saegert Page Nine Other Publications (continued): 1962: Saegert, S. (in press). Environmental psychology and social change. In I. Altman & D. Stokola (Eds), Handbook of Environnental l Psycholorv, New York: John Wiley.
- Saegert, S.
(in press). Environment as material, artifact and matrix. In P. Springer & D. Jodelet (Eds.). Toward a social osvcholorv of the environ==n t. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. Technic 31 Reoorts:
- Saegert, S., & Paxson, L.
(1982). Downtown Denver employees and the market for downtown housing. Prepared for Denver Housing Authority. j Leavitt, J., & Saegert, S. (1985). The tenants report: A study of ( DAMP buildings after sale. Prepared for the Department of i Housing Preservation and Development, Division of Alternative Management Program. New York: Center for Human Environments.
- Conn, M., & Saegert, S.
(1985). Teenager's experiences in Phipps Plaza South. Prepared for Phipps Houses, New York: Center for Human Environments. Pecent Consultation Winter Expert witness before the Suffolk County Legislature 1982 - 1984 regarding psychological issues in planning for a 1986-present nuclear emergency. Recent Invited Lectures and Conference Particination August 1981 Chairperson of symposium: " Feminist Issues in Urban Communities," presentation with Marilyn Gittell, " Women and community organizations," American l Psychological Association Annual Convention, Los Angeles. November 1981 " Social and Psychological Issues in Housing." Invited address to Program in Environment and Behavior, School of Architecture and Planning. University of Michigan. l
= Susan Saegert Page Ten Recent Invited Lectures and Conference Particination January 1982 " Aspects of Housing Design and Development Affecting Women. Invited presentation to Seminar on Women and Housing, sponsored by Donna Shalala, President of Hunter College and the Ford Foundation. March 1982 " Women and the City." Keynote speech, Conference on Women and the City, Alverno College, Milwaukee, Wisconsin. April 1982 (with Lynn Paxson), Symposium organizer, New Research and Findings in Housing. Paper presented: Denver's l Downtown Workforce and Questions of Urban Housing. Environmental Design Research Association Conference, College Park, Maryland. August 1982 (with N. J. Maltz), Girls' and Boys' Representations of Home and Neighborhood. Paper presented at American Psychological Association Conference, Washington, D. C. April 1983 Special EDRA Board Event. The Gender Gap: Does it Exist in Environmental Design and Research? Panel Member. Environmental Design Research Association Conference 14, Lincoln, Nebraska. t } August 1982 (with N. J. Maltz), Workshop on Children's Perceptions of Home and Neighborhood Environments. Environmental Design Research Association Conference 14, Lincoln, Nebraska. June 1984 Workshop on Social Science and Society: How Do Environmental Psychologists See the Relationship. Panel Member. 15th Annual Conference of the Environmental Design Research Association, San Luis Obispo, California. Workshop on Women and Housing. Panel Member. 15th Annual Conference on the Environmental Design Research Association, San Luis Obispo, California. Workshop on Researching the Suburbs. Panel Member. 15th Annual Conference of the Environmental Design
- Research Association, San Luis Obispo, California.
October 1984 The Androgenous City. Panel preeentation on the Feminization of Poverty to the American Planning Council Society, Annual Meeting in New York City.
,a Susan Saegert Page Eleven Recent Invited Lecturen and Conference Particination (continued): June 1985 Invited member of Keynote panel: Environmental Psychology and Social Change. 16th Annual Conference of the Environmental Design Research Association, New York, New York. i Co-Chairperson Plenary session: Housing in the Twenty First Century. 16th Annual Conference of the Environmental Design Research Association, New York, New York August 1985 Discussant Panel on Environmental Psychological Research on Correction Facilities. American Psychologist Association Annual Conference, Los Angeles, California. l t e f e
J I EXHIBIT 3 l
Exhibit 3 p+ CURRICULUM VITAE James H. Johnson, Jr. Mniling Address Home Address Department of Geography 15325 Mapolia Blvd. f 305 University of. California Sherman Oaks, CA 91403 Los Angeles, CA 90024 (818) 789-5506 (213) 825-1415/825-1071 EDUCATION: B.S., Geography, North Carolina Central University, 1975. M.S., Geography, University of Wisconsin-Madison, 1977. Ph.D., Geography, Michigan State. University, 1980. FIELDS OF SPECIALIZATION: Teaching and Research Systematic: energy policy and planning, urban, social l geography of the inner city. Methods: research design, theory and methodology in geography. SPECIAL HONORS: Recipient of the Theodore R. Speigner Award for the highest academic average, Department of Geography, North Carolina Central University, 1975. Summa Cum Laude Graduate, Department of Geography, North Carolina Central University, 1975. Selected as an Outstanding Young Man in America by the Jaycees in 1976. Graduate Fellow, Department of Geography, University of Wisconsin-Madison, 1975-77. 4 Recipient of the first place award ($100) for the best graduate student paper presented at the East Lakes Division of the Association of American Geographers Annual Meetings, Michigan State University, September 15-16, 1978. Recipient of a Ford Foundation Postdoctoral Fellowship for the 1986-87 academic year. I ACADEMIC EXPERIENCE: J Visiting Associate Professor, Department of Geography, University of Southern California, 1986-87. Director, Institute for Social Science Research, Environmental and Population Policy Studies Program, 1986-1988. l l w
y,. - James B. John on, Jr. Paga 2 Associate Professor of Geography, University of California, Los Angeles. 1985-present. Assistant Professor of Geography, University of California, Los Angeles. 1980-1985. PROFESSIONAL AND CIVIC AFFILIATIONS: Church: Member, St. John Missionary Baptist Church Falkland, North Carolina Other Organizations: Gamma Pi Chapter, Gamma Theta Upsilon Association of American Geographers Triangle Geographers Association Association of Pacific Coast Geographers Western Social Science Association American Association for the Advancement of Science IN PREPARATION: l " Nuclear Power in the U.S.: Some Unresolved Safety Consideration," (for a special issue of Environment and Planning Policy). Guest Editor, " International Perspecieves on Emergency Planning for Nuclear Power Plant Accidents," (2 Special' issues of Environment and Planning C: Government & Policy). " Black Flight from the Los Angeles Metropolitan Area" (for a scientific journal, April, 1987). l " Migration Patterns Influencing Black Population Change in the i Southern United States" (for a scientific journal, May,1987). Composite Review of Protest Is Not Enough, by R.P. Browning, D.R. I l Marshall, and D.H. Tabb; and The Suburban Squeeze, by D.E. Dowall, Environment and Planning A. I Planning for Nuclear Power Plant Accidents (a research monograph to be completed in early 1988). Rsview of Nuclear Power: Siting and Safety, by Stan Openshaw, Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers. PUBLICATIONS: 1977 " Black Migration as a Response to Social Psychological Stress: A Note on Migrant Letters, 1916-1918," Proceedings, New England-St. Lawrence Valley Geographi-cal Society, Vol. 6, pp. 42-46 (with Walter C. Farrell, Jr.). t
James H. Jchnson, Jr. Paga 3 PUBLICATIONS (Continued): l 1978 " Black Migration as a Response to Social-Psychological Stress: A Note on Migrant Letters, 1916-1918," The Geographical Survey, Vol. 7, pp. 22-27 (with Walter C. Farrell, Jr.) a revised version. 1978 " Black Philadelphians: A Factorial Ecology," Proceedings, Pennsylvania Academy of Sciences, Vol. 52, pp. 91-95 (with Walter C. Farrell, Jr., and John D. Oliver). 1979 "The Quality of Afro-American Life in Houston, Texas: A Geographical Perspective," in J. Pinder and R. Proctor, Persoectives on the Urban South: Selected Papers from the Tourth Annual Conference, pp. 207-221.
- Norfolk, Virginia:
Norfolk State College and Old Dominion University, 1979, (with Walter C. Farrell, Jr., and Patricia Johnson). 1979 "Recent Methodological Developments and the Geography of Black America," The Pennsylvania Geographer, Vol. 17, pp. 19-30 (with Walter C. Farrell, Jr.). 1979 "Phenomenology in Geography," The Geographical Survey, Vol. 8, pp. 3-9 (with Walter C. Farrell, Jr. ). 1979 '.' Educational Concern of Inner City Bl'ack Parents," ERIC Document (June 1979), #106-297 (with Walter C. Farrell, Jr.). 1979 " Preliminary Report on a Social Survey of Three Mile Island Area Residents." Department of Geography, Michigan State University, May 1979 (with Stanley D. Brunn and Donald J. Zeigler). 1979 " Final Report on a Social Survey of Three Mile Island Area Residents." Department of Geography, Michigan State University, August 1979, 220 pp. (with Stanley D. Brunn and Donald J. Zeigler). 1979 " Preliminary Review and Analysis of Electric Utility Rate Reform: Implications for Oakland and Livingston Counties, Michigan." Report for Michigan Community Action Agency Association and Oakland-Livingston Human Services Agency, under contract #71-3698. Departments of Geography and Agricultural Economics and Center for Environmental Quality, Michigan State University, September 24, 1979 (with Bradley T. Cullen). 1979 " Spatial Patterns of Alcohol Outlets in the Washington, 1 D.C. Black Community," Proceedings, Pennsylvania Academy of Sciences, Vol. 53, pp. 589-97 (with Marvin P. Dawkins and " alter C. Farrell, Jr.). a.. e -__---s.__ --,,-,,7,, _ _ _q,
James H. Johnson, Jr. Pegs 4 PUBLICATIONS (Continued): 1980 " Residential Preference Patterns of Afro-Americt.n College Students in Three Different States." The Professional Geographer, Vol. 32, pp. 37-42 (wItE Stanley D. Brunn). 1980 " Spatial and Behavioral Aspects of the Counterstream Migration of Blacks to the South," in Brunn, Stanley D. and James O. Wheeler, eds., The American Metropolitan I System: Present and Future. New York: John Wiley and Sons, Scripta Series in Geography, Victor Winston Pub-lisher, 1980, pp. 59-75 (with Stanley D. Brunn). 1980 "Locational Conflict and Public Attitudes Regarding the Burial of Nuclear Waste: The Alpena, Michigan Experi-ence." East Lakes Geographer, Vol. 15, pp. 24-40 (with Stanley D. Brunn and Brian McGirr). 1981 " Evacuation from the Nuclear Technological Disaster at Three Mile Island," The Geographical Review, Vol. 17, pp. 1-16 (with Stanley D. Brunn and Donald J. Zeigler). 1981 " Household Energy Consumption in Oakland and Livingston Counties, Michigan: Some Patterns, Alternatives and Policy Implications." A Report for the Michigan Commun-icy Action Agency Association and the Oakland-Livingsto,n Human Service Agency. East Lansing: Michigan State University, 65 pp. (with L.M. Sommers, G.A. Woods, and T.C. Miller). 1981 " Gentrification and Incumbent Upgrading: Benefits and Costs," CAAS Newsletter, Vol. 6, November, pp. 10, 16. 1982 " Implications of the Black Move to the South," Black Enterprise, Vol. 12, January, p. 21 (with Walter C. Farrell, Jr.). 1982 " Impact of Electricity Utility Rate Reform in Oakland and Livingston Counties, Michigan," Journal of Environ-mental Systems, Vol. 12, pp. 27-36 (with Bradley T. Cullen and Lawrence M. Sommers). 1982 "A Note on Black Migration to the South," Geographical Perspectives, Number 49, pp. 38-43. 1982 "Further Analysis and Interpretation of the Shoreham Evacuation Survey," in Suffolk County Radiological Emergency Response Plan, Vol. 3, November, 1982, 71 pp., 17 tables, 2 figs. (with Donald J. Zeigler). 1983 "The Role of Community Action in Neighborhood Revitali-zation," Urban Geography, Vol. 4, pp. 16-39.
~ 3 James H. Jchnson, Jr. Paga 5 PUBLICATIONS (Continued): 1983 " Implications of Electric Utility Rate Reform Legisla-tion for Low Income Households in Oakland and Living-ston Counties, Michigan," The Social Science Journal, Vol. 20, pp. 87-97 (with Bradley T. Cullen and Lawrence M. Sommers). 1983 Review of Not on My Street, by M.J. Dear and S.M. Taylor, Environment and Planning A, Vol.15, pp. 861-863. 1983 " Distinguishing Human Responses to Radiological Emer-gencies," Economic Geography, Vol. 59, pp. 386-402. (with D.J. Zeigler). j 1983 " Reactions of Public School Teachers to a Possible i Accident at the Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant," a research report prepared for the California Teachers Association, San Luis Obispo County Chapter, July. 1983 Technological Hazards, Resource Publications in Geog-raphy, Washington, DC: Association of American Geog-raphers. (with Donald J. Zeigler and Stanley D. Brunn). 1984 "A Spatial Analysis of Evacuation Intentions at the 1 Shoreham Nuclear Power Station," pp. 279-301 in Nuclear t Power: Assessing and Managing Hazardous Technology, edited by M.J. Pasqualetti and K.D. Fijaw'ka, Boulder, CO: Westview Press. (with Donald J. Zeigler). 1984 Review of Revitalizing Cities, by H. Braviel Holcomb and Robert Beauregard, The Professional Geographer, Vol. 36, p. 387. 1984 " Planning for Spontaneous Evacuation During a Radiologi-cal Emergency," Nuclear Safety, Vol. 25, pp. 186-194. i 1984 " Inter-ethnic Conflict in an Urban Ghetto: The Case of Blacks and Latinos in Los Angeles," pp. 57-94 in Vol. 6 of Research in Social Movements, Conflict and Change, Greenwich, Conn: JAI Press. (with M.L. Oliver). I i 1984 " Energy Assistance and the Poor: An Evaluation and Alternative Allocation Procedure," Energy, Vol. 9, pp. 571-581. (with B.T. Cullen). 1984 " Evacuation Behavior in Response to Nuclear Power Plant Accidents," The Professional Geographer, Vol. 36, pp. 207-215. (with D.J. Zeigler). i w w-,,,---,-,i,,---y-w ,v-----,w,---,----------w-ww-----m,,.--e w e wwe--wy- --~-hm -g.y.---,-erwwr-
- w^*'----
w d'W5"" -*--*-"*-7----*-
Jcmeo H. Johnson, Jr. Page 6 i PUBLICATIONS (Continued): \\ i 1984 "Towards a Regional Approach to Radiological Emergency Response Planning," Papers and Proceedings of Applied Geography Conferences,'7:ll4-122. j 1 1985 " Planning for Nuclear Power Plant Accidents: Some i Neglected Spatial and Behavioral Considerations,"~in l Geographical Dimensions of Energy, edited by l F.J. Calzonetti and B.D. Solomon, Dordrecht, Holland: D. Reidel Publishing Co., pp. 123-154. 1985 " Role Conflict in a Radiological Emergency: The Case.of Public School Teachers," Journal of Environmental Systems, j Vol. 15: 77-91. 1985 "A Model of Nuclear Reactor Emergency Evacuation Decision-Making,"' Geographical Review, Vol. 75: 405-418. 1985 Review of Solar and Wind Energy, by M.T. Katzman, Geographical Review, Vol. 75: 495-497. 1985 " Black-Brown Conflic in the City of Angels," Urban Resources, Vol. 2: LAl-LA5. (with M.L. Oliver). I 1985 " Summary Report on a Social Survey of Century Freeway l Displacee Households in the City of Hawthorne," a report prepared for the Center for Law in the Public Interest, Los Angeles, July. 1986 " Evacuation Planning for Technological Hazards: An Emerging Imperative," Cities, Vol. 3, 148-156 (with D.J. Zeigler). 1986 " Evacuation Decision-Making at Three Mile Island," chapter 12 in Politics and Planning for the Nuclear State, edited by David Pepper and Andrew Blowers, London, Croom Helm Ldt, pp. 267-289. (with D.J. Zeigler). 1986 "Modelling Evacuation Behavior During the Three Mile Island Nuclear Reactor Crisis," Socio-economic Planning Sciences, Vol. 20, 165-171 (with D.J. Zeigler). 1986 Review of Back to the City: Issues in Neighborhood Renovation, by S.B. Laska and D. Spain, Geography Research Forum, Vol. 8, forthcoming. 1986 " Evaluating Nuclear Reactor Emergency Information Maps," Technical Papers, 1986 ACSM-ASPRS Annual Conference, Vol. 1 pp. 67-75. (with R.B. McMaster and S. Friedman). _ _ _ _ _. _ _ _ _.. _. - _ _. _ - _ _ _ _. _ _. _ _ _ _ _,.. - -,. _ __-. __ _ _,._. _ _-- ~.
