ML20235F217

Intervenor Exhibit I-SC-13,consisting of Testimony of Cole,Sc Saegert,Jh Johnson,D Harris,M Mayer,Gc Minor & Sholly Re Lilco Reception Ctrs (Planning Basis).Supporting Info Encl

ML20235F217
Person / Time
Site:	Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png
Issue date:	07/08/1987
From:	Cole S, Harris D, Jerrica Johnson, Mayer M, George Minor, Saegert S, Sholly S SUFFOLK COUNTY, NY
To:
References
OL-3-I-SC-013, OL-3-I-SC-13, NUDOCS 8709280461
Download: ML20235F217 (200)

Text

{{#Wiki_filter:- - - _ - - _ Y b0 .l -c - s c - /3 l UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Ct.i ' ' me i Before the Atomic Safety and Licensino Board l ~87 SEP 22 All :59 cr n I ) gop: .a ;, 14 s n : ',. - In the Matter of ) ) LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY ) Docket No. 50-322-OL-3 ) (Emergency Planning) (Shoreham NucleaE 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 LILCO!S RECEPTION CENTERS (PLANNING BASIS) I. IDENTIFICATION OF WITNESSES i Q. Please state your names and positions. l (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. l (Saegert) My name is Susan C. Saegert. I,am Professor of Psychology and Environmental Psychology at the City University of New York Graduate School. i ga %[2$Dy[ [ 2 G / a L

p

• 'f e

[ 1 1

NN+

\\'p.

1. s 4

N- / 4 b(. A'4s #, # '34 kh hD 1 v.f %+ N ,4~., i. 1 %[ +g; s es;w: a g

r UNITED STATES OF AMERICA l NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION-Before the Atomic Safety and Licensino. Board -1 ) I In the Matter of ) ) LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY ) Docket No. 50-322-OL-3 ) (Emergency Planning). (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, ) Unit 1) ) i ) l 1 i TESTIMONY OF. STEPHEN COLE, SUSAN C..SAEGERT, JAMES H. JOHNSON, JR., l DAVID HARRIS, MARTIN MAYER, GREGORY C. MINOR AND STEVEN C. SHOLLY ON BEHALF OF SUFFOLK COUNTY } REGARDING LILCO'S RECEPTION CENTERS J (PLANNING BASIS), 1 I April 13, 1987 1 l ) i d

v (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 I 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. i (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. 1 (Sholly) My name is Steven C. Sholly. I am a consultant with MHB Technical Associates of San Jose, California. O. 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, i. _ _ - _ _ _ - _ _ _ - _ _

(. ns 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, inc.uding Newsday, The Boston Globe, The Balti-l 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 have 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 Ouarterly, American 1 l Socioloaierl Review, and American Journal of Socioloov. In addi-l tion, I am the author of seven. books, including a textbook on research methods, The Sociological Method, Third edition I i (New York: Harper and Row, 1980). My work in sociology has been ) 1 recognized by the receipt of a Guggenheim Foundation Fellowship, i I l appointment as Fellow to the Center for Advanced Studies in Behavioral Sciences, and receipt of a Ford Foundation Faculty Research Fellowship. For a more complete description of quali-fications and publications, see 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 - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

l 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 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. l 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 Psycholoav: Man and His Physical Settina, second edition; Holt, Rinehard and Winston, 1976). I have also edited a book entitled l 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. w__-______-_________-____________

1 ~--

)

) r (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' ) ,i Michigan State. University in 1980. I am currently _on sabbatical, -during which time I am conducting research as a' Ford Foundation; Post-Doctoral Fellow. l 'l Among my areas of expertise are energy policy and plaaning. In particular, I have conducted extensive 1research and written numerous articles on evacuation' behavior, asLwell as:the public's perception of-risk associated with radiological and other hazards. For a more detailed description of.my qualifications, l see my Vita which is attached as Exhibit 3 hereto. l l i (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 specialties 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.

-} x.. ;' I \\ 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-i 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 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 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

e. been involved-in a wide variety of projects, many of them related to the operation of or emergency planning for nuclear power l plants. I have testified as an expert witness in numerous proceed-ings before the Nuclear Regulatory Comruission 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 l 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 l resume, which is affixed as Exhibit 6 to this testimony. I (Sholly) I received a B.S. in Education from Shippensburg State College in 1975 with a major in Earth and Space Science and 1 a minor in Environmental Education. I have seven years experi-I ence with nuclear power matters. In particular, for four and one-half years I was employed by the Union of Concerned Scien-l 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-i sultant with MHB Technical Associates for one and one-half years, j I during which time I have been involved in a variety of projects 9 l

l related to the. safety and economics of nuclearspower plants, l including the assessment'of severe accident issues for the L Shoreham Nuclear Power Station.- 4 I have testified as an expert witness in proceedings.before e the Nuclear 1 Regulatory Commission'and other bodies, including,the safety hearings'en 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. I 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. See Plan, at 3.6-7.1/ The reception l centers are located in Nassau County in the villages.of Bellmore, 1 i Roslyn and Hicksville. Id. The LILCO Plan provides that during-a Shoreham accident involving a release of fission products, L 1/ All references to the Plan are to Revision 8 unless otherwise noted, i _e_

'Y $ .) 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. i Specifically, this testimony will' address the number of people who are likely to seek mcnitoring 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, 1 including: i 1. Whether LILCO's new monitoring procedures are adequate; l i 2. Staff requirements, given LILCO's new reception l center scheme; l 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. See Memorandum and Order (Rulings on Motion to Reopen Record and l Remand of Coliseum Issues), (December 11, 1986) at 17-19. The l l adequacy of the facilities, resources and staff which LILCO has committed to provide monitoring to the public is dependent on the 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. - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

(J) j i Revision 8 of LILCO's Plan does not state how many evacuees 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, l 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 ChErles A. Daverio, et al. on the Suitability of Reception Centers (March 30, 1987) at 3-12 ("LILCO Testimony"). The estimated summer population of the EPZ is ) 1 approximately 160,000; 30% of that figure is approximately 48,000 I people.. If more than 30% of the EPZ population arrives at its 1 reception centers, LILCO will be reduced to attempting to cope with the excess demand by using ad hoc measures. _I_d_., at 3.9-5A. NURIG 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_/ Eee, 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 State of New York Regarding LILCO's Reception Centers (April 13, 1987). I _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ -

i\\. vp= ,) 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 l and intersections leading to the recep' ion centers will result in c widespread traffic congestion which will delay the arrival at the reception centers of those who need monitoring and decontamination.d/ The ultimate result of the overwhelming demand on LILCO's I limited resources and on the limited road capacity will be delays j I in identifying those members of the public who are actually con-d/ Eeg Direct Testimony of David T. Hartgen and Robert C. Millspaugh on Behalf of the State of New York Regarding L'ILCO's Reception Centers (April 13, 1987). 4 e

.'y . '). taminated. 'This violates the relevant planningLguidance?(NUREG 0654'Section II.J.12).and, in turn, could lead to' adverse public health consequences.5/ ] 4 I 1 III.. DATA, RESEARCH AND EXPERT OPINIONS I I 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 1 A. (Cole) Yes. I recently conducted a survey which,~ among other things, was aimed at det'ermining how Long Island residents both inside and outside of the EPZ would respond to a LILCO advisory to seek monitoring at reception centers. The survey instrument I used incorporated the EBS messages and acci-O dent scenario which were used in the February 13, 1986 exercise of the LILCO Plan. 1 I 1 1/ See Testimony of Edward.P. Radford, et al. on behalf of Suffolk County regarding LILCO'S Reception Centers (Monitoring and Decontamination Procedures) (April 13, 1987). ' a___-____

,j The purpose of this survey was not to measure orecisely what 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-ters for monitoring.

a. Description of Survev Q. Please describe how the survey was conducted. l 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 1 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 i determine how long it would take to administer the questionnaire on the telephone and whether its wording was clear. The final l Sudey l questionnaire used in the Juumerry' appears at pp. 53-61 of Exhibit l 8 of this testimony. 1 I 1/ (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 me-e than 150 surveys I have conducted, only about one dozen have had samples larger than that used for this survey. 1 _ _ _ _ - - -

Upon completion of the questionnaire, the survey was admin-l istered to a stratified random sample of households residing in Nassau and Suffolk' Counties. The sample was stratified based J upon three geographical areas; we interviewed a random sample of { l 379 residents living in the EPZ, a random sample of 629 residents 1 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. See 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 computer. We then verified the data entries,. and computed the weights to be used to make sure that when responses from the three geographical areas were added together, we had a representative sample.E/ 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. E/ 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 in detail in the Technical Appendix to the Report. Exhibit 8, pp. 47-49. _

( 1 .) 1 ~ - .A.. (Cole) The survey was designedEto 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/ l 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 1 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/ 9/ In selecting the male or female head of_ household, we util-ized a sex 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-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. _ _ _ _ _ - - _ - - _ - -

, ~. } i LThis 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 Survev 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 by LILCO during its February 1986 Exercise to " inform" the public of the escalating nature of an'acci' dent 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 LILCC 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? 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 j all Long Island households said that they would go to the , i

y 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 oeople. 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 I 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 l people LILCO presumes will actually arrive'at LILCO's reception j l centers? i 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 arrive at the reception centers. Thus, as noted above, no one suggests that the survey is a precise instrument which accurately j predicts precisely how many, or which, people would actually seek monitoring. But, the survey is the best tool that we have; it I gives us a rough idea of the magnitude of monitoring-seeking behavior. LILCO's witness, Dr. Lindell, has used his previous i surveys to draw conclusions about future behavior, just as we have. l 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 serious accident, such as (footnote continued). _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

f l Q.. What do.the' foregoing surveyfresults mean in" evaluating 4 'LILCO's latest' reception center scheme? ') l l J A. (Cole) IThe. overwhelming public response.which will of 1 occur as a result of a LILCO. advisory'for.even a portionAEPZl residents-to seek monitoring raises several questions'about the workability'of LILCO's Plan. First, the data'.show;that evacuees arriving at LILCO's recept' ion centers,will not.be restricted to EPZ residents.. Rather,' people from well'outside thefEPZfmay seek y l monitoring. As discussed further below, this will'be true even where:such' people,may7 have.no scientific basis for'believingithey 1 are contaminated? Since LILCO's Plan provides no~means to 1 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. l 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 (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 response to an advisory to do so. l_3_/ _S3 e.e notes 3 and 4. i ' o

O, e3 "l/ 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. Resoonse 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 s l been conducted, hypothesize that question wording may have led j l 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. c_

n .s .) This is because the same substantive results have been obtained in many different questionnaires with many different wording s patterns. These include not only my own survey, but also a surveyconductedforLILCObyYangfkovich,Skelly,andWhite, surveys conducted for Newsday, and a survey conducted by LILCO witness Dr. Lindell and his colleague V. E. Barnes (discussed further below). All of these' surveys show that the magnitude of the public's response to a Shoreham accident would be much +hgSS greater than LILCO assumes. The consistency of theer results refutes LILCO's witnesses' allegations that the December 1986 survey was biased or flawed in any significant way. Moving to specific criticisms, Dr. Mileti first argues that some of the language used in questions leading up to the monitor-ing question at issue were " designed to create a mindset that nuclear power is dangerous." LILCO Testimony at 13. This is not accurate. The language that Dr. Mileti is referring to consists of an introductory statement to respondents that we were seeking their opinions on " current social problems", and a question asking people how they perceived living close to certain 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 l be disposed to do so is nothing more than speculation. Prior not ___

'q .j. j f 'research~shows that most Long'Islandbrs 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. 1 1 i 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 Shor~eham may have been exposed to radiation during their trio out of the evacuation zone j I do'not see how this question suggested to'anyone.other than those who lived within 10 miles of Shoreham-(i.e., within the 1 EPZ) that they may have been exposed-to radiation (which'is-j i precisely what LILCO's EBS message said). What the responses;to 1 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 i outside the EPZ will have been exposed to that radiation also. This is consistent.with findings from my previous research. I I O. 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' j respond to his statement? i

~... ' s 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. J l With respect to Dr. Lindell's first point, I believe i that it is true that those who responded to our survey and I 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 l people might actually bb concerned with the protection of prop-4 l erty, but the data show that the overwhelming concern of most 1 residents will be their (and their families') personal safety. Thus, Dr. Lindell's point is not persuasive. l l l Regarding his second point, I believe that Dr. Lindell's I criticism of the response categories utilized in our evacuation l questions is trivial and would have no substantive effect on the l 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 ) l 22 - j l i i

.,..) ,j. I a neighbors, attempt'to call' LILCO, etc., but that does not tell us what we want to know, which is:- after.doing.these" things,,will 3 -they attempt to evacuate? For the purpose of estimating the size .1 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 peop'le's responses-to hazards. However, in his recent ) article in Nuclear Safety,ld/ in which people were asked how they I would respond to.a nuclear release and a dioxin release,.some l respondents were asked to respond to both hazards, others to only one or the other. He concluded that there were no statistically l significant differences in responses whether the respondents addressed both hazards or just one. Therefore,.his.own research refutes his criticism. 11/ Lindell and Barnes, " Protective Response to Technological Emergencies: Risk Perception and Behavioral Intention," Nuclear Safety (Oct.-Dec. 1986) ("Lindell and Barnes").

.y . -) ,.s I Indeed, Dr. Lindell's Nuclear Safety article is inconsistent with his present testimony. For instance, he states in his testimony: i i "In an actual radiological emergency local i residents would be very attentive to informa-l tion disseminated by sources such as the util-ity and governmental agencies. Moreover, they would be more inclined to seek out additional i information to clarify any ambiguities that they felt existed. I exoect the information obtained durino an emeroency to sionificantiv outweich orior beliefs." i LILCO Testimony at 19 (emphasis added). This statement is in direct contradiction to the conclusion in his Nuclear Safety article where he states: I "The data reported here contribute to a crow-l j ino literature that suggests that the over-i l response at TMI resulted as much from crior I oublic cerception of the risks of a nuclear power plant accident as it did from the con-fusing and conflicting information dissemina-I ted during the TMI-2 crisis. Thus, the estab-lishment of measures to ensure consistency in I the information released about an accident addresses' only a cart of the problem." l The can between accurate Information and the achievement of comoliance with recommended action should be recoopized as a larce one. Lindell and Barnes at 466 (emphasis added). These statements not only contradict Dr. Lindell's own testimony, but also undercut Dr.Mileti'sargumentsthatbehaviorduringaShorehamafdent 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: I "The judgments of respondents of the minimum safe distance from the hazardous releases are shown in figure three. A significant diver.- l 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 j travel more than 40 miles (more than 64 km). i from the dioxin release to find a safe location, and more than 65% would expect to j evacuate over 40 miles (64 km) to avoid radiation risks." 2. Lindell and Barnes, at 46p'. These conclusions from his own I 4 research cast doubt on the validity of his testimony. l l 25 -

o .~) s.. / i 1 3. The Causes of the Projected Response to a Monitorino Advisory 1 .l Q. What factors will cause the response you anticipate to j a monitoring advisory, which is many times greater than what i LILCO assumes? i A. (Saegert, Johnsen) The most important factor is the I 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 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 l determination. It is simply unrealistic to assume that this 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 l perceives radiation to be one of the most dreaded hazards short l of warfare.ll/ 1 11/

Eeg, e.o.,

P.

Slovic, B.

Fischoff, and S. Liechtenstein, " Rating the Risks," Environment Vol. 21, 14-39 (April, 1979).

A::. ) L) (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.16/ (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 with those conducted by Slovic et al. "in demonstrating how negatively radiation hazard is viewed." Id., at 464.

Thus, they concluded, it is pre-existing attitudes toward a hazard --

in this case, radiation released during an accident -- that is on o 60 l the most important causefof 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. ) l l l l l ) l 16/ D.J.

Zeigler, S.D.

Brunn, J.H. Johnson, Jr., " Evacuation from a Nuclear Technological Disaster," Geoarachical Review 71 h

(1981); J'.H. Johnson, Jr. and D.J. Zeigler, "Modelling Evacuation j Behavior During the TMI Reactor Crisis," Socioeconomic Plannine Sciences (1986). 'l 1 I 1

Q.).

• 0

'(Harris, Mayer) Our experience in the publiefhealth field also demonstrates that in a Shoreham accident a substantial por-L . tion of the population would voluntarily. report for' testing',Jeven if such persons had no scient'ific'or objective basis for assuming they-had been exposed to radiological particulate. Radiation.is colorless'and odorless..Therefore, it is impossible for people I to determine on their own.whether they have been exposed to radi-ation. We alco'know that the public has a greater fear of radia-tion than of al'most 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 1 were instructed not to do so. 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, l _ _ _ _ _ _ _

(~Y .C)'

v.,

and despite the availability of AIDS-related educational mater-ials and programs. The same principle would hold true in the event of an accident at Shoreham because of the public's perce'p-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 l response to protective action recommendations. For instance, in the December 1986 survey discussed above, we asked the 1,500 l 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 fo_nd similar results in a survey conducted for Suffolk County in May of 1982. l l

..) l l l a In the December 1986 survey, we found a significant correla-i tion between the respondents' fear of living near a nuclear power plant and the respondents' stated behavioral intention during a f 1 hypothetical accident at Shoreham. We found that among those i respondents who said that living near a nuclear power plant is J very dangerous, 63% said that they would attempt to evacuate l after hearing the first EBS message; among those who said that it was d.mgerous, 45ksaidthat 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 fear of radiation is a major cause of overresponse during nuclear i l accidents. This conclusion was also reached by LILCO witness i I Lindell and his colleague, V. E. Barnes, who found in their ] 1 Nuclear Safety article that the public has deep fears of exposure to radiation during a nuclear power plant accident. l l l I have also obtained qualitative data which help us to 1 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 I proposition, it is necessary to have quantitative data. Quali-tative data adds a ri.hners 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_

) i In order to understand better the essentially quantitative answers given by the sample of Long Island residents who I responded to the survey, I conducted some qualitative group { l interviews, sometimes called " focus groups." Perhaps one of the l most important conclusions to be drawn from an analysis of the { i transcripts of the focus groups is that Long Island residents i i i l have a deep-seated fear of being exposed to radiation released I 1 during an accident at Shoreham. This fear is held by a signifi-cant segment of the Long Island population. Although it may be j alleged that this fear may be based on misinformation, it is real nonetheless. The transcripts of the, focus groups suggest 1 strongly that fear of radiation is the primary reason why so many I 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 LILCO's advisory. l l Q. Could you please describe the procedures which were l followed in conducting the focus groups? l l l 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, 11/ The first group had a mixture of these people; the second had primarily persons living outside but not far from the EPZ; i l and the third had a majority who lived inside the EPZ, with some living outside but on the border. In order to recruit the 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 discust.;ns 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 l would respond to a radiological emergency, we tried to have the composition of the fecps 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 to the opening of the Shoreham plant, we made a special effort to 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) .# s- ,s ) ) 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. 1 Q. Please explain how the focus group data demonstrate that pre-existing perceptions and fears of Long Island residents l l 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 bell' eve that if there is any accident at Shoreham, they will be exposed to radiation. In general, and consistent with the findings of LILCO's witness, Dr. Lindell,19/ most Long Island residente would not base their assessment of 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 pnv 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. 19/ See Lindell and arnes. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - _ - - _ -.

