ML20237E564
| ML20237E564 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Seabrook  |
| Issue date: | 12/14/1987 |
| From: | Luloff A MASSACHUSETTS, COMMONWEALTH OF, NEW HAMPSHIRE, UNIV. OF, DURHAM, NH |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20237E549 | List: |
| References | |
| OL, NUDOCS 8712290059 | |
| Download: ML20237E564 (55) | |
Text
-
1 l
3 -
m v
.t DOCKETED USHRC d' o ._
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 37 00? 18 P3:27 l
1 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION n -- -
OrOC(r M003ilw;'{:'ll)*l E R;. ~
~.
Before Administrative Judges:
l - Ivan W. Smith, Chairperson (i!4 Gustave A. Linenberger,.Jr.
Dr. Jerry Harbour r i 1 i
)
) l In the Matter of )
)
PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW ) Docket Nos.
) 50-443-444-OL i (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2) ) (Off-site EP)
, ) . December 14, 1987
)
CORRECTED TESTIMONY OF DR. ALBERT E. LULOFF CM1 BEHALF OF JAMES M. SHANNON, ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR THE COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS, !
CONCERNING VARIOUS MATTERS RAISED IN THE "ETE" AND " SHELTERING" CONTENTIONS I. IDENTIFICATION OF WITNESS 1
J Q. Please state your name and position. H A. My name is Albert E. Luloff. I am Associate Professor of Rural Sociology and Community Development, and Community Development Program Coordinator, in the Department of Resource l
1 Economics and Community Development at the University of New Hampshire.
Q. Briefly summarize your experience and professional qualifications.
A. I received'a B.S. degree in Rural Sociology from Cornell University, a M.S. degree in Sociology from North 8712290059 871214 PDR ADOCK 05000443 T PDR
i k:
Carolina State University, and a Ph.D. in Rural Sociology in 1977 from the Pennsylvania State University Since 1977 I have been employed at the University of New Hampshire, where my i responsibilities have been equally divided between teaching and research. My research has emphasized the study of the, 1
l structure and impact.of population redistribution and migration on New Hampshire Communities. As part of my research effort I l 1
i have developed a large, integrated data base of information on '
minor civil divisions in the state. This data base supports much of my work on community and population trends within New Hampshire.
I am the editor or author of five books and-1 monographs and over fifty. published articles and research reports. Many of these publications concern population migration and its impacts.
For a more detailed description of my background, experience and professional qualifications, see my resume, which is attached to this testimony (Attachment 1).
II . . TOR III AND SAPL 34--POPULATION GROWTH Q. What is the purpose of this testimony?
A. In this portion of my testimony I will address certain matters raised in Basis (E) to Town of Hampton Revised Contention III to Revision 2 ("TOH III") and SAPL Contention No. 34 ("SAPL 34") concerning the rapid rate of growth in the seventeen (17) New Hampshire communities in the Seabrook Station EPZ. TOH III/ Basis E asserts that those who competed
1 d
the evacuation time estimates forl' inclusion in New Hampshire emergency plans " failed to account for this reasonably anticipated and substantial growth in population" and, therefore, have " presented a plan which, even assuming its accuracy at the present time, will soon be outdated and will not' serve as a reasonable basis for emergency planning." SAPL 34 challenges the accuracy of population size and distribution estimates' utilized in the NHRERP Rev. 2 (Aug. 1986). My
-testimony here is intended to lay a foundation for a realistic appraisal of these issues by describing the best demographic evidence available~regarding current population and growth rates in the seventeen New Hampshire EPZ communities. I will-also use.this demographic evidence to project the population of these communities _out to the year 2010.
Q. Have you recently conducted any studies or analyses of the current population and growth rates in the seventeen.New Hampshire EPZ communities?
A. Yes, I have. At the request of the Department of the Attorney General for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, I have just completed a report which describes the growth rates in the seventeen EPZ communities and, using those~ rates, developed a series of population forecasts for each of these communities.
Q. Which seventeen communities are these?
A. The New Hampshire EPZ includes the towns of Brentwood, East Kingston, Exeter, Greenland, Hampton, Hampton Falls, Kensington, Kingston, New Castle, Newfields, Newton, North I i
i
i Hampton, Rye, Seabrook, South Hampton, Stratham,.and the city
{
of Portsmouth.
Q. You mentioned a report. Was it in writing?
A. Yes. A copy of my report is attached to this testimony as Attachment 2. l i
Q. Would you summarize the findings you set forth in greater detail in your report.
A. Certainly. The basic finding is that, as a whole, the permanent population in the seventeen New Hampshire EPZ communities is expanding very rapidly, and all indications are that this high rate of growth will be sustained. Rockingham County,'home of the New Hampshire EPZ communities, has been the fastest growing county in the state since 1950, experiencing a 172% increase during the period 1950-1980. My findings indicate that the county's growth rate, both in terms of population and employment, will far exceed New Hampshire's average annual growth rate of 2%. Using the growth rates obtained during the period from 1970 to 1985 for each of the seventeen New Hampshire EPZ communities, the 1986 population of 91, 986 would grow by more than 64 percent to as high as 144,000 in only 24 years, i.e., by the year 2010.
Q. Are all the New Hampshire EPZ communities growing at about-the same rate?
A. No, there are some significant difference, which the-chart below can best describe.
4 t
POPULATION FORECASTS 1985 1970-65 1990 2000 2010 Compounded Interest Rates Brentwood 2183 0.02681 2492 3246 4229' E ,. Kingston 1269 0.02805 1457 1922 2534 Exeter 12,040 0.02041 13,320 16,302 19,953 Greenland 2232 0.01505 2405 2793 3242 Hampton 11,506 0.02443 12,982 16,526 21,037 Hampton Falls 1485 0 01134 1571 1759 1968 Kensington 1376 0.01858 1509 1814 2180 Kingston 4890 0.03588 5832 8297 11,803 New Castle 879 -0.00689 849 792 740 Newfields 848 0.00039 850 853 856 Newton 3600 0.04280 4439 6750 10,264 N. Hampton 3670 0.00795 3818 4133- 4473 Portsmouth 29,000 0.00804 30,185 32,702 35,429 Rye 4859 0.01167 5149 5782 6494 Seabrook 6672 0.05350 8658 14,581 24,555 S. Hampton 651 0 ^1033 685 760 842 Stratham 3113 ( 4932 3960 6409 10,373 Area Total 90,273 99,169 119,678 144,427 Q. Does your report describe why you believe that these rapid rates of growth will be sustained over the next twenty to twenty-five years.
