ML20235E840
| ML20235E840 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 07/29/1987 |
| From: | Lindell M LONG ISLAND LIGHTING CO. |
| To: | |
| References | |
| OL-3-A-050, OL-3-A-50, NUDOCS 8709280292 | |
| Download: ML20235E840 (5) | |
Text
_
b ~ 3 2 2-LILCO, July 24,1987 7/2c1/P)7
/9-50 W Q~ & Nse
{
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA i
9 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION I
'87 SEP 17 P12:17 Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Boarci In the Matter of
)
)
LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY
) Docket No. 50-322-OL-3
) (Emergency Planning)
(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station,
)
Unit 1)
)
REBUTTAL TESTIMONY OF DR. MICHAEL LINDELL 1.
Q.
Please state your name and business address.
l l
A.
My name is Dr. Michael K. Lindell. I am an Associate Professor of Psychol-ogy at Michigan State University. I am a consultant to LILCO on human i
behavior in emergencies.
2.
Q.
Please briefly summarize the purpose of this rebuttal testimony.
A.
The purpose of this testimony is to respond to written and oral testimony given by Suffolk County's witnesses that misinterprets my work and mischaracterizes my professional opinions in this proceeding.
)
3.
Q.
Dr. Lindell, during their oral testimony, Suffolk County witness Dr. Cole h
stated that your Nuclear Safen article, " Protective Response to Technolog-ical Emergency: Risk Perception and Behavior Intention," is " entirely one l
l hundred percent consistent with my work." Do you agree?
i A,
No. While I have conducted surveys in my work and consider them.very useful, I do not use them for the same purpose as Dr. Cole does. Dr. Cole has used his measures of evacuation intentions to predict how people will behave in the future. In my Nuclear Safety article I used a questionnaire to measure the evacuation intentions and risk perceptions of individuals 8709280292 870729 PDR ADOCK 05000322 0
PDR L
j
4 e
m
+
,9"#
g
\\
.g s
o' D
fo.
t.A v
1 A
1e u.
\\\\
\\
\\ t. g,*g g,v.
.,f*CC
\\
)
og$
"S
- 4 3
- 1
%g 4 y
~$g[;
\\s sggO.\\-
5 gg
\\
s
- =., -
O concerning two technological hazards. At no point in this study were data -
collected on an actual evacuation. Thus, these data, like Dr. Cole's, pro-vide no basis for determining whether evacuation intentions.would be at,all predictive of actual evacuation behavior.
4.
Q.
Why did you study behavioral intentions and risk perceptions?
A.
As we stated in the introduction of our Nuclear Safety article, our main -
purpose in studying behavioralintentions and risk perceptions was to pro-vide the initial step of an approach for determining whether evacuation in-tentions data collected prior to an emergency can be explained by the per-ceived characteristics of a hazard. As we stated in the conclusion of the article, we believe that the data we collected would be useful to emergency planners not to predict how many people would evacuate but in helping the
~
planners to understand what types of cues or characteristics of the hazard would be most salient to local residents. By knowing what these character istics are the planners will be more able to arouse the concern of the resi-j l
dents for their safety and prompt them to take appropriate protective ac-tion during an actual emergency.
5.
Q.
Suffolk County's witnesses also state that it is improper to compare the public's response to a radiation release to other types of disaster responses.
I In support of this position they cite two statements in your Nuclear Safety article that conclude that your data confirms the results of other studies in
" demonstrating how negatively radiation hazard is used." Do you agree L
with their use of your article for this purpose?
A.
No, I don't. While it is true that our research showed that radiation hazard is viewed quite negatively, Suffolk County's witnesses f alled to note that l
the concluding sentence in this paragraph stated that radiation and dioxin hazards are nonetheless viewed similarly. This result is consistent with
)
data from a previous study I conducted that showed the risk of a nuclear l
1
l 3
a
-3 7
/D power plant to be viewed by the public as similar to those of facilities han-
]
dling toxic chemicals. Lindell and Earle, "How Close is Close Enough: Pub-1 l
lic Perceptions of the Risks of Industrial Facilities," Risk Analysis, Vol. 3,,
No. 4, pp. 245-53 (1983). This study showed the perceived risk of a nuclear power plant to be less than those of a toxic chemical disposal f acility.
Thus, Suffolk County's statement that radiation hazard is perceived by the public entirely differently from other hazards is incorrect.
]
f 6.
Q.
In your opinion, is your Nuclear Safety article consistent with your previous
]
works and with your written testimony in this proceeding?
1 l
t A.
Yes, it is. There is nothing in the Nuclear Safety article that is inconsis-i l
tent with my previous works or my written testimony in this proceeding. It is clear from reading their written and oral testimony that Suffolk County's witnesses have been quite selective in their choice of quotations from our Nuclear Safety article and have used these to bolster a position that lacks l
an adequate scientific foundation. As I have stated in my written testimo-I ny and in my AIF report, " Planning Concepts and Decision Criteria for Sheltering and Evacuation in a Nuclear Power Plant Emergency," evacua-i tion intentions data should be interpreted cautiously.
1 x
7.
Q.
According to their oral testimony (OL-3 Hearing Transcript at 17,840),
Suffolk County's witnesses interpret your research and specifically your Nuclear Safety article as supporting their position that individuals consider
)
personal safety as the only significant f actor to look at in making a deci-l sion to evacuate. What is your opinion about this characterization of your research?
A.
While I certainly agree that the personal safety f actor tends to prompt evacuation, it is not the only f actor that must be considered when trying to understand whether or not local residents will evacuate in an actual emer-gency. Disaster research suggests that there are many other factors which -
)
t____________._________._____.__.__________.________.__.___.-_-._
o.
<]
will influence an individual's choice among evacuation, sheltering, informa-tion seeking, and continuation 0:f normal activity. For example, residents
(
will consider such barriers to evacuation as destination, means of transpor-J tation and routes to travel, financial costs such as time away from work, various social costs, fear of looters, and other disruptions of normal activi-ties. If emergency planners take these factors into consideration I believe that most people will comply with protective action recornmandations so l
l long as it is explained to them what they should do and why they should do it, as well as what they should not do and why they should not do it.
1 8.
Q.
Does this conclude your testimony?
l A.
Yes.
1 h
1 i
1 l
l
)
l L