7 m } potentially even lethal. Indeed, for many, the fact that there has been an accident means to them that they have already been I exposed. 1 1 Below are some of the comments elicited from the focus group i participants after hearing various of the LILCO EBS messages l which ranged from simply advising the public of an accident at the Shoreham plant, to advising evacuation and monitoring for 1 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 recort 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 i away. 1 I feel that if I didn't die in the next six months, I would definitely die of it in the i next five years, j One of my worries would be that perhaos I had already lost mv 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 radioactivity. We may in fact be walkino dead already. I iust don't know. With nuclear oower, we are dealino with an entity that we don't know that much about. As far as the damaces from radiation, and so on. L___

{DO ,e My' cousin-when she-was.little-wastexposed to radiation and' twenty years later she had cancer of-the thyroid. .l4 You don't?have to worry about shopping l because'thev 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 potatoes, all of it. I'do not know if it happened if.I would ever come back. l 'i Even if you were able.to would you be' happy. coming back? I wouldn't. Look at Three Mile" l Island and that was a minor situation. Chernobyl is coina to be closed for 1500 years. Somethino on that style. 1 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 1 the larger survey. Once an accident has occurred at Shoreham, and especially if any radiation has been released,-they will believe that their lives are in grave danger.22/ Acting in 8 1 lE/ 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 Ima 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., i this is true in the general populction.

w_ _= -

??.N 1 tt accordance with their fears and beliefs,'they will' seek monitoring to determine-whether they have been exposed to radiation. 4. The Consequences of Chernobyl 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.31/ People know-that far more-than the area 10 miles from the Chernobyl plant was contaminated. In fact, the incident.was made public by the Soviet Union only after increased radiation levels were detected by scientists in Sweden. Radiation from Chernobyl affected crops and animals as 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 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. t ' =_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _.

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. I i O. Does the public believe that an accident such as that which occurred at Chernobyl could happen at Shoreham? l 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 j l influence of the accident at Chernobyl on changes in attitudes. I 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: I before the accident at Chernobyl you were convinced that nuclear power plants were not safe; before the accident you believed nuclear l 1 i 1

'..] ) 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 response 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 j 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 _ _ _ _ _ _ _

.) - % '/.- + Newsday in September 1986, I concluded that this significant change was probablyoa result of. greater concern over nuclear safety as a. result of fear. generated by the accident at the 4 Chernobyl nuclear plant in the Soviet Union.22/ 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 1 I 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-22/ When I cross-tabulated the responses to the question on j whether they thought an accident like Chernobyl could happen here l with behavioral intentions, I found that among those respondents who thought that an accident such as that which occurred at ~ Chernobyl could hapoen in the United States, 67 percent said that l 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 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 accident at Chernobyl they believed nuclear power plants were safe and that they still believe that they are safe, 39 percent said that they would evacuate..-__-__ _ _ _ _ -

,m, 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 i did not believe this was possible, and 6 percent had no opinion. Egg Exhibit 8, at 28. Both the Newsdav 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 i 1 of a reality for many Long Island residents. Before they had been' told that such 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 tr'anscripts 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 tc the L'ILCO Exercise EBS messages. Below are some of the comments made about Chernoby1: Of course, it enters your mind that if some-j thing really bad did happen, they wouldn't j want to panic the people so richt away vou think of Chernobyl. They didn't want to tell anyoody-what happened there. They don't tell you right away. i 1 40 - ) l \\

p. ) 4 1 I would like to have all my family around me. 1 I would like to know where they are in the l event something much more serious came up in 1 another half hour or an hour. And it would 1 lead me to believe that after that little l fiasco in Russia there micht be a lot more to l i this than meets the eve. l l "Do you think that'what happened at Chernobyl could happen here l l at Shoreham?" J i Yes I do, I absolutely think so. l I think it is possible. Maybe not that seri-ous. Granted the Russians don't let you know all the details but nuclear power plants are nuclear power plants. 1 Getting back to Chernobyl. What good is evac-l uation when this stuff has gone to countries i thousands of miles away? Where can you hide? l In summary, the pre-existing fears which Long Islanders have I 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. 5. The Effect of Emeroencv Information Q. LILCO suggests, however, that its EBS messages will predominantly influence people's behavior during a Shoreham emergency and that therefore members of the public not advised to seek monitoring will not do so. See LILCO Testimony at 14, 19, 25. Do you agree?

l n" .s ' ) i y l l 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 I during'the February 13 exercise. They do noth:.ng 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.21/ ) 1 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-I tion during their trip out of the EPZ, without focusing on the portion of the message intended to limit.the size or location of 4 21/ For instance, in one such message used during the Exercise it is stated that a " major release of radiation into the air" 4 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 lthe significance or l health effects of these dosages in terms understandable to laypersons. During.the Exercise, LILCO " broadcast" this message for approximately one hour. Then, theJnext Exercise message i 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 thatithe 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. ag- . _ _ - _ - - _ _ _ =

p;. ") 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 an'd processing spatial information. Third, even people who understand correctly the contents of the message but were not residents of the named zones, may none-theless seek monitoring because, assuming people know their own zone, they may not.know which zones they have gone through, or 1 travelled near, during their trips out of the EPZ. l l Fourth, large numbers of people are likely-to discount-1 LILCO's zone concept in its EBS messages altogether. People know that radiation in the air does not stop at precise geographic 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 only residents of certain zones had been endangered. Individu-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. l

) Finally, LILCO's messages that people outside a particular l zone would be safe are likely to be discounted by the public due-to LILCO's low credibility. As LILCO's witness Dr. Lindell ha's stated: i 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. Linde11=and Barnes, at 466. It is well known, and admitted by LILCO, that LILCO has a j 1 low degree of credibility in the Long Island community. We will l not repeat at length here the evidence on.that subject discussed in the prior litigation.24/ In addition, however, more recent surveys and other data have confirmed that fact. Between 1982 l and December 1986, there has been little change in the credibil- ) ity afforded by Long Island residents to LILCO.25/ 24/ In the 1982 survey. conducted for Suffolk County, we found only 4 percent of the population of Long Island said that they 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 l during an accident that all people more than 10 miles from the l Shoreham plant were safe, only 18 percent of the respondents said (footnote continued) l

( ].) ' I (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 exposed.15/ (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. 15/ "Did you believe (the] LILCO (EBS message] that if you were outside that zone that you weren't in any danger?" No. Absplutely not. They have no way of oredictina when and how the wind is coina to move. You cannot control mother nature. The radioactivity will effect us. I don't care how technologically astute they are, they have no way of knowing how things are going to blow. "You wouldn't believe the message when they said you were safe outside the zone?" No. Since they finally did say evacuate, I would have to leave. I am almost 30 miles away, it is 9:39 in the morning and rush hour traffic is over. It is definitely much more alarming. As'to I believability, I think that someone livinc outside that immediate zone would certainly know that it is time to eack uo and co if you haven't already cone. "Now what did that message tell people who live outside the 10 mile zone to do?" Not to worry. "Do you believe them?" (footnote continued) 4 45 - . ]

l Q. If LILCO has such low credibility, why would people l J l 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 Island residents ddring 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 i for radioactive contamination, it would be telling them something that they would 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 of it. In addition, monitoring will be conducted by LILCO using (footnote continued from previous page) E2 "Would you believe LILCO that you were safe if you were outside the zone?" No. It is in the air. __________________ -

.q .c. i " 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 be expected to arrive at reception centers during nuclear acciden t s ?_2.]/ A. (Saegert, Johnson, Minor) Yes. LILCO appears to rely on the Krimm Memorandum to support its reception center planning basis. See LILCO Testimony at 3-4, 9-10. Q. Do you agree with the Krimm Memorandum? I 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 radiological emergency. 1 2_2/ The Krimm Memorandum is Attachment L to LILCO's Testimony. -

3 --) 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 i believe that the Krimm Memorandum has a reasonable basis for concluding that up to 20% of a population may be expected'at i relocation centers or congregate care centers for the purpose of i 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. This Board, and the Appeal Board, have already determined that l l conclusions about. monitoring-seeking activity cannot be drawn from sheltering data.2g/ We agree with the Boards in this 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 21/ 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). - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ - _ _

i ^n .) 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 I indication that the " technological" disasters which the Krimm l Memorandum mentions involved any behavior analogous to seeking l 1 l monitoring in a radiological emergency. l l \\ There is also a third reason that the Krimm Memorandum does j not support a 20% (or 30%) planning basis -- a reason which LILCO l i 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 i i will be processed, monitored and eventually sent on to a congre-gate care center. See_ 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 wha need monitoring. There will, of course, be some overlap between those who require shel-ter and those who require monitoring; however, because both groups re being advised to go to LILCO's reception centers, ther 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%

gll _} .1 of the population could arrive at the reception centers for 1 ~ i monitorina and another significant portion'of the EPZ (an -I ) additional 705) could arrive for purposes of seeking shelt'er. Thus, even using the unrealistically optimistic assumptions.-in' the LILCO Plan, far more people may arrive at LILCO's reception J i 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. _] I Einally, the circumstances surrounding the.Krimm Memorand s make one\\ suspect whether it was a serious effort to develo 1 guidelines for Section~J.12, or whether'it-reflects ot r l InI'ugyst1985, this Board ruled that L CO's Plan was purposes. 1 deficient because the Plan did'not contain an propria'te plan-I ning basis for the number of people requir' g monitoring. Subse-l quent correspondence betu'een FEMA and s consultant, Mr. Keller h 'I (a FEMA witness in this proce ding, raised the point that this issue would be addressed again. the-Shoreham proceeding and noted that FEMA counsel ha previou provided him with an NRC ruling "that 100% of t EPZ populations ust be considered when applying the 12 ho time period of elemen J.12." See letter of October 4, 198, from J.H. Keller to Stewart ass, which-is part of Attachm.t L of LILCO's Testimony. Mr. Keller request was forwar d to FEMA headquarters and the Krimm Memoran m was

i. ued, appearing to be intended for use primarily in't

/ Shoreham litigation, rather than as " guidance" which was

/ ,m - . en } l l l I \\ 1 develope'd by FEMA in the ordinary course of business. i N Attachments to LILCO Testimony. We-also unders from the testimony of the'5 te's REPG witnesses , contrary to usual 1 procedure, the substance o his idance was never conveyed'to them by FEMA.29[ These ts make -validity of.the Krimm l Memorandum susp The Memorandum offers n al. analysis of the'iss Rather, the timing suggests'that it was 1 d'merely remove Section J.12'as an obstacle to a Shoreham' license. 7. Release Characteristics and Meteorological-Considerations i j Q. LILCO's' witnesses testify that.their 30% planning ba' sis 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 j 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 materi'al "would be the primary source of contamination." The testimony also states,that NUREG 0654 guidance " addresses itself primarily to noble' gases and iodine releases." The testimony concludes: "There is, in.short, very little poten-tial for a' release of particulate that would cause contamination, and the likelihood is that, even if a particulate 29/ See note 3. _ 51 -

,,) NY, a, h.4 u=, 14 i

i release ever did occur, the protective action recommendation would limit the l

exposure to the particulate material." To the extent that LILCO derives its LILCO Testimony at 11. planning basis from this conclusion, LILCO has misinterpreted NRC iv 1 Jc, guidance, and the emergency planning principles and data on which ?. l r. it is based. it is emphasized that In both NUREG 0396 and NUREG 0654 emergency planning is based on the capability to respond to a soectrum of accidents which could result in offsite doses in 1 No single accident sequence excess of Protective Action Guides. 1 Rather, the planning basis is is specified as a planning basis. 1 timing, end release char-grounded on the potential consequences, NUREG 0654, at 5-7. The acteristics of a spectrum of accidents. spectrum of accidents considered by the NRC in establishing the planning basis explicitly included the core melt accident release a number of categories in the Reactor Safety Study (WASH-1400), which are projected to result in the potential release of large amounts of radioactive particulate. l In addition, a variety of NRC and industry-sponsored including LILCO's own probabilistic risk assessment of l 1

studies, Shoreham and the NRC's recently issued NUREG 0956 and NUREG 1150 f

in reports, have identified a range of accidents which can result I the release of fractions of 1% or greater of the core inventory I tellurium, ruthenium, lanthanum l of particulate (e.g., cesium, i -

group elements, etc.), which may amount to millions of curies of particulate radioactive material. Thus, to the extent LILCO's I 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, l 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 essociated 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 u _________

F m. ') ,) ' l is' typically associated with reactor vessel breach (for accidents. J f involving only containment leakage) or containment' failure. i Longer-term releases can arise from a number of severe accident 1 i phenomena, including re-evolution of deposited materials ^(due to-r j decay heating effects),., interactions between hot' core debris and j concrete,fand re-evolution from pools of water which1are boiling ] away. Such phenomens'(and others) can result in release dura- ~ i tions of many hours, as' opposed to the " puff" releases often ) o discussed'in association with severe accidents. Such longer-term I releases mean a greater likelihood of contamination, y 0. LILCO's Testimony also discusses.likely plume dispersal 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 i 1 indicates that winds are persistent in one direction for periods-I l 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 givenLfew-hour period.. .i Moreover,'given'the potential for long release durations in 1 severe accidents, as discussed above, it is very likely that at least one wind direction change will occur during.an accident. I i i

p.. .i. a i:: l 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 lL* . double the number of sectors potentially'affected to six sectors, rather than the'three-LILCO contemplates. That is more than 2/3: - of the land portion of-the Shoreham EPZ. 1 Q. Do you.have any.other concerns about t'he nature of a Shoreham~ accident that are relevant to'LILCO's monitoring' planning basis? A. (Minor, Sholly) Yes. An important gSographic 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-tored at the reception centers. IV. CONCLUSIONS 1 Q. Please summarize your conclusions concerning the number. of people likely to arrive at LILCO's reception centers. 1. _ _ _ _ _ - - _

.) (All) Our research and experience confirm that large num-bers of people, on the order of hundreds of thousands, would seek 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 1 their family members. They believe that radiation travels far and quickly,32/ and they believe the EPZ, as well as its l subzones, are fictions when it comes to the presence and danger of radiation. For all these reasons many people living in EPZ I subzones other than those for which a monitoring advisory is j issued, and many people outside the EPZ itself, would seek j i monitoring in a real accident. I l 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,31/ the data from the recent j survey as well as our knowledge and other research into the nature of human behavior, lead us to conclude that a far larger i l 12/ Egg kinde11 and Barnes, for data supporting the view that people believe radiation travels quickly and covers long distances. 11/ (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, go to one of the reception centers indicated by LILCO. Given all the unknown variables, it is not possible to come up with a precise estimate of the numbers of people who would really show up at these centers. l l -

R 1 i number of people than the 30% (or approximately 48,000 people) ] assumed by LILCO would, in a real emergency seek monitoring and j i possible decontamination. Indeed, the best available data ) 4 demonstrate that hundreds of thousands of people would converge j i on the reception centers, overwhelming their limited capacity and LILCO's limited resources. I l The Krimm Memorandum, on which LILCO relies for its assump-l l tion that it need provide personnel and resources to monitor only 30% of the EPZ population, is based on data which h' ave no rele-vance to this issue. Therefore, it provides no support for j 1 LILCO's position. ] i { Finally, LILCO's argument that NUREG 0654 and probable l 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 j i frequent wind shifts on Long Island which could result in wide i i dispersal of a plume. Thus more than 30% of the EPZ population l l could actually be affected by a release from Shoreham involving j radioactive particulate, i Q. Does that conclude your testimony? l A. (All) Yes. l 1 il a

/% / .) O EXBIBIT 1

p m, . Exhibit 1; 4/ VITA. " ). Stephen. Cole-s 1 Birth-Dater ' June 1 1941 Home_ Address: 1 Evans Lano -Setauket 'New York 11733' Phone:'516-751-9656 Office Address:. State University of New. York at. Stony Brook' ~ Department of Sociology. Stony Brook New York 11794 Phone: 516-246-3439 Education: B. A.,'. Columbia : College, 1962 ~ Ph.D., Columbia. University 1967 Ac_ademic App,oin,tjents ; ~ 1964 Lecturer. 4 arnard College-1965 Lec tu re r, Columbia University 1966-67 Instructor of-Sociology ' Columbia University 1966-76 Research Associate ureau of Applied' Social Research Columbia University 1967-58 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 YorkLat. Stony Brook 1973-Present Professor Department of Gociology, State University of New York at ' Stony Brook 1977 Present Research Associate.CenteriforEthe Social i Sciences Columbia University. Honorary Societies and_ Awards. 1962 Phi Beta' Kappa Magna Cum Laude, Columbia Colleg 1962 Honorary.Woodrow Wilson Fellow d 1962 63 National Science Foundation Fellow 1963-66 National Insti'tutes of Health Public Healt5 Service Fellow. 1963 Dobbs-Merrill Award' 1965 66 John W. Burgess Honorary Fellow of the, Faculty o. 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 1 1980 Presented annual paper at Sociological Research Association Dinner i 1984-present SUNY. Faculty Exchange Scholar i i

^,, ") Pago 2 ) Professional Activities: j t From 1966 to the present I have served as-a consultant to the i following organizations on various applied sociological researcl 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 Mational Laboratories 1978 The Baltimore Sun l 1979 National Bureau of Economic Research 1981 Long Island Lighting Company 1982 The Boston Globe l 1982-83 University o! California at Irvine 1982-present Suffolk County I have also served on the editorial boards of the following journals Sociology of Education, Sociological Quarterly, American Journal of Sociolg, The American Sociologist. I have served as a referee for more than a dozen other jour- 'l 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. l l

I g. ) Pago 3' .P, publications: BOOKS 1969 The Unionization of Teachers: A Case Study of t UFT. New York: Praeger Press. (Reprinted b'y A VFess, 1980) 1972 The' Sociological Method 1980, 3rd enlarged edTtIoT 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: Houghton RFfflin 1979, 2nd enlarged. edition. 1978 Peer Review in the National Science Foundation: Phase-I (with Jonathan R. Cole and Leonard Rubi; Washington, D.C.: National Academy of Sciences. 1981 Peer Review in the National Science Foundation-yhase II (with Jonathan R. Cole). Washington, D.C. National Academy of Sciences 1987 Sociologr_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 Marshall Clinard (Ed.) Anomie and Deviant Behavior. New York : Free Tress, pp 243-313. ~~ 1 1967 " Scientific Output and Recognition A Study in the Operation of the neward System in Science" (with Jonathan R. Cole), American Sociological Review 32 377-390 Reprinted as a Bobbs-Merri] lie ~p~rTn t and as an x1P Publication. l l 1

m-o ~- PAPERS Continued...