A. Yes. In summary, I can state that the sustained population growth exhibited in the EPZ since 1970 coupled with the analysis I conducted of various forms of ancillary information lead me to the firm conclusion that rapid growth will likely continue to characterize the EPZ well into the twenty-first century. The ancillary information I examine in the report includes data regarding rates of employment, industrialization, labor market structure, housing patterns, building permits, and land use change. All these factors and l
others suggest that the economy in this area of New Hampshire is, indeed, one of the most vigorous and healthy in the nation and, therefore, capable of generating additional population growth through migration.
I also acknowledge in the report that there are a variety of others factors which contribute to an atmosphere conducive to rapid growth in the EPZ. These other factors include the region's commuting proximity to the Boston metropolitan area, its valued residential ambience, and its seasonal recreational activities. It is simply a very attractive area in which to live or do business. This is unlikely to change in the near term.
Q.
What happened to economic activity and population growth in this part of New Hampshire during the recession of the 1970's, and how does this affect your conclusion that rapid growth in this region is likely to be sustained into the next century?
A. The economic impact of the recession of the 70's had less of an impact on this area than elsewhere. And, with renewed Federal authorizations, and the increased ties to the Massachusetts hi-tech economy, the New Hampshire EPZ l
communities were simply better able to withstand the minor l shocks created by the recession.
Q. Do your forecasts for continued rapid growth in the seacoast area of New Hampshire depend on whether Seabrook Station obtains an operating license?
A. No, not at all.
I realize that there are those who may not wish to move to the area if Seabrook Station goes on 6-
line, but_I also know that for more than a decade people have econtinued to migrate into the region in substantial numbers
~
knowing-that Seabrook was there, under construction. I cannot conceive of any= substantial decrease in area growth rates were Seabrook to begin power generation. The area is just too well suited as'a place to live and do business to be affected by a single factor like that.
Q. How, if at all, does population and economic growth in the area relate to growth in the number of motor vehicles in the area?
A. Well we know that, like population, the number of
. motor vehicles in the area is growing rapidly. In our study we examined.the records of the New Hampshire Department of Safety, where vehicle registration lists are maintained. In Exhibit 2.6 to Attachment 2 I have set forth a summary of the relevant portions of those records for each town in the EPZ. For the period from 1981 through January 1987,.these records demonstrate that each of the seventeen communities has experienced relatively rapid increments in the numbers of vehicles registered in the standard registration categories (passenger, veteran, handicapped, etc.). So, there is no doubt that as population in the area rises, so does the number of motor vehicles. The interesting question is whether the, rate of motor vehicle growth exceeds the population growth rate.
This would, in my opinion, be a reasonable assumption because in many EPZ communities housing values have escalated to levels affordable only by those with above-average incomes. These are
likely to be households with more than one car. Thus, it may well be that the motor vehicle growth rate will exceed the population growth rate.
It would be very unlikely, in my opinion, for the motor vehicle growth rate to be exceeded by the population growth rate in the EPZ. In my opinion, prudent emergency response planners would assume, therefore, that the number of vehicles in the EPZ will grow at least as fast as the population grows.
III. SAPL 31/ BASIS 2--
OVERNIGHT ACCOMMODATIONS AND CAMPGROUNDS Q. What is the purpose of this portion of your testimony?
A.
In this portion of my testimony I will address certain matters raised in SAPL 31/ Basis 2, concerning the number of overnight accommodations and campgrounds in the EpZ. This contention asserts that in estimating the number of transient vehicles (vehicle demand) to be factored into the evacuation time estimate study, KLD Associates relied upon unreliable data from an NRC estimate compiled in a report by M. Kaltman in 1981.
Bases 2 further asserts that "[t]hese numbers are unlikely to have a high reliability given the significant growth that has occurred in the EpZ over the past 5 years." My testimony here is, again, intended to lay a foundation for a realistic appraised of the issues raised in the contention / basis by describing the results of our assessment of the number of units available in overnight accommodations and campgrounds in the EPZ.
Q.
Can you describe the assessment you did?
A. A report setting forth my assessment, the procedures used, and the findings is attached to this testimony (Attachment 3).
IV. VARIOUS ETE AND SHELTERING CONTENTIONS--
UNSUPPORTED BEHAVIORAL ASSUMPTIONS IN THE PLAN Q. Does either the Plan itself or the ETE study make any behavioral or factual assumptions which you believe are unwarranted?
A. Yes, based on our research of the Seabrook EPZ populations we believe there are several critical assumptions on which the Plan rests that are without support.
Q. What is the research to which you refer?
A. At the request of the Massachusetts Attorney General's Office, AEL Associates conducted a " beach survey" at the various New Hampshire beaches in the Seabrook EpZ.
Q. Will you please describe this survey.
A. Yes. Because of variation in the number of people using New Hampshire's beaches according to day of week and time of day, the survey was scheduled for administration on a Friday, Saturday, and Tuesday during mid-July 1987. Over 580 surveys were completed during this time span. The general purpose of the survey was to gather information relevant to the sheltering contentions. Also included in this study were questions designed to assess the respondent's knowledge of the Seabrook Nuclear Power Plant, patterns of beach-going behavior, responses to instruction from traffic guides, and reactions to evacuation messages. The instrument was designed using
potential questions submitted by the following consultants to the Common"2alth of Massachusetts Attorney General: Drs.
Ortwin Renn and Robert Goble of Clark University, Dr. Thomas Adler of Resource Systems Group, and myself. Additional input was provided by attorneys Allan Fierce and Carol Sneider of the Massachusetts Attorney General's office. This instrument included two versions, "A" and "B," each with a different protective action message which was read by the interviewer at the time of the survey. Copies of both versions of the instrument are attached to this testimony (Attachment 4.1).
Version "A," the shorter form, utilized the beach-closing message contained in the Plan, while the longer form ("B")
utilized a general emergency evccuation message, also contained in the Plan. Interviewers were instructed to use these forms alternatively as they conducted the survey. The surveys took about six minutes to administer, and there were very few refusals. In total, 584 interviews were completed (293 Version A and 291 Version B), and the sampling error is plus or minus five percentage points. This means that in theory if the survey were to be repeated 100 times using the same techniques, in 95 out of the 100 times the results obtained for a particular question would not vary by more than 5 percentage points from the results which would have been obtained had every beach-blanket group on the beach been surveyed. All missing cases, as a result of missing data on particular questions, were eliminated.