Jameo H. Jehuron, Jr. Pago 7 PUBLICATIONS (Continued): 1986 Review of Comprehensive Emergency Management: Evacuating Threatened Population, by R.W. Ferry, Environment and Planning A, Vol.' 18: 840-842. 1986 " Predicting Nuclear Reactor Emergency Evacuation Behavior," Energy, The International Journal, Vol. 11:861-868. 1986 Review of Social and Economic Aspects of Radioactive Waste Disposal, by Panel on Social and Economic Aspects of Radioactive Waste Management, Professional Geographer, Vol. 38:452-453. 1987 " Blacks and the Toxics Crisis," The Urban League Review, forthcoming (with M.L. Oliver). 1987 " Assessing Community Vulnerability to Hazardous Materials With a Geographic Information System," Proceedings Auto l Cart 8, forthcoming (with R.B. McMaster). PRESENTATIONS - PROFESSIONAL MEETINGS: 1976 Annual Meeting, New England-St. Lawrence Valley Geogra-phical Society, " Black Migration as a Response to Psycho-Social Stress: A Note on Migrant Letters," Salem, Massachusetts. 1976 Annual Meeting, Association for the Study of Afro- ) American Life and History, Commentator for session " Considerations in Culture," Chicago, Illinois. i 1977 Annual Meeting, Popular Culture Association, " Folk Reasons for Early 20th Century Black Migration," i Baltimore, Maryland (with Walter C. Farrell, Jr., and Phillip Kitchart). 1978 Annual Meeting, Norfolk State College and Old Dominion University Conference on the Urban South, "The Quality of Afro-American Life in Houston, Texas: A Geographi-cal Perspective," Norfolk, Virginia (with Walter C. Farrell, Jr.). 1978 Annual Meeting, Michigan Academy of Sciences, " Factors Influencing the Decline of White and Non-White Operated Farms in the Central Coastal Plains of North Carolina, 1945-1969," Ypsilanti, Michigan (with Walter C. Farrell, Jr.). 1978 Annual Meeting, Pennsylvania Academy"of Science, " Black Philadelphians: A Factorial Ecology, Champion, Penn-sylvania (with Walter C. Farrell, Jr.). l - - - ~ - - - ..---n
James H. Jchnson, Jr. Page 8 PRESENTATIONS - PROFESSIONAL MEETINGS (Continued): 1978 Annual Meeting, East Lakes Division, Association of American Geogrphers. " Spatial Variations in Attitudes Toward Nuclear Waste Disposal in Alpena, Michigan," East Lansing, Michigan (with Brian J. McGirr). 1979 Annual Meeting, Norfolk State College and Old Dominion University Conference on the Urban South, " Black Migra-tion to the South: A Focus on Durham, North Carolina," Norfolk, Virginia (with Walter C. Farrell, Jr.). 1979 Sixth Annual National Conference on the Black Family, " Searching for Elbow Room: A Perspective on Southern Black Migration," Louisville, Kentucky (with Walter C. Farell, Jr.). 1979 Annual Meeting, Michigan Academy of Sciences, " Urban Homesteading and Historic Preservation: Problems and Prospects," Mt. Pleasant, Michigan (with Walter C. Farrell, Jr.). 1979 Annual Meeting, Pennsylvania Academy of Science, " Spatial Patterns of Alcohol Outlets in the Washington, D.C. Black Community," Mount Pocono, Pennsylvania (with) Marvin P. Dawkins and Walter C. Farrell, Jr..). 1979 Annual Meeting, East Lakes Division, Association of l American Geographers, " Electricity' Utility Rate Reform ) or Maintenance of the Status Quo?, Akron, Ohio (with Bradley T. Cullen). l 1979 Quarterly Meeting, Michigan Community Action Agency Association, " Preliminary Review and Analysis of Elec-tric Utility Rate Reform: Implications for Oakland and Livingston Counties, Michigan," Lansing, Michigan. 1979 Monthly Meeting, Oakland-Livingston Human Service j Agency, " Benefits and Costs of Lifeline Electric Utility Rate Reform," Pontiac, Michigan. 1979 Annual Meeting, Southeast Division, Association of American Geographers, "Locational Conflict and Public Attitudes Regarding the Burial of Nuclear Waste: The Alpena, Michigan Experience," Nashville, Tennessee j (with Stanley D. Brunn and Brian J. McGirr). i 1981 Annual Meeting, Western Social Science Association, " Electric Utility Rate Reform: The Significance of the Spatial Factor," San Diego, California. 1981 Annual Meeting, Southwestern Economics Association, "Combinatorial Programming Solution to a Park and Ride Mass Transit Problen " 'allas, Texas (with Bradley T. Cullen).
Jcmas H. Jchnson, Jr. Pzgs 9 PRESENTATIONS - PROFESSIONAL MEETINGS (Continued): 1981 Annual Meeting, Association of American Geographers, " Location-Allocation Model of Vanpool Park and Ride Sites: The Lansing, Michigan Example," Los Angeles, California (with Bradley T. Cullen and Lawrence M. Sommers). 1982 Annual Meeting, Association of American Geographers, "Regionalization as a Step Toward Developing a National l Energy Policy," San Antonio, Texas. 1983 Annual Meeting, Southeastern Division of the Association of American Geographers, "The Evacuatioin Shadow Phenom-Comparing Behavioral Response to Nuclear Acci-enon: dents," Orlando, Florida, November 20-22 (with Donald J. Zeigler). 1984 Annual Meeting, Association of American Geographers, " Distinguishing Human Responses to Radiological Emer-gencies," Washington, D.C., April (with Donald J. Zeigler). 1984 Seventh Annual Applied Geography Conference, "Towards a Regional Approach to Radiological Emergency Response Planning," Tallahasse, FL, November 1-3. 1984 Annual Meeting, S'outhwest Division of the Association of Aberican Geogra hers, "An Analysis of a Household Energy Use Survey,p' Lubbock, TX, September 20-21 (with B.T. Cullen). 1985 Annual Meeting, Association of American Geographers, " Attitudes Toward the U.S. Energy Problem: The Case of Michigan," Detroit, MI, April. 1985 Annual Meeting, Association of American Geographers, " Attitudes Toward the U.S. Energy Problem," Detroit, Michigan, April (with B. T. Cullen and Lawrence Sommers), i 1985 Eighth Annual Applied Geography Conference, " Role Conflict in a Radiological Emergency: The Case of Public School Teachers," Denton, Texas, November. INVITED LECTURES AND TESTIMONY: 1976 Prairie View A&M University, Department of Economics, Geography", and Social Science and the School of Agri-
- culture, The Effects of Mechanization on the Produc-tion of Flue-Cured Tobacco in the Coastl Plains of North Carolina," Prairie View, Texas.
1
James H. Jchn2on, Jr. Page 10 INVITED LECTURES AND TESTIMONY (Continued): 1977 Cheyney State College, Urban Studies Department, " Data Gathering Techniques in the Social Sciences," Cheyney, Pennsylvania. 1978 Monthly Meeting, Woodbridge Neighborhood Citizens Coun-cil, " Benefits and Costs of Neighborhood Revitaliza-tion," Detroit, Michigan. 1980 Comments on the Revision of Chapter 90 (Liquor and Tavern Regulation) of the Milwaukee Code and Related Concerns. Presented to the Utilities and Licenses Committee of the Milwaukee, Wisconsin, Common Council, November 3 (with Walter C. Farrell, Jr.). 1981 Special Faculty Lecture Series, UCLA, Bi-Centennial Symposium on the Human and Physical Ecology of the City, "The Ghettoization of Blacks in Los Angeles." University of California at Los Angeles. 1981 Faculty Seminar Series, Center for Afro-American Stud-ies, " Spatial Perspectives on Counter-stream Black i Migration to the South," University of California at Los Angeles. 19B2 Testimony Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board, United States of America Nuclear Regulatory Commission. In the Matter of Pacific Gas and Electric Company (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2) (Emergency Planning Proceedings) January 19, 1982. l 1983 " Evacuation Planning for Radiological Emer encies," Department of Geography, University of Cal fornia at Davis, Davis, California, January. 1983 Testimony Before the Suffolk County (NY) Legislature Regarding Emergency Planning for the Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, January 24, (with Donald J. Zeigler). 1983 Testimony Before Governor Cuomo's Commission Investi-gating Emergency Planning for the Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, July (with Donald J. Zeigler). l 1983 Testimony Before the San Luis Obispo County School Board of Education. In the Matter of the San Luis Obispo County Nuclear Power Plant Emergency Response Plan, August. 1
James H. Johnson, Jr. Pggs 11 1 INVITED LECTURES AND TESTIMONY (Continued): 1983 Testimony Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board, United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission. In the Matter of Long Island Lighting Company (Shoreham Nuclear i Power Station, Unit 1), Docket No. 50-322-OL-03 (Emer- ] gency Planning) (with Kai T. Erikson on contention 25 - role conflict). December. i 1983 Testimony Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board, j United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission. In the Matter of Long Island Lighting Company (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1), Docket No. 50-322-OL-03) (with Donald J. Zeigler on contention 23 - the evacuation j shadow phenomenon). December. 1984 " Planning for Nuclear Power Plant Accidents: Some Neglected Spatial and Behavioral Considerations," Environmental Psychology Program, City University of New York, April. l 1984 "A Critical Appraisal of Radiological Emergency Prepar-edness and Response Regulations, Energy Division, Oak l, Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN, August. 1984 "A Causal Model of Nuclear Reactor Emergency Evacuation Decision-making," Department of Geography, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC, November. 1985 " Testing A Model of Radiological Emergency Evacuation Decision-making," Energy Division, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN, January. 1985 Testimony Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board, United States of America Nuclear Regulatory Commission. In the Matter of Long Island Lighting Company (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1), Docket No. 50-322 (OL) (Emergency Planning Proceedings), January. 1985 Institute of British Geographers Annual Conference, Three Mile Island Nuclear Reactor Accident,"g in the "A Causal Model of Evacuation Decision-makin Leeds, England. 1985 " Evacuation Decision-Making at TMI", Department of Geography, University of Colorado, Boulder, September. 1985 Testimony before the United States District Court, Central District of California. In the matter of the Displacement of Households for the Construction of the Century Freeway, July. I l l
James H. Jchnsen, Jr. Paga 12 INVITED, LECTURES AND TESTIMONY (Continued): 1986 " Black-Brown Conflict in the City of Angeles," Department of Geography, University of Southern California, January. -1986 " Inter-ethnic Conflict in the Los Angeles Black Ghetto," Department of Geography, San Diego State University, February. MEDIA INTERVIEWS AND PUBLICATIONS: 1977 " Incentive to Poor?" response to editorial "No Free Abortion," Tulsa World (August 26, 1977), p. 5. 1978 WKAR (radio), East Lansing, Michigan. " Nuclear Waste Disposal in Northeastern Michigan. 1979 " Lifeline Bill Will Not Aid Poor," The State News (October 9, 1979) with Bradley T. Cullen. 1979 WKAR (radio), E.ast Lansing, Michigan. " Social Survey of Three Mile 1;1and Area Residents." (with Stanley D. Brunn and Donald Zeigler). 1979 WELM, Channel 11, East Lansing, Michigan. " Preliminary Report on a-Social Survey of Three Mile Island Area Residents." '(with Stanley D. Brunn and Donald J. Zeigler). ARTICLES WRITTEN BY OTHERS REGARDING MY WORK: 1978 Fran Murray, "Alpena Recidents Still Oppose Nuclear Waste Site," press release, Department of Information Services, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan, September 21, 1978. 1978 United Press International. "Alpena County Still Against a Waate Dump Site," Detroit News (September 24, 1978). A number of other Michigan cities' newspapers carried accounts from the original news release. i 1979 Fran Murray, " Residents of Three Mile Island Area Fear Impact of Disaster," press release, Department of Infor-J l mation Services, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Micchigan, May 18. 1979. 1979 Fran Murray, "U Survey of Three Mile Island Area Issue," I MSU News Bulletin (October 31, 1979), p. 2. 1979 Ellis Cose, "In the Aftermath of Three Mile Island," Detroit Free Press (October 31, 1979), p. 10A. l l
Jam 2s H. Johnson, Jr. Pago 13 ARTICLES WRITTEN BY OTHERS REGARDING MY WORK (Continued): 1979 Karen Zurawski, "Eastown Community Association Study Movements of People," Photo Reporter (October 1, 1979),
- p. 1.
1982 Frances Cerra, " Evacuation Plan Stirs Old Doubts," New York Times (May 16, 1982), Section 21, p. 1. 1983 S.E. Seager, " Disaster Plan Debate Grows," Telegraph Tribune, August 3, p. 1. 1983 Cheryle Johnson, "Would Teachers Abandon Children in an Emergency," Five Cities Times Press Recorder, August 5,
- p. 1.
1983 S.E. Seager, " Evacuation Survey May Show Flaws in Plan," Telegraph' Tribune, March 19, p. A-3. 1983 Carl Hall, " Coming Home: More Blacks Moving Back to South," Arkansas Democrat, July 31, IF-8F. O a
g t i t EXHIBIT 4 i
Exhibit 4 CURRICULUM VITAE NAME & ADDIGSS: David liarris Date of Birth: June 3,1932 438 Woodbury Road Huntington, N.Y.11743 Telephone liome: (516) 367-9226 Office: (516) 348-2700 EDUCATION: Cornell University, Ithaca, New York 1949-1952 - No degree New York University School of Medicine 1952-1956 - M.D. degree Columbia University School of Public Ilealth & Administrative Medicine 1964-1965 - M.P.li. degree SPECIALTY CERTIFICATIONS: American 130ard of Pediatrics - December 1961 American Board of Preventive Medicine - June 1969 MEDICAL LICENSE: New York, 1957 (#80968) POSITIONS IIELD: Commissioner of Ilealth Services Suffolk County, New York March 1977 - Present The Suffolk County Department of Health Services is a unified health agency comprised of all governmental health services for Suffolk's 1.3 million population. The Commissioner of Health Services directs.a staff of more than 1300 and is responsible for a budget in excess of $80,000,000. The Department, formed as a "superagency" in 1973 by combining previously existing separate departments, provides classical public health activities, patient care services (including a network of 8 ambulatory care centers delivering 250,000 patient visits a year and a 215 bed skilled nursing facility) mental health and mental retardation services, alcoholism and substance abuse services, environmental health services, emergency medical services, an AMA accredited Jail llealth Service, the Office of the Chief Medical Examiner and the forensic sciences and public health laboratories. The Commissioner of Ilealth Services coordinates and directs all these activities, is Chairman of the Board of IIcalth and reports directly to the County i Executive, the chief elected official of Suffolk County. l Deputy Commissioner of licalth Services Suffolk County, New Ycrk August 1975 - February 1977 Associate Director, The Mount Sinai llospital 100 Street & Fifth Avenue, New York July 1971 - August 1975 The Associate Director of The Mount Sinai llospital, one of the oldest and largest teaching hospitals in the nation, reported directly to the Director of the llospital and was in effect the Chief Operating Officer l for all professional services, including clinical medical departments, nursing, social services, volunteer services and the $16.000,000 affiliation contract for professional services at Elmhurst City llospital. l l
y . i. ,~ POSITIONS HELD: Deputy Commissioner New York City Department of Health July 1969 - July 1971 The New York City Health Department, at the time of my association with it, employed more than 4,000 individuals and had a budget of approximately _ $100,000,000. The Deputy Commissioner of Health was responsible for the direction of major professional programs, including maternal and child health, public health laboratories, the control of chronic and communicable diseases, nutrition and nursing services. Assistant Commissioner, Maternal & Child Health Services New York City Department of Health July 1967 - June 1969 Director, Bureau of Handicapped Children New York City Department of Health June 1965 - July 1967 ACADEMIC APPOINTMENTS Professor of Clinical Community & Preventive Medicine State University of New York at Stony Brook 1975 - Present Professor of Clinical Pediatrics State Umversity of New York at Stony Brook 1981 - Present Lecturer in Public Health Columbia University School of Public Health July 1972 - Present Adjunct Professor New School for Social Research 1978 - Present Adjunct Professor C. W. Post Center of Long Island University 1978 - Present Associate Professor of Administrative Medicine The Mount Sinal School of Medicine July 1971 - August 1975 Assistant Professor of Pediatrics The Mount Sinai School of Medicine July 1971 - August 1975 Adjunct Assistant Professor, Public Health Practices Columbia University School of Public licalth & Administrative Medicine July 1971 - June 1972 Assistant Clinical Professor of Pediatrics Albert Einstein College of Medicine j July 1967 - July 1971 Clinicalinstructor in Pediatrics Albert Einstein College of Medicine l June 1965 - July 1967 l l 2. i - - _. ~.,.. -- _. ..,_.____,_.s.~. ~
i-INTERNSHIP & . RESIDENCY TRAINING: Straight Pediatric Internship University llospitals of Cleveland Cleveland, Ohio July 1957 - July 1957 Pediatric Residency United States Naval Hospital Bethesda, Maryland July 1958 - August 1960 Public Health Residency New York City Department of Health December 1963 - December 1966 MILITARY SERVICE: United States Navy (Medical Corps) July 1957 - July 1964 Rank: Lieutenant Commander PROFESSIONAL SOCIETIES: Fellow, American College of Preventive Medicine Fellow, American Academy of Pediatrics Fellow, American Public Health Association Fellow, New York Academy of Medicine llONOR SOCIETIES: Phi Beta Kappa, Cornell University,1952 Alpha Omega Alpha, New York University School of Medicine,1956 AWARDS: Health Care Administration Award for Excellence in Management, Leadership and Public Service - C. W. Post College -1979 Certificate of Merit, Long Island Region New York State Public licalth Association -1981 Environmentalist of the Year Sierra Club, Long Island Chapter,1984 Columbia University School of Public Health Alumnus of the Year, May 1986 OTilER PROFESSIONAL ACTIVITIES & OFFICES: Medical & Health Research Association of New York City, Inc. Member, Board of Directors,1975 - Present l New York State Advisory Council on Substance Abuse 1978 - Present New York State Mental Hygiene Planning Council l_ 1982 - Present New York State Advisory Council on Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities Advisory Council,1985 - Present l C. W. Post Center of Long Island University Advisory Board,1978 - Present New School for Social Research Advisory Committee,1981 - Present New York State Public ilcalth Association President, 1981 - 1983 l