• 1968

" Visibility and the Structural Bases of Awarene: in Scientific Research" (with Jonathan R Cole) American Sociological Revie_w 33, 397 413. 4 1968 "The-Unionization of Teachers Determinants of Rank-and-File Support " Sociology of Education a 66-87 Reprinted in Donald A. Erickson (Ed.), i Educational Organization and Administration. Eerkeley McCutchan Publishing Corporation, 197".l ~ 1969 " Teacher's Strike: A Study of the Conversion of ; PredispositionintoAction,"AmericanJournalo i Sociology 74 506-520. Reprinted as Warner Rodular Publication R809. Reprinted in Donald i .Gerwin (Ed.) The Employment of Teachers Some j Analytical Views,. Berkeley McCutchan Publishir l Corpora. tion, 1974. 1969 l " Determinants of Faculty Support of Student l Demonstrations" (with Hannelore Adamsons) Sociology of Education 42, 315-329.

• 1970 i

" 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 Journa_1 of Sociolog l 76, 286 306 Reprinted as Bobbs-Merrill Reprint ' S-678 Reprinted in B.T. Eiduson and L. Deckman ; (Eds.) Science as a Career Choice. New York l Russell Sage Foundation, 1973 pp 499-512. Reprinted in P. Weingart (Ed.), Wissenschaftsso-ziologie,I. Athenaeum Verlag, 1973. 1971 "tieasuring the Quality of Sociological Papers" (with Jonathan R. Cole) American Sociologist 6 23-29. 1972 " Continuity and Institutionalization in Science: Case Study of Failure." In Anthony Obserschall (Ed.), The Establishment of Empirical Sociologg. New York Harper and Row, pp. 73-129. RepiInted in Wolf Lepennies (Ed.) Geschichte der Soziolog Suhrkamp Verlag (Frankfurt am Main) vol 4, 31-110. 1981. l

c s .) Pags 5 i P_ APERS Continued... 1 I

• 1972

" Illness and the Legitimation of Failure" (with l I Robert Lejeune) Ame,rican Sociol,og_ical Review 3"., 347-356. Reprinted fn Leo G. Reeder (Ed.), HancI book of Scales and Indices of Health Behavior, 2 'R'eirl'n'te'6 In Ca ry S. Kart (Ed ) .Dominan t Issuer l in Medical Sociologr. (First edition) Reading,l' Ad3'is'o'n ~9e sley Publishing Co., 1977. (Second Edi 1986. Reprinted in Itoward Robboy and Candice C]) (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 Elie Gebhardt, Sociology of Science. New York: l Seabury Press T986. = i 1975 "The' Growth.of Scientific Knowledge: Theoriesof{ Deviance as a Case Study." In Lewis Coser (Ed.)! The_, Idea of' Social Structure: Pa,pe rs in Honor ofi Robert K. Merton. New York: Harcourt.Lrace, i Tovanovich, pp. 175-220. 1976 "The Reward System of the Social Sciences" (witt) Jonathan R. Cole). In Charles Frankel ( Ed,. ), Controversies and Decisions-The Social Sciences l and PTbTIc Policy, new York: aussell Sage, 4 ~~~ pp. 55-88. 1977 l " Peer Review in the American Scientific Communit I (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 Scienc ' 'In61caEEFs. New York John Wiley. ~~ 1978 " Scientific Reward Systems A Comparative Analysis." In Robert Alun Jones (Ed ) Research in_the,,Sociol,ogy of Knowledge, Sci,en_ce and Art. Greenwich Conn. Johnson Associates, Inc. pp. 167-190. l I

[ n. Of. .Page 6 1 ~< . ;a i PAP E,R,S Con t inue d.... - l

• 1979 lWhich1 Researcher Will Get the Grant?" (with" J. : R.

Cole) Nature 279 575-576. 1979 " Comment.on a paper by.-Michael'Overington " The 3 Ame_rican Sociologist ~14 (February),.17-19 j

• 1979

" Age and. Scientific' Performance." American Journ' of Sociology;84 958-977.- ~ 1980 " Comments 1onIndicatorsofScientific' Manpower'] Scientometrics,, Vol. 2, No. 5-6, pp. 405-409. 1 1980 The Functions ofLClassical Theoryfin Contempora Sociological Research"'(with K. Adatto). In F. Kuklick-(Ed.), Research_in the_. Sociology;of Knowledge, Science and Art III. Gre enw fch. l Conn,. Johnson-Associates, Inc. -

• 1981

" Chance 'and Consensus in Peer Review,"'(with' i .{ J. R Cole and G. Simon) -Science 214 1 (20 November'1981) -881-886.

• 1983 "The Hierarchy 'of the Sciences?", American Journ1

.of Sociology 89, 111-139.

• 1984 "Little Science Dig 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) i in Kenneth Warren, Selectivity and Information a S stemsi_ Survival o? the Fittest, (New York: L Praeger Science: Publishers)

• 1986

Sex Discrimination and Admission to Medical School 1929-1984," American Journal of Sociologg, 92 (549-567). 1987 ' Formation of Public Opinion on Complex Issues The Case of Nuclear Power" (with R. Fiorentine) H. O'Gorman, ed. i Surveying Social ~ Life: Essays in Honor of Herber - ; li.~ilkman _(IIIISTl'e' town, Conn.. Mesleyan~Dniversity ! Pressiin press. 'I q

.I _) 9045 i f.3P,ERS. 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 (!!ew York !!orton)~~in press. i l i 1 l l 1 i l

j m e,- s' # I t l i 4 1 i l l l 4 F 7 EXHIBIT 2

-3 cxnlait c .i February 1987 CURRICULUM VITAE Name: Susan Saegert Address: 347 President Street (home) Brooklyn, New York 11231 i (business) Environmental Psychology Program l The Graduate School and University Center The City University of New York 33 West 42nd Street New York, New York 10036 i Telephone: (718) 624-4535 (home) (212) 790-4551 (business) l 1 Education: 1 Ph.D. 1974, University of Michigan j Field of Specialization: Social Psychology Department of Psychology i 1 B.A. 1968, University of Texas Summa cum laude with honors in government Excerience: September Professor, Environmental Psychology Program 1986 to The Graduate School and University Center, The City l present University of New York 1977 Associate Professor, Environmental. Psychology Program, i to 1986 The Graduate School and University Center, The City l 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, January 1980 The Graduate School and University Center, The City University of New York l l September Assistant Professor, Environmental Psychology Program, 1973 to 1977 The Graduate School and University Center, The City i i University of New York

(;;y ?~

Q,;)

y Susan Saegert Page.Two Exnerience'(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 Honorary 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 l 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 Co~mparisons. 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 Di fferences, 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 Environ =ent. in the Development of Social Relationships. (.

'l ) i Susan Saegert Page Three Grants and Contracts (continued): i I July 1980 - Contract with Denver Housing Authority, Feas,1bility i November 1980 Study: The Market for Downtown Housing in Denver. 4 i January 1981 Contract with Denver Housing - Authority, Survey of i -October 1981 of Housing Needs of Employees in Downtown Denver. j i January 1981 Carnegie Foundation (with Marilyn Gitte11), Planning - July 1981 Grant for the Study of Women in Urban Communities. i September National Science Foundation Tra/e1 Award to present 1980 paper at Japanese-United States Seminar: Psychology ) and the Environment in Tokyo, Japan. 1 February 1984-The Society for the Psychological Study of Social September 1984 Issues, Beyond the Bottom Line An Evaluation of I Low Income Tenant Cooperatives in New York City. i September 1984 National Institute on Aging, Lessons From Older Persons 1 - July 1985 Saving Abandoned Buildings. l 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 Ecolorry, 1976-1980 Member l -American Psychological Association -Society for the Study of Social Issues -Environmental Design Research Association i 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 i l 1

N Cv y .J j- . Susan Saegert Page~Four Professional Activities (continued): Elected Office (continued): Co-Chairperson, Environmental ~ Design Research Association, 1986-87 -President-elect, Divis' ion 34,'Popula' tion'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 Graduate School and University. Center, The City University of. New -York 1976 to present -Executive Committee Member, The Center for Human . Environments, The Graduate School and University Center, The City University of New York o 1977 to 1979 -Exe cu k;iv e Committee Member, Institut'e 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 Monocraohs: Saegert, S. (Ed.). (1975). Crowding in real environments. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications (Sage Social Science Monograph No.25; reprinted from Environment and Behavior special issue

• 1975, L Whole No. 2).

Lamont, R., Kaplan, F., & Saegert, S. (Eds.). (1980, Spring). Women in public and private spaces. Special issue of Centerooint.

i ,y ) i Susan Saegert Page Five 4 .0ther Publications: JSI.Q: - 1 Saegert, S., & Jellison,' J. M.. (1970)' Effects of. initial. level of.- i 1 response competition and frequency of exposure on liking and exploratory behavior. Journal of Personalf tv ' and Social Psycholorv, 1.1, 553-558. (Also presented at - Midwestern Psychological Association Convention, May 1970). j lan: a

Rajecki, D. W., & Saegert, S.

(1971). Effects of methamphetamine hydrochloride on imprinting in White Leghorn chicks. Psychonomic Science, 23, 7-8. 3323: 4 i Saegert, S. (1973). Crowding:. Behavioral constraints and cognitive overload. In W.. Preiser (Ed.), Environmental Proceedings of the EDRA IV Conference. Design - Fesearch, Hutchinson & Ross. Stroudsburg, PA: Dowden, Saegert, S., & Rajecki, D. W. (1973). Effects of prior exposure to animate objects on' approach tendency in chicks. Behavioral Biolorv, 6 749-754. Saegert. S., Swap, W., & Zajonc, B.B. (1973)..The effects of mere exposure on interpersonal attraction. Journal of Personality and Socini Psycholoev, 25, 234-242. Reprinted in T. Blass (Ed.), Contemocrary social osvcholoev: Representative readings, i

Itasca, IL:

Peacock Publications, 1976.

Holahan, C.

J., & Saegert, S. (1973). Trie psychological impact of planned environmental change: Remodeling a psychiatric ward in an urban hospital. Journal of Abnormal Psycholoev, 62., 454-462. 1321:

Saegert, S.

(1974). The effects of social and spatial density on arousal, mood, and social orientation. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Michigan. ISIS: 1

Saegert, S.,

Mackintosh, E., & West, S. (1975). Two studies of crowding in urban public spaces. Environment and Behavior, I., 159-184

-,3 -- l q Susan Saegert i Page Six Other Publications (continued):

Saegert, S.

(1975). Stress-inducing. and reducing qualities of environments. In H. Proshansky, W. Ittelson & L. Rivlin (Eds. ), Environmental Psychology, 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, Lawrence, Kansas. (Reprinted in Centercoint: An Inter-Disciplinary Journal.) 1.916.: k Saegert, S. (1976, December). Book review of Crowding a_nd Behavior by J. Freedman. Journal of Architectural Fesearch,1, 40-41.

Saegert, S.

'(Chairperson) '(1976. May). 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 Proceedings of the Environmental Desien Fesearch Association Conference VII, 1976. 1.91 1:

Saegert, S.,

& Hart, R. (1977, Spring). The development of environmental competence in girls and boys. The Newsletter for the Societv_ for the Society for the Ethnocrachie Study of Plav. ( Rep rin ted in M. Salter (Ed.), Plavt An anthropological Dersoective, 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 Des Summary in the Proceedings of the Environmental Design Research Association Conference VIII_, Dowden, Hutchinson & Ross, 1977.

Langer, E., & Saegert, S.

(1977). Crowding and cognitive control. Journal of Personality and Social Psycholorv, 35., 175-182.

M.- &.- ,w. 3- ,s Susan Saegert l Page-Seven .I 4 Other Publications (continued): 191E: Saegert,, S.- (1978). 'The personal and social consequences of high density environments. In A. Baum & Y. Epstein. (Eds.), Human Resoonses to Crowdine. Hillside, NJ: Erlbaum Associates.

McCarthy, D., & Saegert,.S.. (1978).

Residential density, social overload and social withdrawal. Human Ecoloav,- 1 (3), 253-271. (Reprinted in J. Aiello & A. Haum, High densitv residential environments.- Hillside, NJ: Erlbaum Associates, 1979.) Love, K., & Saegert,-S. (1978). Crowding and cognitive limits. 'New York Center for Human Environments, j t % Q: Saegert, S. (1980). A~ systematic. approach to high density settings: Psychological, social and physical environment factors.- In M. Gurkaynak &, W. LeCompte (Eds.) Hu rna n consequences of crowdina. New York:- Plenum Press, pp.,67-82. Saegert, S. (1980, Summer). Masculine cities and feminine suburbs: Polarized ideas, Interdisciplinary contradictory -realities. Sirnst An Journal of Women and Culture, Special-Supplement. Reissued as K. Stimpson, M.- Nelson., & K. Yaktrakas, Women and_ the American citv. 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. Morley (Eds.), New soaces for women. Boulder, Colorado: Westview i Press, pp. 41-64. 193 1 :

Saegert, S.

(1981). Crowding and cognitive. limits. In' J. Harvey (Ed.), C_ornition, social behavior and the environment.

Hillside, NJ: Erlbaum Associates.

Saegert, S.

(1981). Residential density and psychological development. Proceedings of the Jaoan-United States Seminar on Psycholoav and the Environment. Tokyo, Japan: National Science Foundation sponsored publication.Nipon University,

mp .Sustn Saegert Page Eight Other Publications-(continued): 1M2:

Saegert, S.-

(1982). Environment. and ' children's mental _ health: Residential density. and lo'wL income : children. - In A. Baum & - J. Singer (Eds.), Handbook of esycholery and health, 2.,

Hillside, NJ: Erlbaum Associates, pp. 247-271.

Saegert, S.

(1982). Towards an androgynous. city.. In G. Cappert ' & D. Knight (Eds.), Cities of the twenty-first century. Beverly Hills, CA: Sago Publications, pp. 196-212..

Saegert, S.

( 1982,. October). High density, society. and individual experiences: Problems and resolutions.- In Man and Scace, Report of. the International Association of Traffic and Safety Sciences Symposium.

Saegert, S.,

& Maltz, N. J. .(1982). Girlsand boys' representation of home and neighborhood. New York: Center for Human Environments. l 1ME:

Leavitt, J.,

& Saegert, S. (1984, Summer). Women and abandoned buildings: A feminist approach' to housing. Social Poliev, pp. 32-39. j LM5.:

Saegert, S.,

Liebman, T., & Melting, A.

(1985). Planning the city for working women: The Denver experience. In E. Birch (Ed.), l The Unsheltered Woman. New Brunswick, NJ: Center for Urban Policy Research, Rutgers, University. pp. 83-100;

Saegert, S.

(1985). The androgynous city: From critique to practice. Sociological Focus, LQ (2), pp. 161-176. 1931:

Saegert, S.

(1986). The role. of housing in the experience of dwelling. In I. Altman & C. Werner (Eds.), Home Environments l Vol. 8 in the series Human Behavior and Environments. New York: l 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 -w

f - Susan ' S'aegert Page Nine: Other Publications (continued):. 1931: Saegert,.S. ('n press). Environmental psychology and social change.' i } In I. Altman & D. Stokola (Eds), Handbook of Environmental Psycholosv_, New York: John Wiley.

Saegert, S.