Q. Will you summarfze the results please?
A. Yes. In response to the sheltering question, which was premised on the Seabrook Nuclear Power Plant being on line, and which asked what respondents would do in response to official instructions for people to leave the beach immediately and seek shelter, almost one in two indicated that they would seek shelter (49.5%). An additional two in five (41.4%)
indicated that they would evacuate the area, while only 4.3%
indicated that they would stay on the beach. Less than 5% of the respondents indicated a different response. When next asked what they would do if they could not find a designated chelter, more than three of every five (64.8%) indicated that j
they would evacuate; 17.5% indicated that they would continue to seek shelter; 5% indicated that they would seek assistance or follow the advice to seek shelter; and less than one in twenty (3.9%) said they would sit and wait. About one-third (31.4%) of the respondents also indicated, in response to a question which asked them what they would do if upon reaching the first shelter they found it to be filled to capacity, that they would seek out another shelter, while more than one in two I (55%) said they would evacuate. About 15% of the respondents indicated that they would do something else. Thus, it would appear that a sizeable portion of the beach-going population j will seek a designated shelter in the event of an emergency at l
the Seabrook Nuclear power plant when instructed to do so. At 1
the same time, a large proportion of the beach-going population indicated that they would evacuate the area once they had received official advice that they should leave the beach and
_ - _ - _ - _ _ = _ - _ _ _ - _ ______ _-_______ -_ _ _ _____ ____ _ -____ _ _-- __-_ - __ . _ . _ _ _ _ ..
4 seek shelter.-
Knowledge of where to find shelter also greatly impacts. response, as does the potential problem of arriving at a shelter only to find that it is already filled, both of which-contribute to an even larger pool of potential evacuees.
The two protective action messages used in this survey (a beach-closing message and a general emergency message).both revealed a decided' preference for evacuation, with seven of every ten (70.0%) stating that they would leave immediately.
An additional 15.3% indicated that they would leave the beach but stay in the area,-while only 6% said that they would seek shelter.
Approximately 7% (6.7%) offered an alternative response, and only 2.0% responded that they did not know what theyswould do.
Thus, once again it appears that either of the two messages indicating potential or ongoing-problems at the Seabrook nuclear power plant would result in a large proportion of people leaving the beach area in order to evacuate. This percentage. reinforces the findings of the sheltering question:
a protective action message, regardless of content, about a problem at Seabrook would result in a large scale evacuation of the beach area.
Almost eight of every ten respondents indicated that they arrived at the beach by car, motorcycle, or bus (80.7%), with 1% traveling by bicycle, and 18.3% walking. This last number reflects the influence of the many rental units proximate to the beaches where the survey was taken and the fact that this question asked about beach-going behavior on the day of the survey. [Of those traveling by motor vehicle, more than three
of.every four beach blanket group (83.3%) came in only one vehicle,'while 10.3% came in two, and the remainder'in more that two cars.] About half of the cars were parked on the street (47.8%), about one third-(29.3%) in parking lots, and an additional 7.4% in front or back yards. More than eight of every ten (84%) respondents indicated that they parked within a five minute walk.from where they finally located on the beach, ~
with an additional 9.9% parking within 10 minutes of their current location, and the remainder parking between 12 and 45 minutes from their beach spot.
Despite the fact that all the people who came with the respondent were not together in one case in four (25.6%), the-respondents' indicated that it would take only a very short time to assemble everyone to leave (71.9%) said they could'be ready within five minutes, while 92.8% indicated that they would be ready within 20-minutes). Only 7.2% said that it would take longer (one person responded it would take up to three hours).
More than nine of every ten respondents said they would not leave without everyone, with 6.8% indicating that they would L leave under such conditions.
1 Q. Does your research indicate the response of the beach population to official traffic route and destination directives during a Seabrook emergency.
A. Yes. Massachusetts was the favorite destination of those indicating that they would evacuate with 41.3% so indicating, while Maine was mentioned by 10.6%, other New l
Hampshire communities by 32%, and Vermont and Rhode Island by
i 1.2% respectively, while Connecticut was mentioned by 0.9%.
Canada was the ultimate destination of 2.4% of the respondents, with the remainder indicating another response. When asked what route they would take during an evacuation, several arteries were mentioned most often. These included Routes 95, 495, 101, 51, lA, and 1, with almost every roadway intersecting the beach area roadways mentioned by at least one respondent.
When asked whether or not they would follow a policeman's instructions as to which route they should follow in the event of an evacuation, more than one half (55.4%) said they would do as they were instructed, 19.8% said it would depend on the situation and the instructions, and more than one in five (22.1%) said they would follow their own route. If half the people who said it
" depends" decide to go their own route, then as much as 30% of the evacuating population may disregard the instructions of the officials guiding traffic.
Q.
What about vehicle abandonment during an evacuation?
A.
The respondents were also asked how they would react to a situation where they were in their vehicle, attempting to evacuate, and had not moved very far (1) after a period of one hour and (2) after three hours. After a one hour wait, more than eight of every ten (81.0%) said they would remain with i
their car while 14.5% said they would abandon it. An additional two hour wait increased the percentage of those indicating they would abandon their cars to 38.3%, largely at the expense of those who said they would remain in their cars (55.2%).
Thus, in the presence of extensive traffic delays the
4 potential for large scale abandonment of vehicles exists.
Q. Have the results of your beach survey been compiled in a report?
A. Yes. My beach survey report is attached to this testimony (Attachment 4). !
Q. Do you have anything further to add?
A. Not at this time.
Q. Thank you for your testimony.
1 i
l I
\
\
j
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - _ _ - _ _ _ - . _ l
(.* ,
4 6
l ATTACHMENT 4 i l,
4
r _ - - -
r Beach Survey July 17, 18, 28, 1987 At the request of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, AEL Associates conducted a " beach survey" at the various New Hampshire beaches in the EPZ.
Because of variation in the numbers of people using New Hampshire beach facilities according to day of week and time of day, the survey was scheduled for administration on a Friday, Saturday, and Tuesday during mid-July.
Over 580 surveys were completed during this time span.
The general purpose of the survey was to gather information relevant to sheltering. Also included in this study were questions designed to assess the respondent's knowledge of the Seabrook Nuclear Power Plant, patterns of beach going behavior, responses to authority, and reactions to evacuation messages.
The instrument was designed using potential questions submitted by the following consultants to the Commonwealth of Massachusetts: Drs.
Ortwin Renn and Robert Goble of Clark University, Dr.
Thomas Adler of Resource Systems Group, and Dr, Albert Luloff of the University of New Hampshire; and additional input was provided by attorneys Allan Fierce and Carol Sneider of the Massachusetts Attorney General's Office. A first draft of the instrument was distributed to each of the above individuals and a telephone conference call was held to review the draft.