/ OTHER PROFESSIONAL i ACTIVITIES & OFFICES: New York Academy of Medicine Committee on Public Health, Vice-Chairman,1985 Committee on Public Health, Chairman,1986 Committee on Public Health, Member,1972 - Present i-Committee on Medical Education,1969 - 1971 Secretary, Pediatric Section,1970 American Public Health Association Governing Council, 1973 - 1975 and 1983 - Present Editorial Advisory Board, The Nation's Health, 1971 - 1976 Editor, Maternal & Child Health Section Newsletter,1968 -1971 Consultant, Professional Examination Service in the field of Maternal & Child Health j American College of Preventive Medicine Secretary-Treasurer, 1976 - 1978 Board of Regents,1985 - Present New York State Commission on Health Education & Illness Prevention, 1978 - 1981 Columbia University School of Public Health Alumni Association i. President, 1979 - 1980 Adelphi University School of Business Administration Advisory Board,1977 - 1978 American Academy of Pediatrics Vice-Chairman,. District II, Chapter 3,1970 - 1971 Chairman, District II, Chapter 3,1971 - 1972 White House Conference on Children Consultant,1970 I New York State Council on Health Care Financing Member, Technical Advisory Group,1982 National Fout.dation - March of Dimes, Greater New York Chapter, i Executive Committee, 1972 - 1975 Chairman, Professional Advisory Committee, 1972 - 1975 Citizens Committee for Children Consultant, 1974 - 1975 The liermann Biggs Society Executive Committee, 1974 - 1975 Public Health Association of New York City i Board of Directors, 1972 - 1975 Planned Parenthood of New York City Medical Advisory Committee,1969 - 1974 4 Mayor's Task Force on Child Abuse (New York City 1969 - 1975 Visitation Committee, New York City, Juvenile Centers 1971 - 1972 i 4. ,,_r-_..v.,,- -_,__----..,__m__,, ._-_,__-_____m_.,_ __m_,._,,__,.m____,.._,. -.....m
OTHER PROFESSIONAL ACTIVITIES & OFFICES: New York Service for Orthopedically Handicapped Professional Advisory Committee, 1966 - 1971 Project IIead Start (New York City), Medical Advisory Committee 1969 Joint Legislative Committee on Child Care Needs of the State of New York Advisory Council,1969 Mayor's Committee on Retardation (New York City) 1966 - 1968 Task Group on Transportation of Radioactive Materials in Urban Environs 1976 - 1980 American Lung Association of Nassau-Suffolk Board of Directors,1985 - Present i SCIENTIFIC PAPERS & PUTLICATIONS Harris, David and Cone, Thomas E. "Escherichia Freundii Meningitis", Journal of Pediatrics, Vol. 56, No. 6, pp. 774-777, June 1960. liarris, David; Pearson, floward A. and Avery, Gordon B. " Total Body Irradiation", Proc. Children's llospital of D.C., Vol. XVII, No. 6, pp.145-146, June 1961. Boies, Lawrence R., and Harris, David. "Nasopharyngeal Dermoid of the Newborn", Laryngoscope, Vol. LXXV, No. 5, pp. 763-767, May 1965. The Modern Medical Encyclopedia. Western Publishing Co., New York, Special Consultant Editor,1965. The Modern Medical Encyclopedia of Infant-Child Care. Western Publishing Co., New York, Associate Editor,1966. Ilarris, David, "The Development of Nurse-Midwifery in New York City", Bulletin, American College of Nurse Midwifery, Vol. XIV, pp. 4-12, February, 1969. Blackman, Norman S.; Blumenthal, Sol; Brownell, Katherine D.; Wolfson, Jean and liarris, David. " Cardiac Screening by Computerized Auscultation", American Journal of Public IIcalth, Vol. b9, No. 7, pp.1177-1187, July 1969. O'llare, Donna and liarris, David. "The Impact of Medicaid on liandicapped Children", presented at the American Public licalth Association's Annual Meeting,1969. Mayer, Shirley A.; Grossi, Margaret and Harris, David. " Epidemiology of Burns in Children", presented at the American Public Health Association *. Annual Meeting,1970. liarris, David. " Utilization of Nurse Specialist: The Viewpoint of a Public ilcalth Physician", presented at the American Public Ilealth Association's Annual Meeting,1970, liarris, David; Daily, Edwin and Lang, Dorothea. " Nurse-Midwifery in New York City", American Journal of Public licalth, Vol. 61, No.1, pp. 64-77, January 1971. S. i i
( ^ SCIENTIFIC PAPERS & PUBLICATIONS Bergner, Lawrence; Mayer, Shirley A., and Harris, David. " Falls from Heights: A Childhood Epidemic in Urban Areas", American Journal of Public Health, Vol. 61, No.1, pp. 90-96, January 1971. Ilarris, David. " Current Problems in Maternal and Child Health", New Jersey Public Health News, Vol. 52, No.1, pp.5-10, January 1971.' Pakter, Jean; Harris, David and Nelson, Frieda. " Surveillance of the Abortion Program in New York City: Preliminary Report", Clinical Obstetrics and Gynecology, Vol.14, No.1, pp. 262-291, March 1971. Pakter, Jean; Harris, David and Nelson, Frieda. " Abortion in New York City: The First Six Months", presented at the Annual Meeting of the Population Association of America, April 24,1971. Harris, David. " Developing Urban Health Services for Mothers and Children", presented at the Second Annual Maternal and Child Health Colloquium, The University of Michigan, School of Public Health, Ann Arbor, Michigan, April 30, 1971. Pakter, Jean; Harris, David and Nelson, Frieda. " Surveillance of the Abortion Program in New York City", Bulletin of the New York Academy of Medicine, Vol. 47, No. 8, pp. 853-874, August 1971. Lane, Michael F.; Barbarite, Robert V.; Bergner, Lawrence and Harris, David. " Child Resistant Medicine Containers: Experience in the Home", American Journal of Public Health, Vol. 61, No. 9, pp.1861-1868, September 1971. Calafiore, Dorothy C.; Cohen, Arlan A.; Hayes, Carl G.; Lowrimore, Gene R.; Ircson,. Robert G.; Harris, David; Camp, Maurice; Morrow, Sahar and Peacock, Peter B. " Acute Respiratory Disease Risk and Urban Air Pollution", presented at the American Public Health Association's Annual Meeting,1971. 4 Harris, David; O' Hare, Donna; Pakter, Jean and Nelson, Frieda. " Legal Abortion 1970-1971: The New York City Experience", American Journal of Public ilcalth, Vol. 63, No. 5, pp. 409-481, May 1973. Harris, David; imperato, Pascal and Oken, Barry. " Dog Bites: An Unrecognized Epidemic", presented at The American Medical Association's Annual Meeting, June 25,1974. liarris, David; imperato, Pascal and Oken, Barry. " Dog Bites in New York l City", presented at the Urban Annual Symposium, University of Texas, i School of Public flealth, September 26,1974. liarris, David; Imperato, Pascal and Oken, Barry. " Dog Bites: An Unrecognized Epidemic", Bulletin of the New York Academy of Medicine, Vol. 50, No. 9, pp. 981-1000, October 1974. liarris, David. "licalth Services for Women", presented at Seminar on Women's licalth issues, Suffolk County Community College, October 1975, i liarris, David and McLaughlin, Mary C. " Integrating Alcohol, Drug Abuse and Mental llealth at the Point of Services", presented at The New York Council on Alcoholism, Inc., Conference on Coordination of Services, Guidelines for National !!calth Insurance as it Affects Services, December 1975. 6. l l
SCIENTIFIC PAPERS & PUBLICATIONS McLaughlin, Mary C. and Harris, David. "The Single Health Agency... A Viable Concept", New York State Journal of Medicine, Vol. 77, No. 7, June 1977. Harris, David; Nicols, Joseph J.; Stark, Renee and Hill, Kenneth. "The Dental Working Environment and the Risk of Mercury Exposure: A Case Report and a Survey", presented at the American Public Health Association Annual Meeting, October 21,1976. Zaki, Mahfouz H.; Miller, George S.; Sheppard, Robert J.; Harris, David and McLaughlin, Mary C. "An Extensive Salmonella Typhimurium Outbreak Probably Waterbourne", presented at The American Public Health Association Annual Meeting, October 21, 1976. American Waterworks Association Journal. liarris, David. " Prevention as a Public Health Policy", Nassau County Medical Center Proceedings, Vol. 5, November 2,1978. Harris, David; Nicols, Joseph J.; Stark, Renee and Hill, Kenneth. "The Dental Working Environment and the Risk of Mercury Exposure", Journal of the American Dental Association, Vol. 97, November 1978. Kim, S.; Guirgis, S.; Harris, D.; Keelan, T.; Mayer, M., and Zaki, M. "Q Fever - New York", Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report 8, Vol. 27, No. 35, pp. 321-322, September 1,1978. Zaki, Mahfouz H.; Harris, David, and Moran, Dennis. " Trace Organics in Drinking Water: An Emerging Public Health Problem", presented at the American Public ticalth Association Annual Meeting, November 6, 1979. Harris, David. "If Children Benefit So Much From Prevention, Why Aren't We Doing More Of it?", presented at the 26th Annual Meeting of the American Celtas.r $f teve ntive Medicine, the 36th Annual Meeting of the Association of 'Acachers of Preventive Medicine and the 107th Annual Meeting of the American Puoli Health Association (jointly held) November 4, 1979. Rugg, Victor; McLauglin, Christopher; Bruno, Daniel and Harris, David. "Self-lielp Professional Collaborative Groups with Methadone Maintenance Patients", presented at the New York State Drug Conference, March 25, 1981. Harris, David. "The Genetic Revolution - A Social and Ethical Challenge", presented at the Conference on Medical Genetics for the Practitioner, Stony Brook, April 8,1981. Harris, David; Vann, Albert and Wrightson, Karolyn. "Toward a Healthy State: The Report of the State Commission on Health Education and illness Prevention", New York State Journal of Medicine, Vol. 81, No. 12, pp.1798-1801, November 1981. Harris, David. "The Public Health Officer's Response to Environmental Crises", presented at the joint meeting of the American College of Preventive Medicine and the Association of Teachers of Preventive Medicine, November 15, 1982. 7.
SCIENTIFIC PAPERS & PUBLICATIONS Zaki, Mahfouz 11.; Moran, Dennis and Harris, David. " Pesticides in Groundwater: The Aldicarb Story in Suffolk County", American Journal of Public Health, December 1982. Harris, David; Baird, Greg; Clyburn, Steven A., and Mara, Joy R. " Developing a Teenage Pregnancy Program the Community Will Accept", llealth Education, pp.17-20, May/ June 1983. Harris, David. " Health Department: Enemy or Champion of the People?" Editorial. American Journal of Public Health, May 1984, Vol. 74, No. 5. liarris, David. "The Health Officer's Response to Citizen Action for Environmental Public Health", presented at the Second Annual National Preventive Medicine Meeting, March 30,1985. Harris, David. "The Right to Die, The Right to Refuse Care", presented at the Suffolk County Bar Association Meeting, May 1,1986. Harris, David. "Public Health Enemy No.1 (Smoking in the Workplace)", presented at the American Society of Safety Engineers, East Meadow, N.Y., June 5,1986. 91 arch 1987
7 i EXHIBIT 5 i
L Exhibit 5 CURRICULUM VITAE j MARTIN DAVID MAYER, M.D., M.P.H. ADDRESS: 96 Village Lane Hauppauge, New York 11787 HOME PHONE: (516) 979-7472 f BIRTHDATE: January 9, 1941 BIRTHPLACE: Brooklyn, New York MARITAL STATUS: Married, June 1968 WIFE:
- Ellen, D.O.B.,
April 11, 1945 DAUGHTER:
- Erica, D.O.B.,
September 26, 1970 SOCIAL SECURITY 6:069-32-0533 DRAFT STATUS: , 4A (Retired, U.S. Public Health Service) j PRESENT POSITION: (as of September, 1972) Deputy Director of Public Health Suffolk County Department of Health Services i Division of Public Health 225 Rabro Drive East i Hauppauge, New York 11788 Business Telephones (516) 348-2757 EDUCATION: 1. Stuyvesant High School, New York, New York Graduated June, 1957 2. City College of New York, New York, New York September 1957 to January, 1962 Received BChE Degree, January,1962 O e
Curriculum Vitae Martin David Mayer, M.D., M.P.E. Page 2 ) l l PROFESSIONAL EDUCATION: 1. State University of New York, Upstate Medical Center Medical School, Syracuse, New York September, 1965 to June, 1969; Received M.D., Cum Laude, June,1969 l 2. Kings County Hospital, Brooklyn, New York; Straight Pathology Internship, July,1969 thru June,1970 4 3. University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan; September, 1971 thru August, 1972, received M.P.B., i 1 August, 1972 l LICENSURE: i New York State, Physician License MD106724, August 5, 1970 { Diplomat, National Board of Medical Examiners, Cert. No. 102795, July, 1970 i HONORS: i 1. Ninner, competitive New York State Regents Scholorship, 1957-1961 2. Elected to Tau Beta Pi, National' Engineering Bonor Society (1960) 3. Elected to Omega Chi Epsilon, National Chemical Engineering Honor Society (1961) 4. Elected to Alpha Cunega Alpha,' National Medical Honor Society (1968). ACADEMIC APPOINTMENTS: Clinical Assistant Professor, Department of Community and Preventive Medicine, Health Sciences Center, State University of New York at Stony Brook.
- l.....
_.m-Curriculum Vitae Martin Davir Mayer, M.D., M.P.H. Page 3 1 EMPLOYMENT: 1. August, 1970 thru August, 1971 - Resident Physician in i the New York State Department of Health Residency Program in Public Health and Preventive Medicine; assigned to Westchester County Health Department, White Plains, New York 2. Summer 1966, Summer 1967, Summer 1968 - Assistant Sanitary Engineer, Division of Air Pollution, New York State Department of Health, 84 Holland Avenue, Albany, New York 1 3. July,1963 thru July,1965 - Senior Assistant Sanitary Engineer, United States Public Health Service, Robert A. Taf t Sanitary Engineering Center, Cincinnati, Ohio 4. February,1962 thru January,1963 - Assistant Process Engineer, ESSO Research and Development Corporation, l Florham Park, New Jersey PUBLICATIONS: Martin Mayer, A compilation of Air Pollution Emission for i Combustin Processes, Gasoline Evaporation, and Selected ~ Processes U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welf are, Public Bealth Service, National Center for Air Pollution control, May,1965 i
REFERENCES:
References will be supplied on request. l I ~~-~~ ~ ~ - - - -~ ~
EXHIBIT 6 I I I l l I t 1
Exhibit 6 PROFES$10NAL QUALIFICATIONS 0F GREGORY C. MIN 0R GREGORY C. MINOR MH8 Technical Associates 1723 Hamilton Avenue i i Suite K San Jose, California 95125 1 (408) 266-2716 EXPERIENCE: 1976 to PRESENT Vice-President - MH8 Technical Associates San Jose, California + Engineering and energy consultant to state, federal, and private organi-zations and individuals. Major activities include studies of safety and risk involved in energy generation, providing technical consulting to legislative, regulatory, public and private behalf of state organizations and citizens' groups and expert witness in groups. Was co-editor of a critique of the Reactor Safety Study (WASH-1400) for the Union of Con-cerned Scientists and co-author of a risk analysis of Swedish reactors for the Swedish Energy Commission. Served on the Peer Review Group of the NRC/TMI Special Inquiry Group (Rogovin Committee). i volved in the Nuclear Power Plant Standards Committee work for the In-Actively ) strument Society ctf America (ISA). 1972 - 1976 i. JWnager, Advanced Control and Instrumentation Engineerino, General Elec- { tric Company, Nuclear Energy Division, San Jose, California Managed a design and development group of thirty-four engineers and sup-port personnel designing systems for use in the measurement, control and operation of nuclear reactors. Involved coordination with other reactor design organizations, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and customers, both overseas and domestic. Responsibilities included coordinating and managing and design and development of control systems, safety systems, and new control concepts for use on the next generation of reactors. The. position included responsibility for standards applicable to control and instrumentation, as well as the design of short-term solutions to field problems. The disciplines involved included electrical and me-chanical engineering, seismic design and process computer con-trol / programming, and equipment qualification. l 1970 - 1972 i Manager, Reactor Control Systems Design, General Electric Company, Nu-clear Energy Division, San Jose, California Managed a group of seven engineers and two support personnel in the de-sign and preparation of the detailed system drawings and control docu-1
ments relating to safety and emergency systems for nuclear reactors. Responsibility required coordination with other design organizations and latory personnel. interaction with the customer's engineering personnel, a 1963 - 1970 Design Engineer, General Electric Company, Nuclear Energy Division, San Jose, California Responsible for the design of specific control and instrumentation sys-tems for nuclear eactors. Lead design responsibility for various sub-systems of instrumentation used to measure neutron flux in the reactor during startup and intermediate power operation. Performed lead system design function in the design of a major system for measuring the power generated in nuclear reactors. Other responsibilities included on-site checkout and testing of a complete reactor control system at an experi-mental reactor in the Southwest. itoring System. Received patent for Nuclear Power Mon-1960 - 1963 Advanced Engineering Program, General Electric Company; Assignments in W_ ashington, California, and Arizona Rotating assignments in a variety of disciplines: Engineer, reactor maintenance and instrument design KE and 0 re-actors Hanford, Washington, circuit design and equipment mainte-nance coordination. Design engineer, Microwave Department, Palo Alto, California. Work on design of cavity couplers for Microwave Traveling Wave Tubes (TWT). \\ Design engineer, Computer Department, Phoenix, Arizona. Design of core driving circuitry. i l Design engineer, Atomic Power Equipment Department, San Jose, Cal-i fornia. Circuit design and analysis. Design engineer, Space Systems Department, Santa Barbara, Califor-nia. Prepared control portion of satellite proposal. Technical Staff - Technical Military Planning Operation. (TEFFO), Santa Barbara, California. Prepare analyses of missile exchanges. Ouring this period, completed three-year General Electric program of extensive education in advanced engineering principles of higher mathema tics, Kepner-Tregoe probability and analysis. Also completed courses in various technical seminars. Effective Presentation Management Training Program
EDUCATION University of California at Berkeley, BSEE,1960. Advanced Course in Engineering - three-year curriculum, General El Company, 1963. Stanf'ord University, MSEE,1966. HONORS AND ASSOCIATIONS Tau Beta Pi Engineering Honorary Society i Co-holder of U.S. Patent No. Monitoring System," February,1971.3.565-760, " Nuclear Reactor Power Member: American Association for the Advancement of Science. 1 Member: ety of America, Nuclear Power Plant Standards Committee. Instrument Soct-i j PERSONAL DATA Born: June 7, 1937 i I Harried, three children Residence: San Jose, California PUBLICATIONS AND TESTIMONY 1. G. C. Minor, S. E. Moore, " Control Rod Signal Multiplexing," IEEE Trans-actions on Nuclear Science, Vol. NS-19. February 1972. 2. clear Power Plant " NE00-10658,G. C. Minor, W. G. Milam, "An I l presented at International Nuclear In-dustries Fair and Technical Meetings October,1972, Basle, Switzerland. 3. The above article was also published in the German Technical Magazin NT, March,1973. 1 4. Testimony of G. C. Minor, D. G. Bridenbaugh, and R. B. Hubbard before 4 the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy, Hearing held February i and published 18, 1976, sachusetts. by the Union of Concerned Scientists, Cambridge, Mas-5. Testimony of G. C. Minor. D. G. Bridenbaugh, and R. B. Hubbard before the California State Assembly Connittee on Resources Land Use, and En- { ergy. March 8, 1976. 4 6. Testimony of G. C. Minor and R. 8. Hubbard before the California State Senate Committee on Public Utilities, Transit, and Energy March 23, 1976. f / 1 {. t I _ _ _ _ _ _. ~, _ _
.~ - 1 i . 7. Testimony of G. C. Minor re March 16-17, 1977 Wurzbuerg,garding the Grafenrheinfeld Nuclear Plant. Germany. 8. Saskatchewan, Canada, SeptamberTestimony of G. C. Minor 21, 1977. 9. The Risks of Nuclear Power Reactors: A Review of the NRC Reactor Safety Study WASH-1400 (NUREG-75/0140), H. Kendall, et al edited by G. C. Mi-~ nor and R. 8. Hubbard for the Union of Concerned Scientists, August, 1977. 10. Swedish Reactor Safety Study: Associates, January,1978. Barseback Risk Assessment, 28 Technical as Document Ds! 1978:1) (Published by Swedish Department of Industry 11. Testimony by G. C. Minor before the Wisconsin Public Service Conn February 13 _Consecuence.,1978 Loss of Coolant Accidents: Their Probability and 12. mittee on Resources Land Use, and Energy. AB 3108, April 26, Testim Sacramento, California.