(in press). Environment as material, artifact' and ) l matrix. In P. Springer & D. Jodelet (Eds.). Toward a social Dsycholorv qf the environment _. Cambridge, England: Cambridge ) University Press. I Technical Reoorts:

Saegert, S., & Paxson, L.

(1982). ' Downtown Denver employees and the market for downtown housing. Prepared ' for Denver. Housing j . Authority. (

Leavitt, J., & Saegert, S.

(1985). The tenants reports .A study of i \\ DAMP buildings after sale. Prepared 'for the-Department of 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 i { Winter Expert witness before the Suffolk County Legislature 1982 - 1984 regarding psychological present nuclear emergency. issues in planning for a 1986-Pecent Invited Lectures and Conference Participation August 1981 Chairperson of symposium: " Feminist Issues in Urban Communities," presentation with Marilyn Gittell, " Women and community organizations," American 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.

Susan Saegertz Page Ten. Recent Invited Lectures' and Conference Participation ' A'spects of. Housing Design and Development Affedting January 1982. 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 Resear' h c 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 Cap: Does it-Exist in Environmental Design ; and Research?. Panel-Member. Environmental' Design _' Research Association Conference 14, Lincoln, Nebraska. August 1982 (with N. J.' Maltz), Workshop on Children's. Perceptions of Home and Neighborhood Environments. Environmental Design Research Association Conference 14 ~, ' Lincoln, ( Nebraska. l 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 Androgynous City. Panel presentation = on the Feminization of Poverty to the American Planning Council Society,. Annual Meeting in New York City, i k________

~ s' .) R M I Susan Szegsrt '1 'l Page Eleven j 1 l Recent Invited Lectures and Conference Participation- (continued): f -) June-1985 Invited. member of Keynote panel: Environmental-4 F.tychology and ' Social.. Change. 16th ' Annual Conference of the Environmental ~ Design _Research Association, New York, New York. Co-Chairperson Plenary session: Housing in the Twenty - 72rs t _ ' Cen tu ry. 16th Annual' Conference of the Environmental Design ' Research Association, New York. -) New York 1 August 1985 Discussant Panel on Environmental Psychological Research on Corr'ection Facilities. American Psychologist Association Annual ' Conference, Los ' Angeles, California, i 1 1 I l i l l 1 l

^ 4 o l + 4 ., = l EXHIBIT 3 l l l l l I i l ^-' - - - - - - - - _ _

,:.3..

l '

j s,. CURRICULUM VITAE

• JamesH. Johnson,[Jr..

-Mailinr, Address Home-Address. . Department of Geography 15325 Magnolia Blvd. #305 LUniversity of' California 'Sherman Oaks, CA 91403 'Los Angeles, CAu90024 (818)_789-5506-(213).825-1415/825-1071 EDUCATION - B.S., Gecgraphy, 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 oolicy-- and planning, urban, social geography of the. inner city. i Methods: research design, theory and methodology in geography. SPECIAL HONORS: Recipient of the Theodore R. Speigner Award for_the. highest i academic average, Department of Geography, North Carolina Central University, 1975.. Summa Cum Laude Graduate, Department of Geography, North Carolina-Central University, 1975. Select'ed as an Outstanding Young Man in America by the Jaycees ~in 1976. Graduate. Fellow, Department of Geography,. University'of Wisconsin-Madison, 1975-77. 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. ACADEMIC EXPERIENCE: 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. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ______i___ 1.__ ._...d

~. Paga 2 Associate Profossor of Gnography, Univsrsity of California, Los Angeles. 1985-present. i Assistant Professor of Geography, University of California, Los Angeles. 1980-1985. PROFESSIONAL AND CIVIC AFFILIATIONS: 1 Church: Member, St. John Missionary Baptist Church Falkland, North Carolina Other Organizations: Gamma Pi Chapter, Gamma Theta U silon 7 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: " 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). " Migration Patterns Influencing Black Population Change in the Southern United States" (for a scientific journal, May, 1987). Composite Review of Protest Is Not Enouch, by R.P. Browning, D.R. Marshall, and D.H. Tabb; and The Suburban Squeeze, by D.E. Dowall, Environment and Planning A. Planning for Nuclear Power Plant Accidents (a research monograph to be completed in early 1988). Review 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," i Proceedings, New England-St. Lawrence Valley Geographi-cal Society, Vol. 6, pp. 42-46 (with Walter C. Farrell, Jr.).

' ') Jcm s'"'. Jchnson, Jr. Pcgo 3' PUBLICATIONS (Continued): 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 Pers7ective," in J. Pinder and R. Proctor, Perspectives 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 B1'ack Parents," i ERIC Document (June 1979), #106-297 (with Walter C. i Farrell, Jr.). I 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 l 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). l l 1979 " Spatial Patterns of Alcohol Outlets in the Washington, D.C. Black Community," Proceedings, Pennsylvania Academy of Sciences, Vol. 53, pp. 589-97 (with Marvin P. Dawkins and " alter C. Farrell, Jr.). ~~~~~~__-__---- -

.. avuasun, ar. Paga 4' PUBLICATIONS (Continund): 1980 College Students in Three Different States."" Res Stanley D. Brunn). Professional Geographer, Vol. 32, pp. 37-42 (w The 1980 Migration of Blacks to the South," in Brunn, D. and James O. Present and Future. Wheeler, eds., The American Metropolitan S^ystem: New York: Sons, Scriota Series in~Veography, Victor Winston PubJohn Wiley a lisher, 1930, pp. 59-75 (with Stanley D. Brunn). j 1980 Burial of Nuclear Waste:"Locational Conflict and Public Attitu e East Lakes Geographer,The Alpena, Michigan Experi-ence." (with Stanley D. Brunn and Brian McGirr)Vol. 15, pp. 24-40 1981 Three Mile Island," The Geographical Review," s er at pp. 1-16 (with Stanley D. Brunn and Donald J. Zeigler) l Vol. 17, 1981 Counties, Michigan:" Household Energy Consumption in Oa Some Patterus, Alternatives ands on Policy Implications." icy Action Agency Association and the Oakland-LivinA Repor Human Service Agenc University, 65 pp. y. East Lansing: Michigan Stategston T.C. Miller). (with L.M. Sommers, G.A. Woods, and 1981 " Gentrification and Incumbent Up Costs," CAAS Newsletter, Vol. 6, grading: November, pp. fits and Bene 10, 16. 1982 " Implications of the Black Move Farrell, Jr.). Enterprise, Vol.12, January, p. to the South," _ Black 21 (with Walter C. 1982 " Impact of Electricity Utility Rate Reform in O kl and Livingston Counties, Michigan," Journal of Environ a and mental Systems, Vol. 12, pp. 27-Cullen and Lawrence M. Sommers). 36 (with Bradley T. 1982 Perspectives, Number 49, pp. 38-43."A Note on Black a "Further Analysis a 1982 Evacuation Survey "nd Interpretation of the Shoreham Emergency Response, Plan, Vol.in Suffolk County Radiological 17 tables, 2 figs. (with Donald J. Zeigler). 3, November, 1982, 71 pp., 1983 "The Role of Community Action in Neighb zation," Urban Geography, orhood Revitali-Vol. 4, pp. 16-39. 1 i

l-e>muu . emaeuwauo cas o Pega 5 PUBLICATIONS (Continund): 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, p. 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). 1983 " Reactions of Public School Teachers to a Possible l Accident at the Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant," a l 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 Shoreham Nuclear Power Station," pp. 279-301 in Nuclear Power: Assessing and Managing Hazardous Technology, edited by M.J. Pasqualetti and K.D. Pij avka, 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. j 1984 " Planning for Spontaneous Evacuation During a Radiologi-cal Emergency," Nuclear Safety, Vol. 25, pp. 186-194. 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). 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 l Plant Accidents," The Professional Geographer, Vol. 36, pp. 207-215. (with D.J. Zeigler). l i

PUBLICATIONS (Continued): 1984 "Towards a Regional Approach to Radiological Emergency Response Planning," Papers and Proceedings of Applied Geography Conferences, 7:114-122. 1985 " Planning for Nuclear Power Plant Accidents: Some Neglected Spatial and Behavioral Considerations," in Geographical Dimensions of Energy, edited by 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, 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 Conflict in the City of Angels," Urban Resources, Vol. 2: LAl-LA5. (with M.L. Oliver). 1985 " Summary Report on a Social Survey of Century Freeway 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, l edited by David Pepper and Andrew Blowers, London, Croom Helm Ldt, pp. 267-289. (with D.J. Zeigler). l 1986 "Modelling Evacuation Behavior During the Three Mile Island l 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 l 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). 1 a_____________

v-Pcga 7 PUBLICATIONS (Continuad): 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 e 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 i " Considerations in Culture," Chicago, Illinois. 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). i 1978 Annual Meeting, Norfolk State College and Old Dominion l University Conference on the Urban South, "The Quality l of Afro-American Life in Houston, Texas: A Geographi-i cal Perspective," Norfolk, Virginia (with Walter C. 1 Farrell, Jr.). l 1978 Annual Meeting, Michigan Academy of Sciences, " Factors i 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 i i Philadelphians: A Factorial Ecology, ' Champion, Penn-sylvania (with Walter C. Farrell, Jr.). ~

Pcg2 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. Fare 11, 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 American Geographers, " Electricity' Utility Rate Reform or Maintenance of the Status Quo?, Akron, Ohio (with Bradley T. Cullen). 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 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 1 (with Stanley D. Brunn and Brian J. McGirr). 1981 Annual Meeting, Western Social Science Association, l " Electric Utility Rate Reform: The Significance of the Spatial Factor," San Diego, California. I 1981 Annual Meeting, Southwestern Economics Association, i "Combinatorial Programming Solution to a Park and Ride Mass Transit Probler " 'allas, Texas (with Bradley T. Cullen). i i 1

) PRESENTATIONS - PROFESSIONAL MEETINGS (Continund): I 1981 Annual Meeting, Association of American Geographers, " Location-Allocation Model of Vanpool Park and Ride J I Sites: The. Lansing, Michigan Example," Los Angeles, California (with Bradley T. Cullen and Lawrence M. i l Sommers). 1982 Annual Meeting, Association of American Geographers, "Regionalization as a Step Toward Developing a National } Energy Policy," San Antonio, Texas. I 1983 Annual Meeting, Southeastern Division of the Association of American Geographers, "The Evacuatioin Shadow Phenom-dents," Orlando, Florida, November 20-22 (with Donald ~ 1 Comparing Behavioral Response to Nuclear Acci-enon: I J. Zeigler). j 1 f 1984 Annual Meeting, Association of American Geographers, i l " Distinguishing Human Responses to Radiological Emer-gencies," Washington, D.C., April (wich Donald J. Zeigler). i 1984 Seventh Annual Applied Geography Conference, "Towards a Regi.onal Approach to Radiological Emergency Response Planning," Tallahasse, FL, November 1-3. 1984 Annual Meeting, Southwest Division of the Association of American Geogra hers, "An Analysis of a Household Energy Use Survey,p' Lubbock, TX, September 20.-21 l (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. 1 1985 Annual Meeting, Association of American Geographers, " Attitudes Toward the U.S. Energy Problem," Detroit, Michigan, April (with B. T. Cullen and Lawrence Sommers). 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 Mechan.zation on the Produc-tion of Flue-Cured Tobacco in the Coastl Plains of North Carolina," Prairie View, Texas.

eessa.

eeausuu, a..

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 Semir r.r Series, Center for Afro-American Stud-ies, " Spatial Perspectives on Counter-stream Black Migration to the South," University of California at Los Angeles. 1932 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. 1983 " Evacuation Planning for Radiological Emergencies," Department of Geography, University of California 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). 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.

INVITED LECTURES AND TESTIMONY (Continuad): 1983 Testimony Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board, 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 (Emer-gency Planning) (with Kai T. Erikson on contention 25 - role conflict). December. 1983 Testimony Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board, 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 shadow phenomenon). December. I 1984 " Planning for Nuclear Power Plant Accidents: Some' i Neglected Spatial and Behavioral Considerations," Environmental Psychology Program, City University of New York, April. 1 l 1984 "A Critical Appraisal of Radiological Emergency Prepar-edness and Response Regulations, Energy Division, Oak 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. l 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. l

Pege 12 { INVITED LECTURES AND TESTIMONY (Continued); i 1986 " Black-Brown Conflict in the City of Angeles," Department j of Geography, University of Southern California, January. 1 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 l Abortien," Tulsa World (August 26, 1977), p. 5. l l 1978 WKAR (radio), East Lansing, Michigan. " Nuclear Waste l Disposal in Northeastern Michigan. l 1979 " Lifeline Bill Will Not Aid Poor," The State News (October 9, 1979) with Bradley T. Cullen. L 1979 WKAR (radio), East Lansing, Michigan. " Social Survey of Three Mile Island 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 l Residents." '(with Stanley D. Brunn and Donald J. Zeigler). ARTICLES WRITTEN BY OTHERS REGARDING MY WORK: 1978 Fran Murray, "Alpena. Residents St'ill Oppose Nuclear Waste Site," press release, Department of Information Services, Michigan State University. East Lansing, Michigan, September 21, 3978. 1978 United Press International "Alpena County Still Against a Waste Dump Site," Detroit News (September 24, 1978). A number of other Michigan cities' newspapers carried accounts from the original news release. 1979 Fran Murray, " Residents of Three Mile Island Area Fear Impact of Disaster," press release, Department of Infor-mation Services, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Micchigan, May 18, 1979. l l 1979 Fran Murray, "U Survey of Three Mile Island Area Issue," l P3U News Bulletin (October 31, 1979), p. 2. 19;9 Ellis Cose, "In the Aftermath of Three Mile Island," Detroit Free Press (October 31, 1979), p. 10A. l l l

l t :? sueuu ~.._ oeumvemo eu o Pags'14 ARTICLES WRITTEN'BY OTHERS-REGARDING M? 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 j 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," I Telegraph' Tribune, March 19, p. A-3. ) 1983 Carl Hall, " Coming.Home: More Blacks. Moving Back to. South," Arkansas Democrat, July 31, IF-8F. e 1 i l i l l l 1

.G, <N i 6 i 1 1 I f EXHIBIT 4 l I I i 1 1 ) I l l 1 'l i I l 'I _______._____m-_._m_m____

k il CURRICULUM VITAE . -l, .p NAME & ADDRESS:' David Harris ' Date' of Bii th: 1 June 3,1932 ' 438 Woodbury Road Huntington, N.Y.11743. Telephone Home: (516) 367-9226 Office: (516) 348-2700. - EDUC ATION: L 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 Health & Administrative Medicine. 1964-1965 -~ M.P.H. ~ degree SPECIALTY-CERTIFICATIONS: American Board of. Pediatrics - December 1961 ' American Board of Preventive Medicine ' June 1969 MEDICAL LICENSE: New York, 1957 (#80968) POSITIONS IIELD: Commissioner of Health 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.S8.0,000,000. The Department, formed as a "superagency" in 1973 by combining previously existing separate departments, provid_es classical public health activities, patient care services (including a network of 8 ambulatory care centers' l ~ delivering 250,000 patient visits a year and a 215 bed skilled nursing facility) I mental health and mental retardation _ services, alcoholism and substance abuse services, environmental health services, emergency medical' services, an AM A accredited" Jail Health Service, the Office of the Chief Medical Examiner and the forensic sciences-and public health laboratories. The Commissioner of Health Services coordinates and directs all these activities, is Chairman of the Board of Health and reports-directly to the County-Executive, the chief elected official of Suffolk County. Deputy Commissioner of Health Services Suffolk County, New York

August 1975 - February 1977 Associate Director, The Mount Sinal Hospital 100 Street & Fifth Avenue, New York July 1971 - August 1975 The Associate Director of The Mount Sinni Hospital, one of the -oldest and largest teaching hospitals in the nation.. reported. directlyito ' the-Director of the Hospital and was in effect the Chief Operating' Officer for all professional services, includire clinical medical departments, nursing, social services, volunteer services and the S16,000,000 affiliation contract for professional services at Elmhurst City llospital.