Messrs. Renn, Adler, Fierce, and Luloff, and Ms. Sneider participated in the review process.
A final draft of the 1
1 instrument was made and a field pre-test was undertaken. Based on the pre-test and extensive conversations with the Massachusetts Attorney General's Office, the final instrument was prepared. This instrument included two versions of the protective action messages which was read by the interviewer at the time of the survey. Copies of both versions of the instrument are presented as Exhibit 4.1.
The sampling strategy involved several steps. First, the New Hampshire beach area was divided into four sections: (1)
Seabrook Beach; (2) Hampton Beach, from the North side of the Seabrook bridge to Boars Head; (3) Hampton Beach from Boars Head to 101C; and (4) from 101C to Odiorne Point. Groups of interviewers (ranging from two to three individuals per team) were assigned to each of the four areas. When they arrived at these areas, they were instructed to find the midline between the waters edge and the seawall (or other equally defining end of beach area) and to establish a distance of the beach area they were responsible for covering. Once this had been established, each individual was told to divide the beach area into roughly equivalent pieces and to begin the sampling process by walking several paces along the mid-line, and then turn towards the water and walk a distance halfway from the midline to the waters edge.
Once this had been accomplished, the interviewer was to target
" beach blankets" as the sampling unit and seek out the driver of those among the individuals on the blanket. Sampling of !
individuals was premised on generating roughly equal numbers of men and women and proportionately more young people than older people (we opted for approximately half less than 25 years of age, one third between 26 and 50, and one sixth greater than 56, a distribution based on the results of a survey conducted by UNH Poll, Dr. David Moore coordinator, at Hampton Beach between Sunday, July 31, and Sunday, September 4, 1983). Upon completion of the survey, the interviewer was instructed to return to the midline, continue along the beach an equal distance as before (when the interviewer had turned towards the water) but this time turn towards the seawall, and walk towards a point halfway from the midline to the sea wall and again ask for the driver among the " beach blanket people". The next sampling would occur around the midline, and then the process would move further towards the water, further towards the seawall, and start over again until the entire beach was sampled. At that point, the interviewers moved on to the next beach area to be surveyed or began the process over again. Finally, each interviewer was given equal numbers of two survey forms which were identical except for the protective action messages (the shorter form utilized the beach closing message contained in the NHRERP, Volume 2, while the longer form was premised on general emergency evacuation message, also contained in the NHRERP, Volume 2). The surveys took about six minutes to administer and there were very few refusals. In total, 584 interviews were completed (293 Version A and 291 Version B), and the sampling error is plus or minus five percentage points. This means that in theory if the survey were
1 to be repeated 100 times using the same techniques, in 95 out of the 100 tises the results obtained for a particular question would not. v;m; by more than 5 percentage points from the results which would have been obtained had every beach-blanket group on the beach been surveyed. In the analysis which follows, all missing cases, as a result of missing data on particular questions, were eliminated.
In response to the sheltering question, which was premised on the Seabrook Nuclear Power Plant being on line, and which asked what respondents would do in response to official advice for people to leave the beach immediately and seek shelter, almost one in two indicated that they would seek shelter (49.5%). An additional two in five (41.4%) indicated that they would evacuate the area, while only 4.3% indicated that they would stay on the beach. Less than 5% of the respondents indicated a different response. When asked what they would do if they could not find a designated shelter, more than three of every five (64.8%)
indicated that they would evacuate, 17.5% indicated that they would continue to seek shelter, 5% indicated that they would seek assistance or follow the advice to seek shelter, and less than one in twenty (3.9%) said they would sit and wait. About one-third (31.4%) of the respondents also indicated, in response to a question which asked them what they would do if upon reaching the first shelter they found it to be filled to capacity, that they would seek out another shelter, while more
- than one in two (55%) said they would evacuate. About 15% of the 1 i respondents indicated that they would do something else. Thus, 1
it would appear that a sizeable portion of the beach going population will seek a designated shelter in the event of an
emergency at the Nuclear Power Plant when instructed to do so.
l At the same time, a large proportion of the beach going l
population indicated that they would evacuate the area once they had received official advice that they should leave the beach and seek shelter. Knowledge of where to find shelter also greatly impacts-response, as does the potential problem of arriving at a shelter only to find that it is already filled, both of which contribute to an even larger pool of potential evacuants.
The two protective action messages used in this survey (a beach evacuation message and a general emergency message) both revealed a decided preference for evacuation, with seven of every ten (70%) stating that they would leave immediately. An additional 15.3% indicated that they would leave the beach but stay in the area, while only 6% said that they would seek shelter. Approximately 7% (6.7%) offered an alternative response and only 2% responded that they didn't know what they would do.
Thus, once again it appears that either of the two messages indicating potential or ongoing problems at Seabrook Nuclear Power Plant would result in a large proportion of people leaving the beach area in order to evacuate. This percentage reinforces the findings of the sheltering question: A message, regardless of content, about a problem at Seabrook would result in a large scale evacuation of the beach area.
Almost eight of every ten respondents indicated that they arrived at the beach by car, motorcycle, or bus (80.7%), with 1%
travelling by bicycle, and 18.3% walking. This last number
~
reflects the influence of the many rental units proximate to the _
beaches where the . survey were taken and the fact that this question asked about.their beach. going behavior on the day of the survey. Of those travelling by motor vehicle, more than three of every four parties (83.3%) came in only one vehicle, while 10.3%
of the parties came in two, and the remainder in more than two cars. Almost half of the cars were parked on the street (47.8%),
~about one third (29.3%) in parking lots, and an additional 7.4%
in front or back yards. More than eight of every ten (84%)
respondents indicated that they parked within a five minute walk from where they finally located on the beach, with an additional 9.9% parking within 10 minutes of their current location, and the remainder parking between 12 and 45 minutes from their beach spot.
In three cases of every four (74.4%) all the people who came with the respondent were together at the time of the interview.
These respondents also indicated that it would .take only a very short ~ time to assemble everyone to leave (71.9% said they could be ready within five minutes, while 92.8% indicated that they would be ready within 20 minutes). Only 7.2% said that it would take longer (one person responded it would take up to three hours). More than nine of every ten respondents said they would not leave without everyone, with 6.8% indicating that they would leave under such conditions.