- 1978, 1
13. Technology (8MFT), Meeting on Reactor Safety terface in Nuclear Reactors, August 21, and September 1, Germany. 1978, Sonn, 14. Testimony of G. C. Minor. D. G. Bridenbaugh, and R. B. Hubbard, be the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board, September i 25, 1978, in the matter of Black Fox Nuclear Power Station Construction Permit Hearings Tu Oklahoma. i 15. cho Seco Power Plant, on behalf of Friends of t {' 1979. 16. Testimony of G. C. Minor before the Michigan State Legislature, Spec Joint Committee on Nuclear Energy. Implications of Three Mile Island Ac l cident for Nuclear Power Plants in Michigan, October 15, 1979. 17. A Critical View of Reactor Safety, Nuclear Reactor Safety, January 7,1980, San F 18. The Effects of Aging on Safety of Nuclear Power Plants, paper presented at Forum on Swedish Nuclear Referendum, Stockholm, Sweden, March 1 1980. 19. Minnesota Nuclear Plants Gaseous Emissions Study, MHB Technical Ass ~ ates, Septembt'r 1980, prepared for the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Roseville, MN.
20. Testimony of G. C. Minor and D. G. Bridenbaugh before the New York State Public Service Commission, Shoreham Nuclear Plant Construction Schedule in the matter of Long September 22, 1980. Island Lighting Company Temporary Rate Cassi, 21. Systems Interaction and Single Failure Criterion MiB Technical Associ-ates. Power, January,1981, prepared for and available from -the Swedish Nuclear Inspectorate, Stockholm, Sweden. 22. Board of Public Utilities. Oyster Creek 1980 Refuelino O tion, in the matter of Jersey Central Power and Light Rate Case Febru-ary 19, 1981. 23. Testimony of G. C. Minor and D. G. Bridenbaugh on PORV's and Pressurizer Heaters, Diablo Canyon Operating License hearing before ASL8, January 11, 1982. 24. Testimony of G. C. Minor and R. B. Hubbard on Emergency Response Plan-
- g. Diablo Canyon Operating License hearing before ASLB, January 10, 25.
Systems Interaction and Single Failure Criterion: Phase II Report 418 Swedish Nuclear Power Inspectorate, Stockholm, Sweden. Tech 26. Testimony of G. C. Minor, R. B. Hubbard, M. W. Goldsmith, S. J. Harwood on behalf of Suffolk County, before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board, in the matter of Long Island Lighting Company, Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1 regarding Contention 78, Safety Classification and Systems Interaction, April 13, 1982. 27 Testimony of G. C. Minor and D. G. Bridenbaugh on behalf of Suffolk County, before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board, in the matter of Long Island Lighting Company, Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1, regarding Suffolk County Contention 11. Passive Mechanical Valve Fail-un, April 13, 1982. ~ 28. Testimony of G. C. Minor and R. B. Hubbard on behalf of Suf folk County, before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board, in the matter of Long Is-land Lighting Company, Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1, regarding Suffolk County Contention 27 and SOC Contention 3. Post-Accident Moni-torino, May 25, 1982. 29. Testimony of G. C. Minor and D. G. Bridenbaugh on behalf of Suffolk County, before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board, in the matter of Long Island Lighting Company, Shoreham NJclear Power Station, Unit 1, regarding Suffolk County Contention 22, SRV Test Program, May25, 1982. 30. Testimony of G. C. Minor and D. G. Bridenbaugh on behalf of Suffolk County, before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board, in the matter of Long Island Lighting Company, Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1, _ Reduction of SRV Challenges, Juneregarding Suffolk County Contention 28( 14, 1982. _.
i . 31. i Safety and Licensing Board, in the matter of L l pany, Shoreham Nuclear Power Station Unit Qualification January 18, 1983. 1, regarding Environmental 32. Testimony of G. C. Minor and D. G. Bridenbaugh before the Pennsylva Public Utility Commission, on behalf of the Office of Consumer Advoca Regarding the Cost of Constructing I Pennsylvania Power and Light, Marchthe Susquehanna S _ tion, Unit I, Re: 7 18, 1983. 33. Supplemental testimony of G. C. Minor, R. B. Hubbard, and M. W. Gold smith on behalf of Suffolk County, before the Atomic Safety and Licens-ing Board, in the matter of Long Island Lighting Company, Shoreham Nu l, clear Power Station, Unit 1 regarding Suffolk County Contention 78 j Safety Classification and Systems Interaction, March 23, 1983. 34. Testimon al. vs. y before the District Court Judge in the case of Sierra Club et. DOE regarding the Clean-up of Uranium Mill Tailings. 1983. June 20, 35. Systems Interaction and Single Failure Criterion: Swedish Nuclear Fower Inspectorate, Stockholm, Swed 36. Systematic Evaluation Program: Status Report and Initial Evaluation, MHB Technical the Swedish Nuclear Power Inspectorate, Stockholm, Sweden June,1983, prepared for and available from i 37. Testimony of G. C. Minor, F. C. Finlayson, and E. P. Radford before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board, in the Matter of Long Island Ligh Company, Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit Planning Contentions 65, 23.0 and 23.H. November 1, regarding Emergency 18, 1983. 38. Testimony of G. C. Minor, Sizewell 'B' Proof of Evidence Regarding Safety Issues December,1983. Power Station P 39. Testimony of D. G. Bridenbaugh, L. M. Danielson, R. B. Hubbard and G. C. Minor before the State of New York Public Service townission, PSC Case i No. 27563, in the matter of Long Island Lighting Company Proceeding to Investigate the Cost of Phase II, on behalf of County of Suffolk, Februarythe Shoreham Nuc 10, 1984. 40. Testimony of Fred C. Finlayson, Gregory C. Minor and Edward P. Radford before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board, in the of Suffolk County Regarding Einergency Planning Contention 61 (Sheltering), March 21, 1984. 41. Testimony of G. Dennis Eley, C. John Smith, Gregory C. Minor and Dale G. Bridenbaugh before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board, in the matter of Long Island Lighting company, Shoreham Nuclear Power Station Unit 1, regarding EMD Diesel Generators and 20 MW Gas Turbine, March 21, 1984.
42. Revised Testimony of Gregory C. Minor before the Atomic Safet Nuclear Power Station Unitcensing Board, in the matter of Long Island L Shoreham 1, on behalf of Suffolk County re Emertjency Planning Contentions 85 and 88 (Recovery and Reentry [garding
- 30. L984.
. July 43. Testimony of Dr. Christian Meyer, Dr. Jose Roesset, and Gregory C. Minor before-the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board, in the i of Suffolk County, regarding Low Power Hearings (Seismic Capabilities of AC Power Sources), July 1984. 44. Affidavit of Gregory C. Minor Emergenc/ Planning Legal Authority Court Case, State Court of New York, September 11, 1984. 45. Surrebuttal Testimony of Dale G. Bridenbaugh, Lynn M. Danielson, Richard B. Hubbard, and Gregory C. Minor, Before the New York State Public Ser-l vice Connission, PSC Case No. 27563, Shoreham Nuclear Station, Long In-land Lighting Company, on behalf of Suffolk County and New York State Consumer Protection Board, regarding prudency of LILCO, October 4,1984. 46. C. Minor on behalf of Massachusetts Attorney General the Massachusetts Department of Public Utilities, regarding the prudency of expenditures by Fitchburg Gas and Electric Light Company on Seabrook Unit 2, November 23, 1984, 84 pgs. I 47. Direct Testimony of Dale G. Bridenbaugh, Lynn M. Danielson and Gregory Seabrook Unit 2 Docket No. 84-113. DecemberC. Minor on beha 21, 1984. 48. Suffolk County's Emergency Diesel Generator Load Co 50-322-OL, January 25, 1985. 49. Direct Testimony of Dale G. Bridenbaugh, Lynn M. Danielson, and Gregory C. Minor on behalf vf ths Department of Public Service State of Vermont Pubife Service Board twket No. 5030 Central Vermont Public Service Corporation November 11, 1985. j 50. Direct Testimony of Dale G. Bridenbaugh, Gregory C. Minor, Lynn K. Pric.e. and Steven C. Sholly on behalf of State of Connecticut Department 1 of Public Utility Control Prosecutorial Division and Division of Con-sumer Counsel regarding the prudence of expenditures on Millstone Unit 3, February 18, 1986. 51. Direct Testimony of Dale G. Bridenbaugh and Gregory C. Minor on behalf of Massachusetts Attorney General regarding the prudence of expenditures by New England Power Co. on Seabrook Unit 2, February 21, 1986. 52. Direct Testimony of Gregory C. Minor on behalf of the Prosecutorial Di-vision of CDPUC regarding CL&P Construction Prudence for Millstone Unit
- 3. March 19,1986.
1 I ~7-
i 53. Direct Testimony of Dale G. Bridenbaugh and Gregory C of Massachusetts Attorney General regarding WHECo Co for Millstone Unit 3. March 19,1986. . Minor on behalf rudence 54. Direct Testimony of Dale G. Bridenbaugh and Gregory C l Dates and Deferred Capital Additions on Mills . Minor on behalf 1986.' rating 3 March 19, 55. Rebuttal Testimony of Dale G. Bridenbaugh and Gregory C of Massachusetts Attorney General regarding New England . Minor on behalf Seabrook 2 Rebuttal, April 2,1986. pany's 56. Direct Testimony of Dale G. Bridenbaugh and Gregory C struction Prudence of Millstone Unit 3. April 21,1 . Minor on behalf on-57. for the State of New York, prepared for the St y Planning I Protection Board, by MH8 Technical Associates, June 1986 \\. ork Consumer 58. i Direct Testimony of Dale G. Bridenbaugh and Gregory C Central Vermont Public Service Corporation R . Minor on behalf i Rates, Docket No. 5132, August g of 25, 1986. ncrease in \\ 59. Surrebuttal Testimony of Gregory C centives 0AL Docket No. PUCtral Power and Light Company, re erformance In-11, 1986. 7939-85, BPU Docket 90. ER851116. September 60. Department of Public Service, regarding CVP ermont of Millstone Unit 3, Docket No. 5132, November 6,1986.rudence 61. Direct Testimony of Gregory C. Minor and Lynn K State of Vermont Costs, Docket No. 5132. DecemberDepartment of Public Service, Price on behalf of 31, 1986. regarding Seabrook 1
EXHIBIT 7 8 i i l
Exhibit 7 t. PROFESSIONAL' QUALIFICATIONS OF STEVEN C. SHOLLY STEVEN C. SHOLLY MHB Technical Associates 1723 Hamilton Avenue Suite X San Jose, California 95125 (408)266-2716 EXPERIENCE: September 1985 - PRESENT Associate - MHB Technical Associates, San Jose, California Associate in energy consulting firm that specializes in technical and economic assessments of energy production facilities, especially nuclear, for local, state, and federal governments and private organizations. MHB is extensively involved in regulatory proceedings and the preparation of studies and reports. Conduct research, write reports, participate in discovery process in regulatory proceedings, develop testimony and other documents for regulatory proceedings, and respond to client inquiries. Clients have included: State of California, State of New York, State of Illinois. February 1981 - September 1985 Technical Research Associate and Risk Analyst - Union of Concerned Scien-tists, Washington, D.C. i Research associate and risk analyst for public interest group based in Cambridge, Massachusetts, that specializes in examining the impact of ad-j vanced technologies on society, principally in the areas of arms control and energy. Technical work focused on nuclear power plant safety, with emphasis on probabilistic risk assessment, radiological emergency planning and preparedness, and generic safety issues. Conducted research, prepared reports and studies, participated in administrative proceedings before the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, developed testimony, anlayzed NRC rule-making proposals and draft reports and l prepared comments thereon, and responded to inquiries from sponsors, the i general public, and the media. Participated as a member of the Panel on ACRS Effectiveness (1985), the Panel on Regulatory Uses of Probabilistic i Risk Assessment (Peer Review of NUREG-1050; 1984), Invited Observer to 1 NRC Peer Review meetings on the source term reassessment (BMI-2104; 1983-1984), and the Independent Advi-sory Committee on Nuclear Risk for the Nuclear Risk Task Force of the National Association of Insurance Commissioners (1984). l January 1980 - January 1981 Project Director and Research Coordinator - Three Mile Island Public Interest Resource Center, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania Provided administrative direction and coordinated research projects for a public interest group based in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, centered around issues related to the Three Mile Island Nuclear Power Plant. Prepared fundraising proposals, tracked progress of U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Com-mission, U.S. Department of Energy, and General Public Utilities activi-ties concerning cleanup of Three Mile Island Unit 2 and preparation for restart of Thret Mile Island Unit 1, and monitored developments related to emergency planning, the financial health of General Public Utilities, and NRC rulemaking actions related to Three Mile Island. j i July 1978 - January 1980 Chief Biological Process Operator - Wastewater Treatment Plant, Derry Township Municipal Authority, Hershey, Pennsylvania Chief Biological Process Operator at a 2.5 million gallon per day ter-tiary, activated sludge, wastewater treatment plant. Responsible for bi-ological process monitoring and control, including analysis of physical, chemical, and biological test results, procees fluid and mass flow man-i agement, micro-biological analysis of activiated sludge, and maintenance of detailed process logs for input into state and federal reports on treatment process and effluent quality. Received certification from the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania as a wastewater treatment plant operator. Member of Water Pollution Control Association of Pennsylvania, Central Section, 1980. July 1977 - July 1978 Wastewater Treatment Plant Operator - Borough of Lemoyne, Lemoyne, Penn-sylvania Wastewater treatment plant operator at 2.0 million gallon per day sec-ondary, activated sludge, wastewater treatment plant. Performed tasks as assigned by supervisors, including simple physical and chemical tests on wastewater streams, maintenance and operation of plant equipment, and maintenance of the collection system. September 1976 - June 1977 I Science Teacher - West Shore School District, Camp Hill, Pennsylvania Taught Earth and Space Science at ninth grade level. Developed and im-plemented new course materials on plate tectonics, environmental geology, l and space science. Served as Assistant Coach of the district gymnastics team.
September 1975 - June 1976 Science Teacher - Carlisle Area School District, Carlisle, Pennsylvania Taught Earth and Space Science and Environmental Science at ninth grade level. Developed and implemented new course materials on plate tecton-ics, environmental geology, noise pollution, water pollution, and energy. Served as Advisor to the Science Projects Club. EDUCATION: i B.S., Education, majors in Earth and Space Science and General Science, minor in Environmental Education, Shippensburg State College, Shippens-burg, Pennsylvania, 1975. Graduate coursework in Land Use Planning, Shippensburg State College, Shippensburg, Pennsylvania, 1977-1978. PUBLICATIONS: 1. " Determining Mercalli Intensities from Newspaper Reports," Journal of Geological Education, Vol. 25, 1977. 2. A Critique of: An Independent Assessment of Evacuation Times for Three Mile Island Nuclear Power Plant, Three Mile Island Public Interest Resource Center, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, January 1981. 3. A Brief Review and Critique of the Rockland County Radiological Emergency Preparedness Plan, Union of Concerned Scientists, prepared for Rockland County Emergency Planning Personnel and the Chairman of the County Legis-lature, Washington, D.C., August 17, 1981. 4. The Necessity for a Prompt Public Alerting Capability in the Plume Expo-sure Pathway EPZ at Nuclear Power Plant Sites, Union of Concerned Scien-1 tists Critical Mass Energy Project. Nuclear Information and Resource l Service, Environmental Action, and New York Public Interest Research l Group, Washington, D.C., August 27, 1981.
- 5.
" Union of Concerned Scientists, Inc., Comments on Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, Amendment to 10 CFR 50, Appendix E Section IV.D.3," Union of Concerned Scientists, Washington, D.C., October 21, 1981.
- 6.
"The Evolution of Emergency Planning Rules," in The Indian Point Book: A Briefing on the Safety Investiction of the Indian Point Nuclear Power Plants, Anne Witte, editor, Union of Concerned Scientists (Washington, D.C.) and New York Public Interest Reparch Group (New York, NY),1982. 7. " Union of Concerned Scientists Comments, Proposed Rule,10 CFR Part 50 Emergency Planning and Preparedness: Exercises, Clarification of Regula-tions, 46 F.R. 61134," Union of Concerned Scientists, Washington, D.C., January 15, 1982. *..
8. Testimony of Robert D. Pollard and Steven C. Sholly before the Sub-committee on Energy and the Environment, Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, U.S. House of Representatives, Middletown, Pennsylvania, March 29, 1982, available from the Union of Concerned Scientists. 9. " Union of Concerned Scientists Detailed Comments on Petition for Rulemak-ing by Citizen's Task Force, Emergency Planning,10 CFR Parts 50 and 70 Docket No. PRM-50-31, 47 F.R. 12639," Union of Concerned Scientists. Washington, D.C., May 24, 1982.
- 10. Supplements to the Testimony of Ellyn R. Weiss, Esq., General Counsel, Union of Concerned Scientists, before the Subcommittee on Energy Conservation and Power, Committee on Energy and Commerce, U.S. House of Representatives, Union of Concerned Scientists, Washington, D.C., August 16, 1982.
11. Testimony of Steven C. Sholly, Union of Concerned Scientists, Washington, D.C., on behalf of the New York Public Interest Research Group, Inc., be-fore the Special Committee on Nuclear Power Safety of the Assembly of the State of New York, hearings on Legislative Oversight of the Emergency Ra-diologic Preparedness Act, Chapter 708, Laws of 1981, September 2,1982.