)

PO'SITIONS IIELD: Deputy' Commissioner New York City Depariment of Health i l 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 I 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 i 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 University of New York at Stony Brook 1981 - Present Lecturer in Public Health Columbia University School of Public Health 3 July 1972 - Present I J l Adjunct Professor New School for Social Research 1978 - Present l Adjunct Professor C. W. Post Center of Long Island University 1978 - Present Associate Professor of Administrative Medicine The Mount Sinai School of Medicine l' 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 Health & Administrative Medicine July 1971 - June 1972 Assistant Clinical Professor of Pediatrics Albert Einstein College of Medicine July 1967 - July 1971 l ClinicalInstructor in Pediatrics l l Albert Einstein College of Medicine l June 1965 - July 1967 2. ..________._.__._-__.------.---_--_i

v. /

1 1 p . INTERNSHIP &

RESIDENCY TRAINING: Straight Pediatric internship

~ University Hospitals of Cleveland ~ Cleveland, Ohio July 1957.. July 1957 i Pediatric Residency .g U.:ited States Naval Hospital Bethesda, Maryland j 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 -l I Fellow, New York Academy of Medicine IlONOR SOCIETIES: . Phi Beta Kappa, Cornell University,1952 ' 4 . 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 Health Association - 19818 i Environmentalist of the Year 1 Sierra Club, Long Island Chapter,1984 1 Columbia University School of Public Health Alumnus of the Year, Mav.1986 -] OTilER PROFESSIONAL ' ACTIVITIES & OFFICES: Medical & Health Research Association of New York City, Inc. 1 Member, Board of Directors,1975 - Present New York State Advisory Council on Substance Abuse 1978 - Present New York State Mental'Ilygiene Planning Council 1982 - Present New York State Advisory Council on Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities Advisory Council,1985 - Present 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 Health Association President, 1981 - 1983

e y OTHER PROFESSIONAL ACTIVITIES & OFFICES: : New York Academy of Biedicinel l Committee on Public Health,.Vice-Chairman,1985 . Committee on Public Health, Chairman,1986 . Committee on Public' Health, Member,;1972 - Present-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-- Const;1 tant, Professional Examination Service in the field of l Maternal & Ch'ld Health 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 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 New York State Council on Health Care Financing Member, Technical Advisory Group,1982. National Foundation - March of Dimes, Greater New York Chapter, 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. Board of Directors, 1972 - 1975 Planned Parenthood of New York City Medical Advisory Committee, 1969 - 1974 Mayor's Task Force on Child Abuse (New York City, 1969 - 1975 Visitation Committee, New York City, Juvenile Centers 1971 - lD7 2 __-_-___a

'OTHER-PROFESSION AL i ACTIVITIES & OFFICES: New York Service for Orthopedically Handicapped. Professional Advisory Committee, 1966 - 1971 Project Head Start (New York City), Medical AdvisoryL 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-l SCIENTIFIC PAPERS & PUBLICATIONS Harris, David and Cone, Tt amas E.. "Escherichia Freundii Meningitis'.',. Journal of Pediatrics, Vol. 56, No. 6, pp. 774-777, June 1960. Harris, David; Pearson, Howard A. and Avery, Gordon 'B. " Total Body ~ Irradiation", Proc. Children's Hospital of D.C., Vol. XVII, No. 6, pp.145-146, June 1961. Boles, Lawrence R., and Harris, David. ' "Nasopharyngeal Dermoid of the Newborn", Laryngoscope, Vol. LXXV, N.o. 5, pp. 763-767, May 1965. The Modern. Medical Encyclopedia. Western Publishing Co., New York, l Special Consultant Editor,1965. The Modern Medical Encyclopedia 'of Infant-Child Care. Western Publishing - Co., New York, Associate Editor,1966. Harris, 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 Harris, David. " Cardiac Screening by Computerized Auscultation",' American Journal of Public Health, Vol. 59, No. 7, pp.1177-1187, July 1969. O' Hare, Donna and Harris, David. "The Impact of Medicaid on Handicapped Children", presented at the American Public Health Association's Annual Meeting,1969. Mayer, Shirley A.; Grossi, Margaret and Harris, David. " Epidemiology of Burns in &.hdren", presented at the American Public Health Association's Annual Meeting,1970. Harris, David. " Utilization of Nurse Specialist: The Viewpoint of a Public Health Physician", presented at the American Public Health Association's Annual Meeting,1970. Harris, David; Daily, Edwin and. Lang, Dorothea. " Nurse-Midwifery in New York City", American Journal of Public Health, Vol. 61. No.1. pp. 64-77, January 1971. 5. l

3* : y J 'J LSCIENTIFIC 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 Jersev Public Health News,' Vol. 52, No.1, pp.5-10, January 1971. l Pakter, Jean; Harris, David. and Nelson,' Frieda. " Surveillance of the-Abortion Program in New York City: - Preliminary. Report", Clinical-Obstetrics and Gynecology, Voh 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. I Harris, David. " Developing = Urban Health Services : for Mothers and' l Children",' presented at the Second Annual Maternal 'and Child Health Colloquium, The. University of Michigen, 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, I Gene R.; Ireson, Robert G.; Harris, David; Camp, Maurice; Morrow, Sahar I and Peacock, Peter B. " Acute Respiratory Disease Risk and Urban. Air Pollution", presented at the American Public' Health Association's Annual-Meeting,1971. Harris, David; O' Hare, Donna; Pakter, Jean and Nelson, Frieda. " Legal Abortion 1970-1971: The New York City Experience", - American Journal of Public Health, VoL 63, No. 5, pp. 409-481, May 1973. l .1 Harris, David; Imperato, Pascal and Oken, Barry. " Dog Bites: An Unrecognized Epidemic", presented at The American Medical Association's Annual Meeting, June 25,1974. Harris, David; Imperato, Pascal and Oken, Barry. " Dog Bites in New York City", presented at the Urban Annual Symposium, University of Texas, School of Public Health, September 26,1974. Harris, 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. Harris, David. " Health Services for Women", presented at Seminar on Women's Health Issues, Suffolk County Community College, October 1975. Ilarris, David and McLaughlin, Mary C. " Integrating Alcohol, Drug Abuse and Mental Health at the Point of Services", presented at The New York Council on Alcoholism, Inc., Conference on Coordination of Services. Guidelines for National Health Insurance as it Affects Services, December 1975. 6.

W1LMtMF5G tFMtRELE 62. PUBLICATIONS McLaughlin,. Mary.C.- and - Harri.s, David. "The Single Health ' Agency... j AJ 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. .l - Zaki, Mahfouz H.; ' Miller,. George S.; Sheppard, Robert J.;. Harris,' David - R and McLaughlin, Mary C. "An Extensive Salmonella Typhimurium Outbreak - Probably ' Waterbourne", presented.at ' The ; American Public. Health Association Annual. Meeting,1 October. 21,;1976. American Waterworks - ' Association Journal. Harris, David. '" Prevention ' as a' Publ'ic ' Health Policy",' Nassau County. Medical Center Proceedings,;Vol. 5, November 2,1978. Harris, David; Nicols, ' Joseph J.;- Stark, Renee and Hill, Kenneth. "The. j Dental Working-Environment: and the Risk ofl Mercury Exposure", Journal j i of the American Dental Association,-Vol. 97, November 1978. Kim, S.'; Guirgis,- S.; ' Harris,' D.;. Keelan, T.;L Mayer, lM., and Zaki, M. "Q 'l Fever - New York", Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report 8, Vol.- 2 7,. 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 1 the American' Public Health Association-Annual. Meeting, November 6, 'l 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 College of Preventive Medicine, the 36th i < wal Meeting. of the Association of Teachers of Preventive Medicine and,.e 107th Annual Meeting of the American Public Health Association (jointly held) November j 4, 1979. Rugg, Victor; McLauglin, Christopher; Bruno,' Daniel and -Harris, David. "Self-Help. Professional Collaborative Groups with Methadone Maintenance Patients", presented at-the New York State Drug' Conference, March 25, 'l 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 I Stc.e: The Report of the State Commissions on Health Education and-Illness Prevention", New York State Journal of Medicine, Vol.' 81, No. l 12, pp.1798-1801, Nove mber 1981. Harris, David. "The Public IIealth 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.

4A%p[,T*qqo,,,'+4; 'q $)*;~'!h,,f,4:,kf"0$ g,, 4,7,, 'q. 4,3,$ 4]Of/o Of Gr J,

• )

Q y,

1. m 0

O Of f., 6, Qp,,, Elo On n v,, 0,, %r l,. t s, %e %o, I,,0 O 0p, ., \\ j I i 4 e 5 4

'l g i 3 i I / 1 1 i j I 1 l i i I 3 ) l 1 1 i l 1 EXHIBIT 5 i i 'l l l i l l l a l l l l l l l l \\ l l l l l 1 l l l l i 1 i I

---

m,m rc s-CURRICULUM VITAE'

. MARTIN DAVID MAYER, M. D., M. P.H. ADDRESS: 96 Villag'e. Lane Hauppauge, New York 11787 HOME PHONE: '(516) 979-7472 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 f:069-32-0533 DRAFT STATUS:

, 4 A (Retired, ' U.S. Public. Health Service) PRESENT POSITION: (as of September, 1972) Deputy Director. of Public. Health Suffolk - County. Department of Health Services Division of Public Health 225 Rabro Drive East Hauppauge,-New York'll788 Business Telephone: (516) 348-2757 l l 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 I i l

Curriculum Vitae Martin David Hayer, M.D.,-M.P.H. Page 2 ~ 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 - 2._ Kings County Hospital, Brooklyp, New York; Straight Pathology-Internship,' July, 1969.thru June, 1970 3. . University of Michigan, Ann' Arbor, Michigan; September, 1971.thru August, 1972, received H.P.H., August, 1972 LICENSURE: New York State, Physician License MD106724, August:S,'1970-Diplomat,-National Board of Medical Examiners, Cert.'No. 1027.. July, 1970 BONORS: 1. Winner, competitive New York State Regents Scholarship, 1957-1961 2. Elected to Tau Beta Pi, National ^ Engineering Honor Society (1960) 3. Elected to Omega Chi Epsilon, National Chemical Engineeri I Honor Society (1961) l 4. Elected to Alpha Omega Alpha, National Medical Honor l 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 l i l o I I C__________ -__m____.

,~ CurriculumLVitas Martin David. Mayer, M.D., M.P.H. Page 3 EMPLOYMENT: 1 1 1. August, 1970-thru August,.1971!- Resident Physician in the New York State Department of. Health" Residency Program in.Public Health and Preventive Medicine; assigned to Westchester County Health Department, WhitePlains,NewYi] 2.. Summer 1966, Summer 1967,- Summer 1968 - Assistant Sanitarol Engineer, Division of Air Pollution, New York State 'j Department of ~ Health,- 84. Holland Avenue, Albany, New York 3.. July,1963 - thru ' July, 1965' -- Senior ' Assistant Sanitary Engineer, United States Public Bea'lth Service, Robert A.. Taf t~ Sanitary Engineering Center, Cincinnati, Ohio -l 4. February,1962 thru January,1963 - Assistant Process Engineer, ESSO Research and Development Corporation, Florham Park,.New Jersey { PUBLICATIONS: 1 Martin Mayer, A Compilation of Air. Pollution Emission for Combustin Processes, Gasoline Evaporation, and Selected Processes U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare, Public Bealth Service, National Center for Air Pollution Control, Hay,1965 ~ l

REFERENCES:

References will be supplied on request. I I 4

.i l 2 i EXHIBIT 6 j s l { ] i I l 4 I 4 i I i 1

i PROFESSIONAL-QUALIFICATIONS OF GREGORY Co MXNOR 'l i GREGORY C. MINOR-MHB Technical Associates 1723 Hamilton Avenue Suite X San Jose, California 95125 (408)-266-2716 EXPERIENCE: 1975 to PRESENT q - Vice-President - MHB Technical Associates, San Jose, California 1 I zations and individuals. Engineering and energy consultant to state, f! risk involved in energy generation, Major activities include studies of safetyi legislative, regulatory, public and privateproviding' technical consulting to j behalf of state organizations and citizens' groups and expert ~ witness in i 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. i Served on the Peer Review Group of the NRC/TMI Special Inquiry Group (Rogovin Committee). volved'in the Nuclear Power Plant Standards Committee work for the In-A; strument Society pf America (ISA). 1972 - 1976 Manager, Advanced Control and Instrumentation Engineering, General E tric Comoany, Nuclear Energy Division, San Jose, California I Managed a design and development group of thirty-four engineers a i port personnel designing systems for use in the measurement, control and operation of nuclear reactors. design organizations, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, both overseas and domestic. i managing and design and development of control system} and new control concepts for use on the next The, position included responsibility for standards applicable to control generation of reactors. instrumentation, as well as the design of short-term solutions to f and field problems. The disciplines involved included electrical and-me-chanical engineering, seismic design.and process computer con-trol / programming, and equipment qualification. 1970 1972 i _ clear Energy Division, San Jose, CaliforniaManager, Reac ':l , Nu-i Managed a group of seven engineers and two su { 1 1 .I

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) 1963 - 1970 De sign' Engineer, General Electric Company, Nuclear Energy Division, San ( j Jose, California i Responsible for the design of specific control and instrumentation sys-tems for nuclear eactors. 1.ead design responsibility for various sub-1 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 expert-mental reactor in the Southwest. itoring System. Received patent for Nuclear Power Mon-I 1960 - 1963 Advanced Engineering Program, General Electric Comoany, Assignments in Washington. California, and Arizona Rotating assignments in a variety of disciplines: Engineer, reactor maintenance and instrument design, KE and D re-actors, Hanforc, Washington, circuit design and equipment mainte-nance coordination. Design engineer, Microwave Depa rtmen t, 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. Design engineer, Atomic Power Equipment Department, San Jose, Cal-ifornia. Circuit design and analysis. Design engineer, Space Systems Department, Santa Barbara, Califor-nia. Prepared control portion of satellite proposal. Technical Staf f - Technical Military Planning Operation. (TEMPO), Santa Barbara, California. Prepare analyses of missile exchanges. During this period, completed three-year General Electric program of extensive education in advanced engineering principles of higher mathematics, Xepne r-Tregoe,p robability and analysis. Also comple ted courses in various technical seminars.Ef fective Presentation, Management Training Prog -2

..v EDUCATXON University.of California at' Berkeley, BSEE,1960. Advanced Course in Engineering - three-year curriculum, General E Company, 1963. Stanf'ord University, MSEE,1966. HONORS AND ASSOCIATIONS Tau Beta Pi Engineering Honorary Society Co-holder of U.S. Patent No. 3,565-760, " Nuclear Reactor Power Monitoring System," February,1971. Member: American Association for the. Advancement of Science. Member: Nuclear Power Plant Standards Committee, Instrument Soci-ety of America. PERSONAL DATA Born: June 7, 1937 Married, three children Residence: San Jose, California PUBLICATIONS AND TESTIMONY 1. G. C. Minor, S. E. Moore, " Control. Rod Signal Multiplexing," IEEE Tr actions on Nuclear Science, Vol. NS-19, February 1972. 2. clear Power Plant," NE00-10658',G. C. Minor W. G. Milam, "An Integrated Control Room System for a Nu-presented - a t International Nuclear In-dustries Fair and Technical Paetings, October,1972, Basie, Switzerland 3. The above article was also published in the German Technical Mag NT, March,1973. 4. Testimony of G. C. Minor, D. G. Bridenbaugh, and R.. B. Hubbard before the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy, Hearing held February 18, 1 and. published by the Union of Concerned Scientists,. Cambridge, Mas-sachusetts. 5. Testimony of G. C. Minor, D. G. Bridenbaugh, and R. the California State Assembly Committee on Resources, Land Use, and l ergy, March 8,1976. 6. Testimony of G. C. Minor and R. B. Hubbard before the California State Senate Committee on Public Utilities, Transit, 1976. and Energy March 23,

E'0VC TION University of California at Berkeley, BSEE, 1960.. Advanced Course in Engineering - three-year curriculum. Gene'ral-El Company, 1963.- Stan f'ord Un'ive rs i ty, MSEE, ' 1966; HONORS AND_ ASSOCIATIONS Tau Beta Pi En~gineering Honorary Society Co-holder. of U.S.. Patent No. Monitoring System " February,1971.3' 565-760,. " Nuclear Reactor, Powe Member: American Association for the. Advancement of Science. Member: Nuclear Power Plant Standards Committee, Instrument Soci-ety of America. PERSONAL DATA Born: June 7, 1937 Married, three children Residence: San Jose, California P_ PUBLICATIONS AND TESTIMONY l i 1. G. C. Minor, S. E. Moore, " Control Rod Signal Multiplexing," IEEE Trans-actions on Nuclear Science, Vol. NS-19, February 1972. 2. G. C. Minor, W. clear Power Plant," NE00-10658,G. Milam, '"An Integrated Control' Roo 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 Magaz NT, March, 1973. 4. Testimony of G. C. Minor D. G. Bridenbaugh, and R.,B. Hubbard before the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy, Hearing held February 18, ~ and published by the Union of Concerned Scientists, Cambridge,. Mas- _1976,- sachusetts. S. Testimony of G. C. Minor, D. the California State Assembly Committee on Resources, Land B. Hubbar'd before ergy, March 8, 1976. 6. Testimony of G. C. Minor and R. B. Hubbard before the California State Senate Committee on Public Utilities, Transit, 1976. and Energy,- March 23,

7. Testimony of G. C. Minor re March 16-17, 1977, Wurzbuerg,garding the Grafenrheinfeld Nuclear Plant, Germany. 8. Saskatchewan, Canada, SeptemberTestimony of G. C. Mino 21, 1977. 9. The Risks of Nuclear Power Reactors: Stuoy WASH-1400 (NUREG-75/0140), H. A Review of the NRC Reactor Safety Kendall, et al, edited by G. C. Mi-~ nor and R. B. Hubbard for 1977. the Union of Concerned Scientists, August, 10. Swedish Reactor Safety Study: Associates, January,1978. Barseback Risk Assessment, KHB Technical as Document Os! 1978:1) (Published by Swedish Department of Industry 11. Testimony by G. C. Minor before the Wisconsin Public Service Comm February 13 1978, Loss of Coolant Accidents: Consequence., Their Probability and 12. mittee on Resources, Testimony by G. C. Minor before the Califor Land Use, and Energy. AB 3108, April 26, 1978, Sacramento, California. i 13. Technology (BMFT), Meeting on Reactor Safety _te rf a ce in Nuclear Germany. Reactors, August 21, and September 1, l 1978, Bonn, Testimony of G. C. Minor, D. G. Bridenbaugh, and R. B. Hubbard, 14. the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board, September 1 25, 1978, in the matter of Black Fox Nuclear Power Station Construction Permit Hearings

Tulsa, Oklahoma.