4 Massachusetts was the favorite destination of those indicating that they would evacuate with 41.3% so indicating,
while Maine was mentioned by 10.6%, other New Hampshire communities by 32%, and Vermont and Rhode Island by 1.2% ,
respectively, while Connecticut was mentioned by .9%. Canada was the ultimate destination of 2.4% of the respondents, with the 1
l remainder indicating another response. When asked what route they would take during an evacuation, several arteries were mentioned most often. These included Routes 95, 495, 101, 51, 1A, and 1, with almost every roadway intersecting the beach area roadways mentioned by at least one respondent. a j When asked whether or not they would follow a policeman's instructions as to which route they should follow in the event of an evacuation, more than one half (55.4%) said they would do as they were instructed, 19.8% said it would depend on the situation and the instructions, and more than one in five (22.1%) said they would follow their own route. If half the people who said it
" depends" decide to go their own route, then as much as 30% of the evacuating population may be disregarding the instructions of the officials guiding traffic.
The respondents were also asked how they would react to a t'.tuation where they were in their vehicle, attempting to evacuate, and had not moved very far after a period of one hour /
/
and after three hours. After a one hour wait, more than eight of every ten (81.0%) said they would remain with their car while 14.5% said they would abandon it. An additional two hour wait increased the percentage of those indicating they would abandon their cars to 38.3 largely at the expense of those who said they would remain in their cars (55.2%). In the presence of extensive traffic delays, and a one hour wait is not an unreasonable expectation, the potential for large scale abandonment of vehicles occurs.
An analysis of indicated behavior after either of the two protective action messages by age grouping revealed that the younger segment of the population would be most likely to evacuate immediately and least likely to leave the beach but stay in the area. Younger people were also equally likely to remain in their cars as abandon them after remaining in their vehicles for three hours and experiencing little movement. The middle and older aged groupings indicated a much higher proportion of individuals who would remain in their cars even after a three hour wait. Thus, the largest segment of the beach going population is also the segment which is most likely to attempt to evacuate and the least likely to remain with their vehicles after a three hour wait.
Supportive tables for this discussion are attached as Exhibit 4.2. Frequencies of responses (that is, a univariate representation) are presented first and then some crosstabulations of responses to two questions (for example, age grouping by 3 hour3.472222e-5 days <br />8.333333e-4 hours <br />4.960317e-6 weeks <br />1.1415e-6 months <br /> traffic response, generally considered a bivariate representation) are offered.
++
.C e
EXHIBIT 4.1 I
\
\
l
=
9 9 0 0*
- ____m___.__ _ .._. _ _ _
FORM A
. Beich Survey New Hampshire EPZ Hello. My name is and I as working for AEL Associates.
We are conducting a survey on peoples travel to the beach and about their responses to potential emergency situations at New Hampshire's beaches. You have been randomly chosen for inclusion in our sample. I would like to ask you just a few questions...
(ASK FOR DRIVFR OF CAR FIRST... TEEN BY NIED]
- 1. First, how much have you heard about the Seabrook Nuclear Power Plant?
- 1. a great deal 2. moderate amount
- 3. a little 4. nothing
- 2. Counting yourself, how many people are with you today?
(number)
- 3. A) How did your party get to the beach today?
- 1. car (truck, van) 2. actorcycle
- 3. bus 4. bicycle
- 5. other B) How many vehicles did your party take to the beach?
number C) Where did you park?
- 1. parking lot (where)
- 2. back or front yard _ (where)
- 3. street (nano)
- 4. other D) About how long did it take to get from where you parked your car to the beach? (ainutes)
E) At what time do you expect to leave the beach today?
- 4. Are you here just for the day, or are you renting a cottage, camping, staying with friends or relatives, or staying at a notel for the night?
- 1. day visit 2. staying with friends / kin
- 2. renting cottage 4. staying at notel/ hotel / guest
- 5. camping house / bed and breakfast
- 6. other (specify)
- 5. What town / state (province) do you live?
- 6. About how many days per year do you spend at New Hampshire seacoast beaches?
(number of days)
In order to answer the next several questions, please assume that the Seabrook Nuclear Power Plant is in service right now.
- 7. Assume that you were asked to seek shelter because of an accident at the Seabrook Nuclear Power Plant. The official announcement explicitly advised you not to evacuate, but leave the beach immediately and find shelter in one of the designated buildings. What would you do - would you follow the official advice and seek shelter, stay on the beach, or evacuate the area?
- 1. would seek shelter 2. would stay on beach
- 3. would evacuate 4. other
^
- 8. Suppose you cannot find a designated shelter near you, what would you do in response to the official advice?
9.-
Supposo the first ch31 tor ycu w;nt crpacity, what' wauld ytu ds? W uldtoyou was alrosdy filled to conrch for another
,' shaltsr or vculd ycu cvccutta th3 arca, or would ycu do sancthing cico?
- 1. seek another shelter
- 2. evacuate the area
- 3. other (specify)
NOW, PLEASE ASSUME THAT YOU ARRIVE ON THE BEACH WHILE SEABROOK IN OPERATION AND YOU MEAR THE FOLLOWING MESSAGE ATTENTION.
THE BEACH IS. NOW . ATTENTION.
CICSED. . 5ECAUSE OF A PROBLEN AT SEABROCK STATION, PLEASE LEAVE THE BEACH DOMDIATELY.
LISTEN TO A IACAL RADIO STATION FOR MORE INFORMATION.
- 10. A) loudspaalrars.Assume you have What would just you do? heard this message on the
- 1. leave the beach brt stay in the area
- 2. evacuate immediately
- 3. seek snelter
- 4. other
- 5. don't know now? B) Is everyone
- 1. yes ' who2.came with you to the beach here right no C) How leave? long would it take to assemble everyone and pack to (ainutes) -
D) Nould you
- 1. yes-leave without everyone being together?
- 2. no I) If you chose to evacuate the area, where would you evacuate to? (name of town / state)
F) What route would you take?
(name)
G) would If a policeman told you to go in a different direction route? you do as the policeman 17.sh =Eed or follow your own
- 1. do as told 2. follow own route
- 3. depends
- 4. don't know
- 11. A) moved If youthan less werei sile in your vehicle for 1 hour1.157407e-5 days <br />2.777778e-4 hours <br />1.653439e-6 weeks <br />3.805e-7 months <br /> and traffic had would you remain in 'your car as authorities insist, or wou,ld you get out?
- 1. remain in car 2. get out of car to seek
- 3. abandon car 4.,other additional information
- 5. don't know B) little- Suppose novement you were in the car / truck / van for 3 hours3.472222e-5 days <br />8.333333e-4 hours <br />4.960317e-6 weeks <br />1.1415e-6 months <br /> with authorities insist or would wouldyou yougetstill out?remain in your car as
- 1. remain in car 2. get out of car to seek
- 3. abanden car
- 4. other additional information
- 5. don't know 12.
that you might have been exposed to a radiation leak and th were told by radio to report immediately to a specified monitoring and decontamination center located in NN about 20 miles away. Would you report to such a center? 1. yes 2. no (ITTER IN NO CAR)RADIO IS
- 1. yes VISIBLE ASK 2. noIF THEY NAVE ONE OTHER THAN TE&T IS ALL TER QUESTICEB I E&TE.