- 12. " Comments on ' Draft Supplement to Final Environmental Statement Related to Construction and Operation of Clinch River Breeder Reactor Plant',"
Docket No. 50-537, Union of Concerned Scientists, Washington, D.C., September 13, 1982.
- 13.
" Union of Concerned Scientists Comments on ' Report to the County Commis-stoners', by the Advisory Committee on Radiological Emergency Plan for Columbia County, Pennsylvania," Union of Concerned Scientists, Washing-ton, D.C., September 15, 1982.
- 14. " Radiological Emergency Planning for Nuclear Reactor Accidents," pre-sented to Kernenergie Ontmanteld Congress, Rotterdam, The Netherlands, Union of Concerned Scientists, Washington, D.C., October 8,1982.
- 15. " Nuclear Reactor Accident Consequences:
Implications for Radiological Emergency Planning," presented to the Citizen's Advisory Committee to Re-view Rockland County's Own Nuclear Evacuation and Preparedness Plan and General Disaster Preparedness Plan, Union of Coacerned Scientists, Wash-ington, D.C., November 19, 1982.
- 15. Testimony of Steven C.
Sholly before the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, D.C., Union of Concerned Scientists, Decem-ber 13, 1982.
- 17. Testimony of Gordon R. Thomp) son and Steven C. Sholly on Commissio tion Two, Contentions 2.1(a and 2.1(d), Union of Concerned Scientists and New York Public Interest Research Group, before the U.S. Nuclear Reg-ulatory Commission Atomic Safety and Licensing Board, in the Matter of Consolidated Edison Company of New York (Indian Point Unit 2) and the Power Authority of the State of New York (Indian Point Unit 3), Docket Nos. 50-247-SP and 50-236-SP, December 28, 1982.
- i l
l 1
1
- 18. Testimony of Steven C. Sholly on the Consequences of Accidents at Indian i
Point (Comission Question One and Board Question 1.1, Union of Concerned Scientists and New York Public Interest Research Group, before the U.S. i Nuclear Regulatory Comission Atomic Safety and Licensing Board, in the Matter of Consolidated Edison Company of New York (Indian Point Unit 2) and the Power Authority of the State of New York (Indian Point Unit 3), Docket Nos. 50-247-SP and 50-286-SP, February 7, 1983, as corrected February 16, 1983. *
- 19. Testimony of Steven C. Sholly on Comission Question Five, Union of Con-i cerned Scientists and New York Public Interest Research Group, before the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Atomic Safety and Licensing Board, in the Matter of Consolidated Edison Company of New York (Indian Point Unit
- 2) and the Power Authority of the State of New York (Indian Point Unit 3), Docket Nos. 50-247-SP and 50-286-SP, March 22, 1983.
- i
- 20. " Nuclear Reactor Accidents and Accident Consequences: Planning for the Worst " Union of Concerned Scientists, Washington, D.C.,
presented at Critical Mass '83, March 26,1983. i 21. Testimony of Steven C. Sholly on Emergency Planning and Preparedness at Commercial Nuclear Power Plants, Union of Concerned Scientists, Washing-ton, D.C., before the Subcomittee on Nuclear Regulation, Comittee on Environment and Pub 1fc Works, U.S. Senate, April 15, 1983 (with " Union of Concerned Scientists' Response to Questions for the Record from Sena-tor Alan K. Simpson," Steven C. Sholly and Michael E. Faden).
- 22. "PRA:
What Can it Really Tell Us About Public Risk from Nuclear Ac-cidents?," Union of Concerned Scientists, Washington, D.C., presentation to the 14th Annual Meeting, Seacoast Anti-Pollution League, May 4,1983.
- 23. "Probabilistic Risk Assessment: The Impact of Uncertainties on Radi-ological Emergency Planning and Preparedness Considerations," Union of Concerned Scientists, Washington, D.C., June 28, 1983.
- 24. " Response to GAO Questions on NRC's Use of PRA," Union of Concerned Sci-entists, Washington, D.C., October 6,1983, attachment to letter dated October 6,1983, from Steven C. Sholly to John E. Bagnulo (GAO, Washing-ton,D.C.).
- 25. The Impact of " External Events" on Radiological Emergency Response Plan-ning Considerations, Union of Concerned Scientists, Washington, D.C., De-cember 22, 1983, attachment to letter dated December 22, 1983, from Steven C. Sholly to NRC Comissioner James K. Asselstine.
- 26. Sizewell 'B' Public Inquiry, Proof of Evidence on: Safety and Waste Man-agement Implications of the Sizewell
- PWR, Gordon
- Thompson, with supporting evidence by Steven Sholly, on behalf of the Town and Country Planning Association, February 1984, including Annex G, "A review of Probabilistic Risk Analysis and its Application to the Sizewell PWR,"
l Steven Sholly and Gordon Thompson, (August 11, 1983), and Annex 0, " Emergency Planning in the UK and the US: A Comparison," Steven Sholly. and Gordon Thompson (October 24,1983). -
- 27. Testimony of Steven C.
Sholly on Emergency Planning Contention Number Eleven, Union of Concerned Scientists, Washington, D.C., on behalf of the Palmetto Alliance and the Carolina Environmental Study Group, before the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Atomic Safety and Licensing Board, in the Matter of Duke Power Company, et. al. (Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2), Docket Nos. 50-413 and 50-414, April 16, 1984. *
- 28. " Risk Indicators Relevant to Assessing Nuclear Accident Liability Premi-l ums," in Preliminary Report to the Independent Advisory Committee to the NAIC Nuclear Risk Task Force, December 11, 1984, Steven C. Sholly Union of Concerned Scientists, Washington, D.C.
- 29. " Union of Concerned Scientists' and Nuclear Information and Resource Ser-l vice's Joint Comments on NRC's Proposal to Bar from Licensing Proceedings the Consideration of Earthquake Effects on Emergency Planning," Union of Concerned Scientists and Nuclear Information and Resource Service, Wash-ington, D.C., Diane Curran and Ellyn R. Weiss (with input from Steven C.
Sholly), February 28, 1985. *
- 30. " Severe Accident Source Terms: A Presentation to the Comissioners on the Status of a Review of the NRC's Source Term Reassessment Study by the Union of Concerned Scientists," Union of Concerned Scientists, Washing-I ton, D.C., April 3,1985.
- l 31.
" Severe Accident Source Terms for Light Water Nuclear Power Plants: A Presentation to the Illinois Department of Nuclear Safety on the Status of a Review of the NRC's Source Term Reassessment Study (STRS) by the Union of Concerned Scientists," Union of Concerned Scientists, Washington, D.C., May 13, 1985.
- 32. The Source Term Debate: A Review of the Current Basis for Predicting Se-vere Accident Source Terms with Special Emphasis on the NRC Source Term Reassessment Program (NUREG-0956), Union of Concerned Scientists, Cam-bridge, Massachusetts, Steven C.
Sholly and Gordon Thompson, January 1986. i
- 33. Direct Testimony of Dale G. Bridenbaugh, Gregory C. Minor, Lynn K. Price, and Steven C. Sholly on behalf of State of Connecticut Department of Pub-lic Utility Control, Prosecutorial Division and Division of Consumer Counsel, regarding the prudence of expenditures on Millstone Unit III, i
February 18, 1986. 34. Implications of the Chernobyl-4 Accident for Nuclear Emergency Planning for the State of New York, prepared for the State of New York Consumar Protection Board, by MHB Technical Associates, June 1986.
- 35. Review of Vermont Yankee Containment Sa fety Study and Analysis of Containment Venting Issues for the Vermont 'ankee Nuclear Power Plant, prepared for New England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution, Inc., December 16, 1986.
Available from the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Public Document Room, Lobby,1717 H Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. - - - -
ww 1 I 1 i ? EXHIBIT 8 i f h t I e
o Exhibit 8 REACTION OF LONG ISLAND RESIDENTS TO LILCO'S RESPONSE TO AN ACCIDENT AT THE SHOREHAM NUCLEAR POWER PLANT February, 1987 Prepared for Suffolk County by Social Data Analysts, Inc. l i e' l l l O
o TABLE OF CONTENTS About Social Data Analysts, Inc.............................. 2 Executive Summary............................................ 3 Introduction................................................. 5 Exercise Background.......................................... 7 Evacuation Shadow............................................ 10 l-Attitudes Toward Shoreham and Nuclear Power.................. 14 Monitoring for Radiation Contamination....................... 16 Information Seeking.......................................... 17 Credibility of LILCO......................................... 17 Responses to Survey and Correlates of Evacuation Intentions................................................ 19 Table 1: Response to First EBS Message by Area.............. 20 Table 2: Response to Second EBS Messa,ge by Area............. 21 Table 3: Response to Fifth EBS Message by' Area.............. 22 Table 4: Response to Seventh EBS Message by Area............ 23 l Table 5: Apprehension of Long Island Residents About Living Near Nuclear Power Plants................... 24 Table 6: Responses by Geographical Area..................... 25 Table 7: Correlates of Evacuation Intentions................ 32 Technical Appendix........................................... 37 Samp1e.................................................. 37 Selection of Respondent................................. 38 Interviewing............................................ 39 Interviewer Instructions................................ 41 Verification............................................ 45 Outcomes and Response Rate.......................-;...... 45 Design of the Questionnaire............................. 47 Analysis and Weighting.................................. 47 Table A-1: Zip Codes of Respondents.................... 50 Table A-2: Number of Telephone Numbers Dialed.......... 51 Table A-3: Weights..................................... 52 l Questionnaire........................................... 53
ABOUT SOCIAL DATA ANALYSTS, INC. l Social Data Analysts, Inc. is a Long Island based research and polling company that has conducted more than 150 social surveys in the last fifteen years. Clients have included Newsday, The Boston Globe, The Baltimore Sun, Brookhaven National Laboratories, Columbia University, the University of California { at Irvine, the National Bureau of Economic Research, Suffolk County and the Long Island Lighting Company. Social Data Analysts adheres to the code of ethics of the American Association of Public Opinion Researchers. Dr. Stephen Cole is President of Social Data Analysts. Dr. Cole, who received his Ph.D. in sociology from Columbia University in 1967, is also a professor of sociology at the State University of New York at Stony Brook. He is the author of seven books, including a popular research methods text and more than 30 articles published in journals such as Science, Scientific American, American Socioloaical Review, American Journal of Socioloov, and Public l Ooinion Quarteriv. l l
EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
In order to collect data relevant to the current litigation concerning LILCO's February 1986 exercise of its emergency plan for the Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Social Data Analysts, Inc. conducted a survey of 1500 residents of Long Island. The. survey found that if the Exercise scenario had been a real accident at the Shoreham plant, and LILCO's response to such a real accident were the same as it was during the Exercise, there would be a massive voluntary evacuation beginning with the broadcast of the first EBS message at around 7:00 a.m., more than three and one half hours before LILCO made any evacuation recommendation. We estimate that 53% of all Long Island households (approximately 430,000 households) would begin the attempt to evacuate after hearing the first EBS message, even though that message stated that there had been no release ~ of radiation and included no advisory that the public evacuate. After hearing the second EBS message at about 8:45 a.m., about 69% of all Long Island households (more than 560,000) would have begun the attempt to evacuate. That message stated among other things, that a minor release of radiation had occurred, but included no advisory that any members of the public should evacuate. After hearing the fifth EBS. message at about 1:00 p.m., about 77% of all Long Island households (,630,000) would have begun the attempt to evacuate, although only the population in the 10 mile zone around Shoreham were advised to evacuate. After hearing the seventh EBS message, 80% of all Long Island households (650,000) would have begun the attempt to evacuate. About two-thirds of Long Island residents are currently opposed to the opening of Shoreham. Most Long Island residents are familiar with the accident at Chernobyl and 78% believe that it is possible for a serious accident like the one which occurred at Chernobyl to occur at the Shoreham nuclear power station. The survey found that if LILCO advised people who lived in the EPZ to go to a specific location in Nassau County to be monitored for radioactive contamination, more than 405,000 households (50% of all Long Island households) would seek monitoring. An additional 32% of households would seek to be monitored at another location. The survey found that 46% of the respondents or approximately 375,000 people would attempt to call LILCO to get information about the accident.
I The survey found that LILCO would have very low credibility if it told people living outside the EPZ.that they were safe. Seventy-six percent said that they would not believe LILCO. i
Introduction In order for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to grant a license to operate a commercial nuclear power plant, it is I necessary for the operator to conduct a successful exercise of the emergency response plan. In February of'1986 LILCO conducted j an exercise of its proposed offsite emergency response plan for Shoreham. The exercise involved a hypothetical accident scenario to which members of LILCO's offsite response organization responded by performing or simulating the activities they would undertake in the event of a real accident. In the exercise conducted by LILCO, no actual contact was made with Long Island residents, and many of the response activities by LILCO (such as radio announcements with instructions to the public on how to protect themselves) were simulated. It was assumed by LILCO's i personnel during the exercise that most people living on Long Island would follow the instructions that they were given over the radio Emergency Broadcast System. In connection with the NRC proceeding on the results of the February 13thExercise,SuffolkCount[askedSocialDataAnalysts Inc. to conduct research aimed at finding out what Long Island residents would actually do if an accident such as the hypothetical one used by LILCO in its exercise and LILCO's response to that hypothetical accident were actually to occur. -S-
Social Data Analysts conducted a survey among a random sample o ) Long Island residents. The primary aim of the r survey was to determine whether the Exercise portrayed or assumed a realistic set of human responses by the Long Island population to the hypothetical accident. In seeking an answer to this question, the survey elicited data on the following subjects: 1) If an accident such as the one used by LILCO in its exercise were to happen, would there be a significant voluntary evacuation or." evacuation shadow?" 2) How have recent events, including the accident at Chernobyl, influenced the attitudes of Long Island residents toward Shoreham? 3) If an accident such as that used by LILCO in its exercise were to happen, how many Long Island residents would seek monitoring for possible radioactive contamination? 4). If an accident such as that used by LILCO in its exercise were to happen, how many Long Island residents would attempt to call LILCO to obtain further information? 5) In general, how much credibility would LILCO have if an accident occurred at the Shoreham nuclear power station? In order to answer these questions we conducted interviews with random samples of 492 residents living in Nassau County, 629 residents living in Suffolk County but more than ten miles from l the plant, and 379 residents living within the ten mile emergency planning zone. (For a full description of the sample and the i j techniques utilized in analyzing these data see the Technical Appendix.) l 1 ---. -
Exercise Backaround To put the survey and its basis in context, some background information concerning what happened during the February 13, 1986 Exercise in response to the hypothetical accident scenario is essential. During the Exercise, the following simulated " events" and LILCO responses to them took place. At 5:40 a.m., an " Unusual Event" was declared at the Shoreham plant. An Unusual Event is the lowest classification of I an emergency, which indicates a potential degradation of the level of safety at the plant. It involves no release of radioactive material. At 6:17 a.m. an " Alert" was declared at the Shoreham plant. An Alert is the second of four emergency classification levels; it indicates that' events'are in process or have occurred.which could jeopardize the plant's safety systems. At 6:52 a.m. LILCO simulated the broadcast of a message over the radio on an Emer uncy Broadcast System (EBS). That message announced that an s Alert had been declared at Shoreham, and that schools within the i 10 mile emergency planning zone around the Shoreham plant should i remain closed, but that there had been no release of radiation. At 8:19 a.m., a " Site Area Emergency" was declared at the Shoreham plant. A Site Area Emergency is the third emergency classification level. It indicates that events are in process or have occurred which involve actual or likely major failures of plant functions needed for protection of the public. At 8:41 a.m., LILCO simulated a second EBS broadcast. The second EBS ' l
messaga announced that a Site Area Emergency had been declared, that a.very minor release of radiation had occurred, that schools within 10 miles of the Shoreham plant should implement early dismissal plans, and that all milk-producing animals within two miles of the Shoreham plant should be moved into shelters and placed on stored feed. At approximately 9:35 a.m., LILCO simulated another EBS broadcast which stated, among other things, that the public need not take any protective actions beyond referring to an emergency procedures brochure. At 9:39 a.m., a " General Emergency" was declared at the Shoreham plant. A General Emergency is the most serious l emergency classification level. It indicates that events are in process or have occurred which involve actual or imminent substantial core degradation or melting with potential loss of i containment integrity. At approximately 10:00 a.m., LILCO simulated the broadcast of an EBS message which announced that'a General Emergency had been declared, that there had been a failure in plant safety systems, and that there had been a release of radiation into the air. At 10:24 a.m., LILCO simulated the broadcast of an EBS message which recommended that persons within the 10 mile zone except those who live south of the Long Island Expressway and east of the William Floyd Parkway, should evacuate as soon as possible. It also stated that all dairy animals within 10 miles i , _ _ _. - -. _.. _ ~ _ - _, _ - _ - - - - _ _ - - - - - - - - - -. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ~ - - --- - - -
of the Shoreham plant should be moved into shelters and placed on a stored feed, and that the public may call their LILCO District Office for further information. At approximately 12:00 noon, LILCO simulated the broadcast of an EBS message which repeated the earlier information about the General Emergency, and stated that all persons in the entire 10 mile zone should evacuate as soon as possible. It also stated that significant releases of radiation are expected shortly. At approximately 1:00 p.m., LILCO simulated the broadcast of an EBS message which stated that a major release of radiation into the air had occurred at 12:00 p.m., and that based on measurements of radiation, the thyroid dose is expected to be 400% of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency evacuation guidelines at two miles, 100%.at five miles, and 40% at 10' miles downwind of Shoreham. The message reiterated the recommendation for people ~ in the entire 10 mile emergency planning zone to evacuate as soon as possible. At approximately 1:30 p.m., LILCO simulated the broadcast of an EBS message which repeated the earlier information and instructions, and also recommended that persons located in the area in the ten mile zone north of Middle Country Road and west of the William Floyd Parkway should report to the Nassau Coliseum to be monitored for possible radioactive contamination, since they may have been exposed to radiation during their trip out of I the 10 mile zone. All the EBS messages used by LILCO during the Exercise stated that there is no reason for persons living l outside the 10 mile emergency planning zone to take any action. l l \\ -
O Evacuation Shadow Previous research has suggested that if a radiological emergency were to occur at the Shoreham nuclear power station, a significant portion of Long Isla.1d residents would attempt to evacuate. A survey conducted for Suffolk County by Social Data Analysts, a survey conducted for LILCO by Yankelovich, Skelly, and White, and surveys conducted for Newsday by Social Data Analysts all showed large portions of Long Islanders saying that they would attempt to evacuate if there were an accident at the Shoreham plant. The questions used in the current survey were all based upon LILCO's responses to the Exercise scenario, including its proposed or simulated radio announcements and protective action recommendations to the public during the February, 1986 Exercise of its emergency response plan. Although the EBS messages used by LILCO during the Exercise were too long and too complex to use in their entirety in a telephone survey, the questfois utilized the actual wording of the EBS messages wherever possible. Where it was not possible, care was taken to summarize the content faithfully. Respondents were asked what they would do at each of several time points in the LILCO scenario. The first question asked what they would do after hearing the first EBS message, broadcast at I approximately 7:00 a.m. Now I would like to ask you a few questions about what you ( would do if something happened at the Shoreham nuclear power plant. I
r Assuming that the Shoreham nuclear power plant is licensed and begins to operate, we would like to know what you would ) do if something happened at the plant. Suppose that you were at home on a weekday morning and you woke up at 7:00 a.m. and turned on the radio. You heard on the radio that there had been an incident at the Shoreham Nuclear' Power Station and an alert condition was declared at 6:17 a.m. A l LILCO representative said that no release of radiation had occurred but recommended that schools within the ten mile emergency planning zone should remain closed. He said that if you live more than ten miles away from the plant, there is no reason for you to take any action. When you heard this message on the radio, would you and members of your family: go about your normal business, or stay inside your home, or leave your home and go further away from the plant? The survey results indicate that when Long Islanders first heard this message on the radio, approximately 53% of all Long Island households, or a total of more than 430,000 households, would attempt to evacuate. The answers to this question, broken down by geographical area, are presented in Table 1. The data show that 52% of Nassau households and 54% of Suffolk households would attempt to evacuate when they heard the first EBS message. When the Suffolk responses are broken down into those who live within the EPZ and those who live outside the EPZ, we find that 53% of households living outside the EPZ would attempt to evacuate when hearing the first EBS message and that 62% of households within the EPZ would attempt to evacuate when hearing l the first EBS message. Respondents who said that they would not evacuate after hearing the first EBS message at approximately 7:00 a.m., were asked wha" they would do after hearing the second EBS message at about 8:45 a.m.: I i 1 --m- -
i e i Suppose that in order to find out what had happened at Shoreham, you kept your radio on and at 8:45 in the morning you heard that a site area emergency condition was declared at 8:19 a.m. A site area emergency indicates that a major plant safety system cou?I fail. A LILCO representative said that a very minor release of radiation had occurred, and recommended that schools within ten miles of the Shoreham plant should remain closed. All milk producing animals, within two miles of the Shoreham plant, should be moved into shelters and placed on stored feed. The LILCO representative said that if you live more than ten miles away from the plant, there is no reason for you to take any action. When you heard this message, would you and members of your family: go about your normal business, or stay inside your home, or leave your home and go further away from the plant? The answers to this question, broken down by geographical area, are presented in Table 2. The data indicate that after hearing the second EBS message, 69% of all Long Island households would have begun the attempt to evacuate. This represents a total'of more than 560,000 households. After the second EBS message was played 68% of Nassau households, 70% of Suffolk l households (69% of those outside the EPZ and 76% of those within the EPZ) would have begun the attempt to evacuate. Since no one was advised to evacuate until the fifth EBS message broadcast at approximately 10:30 a.m., these data indicate that there would be a massive voluntary evacuation if the scenario utilized by LILCO in its Exercise w3re to become a reality. Respondents who said that they would not evacuate after hearing the second EBS message were asked what they would do after hearing the fifth EBS message: Supp'ose that at 10:30 a.m. you heard on the radio that at 9:39 a.m. a general emergency condition was declared at the Shoreham Nuclear Power Station. A LILCO representative said,
I that there had been a failure in plant safety systems, and recommended evacuation for all people living in the ten mile evacuation zone except those people who live south of the Long Island Expressway and Eant of the William Floyd Parkway. LILCO said that people who were told to evacuate would be safer if they left as soon as possible. The LILCO representative said if you are outside the ten mile zone there is no reason to take any action. He repeated once again that the Shoreham Nuclear Power Station is in a general emergency condition and that there had been a release of radiation into the air. When you heard this message, would you and members of your family: go about your normal business, or stay inside your home, or leave your home and go further away from the plant? The answers to this question, broken down by geographical area, are presented in Table 3. The data indicated that after hearing.the fifth EBS message, 77% of Long Island residents would have begun the attempt to evacuate. This represents a total of i more than 630,000 households. After the fifth EBS message was played, 78% of Nassau households and 76% of Suffolk households (75% of those outside the EPZ and 84% of those within the EPZ) would have begun the attempt to evacuate. Respondents who said that they would not evacuate after hearing the fifth EBS message were asked what they would do after hearing the seventh EBS message: At around 1 p.m. you heard the following message broadcast over the radio: A general emergency was declared at 9:39 a.m. today at the Shoreham Nuclear Power Station. A major release of radiation into the air occurred at 12:00 p.m. Based on measurements of radiation, the thyroid dose is expected to be 400% of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency evacuation guidelines at 2 miles; 100% at 5 miles and 40% at 10 miles downwind of Shoreham. A LILCO representative recommends evacuation for people in the entire 10 mile emergency planning zone. People in this zone will be safer if they evacuate as soon as possible away from Shoreham..,.