15. Testimony of G. C. Minor, ASLB Hearings Related to TMI-2 Accident cho Seco Power Plant, on behalf of Friends of' the Earth, Septem , Ran-1979. 16. Testimony of G. C. Minor before the Michigan State Legislature, S Joint Committee on Nuclear Energy, Implications of Three Mile Islan cident for Nuclear Po,mr Plants in Michigan, October 15, 1979. 17. A Critical View of Reactor Safety, by G. C. Minor, paper presented the American Association for the Advancement of Science to Nuclear Reactor Safety, January 7,1980, San Francisco, California l Symposium on 18. The Effects of Aging on Safety-of_ Nuclear Power Plants, paper pre at Forum on Swedish Nuclear Referendum, Stocknolm, Sweden, Ma rch 1, 1980. 19. Minnesota Nuclear Plants Gaseous Emissions Study, MHB Technical ates, September 1980, prepared for the Minne~sota Pollution Control Agency, Roseville, MN. 1, __~.-

~ 20 Testimony of G. 'C. Minor.and D. G. Bridenbaugh before the New York State Public Service Commission, Shoreham Nuclear Plant Construction S in the matter of Long. Island Lighting Company Temporary Rate Cas September 22, 1980, 21. Systems Interaction and Single Failure Criterion, MHB Technical Associ-Power' Inspectorate, Stockholm, Sweden.ates, January,1981, pre 22. Board of Public Utilities, Oyster Creek 1980 Refu G._ Bridenbaugh before L the New Jersey 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 ASLB, Janu 11, 1982. 24. Testimony of G. C. Minor and R. B. Hubbard on Emergency Response Plan- , Diablo Canyon Operating License hearing lbefore ASLB, January 10, ! 25. Systems Int;raction and Single Failure Criterion: Swedish Nuclear Power Inspectorate, Stockholm, Sw 26. Testimony of G. C. Minor, R. B. Hubbard, M. W. Goldsmith, S. J. Harwoo on behalf of Suffolk County, before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board, in the matter of Long Island Lighting Company,' Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, and Systems Interaction, AprilUnit 1, regarding Contention 7B, Safety C 13, 1982. ~-- l 27 Testimony of G. C. Minor and D. G. Bridenbaugh on - behalf of Suffolk County, before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Scard, in the matter of Long Island Lighting Company, regarding _Suffolk County ContentionShoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1, ur_e, April 13, 1982.

11. Passive Mechanical Valve ' Fail-28.

Testimony of G. C. Minor and R. B. Hubbard on behalf of Suffolk Cou before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board in the matter of Long Is-land Lighting Company, Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1. Suffolk County Contention 27 and SOC Contention 3. Post-Accident 'Moni-torine, Tay 25, 1982. 29. Testimony of G. C. Minor and D. G. Bridenbaugh. on behalf of LSuffolk County, before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board, in the matter of Long Island Lighting Company, Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit regarding suffolk County Contention 22, SRY Test Program, May 1, 25, 1982.- 30. Testimony of G. C. Minor and D. G. Bridenbaugh on _ behalf _of 'Suffolk Ccunty, before the Atomic Safet Long Island Lighting Company, y and Licensing Board, in the. matter of Shoreham. Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1, Reduction of SRV Chillenges, Juneregarding Suffolk Copnty Conten 14, 1982. e

. 31. Testimony of G. C. Minor on behalf of Suf folk County, before the At Safety and Licensing Board, in the matter of Long Island Lighting pany, Shoreham Nuclear Power Station Unit 1, regarding Environmental Qualification, January 18, 1983. 32. Testimony of G. C. Minor and D. G. Bridenbaugh before the Pennsylv Public Utility Commission, on behalf of the Office of Consumer Advoca Regarding the Cost of Constructing the Susquehanna Steam Electric S tion, Unit I, Re: Pennsylvania Power and Light, March 18, 1983, 33. Supplemental testimony of G. C. Minor, R. B. Hubbard, and M. W. Gold-t smith on behalf of Suffolk County, before the Atomic Safety and Licens-{ ing Board, in the matter of Long Island Lighting Company, Shoreham N clear Power Station Unit 8 1 regarding Suffolk County Contention 78 Safety Classification and Systems Interaction, March 23, 1983. 34. Testimon t al. vs. y before the District Court Judge in the case of Sierra Club et. DOE regarding the Clean-up of Uranium Hill Tailings. 1983. June 20, 35.- Systems Interaction and Single Failure Criterion: Technical Associates, June,1983, Phase 3 Report, MHB l prepared for and Swedish Nuclear Power Inspectorate Stockholm, Sweden.available from the 36. Systematic Evaluation Program: Status Report and Initial Evaluation, f MHB Technical Associates, June, 1983, prepared the Swedish Nuclear Power Inspectorate, Stockholm, Sweden.for and available 37. Testimony of G. C. Minor, F. C. Finlayson, and E. P. Radford tefore the l Atomic Safety and Licensing Board, in the Matter of Long Island Company, Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1, regarding Emergency Planning Contentions 65, 23.0 and 23.H. November 18, 1983. 38. Testimony of G. C. Minor, Sizewell 'B' Proof of Evidence Recarding Safety Issues, December,1983. Power Stati 39. Testimany of D. G. Bridenbaugh, L. M. Danielson, R. B. Hubbard and Minor before the State of New York Public Service Commission, PSC No. 27563, in the matter of Long Island Lighting Company Proceed Investigate the Cost of Phase II, on behalf of County of Suffolk, Februarythe Shoreham N 10, 1984. 40. Testimony of Fred C. Finlayson, Gregory C. Minor and Edward P. before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board, Radford in the Matter of Long Is-land Lighting Company, Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1 on behalf of Suffolk County Rega rdi1ng Emergency Planning Contention 61 (Sheltering), March 21, 1984. 41. Testimony of G. Dennis Eley, C. John Smith, Gregory C. Minor and Dale Bridenbaugh before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board, in the matte of Long Island Lighting company, Shoreham Nuclear Power Station U regarding EMD Diesel Generators and 20 MW Gas Turbine, March21, 1984. l l

42. Revised Testimony of Gregory Co Minor before the Atomic Safet censing Board, in the matter of Long Island Lighting Company,y and Li-Shoreham Nuclear Power Station Unit 1, on behalf of Suffolk County regarding Emergency Planning Contentions 85 and 88 (Recovery and Reentry), July 30, 1984. 43. Testimony of Dr. Christian Meyer, Dr. Jose Roesset, and Gregory C. Minor before' the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board, in the matter of Long Is-land Lighting Company, Shoreham Nuclear Power Station Unit 1, on behalf of Suffolk County, regarding Low Power Hearings (Seismic Capabilities of AC Power Sources), July 1984. 44. Affidavit of Gregory C. Minor, Emergene,/ 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-vice Comission, PSC Case No. 27563, Shoreham Nuclear Station, Long Is-land Lighting Company, on behalf of Suffolk County and New York State Consumer Protection Board, regarding prudency of LILCO, October 4, 1984. 46. Direct Testinuny of Dale G. Bridenbaugh, Lynn M. Danielson and Gregory l C. Minor on behalf of Massachusetts Attorney General, DPU 84-145, before 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. 47. Direct Testimony of Dale G. Bridenbaugh, Lynn M. Danielson and Gregory C. Minor on behalf of Maine Public Utilities Comission Staff regarding Seabrook Unit 2, Docket No. 84-113, December i 21, 1984. 48. Suffolk County's Emergency Diesel Generator Load 50-322-OL, January 25, 1985. j 49. Direct Testimony of Dale G. Bridenhugh, Lynn M. Danielson, and Grego C. Minor on behalf of the Department of Public Service, State of Vermont Public Service Board Docket No. 5030, Central Vermont Public Service Corpora tion, November 11, 1985. i 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 of Public Utility Control Prosecutorial Division and Division of Con-i sumer Counsel regarding the prudence of expenditures on Millstone Unit 'i 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 i by New England Power Co. on Seabrook Unit 2, February j 21, 1986. j 52. Direct Testimony of Gregory C. Hinor on behalf of the Prosecutorial Di-vision of CDPUC regarding CL&P Construction Prudence for Millstone Unit 3, March 19,1986. 1 i

o. 530 of Massachusetts Attorney General. rega i for Millstone Unit:3. March 19,1986. u enca 1 5 4.' of Massachusetts Attorney General rega I Dates and Deferred Capital. Additions on Millstone Unit 3 4 1986.' g-l rch '19, 1 55. Rebuttal Testimony of Dale G. Bridenbaugh and Gregory C 'Seabrook 2 Rebuttal April 2,1986.of Massachusetts: At . Minor on behalf-56.- Lof State of Maine Staff of Public -Utilities Comm ea struction Prudence of Millstone Unit 3, April 21.1986. regarding Con-

57..

for the State of' New York, prepared for thei l 1 anning Protection Board, by MHB Technical Associates, June 1986 r onsumer i 58. Direct Testimony of Dale G. Bridenbaugh and Gregory C Central Vermont Public Service Corporation . Minor on behalf Rates Docket No. 5132, August 25, 1986. rease in 59. Surrebuttal Testimony of Gregory C tral Power and' t.ight Company, regar. Minor in the matter of Jersey Cen-centives, OAL Docket No. PVC ding TMI Restart and Performance In-11, 1986. 7939-85, BPU Docket No. ERB 51116. Septembe r. 60. Surrebuttal Testimony of Gregory C Department of Public Service, rega. Minor on behalf of State of Vermont of-Millstone-Unit 3, Docket No. 5132, November 6,1986.rding CVPS 61. Direct Testimony of Gregory C. Minor and Lynn K State of Vermont Department Costs, Docket No. 5132. Decemberof Public - Service, Price on behalf of 31, 1986. regarding Seabrook 1 o -

i i 1 4 I f EXHIBIT 7 1 1 1 I i .l l l l a

1 PROFESS 10NAL QUALIFICATf0NS OF STEVEN C. SHOLLY STEVEN C. SHOLLY MHB Technical Associates 1723 Hamilton Avenue i Suite K San Jose, California 95125 (408)266-2716 EXPERIENCE: September 1985 - PRESENT - Associate - MHB Technical Associates, San Jose, California l 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 Acsociate and Risk Analyst - Union of Concerned Scien-tists, Washincton, D.C. Research associate and risk analyst for public interest group based' in Cambridge, Massachusetts, that specializes in examining the impact of ad-i 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 re ports and prepared comments thereon, and responded to inquiries from sponsors, the general public, and the media. Participated as a member of the Panel on ACRS Effectiveness (1985), the Panel on Regulatory Uses of Probabilistic-j Risk Assessment (Peer Review of NUREG-1050; 1984), Invited Observer to 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). _ _ _

I i ~ January 1980. January 1981 1 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 Huclear Power Plant. Prepared fundraising' proposals, tracked progress of U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Com-i mission, U.S. Department of Energy, and General Public: Utilities activi-- j ~ 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. July 1978 - January 1980 Chief Biological Process Operator - Wastewater Treatment Plant, Derry I . Township Municipal Authority, Hershey, Pennsylvania Chief Biologicd 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-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. Recei.ved 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-glvania 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 Science Teacher - West Shore School District, Camp Hill, Pennsylvania Taught Earth and Space Science at ninth grade level. Developed and im-i piemented new course materials on plate tectonics, environmental geology, and space science. Served as Assistant Coach of the district gymnastics ) team. 1 ) i 1 { l

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. EDUCATI0ft: 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 flewspaper Reports," Journal of Geological Education, Vol. 25, 1977. 2. A Critioue of: An Independent Assessment of Evacuation Times for Three Mile Island ituc!ea r Power Plant, Three Mile Island Public Interest Resource Center, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, January 1981. 3. A Brief Review and Critique of the Rockland County Radiological Emeraency Preparedness Plan, Union of Concerned Scientists, prepared for Rockland County Emergency Planning Personnel and the Chairman of the County Legis-3 lature, Washington, D.C., August 17, 1981. j 4. The flecessity for a Prompt Public Alerting Caoability in the Plume Exco-j sure Pathway EPZ at (4uclear Power Plant Sites, Union of Concerned Scien-tists, Critical Mass Energy Project, fiu: lear Information and Resource Service, Environmental Action, and flew York Public Interest Research 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 Indlan Point Book: A Briefing on the Safety Investigation of the Indian Point fluclear Power Plants, Anne Witte, editor, Union of Concerned Scientists (Washington, D.C.) and New York Public Interest Research 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 Af fairs, U.S.' House of Representatives, Middletown, Pennsylvania, March 29, 1982, available from the Union of Concerned Scientists. 3 i 9. " Union of Concerned Scientists Detailed Comments on Petition for Rulemak-i 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, i Washington, D.C., May 24, 1982.

10. Supplements to the Testimony of Ellyn R. Weiss, Esq., General Counsel, Union of Concerned Scientists, before tne Subcommittee on Energy Conservation and Power, Committee on Energy and Commerce, U.S. House of j

Representatives, Union of Concerned Scientists, Washington, D.C., Auoust i 16, 1982, i

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-i 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.

3 i

12. " Comments on 'Draf t 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.

• 1 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-i 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 Concerned 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. Thompson and Steven C. Sholly on Commission Ques-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.

• __

-- 18. : Testimony of Steven C. Sholly on the Consequences of Accidents at Indian Point '(Commission Question One and Board Question 1.1, Union of Concerned ' Scientists and' New' York Public Interest Research Group,'before the_ U.S. Nuclear Regulatory. Commission Atomic Safety and Licensing Board, in the Matter of-Consolidated Edison Company of New York = (Indian Point; Unit c 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.'* f

19. Testimony of Steven C. Sholly on Commission' Question Five, Union;of Con-cerned Scientists and-New York Public Interest Research Group, before the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory. 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. S0-247-SP and~ 50-286-SP,liarch 22, 1983.:

• j

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.

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 Subcommittee; on Nuclear Regulation, Committee on; Environment and Public Works, U.S. Senate, April-15. 1983, (with " Union R

of Concerned Scientists' Response to Questions for the Rerord from Sena-i tor Alan K. Simpson," Steven C. Sholly and Michael E..Faden)'. i

22. "PRA:

What Can it Really Tell Us_ About Public Risk from Nuclear Ac-cidents?," Union of Concerned Scientists,- Washington, D C., presentation i to the 14th Annual Meeting, Seacoast Anti-Pollution Leaguy, 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 GA0 Questions on NRC's' Use of PRA "' Union of Concerned Sci-entists, Washington, D.C., October 6,1983, attachment =to letter ~ dated-October 6,1933, from Steven C. Sholly to John E. Bagnulo (GAO, ' Washing-ton,D.C.).

25. The Impact of " External Events" on Radiological Emergency Resoor.se Plan-ning Considerations, Union of Concerned Scientists Washington, D.C., De-cember 22, 1933, attachment to letter dated December 22, 1983, from Steven C. Sholly to NRC Commissioner 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,"

'i 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)1 -S-

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-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 6f Concerned Scientists' and Nuclear Information and Resource Ser-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 Commissioners 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-ton, D.C., April 3,1985.

• i

31. " Severe Accident Source Terms for Light Water Nuclear Power Plants: A j

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 J 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 Soecial 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. 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-t lic Utility Control, Prosecutorial Division and Division of Consumer j Counsel, regarding the prudence of expenditures on Millstone Unit III, February 18, 1986. i 34. Implications of the Chernobyl-4 Accident for Nuclear Emergency Planning for the State of New York, prepared for the State of New York Consumer 3 Protection Board, by MHB Technica,1 Associates, June 1986. {

35. Deview of Vermont Yankee Containment Safety Study and Analysis of Containment venting Issues for the Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Plant, prepared for New England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution, Inc., December 16, 1986.

l Available from the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Public Document Room, Lobby,1717 H Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. l 1 l 1

J i i i j l i i i i EXHIBIT 8 1 I i 4 l 4 I O 1 l D

<.. / .&Mu1Dit;o 'j 1 1 -l

REACTION OF LONG ISLAND. RESIDENTS'TO:LILCO'S RESPONSE

'j .TO AN ACCIDENT. AT THE SHOREHAM NUCLEAR POWER PLANT- .l l February, 1987. l ~ 1 Prepared for Suffolk County j by Social Data Analysts, Inc. 1 t l.'. I l' i l-l 1 l .__-____=__ ___-_- -- -

1 l TABLE OF CONTENTS i About Social Data Analysts, Inc.............................. 2 \\ 4 Executive Summary............................................ . 3 i 1, Introduction................................................. 5 l 1 Exercise Background.......................................... 7 Evacuation Shadow............................................ 10 Attitudes Toward Shoreham and Nuclear Power.................. 14 Monitoring for Radiation Contamination....................... 16 Information Seeking.......................................... 17 l Credibility of LILCO......................................... 17 Responses to Survey and Correlates of Evacuation Intentions................................................ 19 i j Table 1: Response to First EBS Message by Area.............. 20 l Table 2: Response to Second EBS Messa,ge by Area............. 21 1 Table 3: Response to Fifth EBS Message by Area.............. 22 Table 4: Response to Seventh EBS Message by Area............ 23 Table 5: Apprehension of Long Island Residents About Living Near Nuclear Power Plants................... 24 1 Table 6: Responses by Geographical Area..................... 25 l Table 7: Correlates of Evacuation Intentions................ 32 Technical Appendix........................................... 37 Sample.................................................. 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 Questionnaire........................................... 53

I ABOUT SOCIAL DATA ANALYSTS, INC. 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 I 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 Sociological Review, American Journal of Socioloov, and Public ooinion Quarteriv. l -2 f 1

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 resident? of Long Island. The survey found that if the Exercise scenario had been a real accident at the Shoreham plant, and LILCC'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 j 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. 9 ~ - _ -. _. _ _ _ _ _ - - - - _ - - _ ~

The. survey found that-::LILCO'would have:very low. credibility:if?it

tol.d people'living outside~the.EPZ that they were safe..