(Do NOT ASK THESE QUESTIONS TERNK YOU FOR YOUR ASSISTANCE.
OBSERVE ONLY]
Respondents sext 1. female Respondent's age grouping: 1. 2. male younger Time of ' interviews
- 2. siddle 3. older Day of interview: AN PM Site of interviews
FORM B Beach Survey New Hampshire Ep3 Hello. My name is and I as working for AEL Associates.
We are conducting a survey on peoples travel to the beach and about their responses to potential emergency situations at New Hampshire's beaches. You have been randaaly chosen for inclusion in our sample. I would like to ask you just a few questions...
(Asr rom onIvEn or can rInsT...TsEN SY NIID]
- 1. First, how much have you heard about the Seabrook Nuclear Power Plant?
- 1. a great deal 2. noderate amount
- 3. a little 4. nothing
- 2. counting yourself, how many people are with you today?
(number) .
l l
- 3. A) How did your party get to the beach today? j
- 1. car (truck, van) 2. motorcycle
- 3. bus 4. bicycle !
- 5. other B) How many vehicles did your party take to the beach?
number c) Where did you park? j
- 1. parking lot (where) 1
- 2. back or front yard (where) l
- 3. street (name)
- 4. other D) About how long did it take to get from where you parked l your car to the besch? (ainutes) l E) At what time do you expect to leave the beach today?
- 4. Are you here just for the day, or are you renting a cottage, camping, staying with friends or relatives, or staying at a notel for the* night? .
- 1. day visit 2. staying with friends / kin
- 2. renting cottage 4 staying at notel/ hotel / guest
- 5. camping house / bod and breakfast
- 6. other (specify)
- 5. What town / state (province) do you live?
- 6. About how many days per year do you spend at New Hampshire
===aa==t beaches?
(number of days)
In order to answer the next several questions, please assume that the Seabrook Nuclear Power Plant is in service right now.
7.
Assume that you were asked to seek shelter because of an accident at the Seabrook Nuclear Power Plant. The official announcement explicitly advised you not to evacuate, but leave the beach immediately and find shelter in one of the designated buildings. What would you do - would you follow the official advice and seek shelter, stay on the beach, or evacuate the area?
- 1. would seek shelter 2. would stay on beach
- 3. weuld evacuate 4. other 8.
Suppose you cannot find a designated shelter near you, what would you do in response to the official advice?
_ _ _ _ _ -_ . <a
. captcMy, wSBat wcuad ycu do?
W:uld you- -coarch
- my for coooue anothcre chnit0r oico?
or wculd you cvacunto tho arca, or wculd you do som2 thing l
- l. cock ansthir sheltcr
- 2. cvacusto ths arcs ;
- 3. other (specify) 3 NOW, PLEASE ASSUME THAT YOU ARRIVE ON THE BEACH WHILE SEABROOK IS ,
IN OPERATION AND YOU HEAR THE FOLLOWING MESSAGE l A GENERAL EMERGENCY HAS BEEN DECLARED AT SEABROOK STATION. A '
GENERAL EMERGENCY INDICATES THAT THERE HAS BEEN A FAILURE IN PLANT SAFETY SYSTEMS. A RELEASE OF RADIATION INTO THE AIR HAS OCCURRED.
NEW HAMPSHIRE CIVIL DEFENSE AND PUBLIC HEALTH I OFFICIALS ARE CURRENTLY REVIEWING THE CONSEQUENCES OF THE '
RELEASE. PERSONS WORKING IN OR VISITING BEACH AREAS IN THE TOWNS OF HAMPTON OR SEABROOK ARE ADVISED TO EVACUATE THE AREA.
- 10. A) Assume you have just heard this message on the loudspeakers. What would you do?
- 1. leave the beach but stay in the area
- 2. evacuate immediately
- 3. seek shelter
- 4. other
- 5. don't know B) Is everyone who came with you to the beach here right now? 1. yes 2. no C) How long would it take to assemble everyone and pack to leave? (ainutes)
D) Would you leave without everyone being together?
- 1. yes 2. no E) If you chose to evacuate the area, where would you evacuate to? (name of town / state]
F) What route would you take? _ (name)
G) If a policeman told you to go in a different direction would you do as the policeman instructed or follow your own route? 1. do as told 2. follow own route
- 3. depends 4. don't know
- 11. A) If you were in your vehicle for 1 hour1.157407e-5 days <br />2.777778e-4 hours <br />1.653439e-6 weeks <br />3.805e-7 months <br /> and traffic had moved less than 1 mile, would you remain in your car as authorities insist, or would you get out?
- 1. remain in car 2. get out of car to seek
- 3. abandon car additional information
- 4. other 5. don't know B) Suppose you were in the car / truck / van for 3 hours3.472222e-5 days <br />8.333333e-4 hours <br />4.960317e-6 weeks <br />1.1415e-6 months <br /> with little movement - would you still remain in your car as authorities insist or would you get out?
- 1. remain in car 2. get out of car to seek
- 3. abandon car additional information
- 4. other 5. don't know
- 12. As you were leaving the beach area suppose that you learned that you might have been exposed to a radiation leak and that you were told by radio to report immediately to a specified monitoring and decontamination center located in NH about 20 miles away. Would you report to such ., center? 1. yes 2. no (IF NO RADIO IS VISIBLE ASK IF THEY HAVE ONE OTHER THAN THE ONE IN THE CAR) 1. yes 2. no THAT IS ALL THE QUESTIONS I HAVI. THANK YOU FOR YOUR ASSISTANCE.
(DO NOT ASK THESE QUESTIONS OBSERVE ONLY)
Respondents sex: 1. female 2. male Respondent's age grouping: 1. younger 2. middle 3. older Time of interview: AM PM Day of interview: Site of interview:
N
k e
e EXHIBIT 4.2 l
l 1
1
How much have you heard about Seabrook Nuclear Plant?
CUM L VALUE LABEL FREQUENCY PERCENT PERCENT-a great deal 273 46.8 46.8 moderate amount 123 21.1- -67.9 a little 133 22.8, 90.7 nothing 54 9.3 100.0
_______ _______ j TOTAL 583- 99.8 l
.l How did you get-to beach? ;
't CUM VALUE-LABEL FREQUENCY PERCENT PERCENT Car- 461 79.1 79.1 Motorcycle 5 .9 80.0 Bus 4 .7 80.7 i Bicycle 6 1.0 '81.7 l Other/Valked 107 18.3 100.0 TOTAL 583. 100.0 :
^
How many vehicles did you take?