The LILCO representative said that if you live outside the 10 mile emergency planning zone, there is no reason to take any action. Once again, the Shoreham Nuclear Power Station is in a general emergency condition. There has been a release of radiation into the air. When you heard this message, would you and members of your family: go about your normal business, or stay inside your home, or leave your home and go further away from the plant? Data showing responses to this question, broken down by geographical area, are presented in Table 4. The data indicate that by 1:00 p.m., 80% of all Long Island households would have begun the attempt to evacuate. This represents a total of more than 650,000 households. After the seventh EBS message was played, 81% of Nassau residents and 79% of Suffolk residents (79% of those outside the EPZ and 87% of those within the EPZ) would have begun the attempt to evacuate. It should be pointed out that since by this time all residents of the EPZ were advised to evacuate, the data indicate that about 13% of households within the EPZ would not follow LILCO's advice. This represents approximately 4425 households. Since all but the households living within the EPZ were advised by LILCO that they need not evacuate, the total size of the evacuation shadow or voluntary evacuation by 1:00 p.m. would be more than 600,000 households, or more than 1,800,000 people. Attitudes Toward Shoreham and Nuclear Power Sixty-seven percent of Long Island residents are currently opposed to the opening.of the Shoreham nuclear power plant, 22% favor its opening, and 11% have no opinion. This represents a.
substantial increase in opposition to Shoreham since the last survey for Suffolk County which was conducted in June of 1982. At that time 46% were opposed to the opening of Shoreham, 37% favored the opening of the nuclear plant, and 18% had no opinion. Two Newsday polls conducted in 1985 and 1986 by Social Data Analysts found slightly more than 70% of Long Island residents opposed to the opening of the Shoreham plant. The current survey also repeated several questions aimed at finding out how apprehensive Long Island residents were about living near a nuclear power plant. The results from both the 1982 and the current survey are presented in Table 5. There has ll been virtually no change in the proportions of Long Island residents who believe that living near an airport, a mental hospital, or a coal fired power plant would be very dangerous. There has been a moderate increase in the proportion saying that living near a nuclear plant would be very dangerous. In 1982 51% gave this response and in the current survey 59% gave this response. It is possible that the negative attitudes that Long Islanders have toward Shoreham were exacerbated by the accident at the Chernobyl power plant in.the Soviet Union. The majority of Lon7 Island residents were familiar with the Chernobyl accidert with 71% able to correctly identify Chernobyl or the Soviet Union as the place in which a major accident had occurred at a nuclear power plant. A large majority of Long Island residents, 78%, believe that it is possible for a serious _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _
accident like that which occurred at Chernobyl to occur at the Shoreham Nuclear Power Plant if the plant is put into operation. Only 16% said that they did not believe that it was possible for such a serious accident to occur at Shoreham; 6% had no opinion on this question. A majority of Long Islanders believed that the accident at the Chernobyl nuclear power station had exposed people who lived up to 100 miles or more away from the plant to an unhealthy level of radiation. Sixty-four percent said that people living up to 100 miles or more away from the plant had been exposed to unhealthy levels of radiation. Monitorino for Radiation Contamination According to the LILCO scenario used in the February, 1986 Exercise, at about 1:45 p.m. an announcement was ma,de in which approximately 95,000 residents of a portion of the 10 mile area around the plant were advised to go to a specific location in Nassau County in order to be checked for possible radioactive contamination. The survey indicated that 50% of all Long Island households or more than 405,000 households (more than 1,200,000 people) would go the specific location in Nassau County to be checked for radioactive contamination. Fifty percent of all Nassau residents and 50% of all Suffolk residents (49% of those living outside the EPZ and 52% of those living within the EPZ) said that they would go to the specific location in Nassau to be checked. An additional 32% of the respondents said that they would go to another location to have their radiation level monitored. -
J Information Seekino In the scenario used by LILCO in it's February, 1986 Exercise a phone number was released to the public who were asked to call either this number or their LILCO District Office for additional information about what they should do. LILCO intends to use such communication methods in order to try to control the spread of unsubstantiated rumors. In the current survey, 46% of the respondents or more than 375,000 people said that they would definitely call to get more information. Another 29% or an additional 235,000 people said that they would probably call to 4 get more information. In the exercise of its emergency plan, LILCO representatives told people who called to get more information or have their questions answered that a LILCO representative would call them back. We asked those' respondents who said that they would definitely or probably call to get more information if they would wait for LILCO to call them back or would try to find the answer to their questions from some other source of information. Twenty-seven percent said that they would wait for LILCO to call them back; 67% said that they would look for another source of information; 7% said they did not know what they would do. Credibility of LILCO To what extent would Long Island residents believe information issued by LILCO during an emergency at the Shoreham nuclear plant? Of primary concern to us was whether people _
o i l living outside of the ten mile EPZ would believe that they were 7 safe and had no need to evacuate in the case of an accident. We asked the following question: l Suppose there was an accident at the Shoreham Nuclear Power Plant and LILCO officials said that everybody living within ten miles of the plant should evacuate but that everybody who lived more than 10 miles away from the plant was safe. Would you believe the LILCO officials that people living more than 10 miles away were safe? Only 18% said that they would believe LILCO officials that people living outside the EPZ were safe. Twenty-one percent of i N3ssau County residents and 15% of Suffolk County residents (15% qa $Aose outside the EPZ and 12% of those within the EPZ) said that Ghay would believe LILCO that those outside the EPZ were safe. Seventy-six percent of all Long Island residents -- 73% of 1 Nassau County residents and 80% of Suffolk County residents (80% of those living outside the EPZ and 84% of those within the EPZ) -- said that they would not believe LILCO that those living outside the EPZ were safe. The survey also contained a more general question on how much people would trust a LILCO official to tell the truth if l there was an accident at the Shoreham plant. A majority of Long Island residents continue to believe that they would not trust LILCO at all to tell the truth. Eight percent said that they would trust a LILCO official a great deal, 39% said somewhat, 51% said not at all, and 2% had no opinion. These results showed slightly more credibility for LILCO officials than did the survey 18 -
conducted for the County in 1982 at which time we found only 4% saying "a great deal," 36% "somewhat " 58% "not at all," and 2% with no opinion. Resoonses to Survev and Ccrrelates of Evacuation Intentions Table 6 shows the answers given to all the questions in the survey broken down by geographical area. Table 7 shows how each question was correlated with intention to evacuate after hearing the first EBS message. 4 4 1
TABLE 1* { Response to First EBS Message by Area l Assuming that the Shoreham Nuclear Power Plant is licensed and begins to operate, we would like to know what you would do if something happened at the plant. Suppose that you were at home on a ieekday morning and you woke up at 7:00 a.m. and turned on .the radio. You heard on the radio that there had been an incident at the Shoreham Nuclear Power Station and an alert condition was declared at 6:17 a.m. A LILCO representative said that no release of radiation had occurred but recommended that schools within the ten mile emergency planning zone should remain closed. He said that if you live more than ten miles away from the plant,-there is no reason for you to take any action. When you heard this message on the radio, would you and members of your family: go about your normal business, or stay inside your home, or leave your home and go further away from the plant? Resoonse Area Nassau -Suffolk Suffolk Outside EPZ Inside EPZ Total go about normal business 23% 16% 8% 19% (90,330) (62,641) (2723) (155,474) stay inside home 23 28 27 25 (90,330) (109,622) (9190) (204,571) leave home and go further away from plant 52 53 62 53 (204,225) (207,499) (21,102) (433,691) don't know 2 4 2 3 (7855) (15,660) (681) (24,549) Total 100% 101% 99% 100%
- The numbers in parentheses represent the numbers of households.
Numbers do not add up due to rounding errors. For a description of how the numbers of households were determined see the Technical Appendix. - - _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _
TABLE 2* Response to Second EBS Message by Area Suppose that in order to find out what had happened at Shoreham, you kept your radio on and at 8:45 in the morning you heard that a site area emergency condition was declared at 8:19 a.m. A site area emergency indicates that a major plant safety system could . fall. A LILCO representative said that a very minor release of t l radiation had occurred, and recommended that' schools within ten i miles of the Shoreham plant should remain closed. All milk producing animals, within two miles of the Shoreham plant, should be moved into shelters and placed on stored feed. The LILCO representative said that if you live more than ten miles away from the plant, there is no reason for you to take any action. When you heard this message, would you and members of your family: go about your normal business, or stay inside your home, or leave your home and go further away from the plant? Resoonse Area i Nassau Suffolk Suffolk Outside EPZ Inside EPZ Total go about normal business 13% 10% 4% 11% (51,056) (39,151) (1361) (90,011) stay inside home 17 20 18 18 (66,766) (78,301) (6126) (147,291) leave home and go further away from plant 68 69 76 69 (267,064) (270,140) (25,867) (564,616) don't know 1 2 1 1 (3927) (7830) (340) (8183) Total 99% 101% 99% 99% l r The numbers in parentheses represent the numbers of households. Numbers do not add up due to rounding errors. For a description of how the numbers of households were determined see the Technical Appendix. l l --.