Seventy-six. percent said that--they would.not believe LILCO. - 1 4 l I 1 l 1 ' l l 1 l l .i j e e ) 4,- l l l l \\ 1

l i Introduction j In order for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to grant a license to operate a commercial nuclear power plant, it is necessary for the operator to conduct a successful exercise ~of-the emergency response plan. In February of'1986'LILCO conducted an exercise of its.pr'oposed offsite emergency response plan for 1 Shoreham. The exercise involved a hypothetical accident scenario' l d to which members of LILCO's offsite response organization j l I responded by performing or' simulating the activities they-would 1 1 \\ undertake in the event of.a real accident. In-the exercise l . 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 j protect themselves) were simulated. It was assumed by LILCO's -] personnel during the. exercise that.most people living on Long Island would follow the instructions that they were given over i the radio Emergency Broadcast System. In connection with the NRC proceeding on the results of the February 13th Exercise, Suffolk County' asked Social Data Analysts Inc. to conduct research aimed at finding out what Long Island l residents would actually do if an accident such as the hypothetical one used by LILCQ in its exercise and LILCO's I response to that hypothetical accident were actually to occur. l .) i ) l l ' 1 l l

-Social Data Analysts conducted 1a survey among a random. sample of 1500'Long Island-residents..The primary aim of the survey.was to determine'whether the Exercise portrayed or. assumed a realistic' set of human responses by the1Long Island population l to the hypothetical accident. In seeking an answer'to this question, the survey elicited data on th'e following subjects: j l 1) If an accident.such as the onefused by LILCO in its exercise were to happen, would.there-be a significant. ' voluntary evacuation or " evacuation shadow?" L 2) How have recent events, including:the1 accident?at 1 Chernobyl, influenced the attitudes of Long Island-1 l residents toward Shoreham? 3) If an accident such as that used by LILCO in its exercise were to happen, how many Long1 Island. residents I would seek monitoring for possible. radioactive q 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 q j with random samples of 492 residents living in Nassau' County, 629 residents living in Suffolk County but more than. ten miles from the plant, and 379 residents living within the ten mile emergency planning zone. (For a full description of the sample and the techniques utilized in analyzing.these data see the Technical Appendix.) " l~

Exercise Backcround' the survey and 1ts basis in context,_some background-To put 1 '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. oat 5:40 a.m., an " Unusual Event" was declared at the Shoreham plant. An Unusual Event.is the lowest classification of 1 l an emergency, which indicates a potential degradation of the. level of safety at the plant. It involves no release of I radioactive material. At 6:17 a.m. an " Alert" was declared at the Shoreham plant. I An Alert is the second of four emergency classification levels; it indicates that' events are in process or have occurred.which I could jeopardize the plant's safety systems. At 6:52 a.m. LILCO simulated the broadcast of a message over the radio on an I Emergency Broadcast. System (EBS). That message announced that an j Alert had been declared at Shoreham, and.that schools within the 10 mile emergency planning zone around the Shoreham plant should 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 j a.m., LILCO simulated a second EBS broadcast. The second EBS 1

ments relating to safety and emergency systems for nuclear reacs; ors. Responsibility required coordination with other design organizations and interaction with the customer's engineering personnel, as well as regu-latory personnel. 1963 - 1970 De s ign' Engineer, General Electric Ccmpany, 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 - 1953 Advanced Engineering Proaram, General Electric Company; Assignments in Washington, California, and Arizona Rotating assignments in a variety of disciplines: 4 Engineer, reactor maintenance and instrument design, KE and D re-l l actors, Hanford, Washington, circuit design and equipment mainte-l j nance coordination. 1 Design engineer, Microwave. Department, Palo Alto, California. Work on design of cavity couplers for Microwave Traveling Wave j Tubes (TWT). Design engineer, Computer Department, Phoenix, Arizona. Design of core driving circuitry. 1 Design engineer, Atomic Power Equipment Department, San Jose, Cal-ifornia. Circuit design and analysis, i Design engineer, Space Systems Department, Santa Barbara, Califor-nia. Prepared control portion of satellite proposal. ) Technical Staff - Technical Military Planning Operation. (TEMPO), P Santa Barbara, Californi,a. Prepare analyses of missile exchanges. During this period, completed three-year General Electric program of l extensive education in advanced engineering principles of higher { mathematics, and analysis. Also completed courses in l Kepne r-Tregoe,probabili ty various technical seminars.Ef fective Presentation, Management Training Prog! l l -2 0 i a

l i I i message announced that a Site Area Emergency had been declared, j i that a very minor release of radiation had occurred, that schools l within 10 miles of the Shoreham plant should implement early i dismissal plans, and that all milk-producing animals within two I 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 ) l referring to an emergency procedures brochure. ] At 9:39 a.m., a " General Emergency" was declared at the l Shoreham plant. A General Emergency is the most serious emergency classification level. It indicates that events are in l process or have occurred which involve actual or imminent substantial core degradation or melting with potential loss of containment integrity. At approximately 10:00 a.m., LILCO j simulated the broadcast of an EBS message which announced that a General Emergency had been declared, that there had been a I failure in plant safety systems, and that there had been a l release of radiation into the air. l 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 l l l -8

1 -l of the;Shoreham plant should be moved into shelters and placed on stored feed, and that the publicJmay call their LILCO District-l 1 office for further~information., l At approximately 12:00 noon, LILCO simulated the broadcast. of_an EBS message which repeated the earlier information'about ] the General' Emergency,fand stated that all persons'in the entire I E10 mile zone should evacuate as soon as possible. It also stated l 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 ] l air had occurred at 12:00 p.m., and that based on measurements of i radia:lon, 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-1 Shoreham. The message reiterated the recommendation for' people in the entire 10 mile emergency planning zone to evacuate as soon as pensible. 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 Roa4 and west of the William Floyd Parkway should report to the Nassau Coliseum l l to be monitored for possible radioactive contamination, since l l they may have been exposed to radiation during their trip out of the 10 mile zone. All the EBS messages used by LILCO during the Exercise stated that there is no reason'for persons living outside the 10 mile emergency planning zone to take any action.

• p t

J Evacuation Shadow i Previous research has suggested that if a radiological b emergency were to occur at the Shoreham nuclear power station, a significant portion of Long Island 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 I 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 questions 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 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. 1

i Assuming 1that the Shoreham nuclear. power-plant'is licensed and.-begins to operate,-we would like.to know what you.would ~ do ifL something. happened at: the plant.- Suppose that you 3 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 rua 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 leavefyour 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, 1 l 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 i l 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 the first EBS message. 1 Respondents who said that they would not evacuate after { L hearing the first EBS message at approximately 7:00 a.m., were asked what they would do after hearing the second EBS message at about 8:45 a.m.. 1 1 m.____._.______.___.________ __m

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 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 j action. 1 I 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? l 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 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 1 in its Exercise were 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: f 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 j --

i .that ~ here'had been a failure in plant: safety systems, and t recommended evacuation for'allepeople.living;in the. ten mile evacuation zoneLexcept those' people who live; south'of the. Long Island Expressway and East of the William Floyd Pa r k wa y ~. 1LILCO said that people-who'were told to. evacuate. would be safer if they left.as'soon'as possible.. The.LILCO , representative said if'you are1outside the ten' mile. zone there is:no' reason to'takeJany 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,Lbroken 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 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. L___-_______

1 .( x. The LILC01 representative said:that if:you-live outside the 1 10 mile emergency planning zone,: there_is no' reason to take any action. Once'again, the:Shoreham' Nuclear Power Station is in a general emergencyecondition...There has been a release of radiation intoithe? 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 andigo=further away1from 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 Lor.g. Island households would have. begun the attempt to evacuate. ThisTrepresents.a. total'of more' than 650,000 households. After the seventh.EBS message was l played, El% of Nassau residents and-79% of Suffolk residents-(79% of those outs'ide the EPZ and 87% of those within the EPZ) would have begun the attempt to evacuate. .It should be pointed out a that since by this time all residents of the'EPZ were advised to 1 evacuate, the data indicate that about 13% of~ households within the EPZ would not follow LILCO's advice.- This represents .j l approximately 4425 households. Since all but the households living within the EPZ.here advised by LILCO that they need not evacuate, the total'aize 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 lit have no opinion. This represents a.

t ._ substantial increase in' opposition:to Shoreham since the last j l survey for Suffolk County which.was conducted in June of 1982.r. j i At.thatt time 46% were opposed to the opening _of Shoreham, 37%.., 2 favored the opening of theLnuclear plant, and 18% had no.opi~rpon. Two'Newsday polls conducted in 1985 and 1986 by Social Data . Analysts found slightly7more than 70% of Long Island residents opposed tc the opening ofothe Shoreham plant. 'I l-The current' survey also repeated several questions aimed at j 1 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. Theref ha's been virtually no change in the proportions of Long Island j residents who believe'that living neEr an airport,.a mental GI ' b hospital, or a co,a1 firei power plant would be very dangerous. j 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 I response. It is possible that the negative attitudes that Long Islanders have toward Shoreham were exacerbated by the accident i at the Chernobyl power plant in,the Soviet Union. The majority q of Long Island residents were familiar with the Chernobyl j 1 accident with 71% able to correctly identify Chernobyl or the' j. Soviet Union as the place in whLch a major accident had occurred l at a nuclear power plant. A large majority of Long Island 1 residents, 78%, believefthat it is possiblelfor a serious I d l 1 1 / E___________________________

e accident like that which occurred at Chernobyl to' occur at the Shoreham Nuclear Power Plant if: the plant is'put into operation. Only116%'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. l Monitorinc for Radiation Contamination I. 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 rad!ation level monitored. - _ -

8. i Information Seekino In the scenario used by LILCO in it's February, 1986 Exercise j 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 curvey, 46% of the respondents or more than 375,000 people said that they would 1 definitely call to get more information. Another 29% or an l additional 235,000 people said that they would probably call to get more information. l 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 vould 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 tu; was whether people i l I i a

i C living outside of the ten mile EPZ would believe that they.-were safe and had no need to evacuate.in the. case of an accident. We asked theifollowing question: i 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. l 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-Nassau County residents and 15% of Suffolk County residents..(15% of those outside the EPZ and 12% of those within the EPZ).said-c that they would bel'ieve LILCO that those outside the EPZ were l safe. Seventy-six percent of all Long Island residents -- 73% of l 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. 1 i 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 sog.ewhat, 51% said not at all, and 2% had no opinion. These results showed slightly more credibility for LILCO officials than did the survey

1 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. Resnonses to Survev and correlates 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.

J 1 i TABLE'1* Response to First EBS Message by Area- ) Assuming that the Shoreham~ Nuclear Power' Plant is' licensed and i '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 wokeEup 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 l condition was declared at 6:17 a.m. A LILCO representative said. j that no release of radiation had occurred but recommended that schools within the ten mile emergency-planning zone.should remain i closed. He said that if you live more than. ten miles away from i 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 de,termined see the Technical Appendix. ) ) 1 1

) 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 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 i family: go about your normal business, or stay inside your home, I or leave your home and go further away from the plant? Resoonse Area Nassau Suffolk Suffolk Outside EPZ Inside EFZ Total g'o about normal ) business 13% 10% 4% 11% 1 (51,056) (39,151) (1361) (90,011) stay inside home 17 20 18 18 l (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 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. _ - _ - - _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ - _

t TABLE 3* Response to Fif th EBS Message by Area 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 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 ~q 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 t'o 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? { l Resoonse Area l Nassau Suffolk Suffolk l Outside EPZ Inside EPZ Total j i go about normal l business 8% 6% 1% 7% I l (31,419) (23,490) (340) i ~57,280) ( stay inside home 13 17 13 15 (48,308) (66,556) (4425) (122,743) leave home and go further away from l plant 78 75 84 77 (306,338) (293,630) (28,590) (630,079) don't know 1 2 1 2 (3927) (7830) (340) (16,366) I 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 i the numbers of households were determined see the Technical Appendix. l ______________ _ m

/ l .I TABLE 4* l l Response to Seventh EBS Message by Area l i At around 1 p.m. you heard the following message broadcast over the radio: 1 1 A. general emergency was declared at t '9 a.m. today at the l Shoreham Nuclear Power Station. A m., c release of radiation l into the air occurred at 12:00 p.m. Lased 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 I LILCO representative recommends evacuation for people in the I entire 10 mile emergency planning zone. P 7ple in this zone will j 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 l radiation into the air. l When you heard this message, would you and members of your i family: go about your normal business, or stay inside your home, l leave your home and go further away from the plant? or I Besconse Area Nassau Suffolk Suffolk Outside EPZ Inside EPZ Total i go about normal J 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 knew 1 2 1 2 (3927) (7830) (3403 (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 hc' the numbers of households were determined see the Technical Appendix. 1.

l l ) TABLE 5 1 1 i Apprehension of Long Island Residents About Living Near Nuclear Power Plants { i How dangerous do you think Percent saying it would be to live near "very dangerous" each of the following: 1982 1987 1 an airport 7% 7% a mental hospital 7% 7% 1 1 i l a coal fired power plant 10% 15% a nuclear power plant 51% 59% ) i i i I l l l I l i i l l l l l l l - 24

TABLE 6 Responses by Geographical Area Suffolk Suffolk Outside Inside Nassau EPZ EPZ Total In general, how dangerous do you think it would be to live near each of the following: 6. an airport: very dangerous 6 8 5 7 dangerous 44 36 43 40 not dangerous at all 47 53 49 50 don't know 3 2 2 3 l Total 100 99 99 100 7. a mental hospital: O very danger s 6 8 5 7 dangerous 39 31 34 35 l 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 L_________-_______---____

... ) TABLE 6 (cont.) -) l f Suffolk Suffolk Outside Inside l Nassau EPZ EPZ Total I 10. Would you describe yourself as: 4 l I 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 l 1 11. Do you think that LILCO should be allowed to operate the Shoreham j nuclear power plant to generate electricity? yes 26 19 18 22 no 61 72 76 67 don't know 13 9 5 11 1 Total 100 100 99 100 12. See Table 1 13. See Table 2 14. See Table 3 l 15. See Table 4 16. If at 1:45 p.m. you heard on the radio a LILCO representative say that cert-tain 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 radio-active contamination, 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 h&ve your radiation level checked, or 31 33 38 32 would not bother to have your radiation level check 15 12 5 13 don't know 4 5 4 5 i Total 100 99 99 100 - _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ - _ - _ _ - _ _ _ _ _

r 4 l ' TABLE.6 (cont.) Suffolk Suffol"k Outside' Inside Nassau EP2 EP2 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 definitely notfcall . 10 12 14 12 11 14 23 13 don't know. 1 2 1 L Total 100 100 100' 'l'00 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 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 et 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? yes 21 15 12 18 no 73 80-84 77 don't know 6 6 4 6 Total 100 101' 100 101 4 27 -

I l TABLE 6 (cont.) I Suffolk Suffolk Outside- -Inside Nassau FP2 EPZ 12ial 20. If there was an accident at the Shoreham nuclear power plant, how much would ycu 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 4 no 17 18 14 18 don't know 1 2 1 Total 100 100 100 100 1 f 22. Where did this accident occur? Chernobyl tha Soviet Union 72 70 76 71 other 4 6 5 5 don't know 25 24 19 24 Total 101 100 100 100 23. Last spring a major nuclear accident occured 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 76 80 82 78 no 17 15 15 16 don't know 7 5 3 6 Total 100 100 100 100.

TABLE 6 (cont.) Suffolk Suffolk Outside Inside tiassau EPZ EP2 Tetal 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 18 17 19 17 up to 500 miles 17 13 16 15 l for more than 500 miles 34 28 34 31 i don't know 14 21 12 17 l 1 Total 101 100 99 99 I 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 I 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 l l 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 l ' 1

l l TABLE 6 (cont.) Suffolk Suffolk Outside Inside Nassau EP2 EP2 Total 28. During norral 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 i 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 l 25-34 25 27 30 26 l 35-50 34 38 38 36 l 51-65 23 20 14 21 l over 65 11 9 8 10 Total 100 101 100 100 35. How long have you lived on Long Irland? all your life 30 34 36 32 l more than 20 years 38 34 31 36 l 10 to 20 years 15 21 20 18 5 to 9 years 9 4 6 7 l less than 5 years 8 6 8 7 l Total 100 99 101 100 e l l _ _

TABLE 6 (cent.) Suffolk Suffolk Outside Inside Nassau EP2 EP2 Total 36. In general, would you describe your political beliefs as being: 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 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 l i 1 l l - 31 4 W

i { 1 l \\ i TABLE 7 i Correlates of Evacuation Intentions i % of people leaving after i First EBS Messace + In general, how dangerous do you think it would be to live near each of the following: 1 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 8. a coal-fired power plant: very dangerous dangerous 64 not dangerous at all 56 don't know 44 58 9. a nuclear power plant: very dangerous dangerous 63 not dangerous at all 45 don't know 26 36 d _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ - _ _ _ _

s TABLE 7, conto % 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 i 11. Do you think that LILCO should be j allowed to operate the Shoreham nuclear power plant to generate electricity? yes 27 no 64 don't know 40 l ) 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. I Would you believe the LILCO officials that people living more than 10 miles away were safe? yes 22 no 62 don't know 33 i I 20. If there was an accident at the Shoreham nuclear power plant, how much would ycu trust a LILCO official to tell the truth about the accident? ~ 3 a great deal 25 { somewhat 42 not at all 67 i don't know 38 i 1 33 - 4 l 1 h

TABLE 7, cent. % of people leaving after ) First EBS Messace i i 21. In the last year, have you heard or read anything about a major accident occurring at a nuclear power plant? l yes 53% no 53 don't know 61 22. Where did this accident occur? Chernobyl, the Soviet Union 54 l other 44 3 don't knov 54 j i 23. Last spring a major nuclear accident occurred at the Chernobyl nuclear l power station in the Soviet Union. Do you think that it is possible for a serious accident like that to occur a at the Shoreham nuclear power plant if the power plant is put into . operation? yes 59 I l no 26 don't know 49 l l l 24. The accident at the Chernobyl nuclear power station resulted in a large amount I l 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? l 10 miles or less 34 up to 50 miles 50 l up to 100 miles 48 I up to 500 miles 50 l for more than 500 miles 65 l don't know 45 . 1