CUM :
VALUE LABEL VALUE FREQUENCY PERCENT PERCENT !
1 1 398 83.3 83.3 !
2 49 10.3- 93.6 !
3 17 3.5 97.1 !'
4 9 1.9 99.0 6 2 .4 99.4 7 1 .2 99.6 i 8 1 .2 99.8 ,
9 1 .2. 100.0 )
TOTAL 478 100.0- , ,
j i
i 1
i
. Uhere did you park?
CUM VALUE LABEL FREQUENCY PERCENT PERCENT Parking Lot .171 29.3 29.3 Back or Front Yard 43 7.4 36.7 Street 279 47.8 84.5 Other 40 6.8 91.3 Valked 51 8.7 100.0 TOTAL 584 100.0 How long did it take to walk from your car?
CUM VALUE LABEL FREQUENCY PERCENT PERCENT 1 - 4 minutes 468 84.0 84.0 5 - 10 minutes 55 9.9 93.9'
> 10 minutes 34 6.1 100.0 TOTAL 557 100.0 How long are you in beach area?
CUM VALUE LABEL FREQUENCY PERCENT PERCENT day. visit 300 51.7 51.7 staying with friends 110 19.0 70.7 Renting cottage 1 .2 70.9 Staying at motel / hot 72 12.4 83.3 Camping 16 2.8 86.1 Other 81 13.9 100.0 TOTAL 580 100.0 Where do you live?
CUM VALUE LABEL FREQUENCY PERCENT PERCENT Other 29 5.0 5.0 Canada 19 3.3 8.3 CT 12 2.1 10.4 ME 6 1.0 11.4 MA 260 44.7 56.1 RI 6 1.0 57.1 NH 244 41.9 99.0 VT 6 1.0 100.0 TOTAL 582 100.0
-- _ - - = _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _- 1
How many days do you spend on NH beaches?
CUM VALUE LABEL FREQUENCY PERCENT PERCENT
< 5 days 104 17.8 17.8 5 - 20 days 283 48.5 66.3 21 - 49 days 88 15.0 81.3
> 50 days 109 18.7 100.0 TOTAL 584 100.0 If you vere asked to seek shelter, what would you do?
CUM VALUE LABEL FREQUENCY PERCENT PERCENT vould evacuate 241 41.4 41.4 would seek shelter 288 49.5 90.9 vould stay on beach 25 4.3 95.2 other 28 4.8 100.0 TOTAL 582 100.0 If you could not find shelter what would you do?
CUM VALUE LABEL FREQUENCY PERCENT PERCENT evacuate 351 64.8 64.8 find shelter 95 17.5 82.3 find help 27 5.0 87.3 other 45 8.3 95.6 do not knov 24 4.4 100.0 TOTAL 542 100.0 What vould you do if the shelter you vent to was full?
CUM VALUE LABEL FREQUENCY PERCENT PERCENT seek another shelter 173 31.4 31.4 evacuate the area 303 55.0 86.4 other 75 13.6 100.0 TOTAL 551 100.0
l l
l What vould you do if a problem occurred at Seabrook closing the beach?
CUM VALUE LABEL FREQUENCY PERCENT PERCENT evacuate immediately 406 70.0 70.0 seek shelter 35 6.0 76.0 leave beach stay in area 89 15.3 91.3 other 39 6.7 98.0 do not knov 11 2.0 100.0 TOTAL 580 100.0 100.0 Is everyone with you right now?
CUM l VALUE LABEL FREQUENCY PERCENT PERCENT l
yes 425 74.4 74.4 l
no 146 25.6 100.0 l TOTAL 571 100.0 Vould you leave without everyone?
CUM VALUE LABEL FREQUENCY PERCENT PERCENT yes 36 6.8 6.8 no 497 93.2 100.0 TOTAL bbb 100.b l
l 1
E-________-.
Vhere vould you evacuate to?
CUM VALUE LABEL FREQUENCY PERCENT PERCENT Other 32 5.5 5.5 Follow Instructions 2 .4 5.9 Do not knov 25 4.3 10.2 ,
no answer 1 .2 10.4 Canada 14 2.4 12.8 CT 5 .9 13.7 ME 61 10.6 24.3 MA 239 41.3 65.6 RI 7 1.2 66.8 NH 185 32.0 98.8 VT 7 1.2 100.0 TOTAL 578 100.0 What would you do if the police told you to go another route?
Warv CUM VALUE LABEL FREQUENCY PERCENT PERCENT do as told 316 55.4 55.4 follow own route 126 22.1 77.5 depends 113 19.8 97.3 do not knov 15 2.7 100.0 TOTAL 570 100.0 Suppose you were in your car an hour and had moved less than a mile?
CUM VALUE LABEL FREQUENCY PERCENT PERCENT remain in car or seek information 431 81.0 81.0 abandon car 77 14,5 95.5 other 24 4.5 100.0 T0YU, 532 100.0 Suppose you were in your vehicle 3 hours3.472222e-5 days <br />8.333333e-4 hours <br />4.960317e-6 weeks <br />1.1415e-6 months <br /> and had hardly moved?
CUM VALUE LABEL FREQUENCY PERCENT PERCENT remain in car or seek information 288 55.2 55.2 abandon car 200 38.3 93.5
. other 34 6.5 100.0 TOTAL 522 100.0
4 Vould you go to a decontamination center since you may have been exposed?
CUM VALUE LABEL FREQUENCY PERCENT PERCENT yes 505 88.6 88.6 no 65 11.4 100.0 TOTAL 570 100.0 Sex CUM VALUE LABEL FREQUENCY PERCENT PERCENT female 273 49.6 49.6 male 277 50.4 100.0 OTAL 550 100.0 Age CUM VALUE LABEL FREQUENCY PERCENT PERCENT younger 289 52.6 52.6 middle 165 30.1 82.7 older 95 17.3 100.0 TOTAL 549 100.0
)
___________a
Day of interview CUM VALUE LABEL FREQUENCY PERCENT PERCENT Fri 7/17/87 120 23.9 23.9 Sat 7/18/87 288 57.5 81.4 Tue 7/28/87 93 18.6 100.0 TOTAL Sb5 [bbIb Site of interview CUM VALUE o..;EL FREQUENCY PERCENT PERCENT Seabrook 58 11.5 11.5 Hampton Beach 209 41.6 53.1 North Hampton to Bor 144 28.6 81.7 All Other Locations 92 18.3 100.0 TOTAL 503 100.0
--- ---- CRO'SSTABULATION 0F ---_-_____
AGE Age BY V10A Emergency Response
PAGE 1 0F 1 V10A COUNT evacuate seek she leave be other do not k ROU immedia lter ach stay now TOTAL 1l 2l 3l 41 5l AGE --------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
1 218 17 l 31 18 5 l 289 younger l l 52.8
.________.________4________.________.________.