4 I TABLE 3* Response to Fifth EBS Message by Area Suppose that at 10:30 a.m. you heard on the radio that at 9:39 i a.m. a general emergency condition was declared at the Shoreham nuclear power station. A LILCO representative said that there had been a failure in plant safety systems, and recommended evacuation for all people living in the ten mile evacuation zone except those people who live south of the Long Island Expressway 4 i and East of the William Floyd Parkway. LILCO said that people who were told to evacuate would be safer if they left as soon as possible. The LILCO representative said if you are outside the ten mile zone there is no reason to take any action. He repeated once again that the Shoreham nuclear power station is in a general emergency condition and that there had been a release of radiation into the air. When you heard this message, would~you and members of your family: go about your normal business, or stay inside your home, or leave your home and go further away from the plant? Resoonse Area Nassau Suffolk Suffolk Outside EPZ Inside EPZ Total go about normal business 8% 6% 1% 7% (31,419) (23,490) (340) (57,280) stay inside home 13 17 13 15 (48,308) (66,556) (4425) (122,743) leave home and go l further away from plant 78 75 84 77 l (306,338) (293,630) (28,590) (630,079) don't know 1 2 1 2 (3927) (7830) (340) (16,366) Total 100% 100% 99% 101% The numbers in parentheses represent-the numbers of households. Numbers do not add up due to rounding errors. For a description of how l the numbers of households were determined see the Technical Appendix. . l l
~. TABLE 4* Response to Seventh NBS Message by Area i At around 1 p.m. you heard the following message broadcast over the radio: i A general emergency was declared at 9:39 a.m. today at the Shoreham Nuclear Power Station. A major release of radiation 'into the air occurred at 12:00 p.m. Based on measurements of radiation, the thyroid dose is expected to be 400% of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency evacuation guidelines at 2 miles; 100% at 5 miles and 40% at 10 miles downwind of Shoreham. A LILCO representative recommends evacuation for people in the entire 10 mile emergency planning zone. People in this zone will be safer if they evacuate as soon as possible away from Shoreham. The LILCO representative said that if you live outside the 10 mile emergency planning zone, there is no reason to take any action. Once again, the Shoreham Nuclear Power Station is in a general emergency condition. There has been a release of radiation into the air. When you heard this message, would you and members of your family: go about your normal business, or stay inside your home, i i or leave your home and go further away from the plant? Resoonse Area l Nassau Suffolk Suffolk Outside EPZ Inside EPZ Total go about normal business 6% 4% 1% 5% (23,564) (15,660) (340) (40,914) stay inside home 12 16 10 14 (47,129) (62,641) (3404) (114,560) leave home and go further away from plant 81 79 87 80 (318,120) .(309,290) (29,611) (654,627) don't know 1 2 1 2 (3927) (7830) (340) (16,366) Total 100% 101% 99% 101% The numbers in parentheses represent the numbers of households. Numbers do not add up due to rounding errors. For a description of how the numbers of households were determined see the Technical Appendix. I y-w,-,,--.r, ..-y .m,-w .-gy,-.r-, cw,__, w ,vm_r_. --c._,,, .,.,wy,._%cym,ww.,,_,,_wy- ,,v.e%,r.,,,.-,-m-
i r TABLE S 4 Apprehension of Long Island Residents About Living Near Nuclear Power Plants How dangerous do you think Percent saying it would be to live near "very dangerous" each of the following: 1982 1987 an airport 7g 7g a mental hospital 7g 7g a coal fired power plant 10% 15% a nuclear power plant 51% 59% O l l l e I i
1 \\ TABLE 6 Responses by Geographical Area Suffolk Suffolk Outside Inside Nassau EP2 EPT Total In general, how dangerous do you think it would be to live near each of the following: 6. an airport: i very dangerous 6 8 5 7 l dangerous 44 36 43 40 not dangerous at all 47 53 49 50 don't know 3 2 2 3 Total 100 99 99 100 7. a mental hospital: very dangerous 6 8 5 7 dangerous 39 31 34 35 not dangerous at all 52 56 60 54 don't know 3 5 2 4 Total 100 100 101 100 8. a coal-fired power plant: very dangerous 15 15 10 15 dangerous 48 42 42 45 not dangerous at all 30 37 40 34 don't know 7 6 8 6 Total 100 100 100 100 ( 9. a nuclear power plant: very dangerous 54 64 61 58 dangerous 32 21 25 27 not dangerous at all 12 13 13 13 don't know 2 2
- 1 2
Total 100 100 100 100 25 - - ~ -
1 TABLE 6 (cont.) Suffolk Suffolk Outside Inside Nassau EPZ E92 Total 10. Would you describe yourself as: a supporter of nuclear power plants as a means of providing electricity 20 16 17 18 an opponent of nuclear power plants 41 55 63 48 you haven't made up your mind yet on this issue? 39 29 20 34 Total 100 100 100 100 11. Do you think that LILCO should be allowed to operate the Shoreham nuclear power plant to generate electricity 7 yes 26 19 18 22 no 61 72 76 67 don't know 13 9 5 11 Total 100 100 99 100 12. See Table 1 13. See Table 2 14. See Table 3 15. See Table 4 16. If at 1:45 p.m. you heard on the radio a LILCO representative say that cert-l tain people living within ten miles l of Shoreham may have been exposed to radiation during their trip out of the evacuation zone and should go to a specific location in Nassau County to be monitored for possible radio-active contaminatica, would you [ go to the specific location in Nassau County to see if you had been contaminated with radiation, or 50 49 52 50 ) go somewhere else to have your radiation level checked, or 31 33 38 32 would not bother to have your i radiation level check 15 12 5 13 don't know 4 5 4 5 i Total 100 99 99 100 26 -
TABLE 6 (cont.) Suffolk Suffolk Outside Inside Nassau EP2 EPZ Total 17. If LILCO announced a phone number that you could call to obtain more information or to have questions answered, do you think you would: definitely call to get more infor-mation 49 43 36 46 probably call 29 29 26 29 probably not call 10 12 14 12 definitely not call 11 14 23 13 don't know 1 2 1 1 Total 100 100 100 100 18. If when you called LILCO and asked your question, you were told that a representative would call you back with an answer, would you: wait for LILCO to call you back, or 27 26 29 27 I try to find the answer from some other source of information 68 65 67 67 don't know 5 9 4 7 Total 100 100 100 101 19. Suppose there was an accident at the Shoreham nuclear power plant and LILCO officials said that everybody living within ten miles of the plant should evacuate but that everybody l who lived more than 10 miles away from the plant was safe. Would you believe the LILCO officials that people living more than 10 miles away were safe? yes 21 15 12 18 no 73 80 84 77 don't know 6 6 4 6 Total 100 101 100 101 27 - 1 l l
TABLE 6 (cont.) Q Suffolk Suffolk Outside Inside Nassau EP2 EPT Total 20. If there was an accident at the Shoreham nuclear power plant, how much would you trust a LILCO offi-cial to tell the truth about the accident? a great deal 10 6 7 8 somewhat 43 35 30 39 not at all 45 56 61 51 don't know 2 3 1 2 Total 100 100 99 100 21. In the last year, have you heard or read anything about a major accident occurring at a nuclear power plant? yes 82 80 86 81 no 17 18 14 18 don't know 1 2 1 Total 100 100 100 100 22. Where did this accident occ'ur? Chernobyl the Soviet Union 72 70 .76 71 other 4 6 5 5 don't know 25 24 19 24 Total 101 100 100 100 l 23. Last spring a major nuclear accident occured at the Chernobyl nuclear l power station in the Soviet Union. l Do you think that it is possible for l a serious accident like that to occur l at the Shoreham nuclear power plant if l the power plant is put into operation? yes 76 80 82 78 no 17 15 15 16 don't know 7 5 3 6 Total 100 100 100 100 l i { 28 -
1 TABLE 6 (cont.) i l Suffolk Suffolk Outside Inside Nassau EP2 EPT Total 24. The accident at Chernobyl nuclear power station resulted in a large amount of radiation being released into the atmosphere. For how many miles around the planet do you think people were exposed to unhealthy levels of radiation? 10 miles or less 3 3 2 3 up to 50 miles 15 18 16 16 up to 100 miles '8 17 19 17 up to 500 miles 17 13 16 15 for more than 500 miles 34 28 34 31 don't know 14 21 12 17 Total 101 100 99 99 25. After a nuclear power plant is put into operation, how long do you think it can be utilized? for more than 100 years 5 9 3 7 between 500 and 100 years, or 13 10 13 11 it must be dismantled after about 30 to 40 years 43 35 47 40 don't know 39 46 38 43 Total 100 100 101 101 26. Currently do you think radioactive waste from a nuclear plant must be stored in the plant itself, or 33 23 27 28 can be buried at a government waste disposal site 40 42 44 41 don't know 27 35 30 31 Total 100 101 101 100 27. During normal operation, which type of electricity plant pollutes the air the least an oil-fired plant 18 22 23 20 a coal-fired plant 12 11 8 12 a nuclear-fired plant 54 50 60 52 you're not sure 16 15 10 15 Total 100 99 101 99 29 -
TABLE 6 (cont.) Suffolk Suffolk Outside Inside Nassau EP2 EP2 Total 28. During normal operation does a nuclear power plant give off a dangerous level of radiation? yes 23 22 24 23 no 60 54 60 57 don't know 18 24 16 21 Total 101 100 100 101 33. What is the last grade of school that you completed? some high school or less 5 6 4 5 high school graduate 30 38 35 34 some college 21 23 22 22 college graduate 44 33 39 39 Total 100 100 100 100 34. What is your age category? under 25 7 7 10 7 25-34 25 27 30 26 35-50 34 38 38 36 51-65 23 20 14 21 over 65 11 9 8 10 Total 100 101 100 100 4 35. How long have you lived on Long Island? all your life 30 34 36 32 more than 20 years 38 34 31 36 10 to 20 years 15 21 20 18 5 to 9 years 9 4 6 7 i l less than 5 years 8 6 8 7 Total 100 99 101 100 l l l 30 - i i
l l TABLE 6 (cont.) Suffolk Suffolk j Outside Inside Nassau EPZ EP2 Total 36. In general, would you describe your political beliefs as beings liberal 17 18 19 18 middle-of-the-road 52 49 49 50 conservative 27 29 29 28 don't know 5 4 2 4 l Total 101 100 99 100 38. What is your sex? male 44 49 43 46 female 56 51 57 54 Total 100 100 100 100 e 31 -
TABLE 7 Correlates of Evacuation Intentions % of people leaving after First EBS Messace In general, how dangerous do you think it would be to live near each of the following: 6. an airport: very dangerous dangerous 71% not dangerous at all 58 don't know 47 50 7. a mental hospital: very dangerous dangerous 60 not dangerous at all 59 don't know 49 50 19. a coal-fired power plant: very dangerous dangerous 64 not dangerous at all 56 don't know 44 58 l 9. a nuclear power plant: very dangerous dangerous 63 not dangerous at all 45 don't know 26 36 9 I e !
i TABLE 7, cont. i t of people leaving after First EBS Messace 10. Would you describe yourself as: a supporter of nuclear power plant as a means of providing electricity 25% an opponent of nuclear power plant 64 you haven't made up your mind yet on this issue? 53 11. Do you think that LILCO should be allowed to operate the Shoreham nuclear power plant to generate electricity? yes 27 no 64 don't know 40 19. Suppose there was an accident at the Shoreham nuclear power plant and LILCO officials said that everybody living within ten miles of the plant should evacuate but that everybody who lived more than 10 miles away from the plant was safe. Would you believe the LILCO officials that people living more than 10 miles away were safe? l yes 22 i no 62 don't know 33 20. If there was an accident at the Shoreham nuclear power plant, how much would you trust a LILCO l official to tell the truth j about the accident? a great deal 25 somewhat 42 not at all 67 don't know 38 l.. -.
TABLE 7, cont. % of people leaving after First EBS Messace 21. In the last year, have you heard or read anything about a major accident occurring at a nuclear power plant? yes 53% no 53 don't know 61 22. Where did this accident occur? Chernobyl, the Soviet Union 54 other 44 don't know 54 23. Last spring a major nuclear accident occurred at the Chernobyl nuclear power station in the Soviet Union. Do you think that it is possible for a serious accident like that to occur at the Shoreham nuclear power plant if the power plant is put into , operation? yes 59 no 26 don't know 49 24. The accident at the Chernobyl nuclear power station resulted in a large amount of radiation being released into the atmosphere. For how many miles around the plant do you thing, people were ex-posed to unhealthy levels of radiation? 10 miles or less 34 up to 50 miles 50 up to 100 miles 48 i up to 500 miles 50 l for more than 500 miles 65 don',t know 45 i l TABLE 7, cont. % of people leaving after First EBS Messace 25. After a nuclear power plant is put into operation, how long do you think it can be utilized 7 for more than 100 years 44% between 50 and 100 years, or 50 it must be dismantled after about 30 to 40 years 55 don't know 54 Total 53 26. Currently, do you think radioactive waste from a nuclear plant must be stored in the plant itself, or 54 can be buried at a government waste disposal site 50 don't know 57 Total 53 27. During normal operation, which type of electricity plant pollutes the air the least an oil-fired plant 56 a coal-fired plant 60 a nuclear-fired plant 48 you're not sure 60 l l 28. During normal operation does a nuclear power plant give off a dangerous level of radiation? yes 70 no 46 i don't know 55
TABLE 7, cont. t of people leaving after First EBS Messace 33. What is the last grade of school that you completed? some high school or less 58% high school graduate 54 some college 49 college graduate 54 34. What is your age category? under 25 68 ~ 25-34 59 35-50 57 51-65 41 over 65 42 35. How long have you lived on Long Island? all your life 50 more than 20 years 50 '10 to 20 years 61 5 to 9 years 59 less than 5 years 66 36. In general would you describe your political beliefs ar being: liberal 57 middle-of-the-road 52 conservative 53 don't know 56 38. What is your sex? male 51 female 55 l TECHNICAL APPENDIX SAMQlt.~' The survey is based upon a stratified random sample of households with residential telephones. Data provided by the New York Telephone Company indicate that more than 97% of Nassau and Suffolk County households have residential telephones. The vari-able upon which the sample.was stratified was geographical area. We wanted to interview 1500 residents of-Nassau and Suffolk Counties. Since telephone exchanges do not enable us to pinpoint a household as being in or outside of the EPZ, we used the tele-phone exchanges only as a preliminkry means of designating the respondent's actual geographical location. We.used zip codes to make the final determination of whether a respondent lived within the EPZ or outside of the EPZ. The zip codes also do not match precisely the boundaries of the EPZ, they do, however, correspond relatively closely with them. The zip code information was (b-tained from the respondents in the course of the survey. We used the following procedure in generating the sample. We entered into the computer a list of all exchanges in each i area, the total number of residential listings for each exchange, and then the working blocks for each exchange. The computer then i selected the last four digits of each number at random so that I each exchange would represent the same proportion in the sample 37 - n ,,.,e,.~.-, ,,,n., ,,------,,n ,_,a, c-n ma-,,._-.--,---m,-,~ mnm
s i as it did in the populati~on of residential listings. This information was obtained from the most recent editions of Cole's DirectoXg for Narsau and Suffolk Counties. l ) Using this type of " random digit dial" sample we were insured of including unlisted phone numbers in the sample. The sample was designed to be a random sample of households with telephone exchanges. (Below we describe how we handled the problem of households with more than one telephone.) For Suffolk County the exact designation of a respondent as i being within or outside of the EPZ was determined by the zip code l information provided us by the respondent. In Table A-1 we list all the zip codes within the ten mile EPZ, the number of residential listings in each zip code and the number of l interviews completed. Data.on the number of. residential listings in each zip code were ob'tained from Cole's Directory. (See the discussion of " weighting" below for a description of how weights for respondents living in different areas were applied.) Selection of Resnondent The sample we utilized for this survey is a random sample of households with residential telephones, not a random sample of individuals. Within the household we utilized either the male or female adult head of household as an informant on what the household would do in case of an incident at the Shoreham nuclear plant. Interviewers were instructed to ask to speak to the male or female head of household (see instructions to interviewers).. - - ~. - -., _. -. - -
1 1 A sex quota was used to insure that the final sample ,uld represent the population in terms of sex. It was important to make sure that women were not overrepresented as it is well known from prior surveys that the attitudes of men and women towards issues like nuclear power differ significantly. The survey ended up with 53% female respondents and 47% male respondents which corresponds precisely to the sex distribution according to the latest census information. Interviewina The interviewing for this study was subcontracted to Mktg. Inc. with offices in Islip and Farmingdale. Mktg is a large well-known company whose clients include most of the best known survey research companies in the country. It has been used in the past by Social Data Analysts. All the interviewing was done between December 16th and December 29th. (No interviews were conducted on December 20th, December 24th and December 25th.) on all days but Saturday, interviewing was conducted between the hours of 5:00 and 10:00 p.m. On Saturday interviewing was done both during the day and in the evening. Prior to the start of the survey, Dr. Stephen Cole and Patricia Urbells, Director of Field Research for Social Data t Analysts, conducted a one and s half hour training session for Mktg interviewers and project supervisors. Mktg is set up so that the client can monitor the interviews by listening in on the i 4
telephone lines. Extensive monitoring was conducted for this project to make sure that the interviewers were following the instructions precisely. A written set of interviewer instructions was prepared and is reproduced below. l l e e
INTERVIEWER INSTRUCTIONS i Shoreham Evacuation Survey December 1986 Social Data Analysts would like to thank you for helping us with this important study. We would appreciate it if you would read these brief interviewer instructions. If you have any questions at all about the way the survey should be administered your supervisor will be pleased to assist you. Thank you and have a good holiday! General Instructions 1) The most important instruction for this survey is to ); read the questionnaire exactly as it is written. You should read all words to all respondents. If you have any questions about how to pronounce a particular word please ask your supervisor. 2) There are several places in this survey where there are " Skip" instructions. Be careful to follow these directions i precisely. It is important that we ask all respondents all relevant questions which apply to them. 3) This survey is a pre-coded end survey. For every question you will indicate the response given by the respondent. by writing the appropriate number on th'e line at the far right of the questionnaire which corresponds to the question. You can only write 2n1 response on each answer line. The respondent must choose only one answer. If the respondent cannot choose, code with the corresponding number for " Don't Know." When you read a question and give the respondent the different answer choices, there is a " DON'T READ" section to each question. This section is for Equi ung d. l 4) Sometimes respondents ask what a question means. We do not want interviewers to try to explain the question to the respondent. It is important that every respondent be asked the same question. If a respondent asks what a question means, you should reread the question. If the respondent still has a question, call your supervisor. 5) Sometimes people ask who is sponsoring a research project. Do not volunteer this information; but if a respondent asks you, you can say that this survey is being done by Professor Stephen Cole, a sociologist at the State University of.New York at Stony Brook. If an respondent has any question about the survey they can call Professor Cole or his assistant Patricia l, Urbells at the following number 246-3439. l.
l Soecific Instructions Columns 1-5: Identification Number: In column 1-5 you should write the five digit identification number for the l respondent which appears on the sample sheet. This number should not be written down until after the interview is completed. i l Please check the number carefully as it is how we determine where 1 l a respondent lives.
== Introduction:== Read the introduction exactly as it is written. When you identify yourself please use a first and a last name. Respondent Selection: The sample used in this survey is a random sample of households. Within each household we want to interview either the male or female-head of household. Each interviewer must interview an approximately equal number of male and female heads of household. You have a separate sheet to keep l track of your completions by sex. If you have interviewed two 1 more women than men, you must interview a man on the next interview. For example if you have interviewed three women and 1 man, your next interview must be with a man. You should make sure that the person you are talking with is in fact a head of household. We do not want to interview teenagers, young people living at home with their parents, or old people living with their children. It is better to lose an interview rather than interview the wrong person. Questions 6 to 9: These questions should be read as follows: "In general, how dangerous do you think it would be to live near each of the following: an airport, would this be very dangerous, dangerous, not dangerous at all?" When the respondent answers, you will write down the number corresponding with the answer on the line at the far right with a 6 underneath it. You will then say, " What about a mental hospital, would this be very dangerous, dangerous, not dangerous at all?" etc. Please read all categories for each question. Any response marked with a " DON'T READ" such as the Don't Know and Refuse for questions 6 to 9 should not be read by the interviewer but marked when appropriate. Questions 10-11: Read exactly as written. Question 12: Be sure to read the introduction above l question 12 exactly as it is written. Question 12 is a long question and must be read slowly and clearly. If you read this question too fast, the respondent will not understand it. The question should be read exactly as it is written. Please be very careful to follow the SKIP instructions. If the respondent gives answer number 3, and on.ly if the respondent gives answer number 3, you will skip to question 16. If the respondent gives any answer other than 3, you will ask question 13. - I f! _ -. ~
s Questions 13-15: Each question is a long question which must be read slowly and clearly exactly as it is written. For each question follow the appropriate SKIP instruction. Question 16: All respondents should be read this question exactly as it is written. l Question 17: Read this question exactly as written and follow the appropriate SKIP instruction. Only respondents who give the first or second answer should be asked question 18. Questions 18-20: Please read these questions exactly as i they are written. Question 21: Read this questi'on exactly as it is written and follow the SKIP instruction. Only those who give answer one should'be asked question 22. Question 22: For this question you should not read the response categories. We want to see 12 the respondent knows that the accident took place at Chernobyl in the Soviet Union. If the respondent says any of the following: "Chernobyl" "the Soviet Union" " Russia" code response category 1. If the respondent says "Three Mile Island" ask "Is there any other accident at a nuclear power plant which you have heard about?" If the respondent does o not mention Chernobyl code as "2", if the respondent then does mention Chernobyl code as ".1". Questions 23-28: Read these questions exactly as they are written. Questions 29-30: If the respondent says they do not know how many miles their home is from Shoreham, please ask him/her to say approximately how many miles do they think it is from Shoreham. If the respondent still says he/she does not know code 99. Question 31: Code the number of children living in the respondent's home directly. If there are none, code 0. Question 32: We are interested in knowing how many adults (those people 18 years old or older) live in the household including the respondent. Questions 33-38: Read these questions exactly as written. Zip Code: When you complete the interview you must ask the respondent for his or her zip code. Without this zip code the interview cannot be used. It is absolutely necessary to identify the exact place in which the respondent lives. If a respondent does not know his or her zip code, you must ask for their exact address (street name, house number, and village) and write this down neatly. If the respondent will not give either the zip code l l l
~ l 1 1 I l or the address, the interview cannot be counted as a completion. In order to make sure that you do not make an error in copying the zip code number, please read it back to the respondent to make sure that it is written down accurately in columns 39-43. Verification: These surveys will be verified both by your In order for us to do cupervisors and by Social Data Analysts.it is necessary for you to ask the respondent this verification, A full name is unnecessary if the for his or her name. to give it. A first name or a Mr. A, ecspondent does not want (anything that will enable the verifier to identify the Gtc. rospondent) is all that is needed. Please write this name down en the questionnaire below the telephone number. Telephone number: In order to make sure that you have dialed the telephone number on the sample sheet correctly, please readIf it back to the respondent and write it down in columns 44-50. by any chance you made an error and dialed the wrong number, write down the number you actually dialed and notify your supervisor. Thanks again for your help with this survey. D 9 l 44 -
Verification In order to make sure that the interviews were conducted properly an extensive set of verification procedures were utilized. First, as reported above, interviewers were monitored as they actually made the calls both by a Social Data Analysts representative and by Mktg supervisors. Second, our agreement with Mktg called for them to verify at least 15% of all completed interviews by calling back the respondent and making sure that the correct respondent had been interviewed and that the correct information had been recorded by the interviewer.