1 l TABLE 7, cont. t of1 people leaving after First-ESS Messace 25. After a nuclear power plant is put into operation, how long do you think it can.be utilized? for'more than 100 years 44%. between 50 and 100 years, or 50 it must be dismantled after about I 30 to 40 years 55 I don't know 54- ] Total 53 l 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 l don't know 57 l Total 53 l l 27. During normal operation, which type of electricity plant pollutes the air the least: I an oil-fired plant 56 3 a coal-fired plant 60 i a nuclear-fired plant 48 l you're not sure 60 28. During normal operation does a nuclear power plant give off a dangerous level'of radiation? yes 70 no 46 don't know -55 . l l L-_-_____

l TABLE 7, cont. % 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 1 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 j less than 5 years 66 36. In general would you describe your political beliefs as being: liberal 57 middle-of-the-road 52 conservative 53 don't know 56 38. What is your sex? male 51 female 55 e - _ _ _______ -__ - -___- ___. _ _ _ _ - - _ _ _ _ _ _

TECHNICAL APPENDIX Samole 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 preliminary 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 ob-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 exchan.;en in each area, the total number of residential listin'gs for each exchange, and then the working blocks for,each exchange. The computer then selected the last four digits of each number at random so that each exchange would represent the same proportion in the sample, m_____________._.

s as it did.in the population of residential' listings. This information was obtained from the most recent editions of Cole's Directory for Nassau and Suffolk. Counties. Using this type of " random digit dial" sample we were insured of including unlisted phone numbers in the sample. The sample was designe'd 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.) i For Suffolk County the exact designation of'a respondent'as ] being within or outside of the EPZ was determined-by the zip. code 1 l i 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 l 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.) i l gelection of Rescondent j L l 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). ~ - 38'- E-_--=--------__---

1 A sex quota was used to insure that the final sample would represent the population in terms of sex. It was important to { j 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 I corresponds precisely to the sex distribution according to the latest census information. l l Interviewing 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 incityde 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 j l 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 l 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 Analysts, conducted a one and a half hour training session for Mktg interviewers and project supervisors. Mktg is set up co that the client can monitor the interviews by listening in on the __ -

i 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. 1 I

l INTERVIEWER INSTRUCTIONS Shoreham Evacuation Survey December 1986 l Social Data Analysts would like to thank you for helping us with this important study. We would appreciate it if.you would read j these brief interviewer instructions. If you have any questions j at all about the way the survey should be administered your i 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 l l " Skip" instructions. Se careful to follow these directions precisely. It is important that we ask all respondents all relevant questions which apply to them. 3) This survey is a pre-coded end curvey. 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 one 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 your uge only. 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 l same question. If a respondent asks what a question means, you should reread the question. If the respondent still has a l 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 Urbelis at the following number: 246-3439. - _ _

y R e Scecific Instructions Columns 1-5: Identification Number: In column 1-5 you I should write the five digit identification number for the respondent which appears on the. sample sheet. This number should not be written down until after the interview.is completed. i Please check the number carefully as it is how we determine where -l a respondent lives. j

== Introduction:== Read the introduction exactly as it is written. When you identify yourself please use a first and a last name. -l 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 track of your completions by sex. If you have interviewed two more women than men, you must interview a man on the next l interview. For example if you have interviewed three women and 1 I 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 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 only 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. l \\

7 3-33 I' y f n j-l. .. j t E -Questions 13-15: 'Each. question is a long question which m, must.be read slowly and clearly ' exactly as it is. written. For each question follow the appropriate? SKIP instruction, q 1 j o y Question 15: All respondents 1should be read this question-exactly as it-is written. Question.17: Readathis question exactlyLas written and follow the appropriate / SKIP instruction. Only respondents who give the first or second answer shouldLbe asked question 18. Questions 18-20: Please read these questiens. exactly'a'c- ~ ' a they are written'.. Question 21: Read this questihn.: exactly as it is. written and follow the, SKIP instruction. OnlyLthoserwho;'give, answer one should be asked _ question 22. p Odestion 22: For this question you should not read the response categories. We want'to see iffche 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 11. 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 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. Quentions 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 i Shoreham. If the respondent still says he/she does not know code 99. Question 31: Code the number of children living in the l respondent's home directly. If there are none, code 0. j Question 32: We are interested in knowing how many adults (those people 18 years cid or older) live in the household including the respondent. 1 1 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 ;

I' \\ be counted as a completion. or the address, the interview cannot 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 supervisors and by Social Data Analysts.is necessary for you to ask the respondent this verification, it A full name is unnecessary if the for his or her name, respondent does not want to give it. A first name or a Mr. A, etc.. (anything that will enable the verifier to. identify the respondent) is all that is needed. Please write this name down l on the questionnaire below the telephone number. l' In order to make sure that'you have dialed Telephone number: telephone number on the sample sheet correctly, please readIf ) the ceck to the respondent and write it down in columns 44-50. 1 it by any chance you made an error and dialed the wrong number, write down-the number you actually dialed and notify _your supervisor. Ther.ks again for your help with this survey. l l f 1 l 4 44 i

1 ' l 1 Verification j l I In order to make sure that the interviews were conducted proper 1y.an extensive set of verification procedures were 1 utilized. First, as reported above, interviewers were monitored i as tiiey actually made the calls both by a Social Data Analysts representative and by Mktg supervisors. Second, our agreement i 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 1 survey with the proper respondent, followed the instructions they l 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 made; but the verification procedures utilized here lead to the conclusion that there were very few errors on this survey. l Outcomes and Resoonce Rate I In Table A-2 we show the number of telephone numbers dialed and the outcome for each area. . Altogether the sample consisted of 7,543 telephone numbers. On about 21% of these numbers (1609) we received no answers after three call backs. Since the random i digit dialing technique is not able to differentiate between l l 1 L_-__-_-__--_____.__-_-__

residential and business phone numbers with the same exchange, it is possible that a s!,gnificant portion of these numbers were actually businesses which were not open during evening hours in which the survey was conducted. For another 531 numbers we found either a continuous busy signal or were not able to find an adult l at home after three call back attempts were made. A significant portion of the numbers selected, using the random digit dialing technique (2485) turned out not to be workin@ telephone numbers. Tnis is because not all numbers in active blocks are actually i I assigned. j 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 I ' 269 cases we were unable to complete an interview because the interviewer was unable to obtain a respondent of the correct sex. l Nine hundred and ninety people refused to participate in the l survey. Normally, in surveys such as this response rates are l l computed by dividing the number of ccmpleted interviews by the number of eligible people contacted (the completes plus the refusals). When we do this we find a completion rate of sixty 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 l f- ~ 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. 1 Desian of the Questionnaire l 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 administrable over the telephone. A final draft of the questionnaire was approved by the County's representative before the field work began. l Analvsis and Weichtina After the interviews were completed, the data were entered directly onto the computer and then verified for entry errors. The data were weighted to take into account the total 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 of households in the 10 mile EPZ. The initial adjustment to the

t 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, t h e, adjusted number of households in Suffolk outside the EPZ was 391,507. There were 36,597 residential listings in the EPZ and an estimate of 14% of the households with multiple listingc; 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 o$ minus four percentage points. The sampling error for the EPZ is plus or minus five percentage points. The sampling errer for the entire sample is

approximately plus or minus three percentage points. This means that in theory if this survey were to be repeated 100 times using 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 there are a large number of practical problems in conducting surveys of this type, ir is possible that there could be other sources of error in the survey. l i 4 49 -

TABLE'A-1 ~ Zip. Codes of Respondents ' Total . Complete Area /Zio Code Residences Interviews Nassau County 392,741 .492 Suffolk_ County l (outside EPZ) 385,448 542 Port Jefferson (outside EPZ) 6059 Inside EPZ 11778 3852

62 11786 1279 29 11792 1894 24 I

11961 3966 45 - l 11727 6814 42-9 11764 2754 45 11766 2108 36 11777 2762 33 11789 2291 33-11933 1604 1 11949 1653' 1 11953 2305 22 '11080 757 6 ~ TOTAL 818,287 1500 ___.____m-__-m_._____-_--=____.______m.=_______=......_.. __-.____-_--m__.._._

TABLE A-2 NUMBER OF TELEPHONE NUMBERS DIALED AND OUTCOME BY AREA Area 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 Could Not Obtain Correct Sex 101 96 72 269 Refusals 349 374 267 990 i TOTALS 2 5 9.~, 2942 2008 7543 l l l e 1 51 -

TABLE A-3 Weights Total Completed Total after Area /2io Code Residences Interviews Weicht 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* Does not add to 1500 due to rounding error introduced by the weighting procedure. 1 1,

? I i 1 i QUESTIONNAIRE Shoreham Evacuation Survey December 1986 l I Hello, my name is and I am calling ~ ~ l for Social Data Analysts, Inc. We are doing a survey on some current social problems facing people living on Long Island. j May I please speak to the (male / female) head of household? 2 In general, how dangerous do you think it would be to l live near each of the following: 3 (Categories for Q. 6 to Q. 9) i 1= very dangerous 2= dangerous 3= not dangerous at all 1 S DON'T READ [4= Don't Know 9= Refuse 6. an airport 6 I l 7. a mental hospital 7 ) I 8. a coal fired power plant l 8 '1 i 9. a nuclear power plant 9 1 10. Would you describe yourself as 1 = a supporter of nuclear power plants as a means of providing electricity. 2 = an opponent of nuclear power plants, or 3 = you haven't made up your mind yet on this issue? DON'T READ (9 = Refuse 10 e 1 i i u___________

f: -11. Do you think that'LILCO should be allowed to operate the Shoreham nuclear power plant to generate electricity? 1 = yes DON'T READ (3 = Don't Know 2 = no (9 = Refuse-11 Now I would like to ask you a few questions about what you would do if something happened'at the Shoreham 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 l 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: 1 = go abour. your normal business, or (ASK Q. 13} 2 = stay inside your home, or (ASK Q. 13) 3 = leave your home and go further away fecm the l plant (SKIP TO Q. 16) DON'T READ (4 = Don't Know (ASK Q. 13) (9 = Refuse (ASK Q. 13] 12 l 13. Suppose that in order to find out what had happened at l 1 Shoreham, you kept your radio on and at 8:45 in the morning ycu heard that a site area emergency condition was declared at 8:19 a.m. A site area emergency indi- .l cates that a major plant safety system could fail. A' l LILCO representative said that a very minor release of radiation had occurred, and recommended that schools j within ten miles of the Shoreham plant should remain I 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. I i ( i 1 A

) 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) stay inside your home, or (ASK Q. 141 2 = 3 = leave your home and go further away from the plant (SKIP TO Q. 16) DON'T READ [4 = Don't Know (ACK Q. 14) (9 = Refuse (ASK Q. 14] 13 14. Suppose that ct 10:30 a.m. you heard on the radio that at 9:39 a.m. a general.emerlency 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 j l live south of the Long Island Expressway and East of the l 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 l power station is in a general emergency condition and that l there had been a release of radiation into-the air. l When you heard thic message on the radio, would you and l members of your family: l 1 = go about you r 'nort...sl bus iness, or (ASK Q. 15) 2 = stay inside your heae, or (ASK Q. 15] 3 = leave your home and go furtner away from the i plant (SKIP TO Q. 16] DON'T READ (4 = Don't Know (ASK 0, 15) (9 = Refuse (ASK Q. 15) f 14 I 15. 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, j the thyroid dose is expected to be 400% of the U.S. ( l Environmental Protection Agency evacuation guide-l lines 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 55 - l i i

'l n I .I will'be' safer if they evacuate as'soon as'possible away'from Shoreham.-.The LILCO representative said l 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 1 -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' 2 = stay inside your home, or 4 3 = leave your.home and go further away from the . plant .,i DON'T READ (4 = Don't Know' i (9 = Refuse' I 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 rone.and should go to.a specific location in Nassau County to be monitored-for possible-radioactive contamination, would you: 1 = go to the specific location in Nassau t'o 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 DON'T READ (4 = Don't Know [9 = Refuse 16 17. If LILCO announced a phone number that you could call to obtain more information or to have questions answered, do you think that you would: 1 = definitely call to get more information (Ask Q. 18) 2 = probably call (Ask Q. 18) .3 = probably not call (Skip to Q. 191 4 = definitely not call (Skip td O. 19) DON'T Read (5 = Don't know (Skip to 0. 19] [9 = Refuse '[ Skip to Q. 19] 17 56 - = A

\\ j I i 1 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: j j 1 = wait for LILCO to call you back, or 2 = try to find the answer from some other source of information DON'T READ [3 = Don't Know (9 = Refuse 18 I 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 I officials that people living more than 10 miles away were safe? 1 = yes 2 = no DON'T (3 = Don't Know READ [9 = Refuse 19 20. If there was an accident at the Shoreham nuclear power plant, how much would you trust a LILCO official to tell the truth about the accident? l= a great deal DON'T [4= Don't Know 2= somewhat READ (9= Refuse 3= not at all 20 l l 21. In the last year, have you heard or read anything about a major accident occurring at a nuclear pcwer plant? l 1 = yes (ASK Q. 22) 2 = no (SKIP TO Q. 23) DON'T READ (3 = Don't know (SKIP To (9 = Refuse Q. 23] 21 22. Where did this accident occur? ~ DON'T REA3 ( l = Chernobyl, the Soviet Union ( 2 = other ( 3 = don't know ( 9 = refuse 22 57 - _a

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 j if the power plant is put into operation? 1 = yes 2 = no DON'T [3 = Don't know l READ [9 = Refuse 23 l 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 i plant do you think people were exposed to unhealthy l levels of radiation? l 1 = 10 miles or less 2 = up to 50 miles DON'T [ 6 = Don't know ) 3 = up to 100 miles READ [ 9 = Refuse i 4 = up to 500 miles 5 = for more than 500 miles 24 1 25. After a nuclear power plant is put in operation, how i long do you think it can be utilized? I = for mo're than 100 years 2 = between 50 and 100 years or l 3 = lt must be dismantled after about 30 to 30' years I h DON'T READ [4 Don't Know [9 = Refuse i = 25 26. Currently, do you think radioactive waste from a nuclear plant 1 = must be stored in the plant itself, or 2 = can be buried at a government waste disposal s!;e l l DON'T READ [4 = Don't Know [9 = Refuse 26 1 = I 27. During normal operation, which type of electricity plant pollutes the air the least: 1 = an oil-fired Plant 2 = a cocl-fired plant i 3 = a m. clear-fired plant DON'T READ (4 = you're not sure { (5 = all about the same (9 = Refuse 27 28. During normal coeration does a nuclear power plant give off a dangerous level of radiation? 1 = yes 2 = no DON'T READ (3 = Don't Know (9 = Refuse 28 29-30. As the crow flies, about how many miles do you think your home is from the Shoreham nuclear power plant? DON'T READ (Code Directly: 00 to 98) (Don't Know/ Refuse = 99 ] 29 30 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 (If you have 8 or more children Code = 0 (Refuse = 9 31 32. Includina veurself, how many people 18 years old or older live in your home? DON ' T READ (Code Directly from 1 - 8 (9 = Refuse 32 ~ l J l I l t l l t_____

1 1 i 33. What is the last grade of school that you completed? I 1 = some high school or less 2 = high school graduate y 3 = some college j 4 = c;11ege gradur.te j l DON'T READ (9 = Refuse] i 33 I 34. What is your age category? j 1 1 = under 25 l 2 = 25-34 i 3 = 35-50 4 = 51-65 5 = over 65 l 1 DON'T READ (9 = Refuse) 34 l 35. How long have you lived on Long Island? 1 = all your life j 2 = more than 20 years 3 = 10 to 20 years 4 = 5 to 9 years 5 = less than 5 years DON'T READ [9 = Refuse 35 1 36. In general would you describe your political beliefs as being: l= liberal DON'T (4= Don't Know l 2= middle-of-the-road READ [9= Refuse 3= conservative 36 37. How many different phones are there in this household; by that I mean how many different phone numbers, nct extensions? DON'T READ (Code Directly.- 1 thru 4) (If five or more, Code = 5 (9 = Refuse 37 6C -

I 'l 1 j 1 38. What is your sex? 1 = male 2 = female 38 Could you please give me your Zip Code? 39 40 41 42 43 1 (Interviewer: Please repeat back the Zip Code to verify correctness) l THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION (Interviewer please verify and record respondent's telephone number) 44 45 46 47 48 49 l l I I l 1 l l a l 1 I 61 -

) j. Curriculum Vitaa t[ - Martin David Mayer, M.D., 'M.P.H. Page 3 EMPLOYMENT: 1. August, 1970 thru' August, 1971 --Resident Physician'in the New York State Department of Health Residency Program in Public Health and Preventive Medicine; assigned.to Westchester County-Health Department, White Plains, New Y. l 2. Summer 1966, Summer 1967, Summer 1968 - Assistant Sanitar', ~ Engineer, Division of Air' Pollution, New York State Department of Health, 84 Holland Avenue, Albany, New York 3. July,1963 thru July,1965 - Senior' Assistant Sanitary Engineer, United States Public Health Service, Robert A. Taf t Sanitary Engineering Center, Cincinnati,. i Ohio i 4. February,1962 thru January,1963 - Assistant' Process Engineer, ESSO Research and Development Corporation, Florham Park, New Jersey. PUBLICATIONS: Martin Mayer, A Compilation of Air Pollution Emission for-Combustin Processes, Gasoline Evaporation, and Selected Processes U.S. Department of Health, Education and Helfare, Public Health Service, National Center for ' Air Pollution Control, May,1965

REFERENCES:

References will be supplied on request. i l l

a l \\ d i ,j e i 1 l i i l .\\ 1 l l I EXHIBIT 6 l l i l l l i l l l l t 1 l l l l l 1 I lC.______.___ . _. _.. _}}