- Finally, Social Data Analysts conducted its own independent verification on approximately 200 interviews selected at random.
All of this verification showed that the interviewers had conducted the survey with the proper respondent, followed the instructions they had been given, and recorded the correct information. An occasional error by an interviewer was detected and corrected. In all surveys it is inevitable that some interviewing errors are 1 made; but the verification procedures utilized here lead to the conclusion that there were very few errors on this survey. Outcomes and Response Rate j In Table A-2 we show the number of telephone numbers dialed and the outcome for each area. Altogether the sample consisted j of 7,543 telephone numbers. On about 21% of these numbers (1609) we received no answers after three call backs. Since the random digit dialing technique is not able to differentiate between l l
residential and business phone numbers with the same exchange, it is possible that a significant portion of these numbers were actually businesses which were not open during evening hours in l which the survey was conducted. For another 531 numbers we found either a continuous busy signal or were not able to find an adult at home after three call back attempts were made. A significant 1 l portion of the numbers selected, using the random digit dialing technique (2485) turned out not to be working telephone numbers. This is because not all numbers in active blocks are actually j assigned. In 159 cases we found people who either did not speak English or were unable to communicate with the interviewer for some other reason. In order to be sure of obtaining an approximately 50-50 sex distribution we employed a sex quota. In ~ 269 cases we were unable to complete an interview because the i interviewer was unable to obtain a respondent of the correct sex. Nine hundred and ninety people refused to participate in the 3 survey. Normally, in surveys such as this response rates are computed by dividing the number of completed interviews by the number of eligible people contacted (the completes plus the refusals). When we do this we find a completion rate of sixty i percent. Normally on surveys such as this response rates between 75% and 50% are obtained. The response rate depends upon the topic of the survey and who is identified as the organization conducting the survey. Although there is no way to be positive that those people who refused to participate in the survey do not. - - - - - _ - _ -,.
differ significantly from those whom we interviewed, we were able to compare the sample characteristics of this survey with sample characteristics of other surveys we have conducted recently on Long Island. In general, there is a close matching between the sample characteristics of this survey and sample characteristics of other surveys. We may, therefore, conclude that this survey is representative of the population of residential telephone subscribers on Long Island. Desian of the Questionnaire A draft of the questionnaire was designed after Dr. Cole consulted with the County's representatives, Kirkpatrick and Lockhart, Esqs. Two small pretests were conducted to make sure that the questionnaire was intelligible and administerable over the telephone. A final draft of the questionnaire was approved by the County's representative before the field work began. Analysis and Weichtina After the interviews were completed, the data were entered directly onto the computer and then verified for entry errors. I The data were weighted to take into account the rotal proportion of Long Island households in each of the three geographical areas and the number of households with more than one telephone. The obtained sample was weighted to adjust.for 1) the incidence of multiple phone listings in the population and 2) the oversampling l of households in the 10 mile EPZ. The initial adjustment to the. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _.
i sample was performed to compensate for the varied occurrence of households with multiple telephone listings. For this purpose the obtained sample was divided into three areas: Nassau County, Suffolk County beyond the EPZ, and the EPZ. Estimates were developed (based upon information obtained in the survey) for the proportion of households in each area with two or more phones. These estimates were then used to adjust the total number of residences within each area. Thus, in Nassau County there were a total of 456,676 residential listings; but, 28% of the households were estimated to have 2 or more phones; therefore, the adjusted number of households in Nassau County was 392,741. In Suffolk County outside the EPZ there were 429,614 listings with an estimate of 18% of the households having 2 or more listings; .therefore, the adjusted number of households in Suffolk outside i the EPZ was 391,507. There were 36,597 residential listings in the EPZ and an estimate of 14% of the households with multiple listings; therefore, the adjusted number of households in the EPZ was 34,039. The weights employed reflect the total distribution of households on Long Island. All weights used are reported in Table A-3. Computing the sampling error for any particular result in this survey is complicated by the use of the weighting procedure. The sampling error for Nassau County and Suffolk County outside the EPZ is approximately plus or minus four percentage # points. The sampling error for the EPZ is plus or minus five percentage points. The sampling error for the entire sample is 1 L
I i approximately plus or minus three percentage points. This means that in theory if this survey were to be repeated 100 times using i the same techniques, that in 95 out of the 100 times the results obtained for a particular question would be within 3 percentage points of the results which would have obtained by interviewing members of every Long Island household. This calculation assumes that the survey was conducted under ideal circumstances. Since i there are a large number of practical problems in conducting surveys of this type, it la possible that there could be other sources of error in the survey. J 9 6 1 i e l.. _.... _ _
i 1 TABLE A-1 Zip codes of Respondents Total Complete Area /Zio Code Residences Interviews Nassau County 392,741 492 Suffolk County (outside EPZ) 385,448 542 Port Jefferson (outside EPZ) 6059 87 Inside EPZ 11778 3852 62 11786 1279 29 11792 1894 24 11961 3966 45 11727 6814 42 11764 2754 45
- l 11766 2108 36 11777 2762 33 j
11789 2291 33 11933 1604 1 11949 1653 1 l 11953 2305 22 11980 757 6 i TOTAL 818,287 1500 l i
TABLE A-2 NUMBER OF TELEPHONE NUMBERS DIALED AND OUTCOME BY AREA M.tA Suffolk Suffolk outside Inside Outcome Nassau EPZ EPZ Total Completed Interviews 492 629 379 1500 No Answer or Business 482 682 445 1609 Busy, No Adult at Home 210 157 164 531 Not a Working Number 903 942 640 2485 Language or Psychological Problem 56 62 41 159 i could Not Obtain Correct Sex 101 96 72 269 Refusals 349 374 267 990 TOTALS 2593 2942 2008 7543 1 -
TABLE A-3 Weights Total Completed Total after Area /Zio code Residences Interviews Welaht Weicht Nassau County 392,741 492 1.463 720 Suffolk County (outside EPZ) 385,448 542 1.305 707 Port Jefferson (outside EPZ) 6059 87 .128 11 Inside EPZ 11778 3852 62 .115 7 11786 1279 29 .082 2 11792 1894 24 .145 3 11961 3966 45 .162 7 11727 6814 42 .297 12 11764 2754 45 .112 5 11766 2108 36 .107 4 11777 2762 33 .153 5 11789 2291 33 .127 4 11933 1604 1 1.960 2 11949 1653 1 2.019 2 11953 2305 22 .188 4 11980 757 6 .231 1 TOTAL 818,287 1500 1496* 0 Does not add to 1500 due to rounding error introduced by the weighting procedure. I I l t I
QUESTIONNAIRE Shoreham Evacuation Survey December 1986 Nello, my name is and I as calling i for Social Data Analysts, Inc. We are doing a survey on some current social problems facing people living on Long Island. May I please speak to the (male / female) head of household? 2 In general, how dangerous do you think it would be to live near each of the following: 3 (Categories for Q. 6 to Q. 9) 4 1= very dangerous 2e dangerous Je not dangerous at all 5 DON'T READ (4e Don't Know
- 9. Refuse 6.
an airport = 6 7. a mental hospital 7 8. a coal fired power plant 8 9. a nuclear power plant 9 10. Would you describe yourself as 1 = a supporter of nuclear power plants as a means of providing electricity. 2m an opponent of nuclear power plants, or 3 = you haven't made up your mind yet on this issue? DON'T READ (9 m Refuse 10 -
I 1 l 11. Do you think that LILCO should be allowed to operate the Shoreham nuclear power plant to generate electricity? 1 a yes DON'T READ (3 e Don't Know 2 = no (9 = Refuse 11 Now I would like to ask you a few qyestions about what you would do if something happened at the Shorehas nuclear power plant. 12. Assume that the Shoreham nuclear power plant is licensed and begins to operate, we would like to know what you would if something happened at the plant. Suppose that you were at home on a weekday morning'and you woke up at 7:00 a.m. and turned on the radio. You heard on the radio that there had been an incident at the Shoreham nuclear power station and an alert condition was declared at 6:17 a.m. A LILCO representative said that no release of radiation had occurred but recommended that schools within the ten mile emergency planning zone should remain closed. He said that if you live more than ten alles away from the l plant, there is no reason for you to take any action. I When you heard this message on the radio, would you and members of your family: 1 = go about your normal business, or (ASK Q. 13) 2 = stay inside four home, or (ASK Q. 13] 3 = leave your home and go further away from the plant (SKIP TO Q. 16] DON'T READ (4
- Don't Nnow (ASK Q. 13)
[9 = Refuse (ASK Q. 131 12 13. Suppose that in order to find out what had happened at Shoreham, you kept your radio on and at 8:45 in the morning you heard that a site area emergency condition l was declared at 8:19 a.m. A site area emergency indi-cates that a major plant safety system could fail. A LILCO representative said that a very minor release of radiation had occurred, and recommended that schools within ten miles of the Shoreham plant should remain closed. All ellk producing animals, within two miles j of the Shorehais plant, should be moved into shelters i and placed on stored feed. The LILCO representative said that if you live more than ten miles away from t the plant, there is no reason for you to take any action. a 4 e When you heard this message on the radio, would you and members of your family: 1 = go about your normal business, or (ASK Q. 14) 2 = stay inside your home, or (ASK Q. 14) 3 = leave your home and go further away from the plant (SKIP TO Q. 16] DON'T READ (4 = Don't Know (ASK Q. 14) (9 = Refuse (ASK Q. 14) 13 14. Suppose that at 10:30 a.m. you heard on the radio that at 9:39 a.m. a general emergency condition was declared at the Shoreham nuclear power station. A LILCO represen-tative said that there had been a failure in plant safety systems, and recommended evacuation for all people living in the ten mile evacuation zone except those people who live south of the Long Island Expressway and East of the William Floyd Parkway. LILCO said that people who were told to evacuate would be safer if they left as soon as possible. The LILCO representative said that if you are outside the ten mile zone there is no reason to take any action. He repeated once again that the Shoreham nuclear power station is in a general emergency condition and that there had been a release of radiation into the air. When you heard this message on the radio, would you and members of your family: 1 = go about your normal business, or (ASK Q. 15) 2 = stay inside your home, or (ASK Q. 15) 3 = leave your home and go further away from the plant (SKIP TO Q. 16] DON'T READ (4 = Don't Know (ASK Q. 15) (9 = Pefuse (ASK Q. 151 14 15. At around 1 p.m. you heard the following message broadcast over the radios A general emergency was declared at 9:39 a.m. today at the shoreham nuclear power station. A major release of radiation into the air occurred at 12:00 p.m. Based on measurements of radiation, the thyroid dose is expected to be 400% of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency evacuation guide- , lines at 2 miles: 1004 4t 5 miles and 40% at 10 miles downwind of Shorsham. A LILCO representative recommends evacuation for people in the entire 10 mile emergency planning zone. People in this zone -
i i will be safer if they evacuate as soon as possible away from Shoreham. The LILCO representative said that if you live outside the 10 mile emergency planning zone, there is no reason to take any action. Once again, the shoreham nuclear power station is 1 in a general emergency condition. There has been a t release of radiation into the air. When you heard this message on the radio, would you and members of your family: t 1 = go about your normal business, or 2e stay inside your home, or 3 = leave your home and go further away from the l plant DON'T READ [4 e Don't Know (9 = Refuse 15 16. If at 1:45 p.m. you heard on the radio a LILCO repre-sentative say that certain people living within ten miles of Shoreham may have been exposed to radiation during their trip out of the evacuation zone and should go to a specific location in Nassau County to be monitored for possible radioactive contamination, would yous i 1
- go to the specific location in Nassau to see if you had been contaminated with radiation, or l
2 = go somewhere else to have your radiation level I checked, or 3 = would not bother to have your radiation level checked i DON'T READ (4 e Don't Know (9 s Refuse 16 l 1 l 17. If LILCO announced a phone number that you could call l to obtain more information or to have questions answered, do you think that you would 1 e definitely call to get more information (Ask Q. 181 1 2 e probably call (Ask Q. 14] j 3 = probably not call (Skip to Q. 191 4 e definitely not call (Skip to Q. 191 i \\ DON'T Read (5 a Don't know (8 kip to Q. 19) (9 e Refuse (Skip to Q. 19] 7 17 i i f i
l l' 10. It when you called LILCO and asked your question, you were told that a representative would call you back with i an answer, would yous 1 e wait for LILCO to call you back, or 2e try to find the answer from some other source of information DON'T READ [3 e Don't Nnow (9 e Refuse l 10 19. Suppose there was an accident at the Shoreham nuclear i power plant and LILCO officials said that everybody ( living within ten miles of the plant should evacuate but that everybody who lived more than 10 miles away from the plant was safe. Would you believe the LILCO officials that people living more than 10 miles away were safe? i I e yes 2 e no DON'T (3 e Don't Know READ (9 e Refuse 19 20. If there was an accident at the Shoreham nuclear power plante how much would you trust a LILCO official to tell the truth about the accident? i la a great deal DON'T [4e Don't Know i 2e somewhat READ (9 Refuse ( 3e not at all 20 21. In the last year, have you heard or read anything about a major accident occurring at a nuclear power plant? t 1 e yes (ASK Q. 22) 2 e no (SKIP TO Q. 23) DON'T READ (3 e Don't know (SN!P TC (9 e Refuse Q. 231 21
- 22. Where d'id this accident occur?
1 DON 'T R EAD ( 1 e Chernobyl, the Soviet Union [ [ 2 e other [ 3 e don't know l [9e refuse 22 i [ 57 - f l
23. Last spring a major nuclear accident occurred at the Chernobyl nuclear power station in the Soviet Union. Do you think that it is possible for a serious accident like that to occur at the shorehas nuclear power plant if the power plant is put into operation? Ie yes 2 e no DON'T (3 e Don't know READ (9 e Refuse 23 24. The accident at the Chernobyl nuclear power station resulted in a large amount of radiation being released into the atmosphere. For how many miles around that plant do you think people were exposed to unhealthy levels of radiation? I = 10 miles or less 2e up to 50 miles DON'T [ g Don't know 3 e up to 100 miles READ [9e Refuse 4e up to 500 miles 5 = for more than 500 miles 24 e 25. After a nuclear power plant is put in operation, how .long do you think it can be utilised? 1e for more than 100 years 2 e between 50 and 100 years or 3e it must be dismantled after about 30 to 40 years DON'T READ (4 e Don't Nnow (9 = Refuse 25 26. Currently, do you think radioactive waste from a nuclear plant 1 a must be stored in the plant itself, or 2 e can be buried at a government waste disposal site DON'T READ (4 e Don't Know (9 e Refuse 26 4 = $8 -
I i 1 l 27. During normal operation, which type of electricity plant pollutes the air the laaats 1e an oil-fired Plant ] 2 e a coal-fired plant 3e a nuclear-fired plant i DON'T READ (4 e you're not sure ($ e all about the same (9 e Refuse 1 I 27 f 28. During normai an.cmelan does a nuclear power plant L give off a dangerous level of radiation? I 1 e yes 2e no DON'T READ (3 e Don't Know j (9 e Refuse 28 29-30. As the crow flies, about how many miles do you think your home is from the Shoreham nuclear power plant? l i 1 DON'T READ (Code Directly: 00 to 981 1 (Don't Know/ Refuse e 99 l 29 30 i 31. How many children under the age of 18 do you have living at home with you? DON'T READ (Code Directly from 0 - 8 t (If you have 8 or more children i Code a 8 (Refuse = 9 z 31 i 32. Inetudina vaurnalf, how many people 18 years old or 4 older live in your home? DDW'T KEAD (Code Directly from 1 - 0 1 (9 e Refuse i, 32 i i 1 l 1 i a 1 l 59 - t
33. What is the last grade of school that you completed? 1e some high school or less 2 = high school graduate 3 = some college 4 = college graduate DON'T READ (9 e Refuse] 33 34. What is your age category 7 1e under 25 2e 25-34 3 = 35-50 4 = 51-65 5 = over 65 DON'T READ (9 = Refuse] 34 35. How long have you lived on Long Island? 1 = all your life 2 = more than 20 years 3 = 10 to 20 years 4 = 5 to 9 years 5 = less than 5 years DON'T READ [9 e Refuse 35 36. In general would you describe your political beliefs as being: Le liberal DON'T (4e Don't Know 2= middle-of-the-road READ [9e Refuse 3e conservative 36 37. Now many different phones are there in this householdt by that I mean how many different phone numbers, not extensions? DON'T READ [ Code Directly - 1 thru 4) (If five or more, Code = 5 (9 a Refuse 37 60 -
o. t i 38. What is your sex? 1...te
- . f e-te l
3. Could fou please give me your Zip Code? P 39 40 41 42 43 [ Interviewers Please repeat back the Elp Code to verify correctness) THANR YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION l (Interviewer ptease verify and record respondent's telephone number] i t 44 45 46 47 48 49 I P e e S i 1 L F i 1 I t ! i}}