2 l 115 l 9 l 31 4 l 4 l 163 middle l l l l l 29.8 3 53 6 22 l 13 l 1 95 J
older l l l 17.4
+________.________.________.________+________.
COLUMN 386 32 84 35 10 547 TOTAL 70.6 5.9 15.4 6.4 1.8 100.0
- --------- CR0SSTABULATION 0F -----__---
AGE Age BY V11A 1 hour1.157407e-5 days <br />2.777778e-4 hours <br />1.653439e-6 weeks <br />3.805e-7 months <br /> of traffic response
---_---------------------------- PAGE 1 0F 1 V11A COUNT remain i abandon other ROV n car or car TOTAL 1l 2l 3l AGE --------+--------+--------+--------+
1 l 216 45 9 270 younger l 53.4
+________+________+________+
2 l 121 l 23 8 l 152 middle l l l 30.0
+________+________+________+
3 74 5 5 84 older 16.6
+________+________+________.
COLUMN 411 73 22 506 TOTAL 81.2 14.4 4.3 100.0 i
- --- ----- CR0SSTABULATION OF ----------
AGE Age BY V11B 3 hours3.472222e-5 days <br />8.333333e-4 hours <br />4.960317e-6 weeks <br />1.1415e-6 months <br /> of traffic response
------------------------- PAGE 1 0F 1 V11B COUNT remain i abandon other ROV n car or car TOTAL 1l 2l 3l AGE --------+--------+--------+-- -----+
1 125 l 125 l 12 l 262 younger l l l 53.1
+________+________+________+
2 90 47 l 11 l 148 middle l l 30.0
+________+________+________+
3 62 l 17 l 4 83 older l l 16.8
+________+________+________+
COLUMN 277 189 27 493 TOTAL 56.2 38.3 5.5 100.0 I
CR0SSTABULATI0N 0F -_________
V2 How many people with them today?
l BY V10A Emergency Response l
PAGE 1 0F 1 V10A COUNT i evacuate seek she leave be other do not k ROV immedia lter ach stay now TOTAL 1l 2l 3l 4l 5l V2 --------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
l-4 P l 326 l 24 l 69 l 33 l 7 l 459 l l l l l l 79.3 5-3 ,2 69 l 7 l 15 l 6 4 l 101 l l l l 17.4
- 0 + # 11 l 3 5 l l 19 I, i I 3.3 COLUMN 406 34 89 39 11 579 TOTAL 70.1. 5.9 15.4 6.7 1.9 100.0 1
I i
1 1
1 l
1
- _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ____ A
- --------- CR0SSTABULATION 0F -----_----
V2 How many people with them today?
BY VilA 1 hour1.157407e-5 days <br />2.777778e-4 hours <br />1.653439e-6 weeks <br />3.805e-7 months <br /> of traffic response
PAGE 1 0F 1 V11A COUNT remain i abandon other ROV n car or car TOTAL 1l 2l 3l V2 -_------+----_-_-+--_-----+--------+
20 421 f .4 Jr l 339 62 l 79.3 l l
+________.________+________+
gr_q 3' l 74 13 4 l 91 l l 17.1
+________+________+________+
fo+ 4' 17 2 19 3.6
+________+________+________+
COLUMN 430 77 24 531 TOTAL 81.0 14.5 4.5 100.0
- --------- CR0SSTABULATION 0F __________
V2 How many people with them today?
BY V11B 3 hours3.472222e-5 days <br />8.333333e-4 hours <br />4.960317e-6 weeks <br />1.1415e-6 months <br /> of traffic response
________..----------------------- PAGE 1 0F 1 V11B COUNT remain i abandon other ROV n car or car TOTAL 1l 2l 3l v2 ___-____+________+________+________+
215 l 166 l 27 408 g,q t' 78.3 l l
+________+________+________+
3 ,3 ,&' 59, l l 29 7 95 l l 18.2
+________+________+________+
( O+ # l 14 l 4 l 18 3.5 I I I
+________+________ ________+
COLUMN 288 199 34 521 TOTAL 55.3 38.2 6.5 100.0 q
- ----- --- CR0SSTABULATION 0F -_-_--.___
AGE Age BY V10A Emergency Response CONTROLLING FOR.,
FORM Survey Form
= 1. Form A
_____________________________--- PAGE 1 0F 1 V10A COUNT evacuate seek she leave be other do not k ROV immedia iter ach stay now TOTAL 11 2l 3l 4l 5l AGE --------+--------+--------+_-------+--------+--------+
1 98 6 27 l 10 l 2 143 younger l l 52.0
+________+________+________+ _______+________+
2 50 2 24 l 4 3 63 middle l 30.2
+________+________+._______+________+________+
3 19 2 20 7 1 49 older 17.8
+________+________+ _______+________+________+
COLUMN 167 10 71 21 6 275 TOTAL 60.7 3.6 25.8 7.6 2.2 100.0 l 4 l
f
[ .
i i
t CR0SSTABULATI0N 0F __-------_
AGE Age
( BY V10A Emergency Response CONTROLLING FOR..
FORM Survey Form
- 2. Form B
____---------------------------- PAGE 1 0F 1 V10A COUNT evacuate seek she leave be other do not k ROV immedia lter ach stay now TOTAL 1l 2l 3l 4l 51 AGE --------+--------+--------+--------+--------+----_---+
1 120 l 11 4 8 l 3 146 younger l l 53.7
+________+________+________+________+________.
2 65 7 7 l l 1 l 80 middle l l l 29.4
+________+________+________+________+________+
3 34 4 l 2 l 6 46 older l l 16.9
+________+________+________+________+-_______+
COLUMN 219 22 13 14 4 272 TOTAL 80.5 8.1 4.8 5.1 1.5 100.0 1
l l _-__------ CR0SSTABULATION 0F ------_--_
AGE Age BY V11A 1 hour1.157407e-5 days <br />2.777778e-4 hours <br />1.653439e-6 weeks <br />3.805e-7 months <br /> of traffic response CONTROLLING FOR..
i FORM Survey Form
= 1. Form A j ________________---------------- PAGE 1 0F 1 l
VilA l COUNT remain i abandon other ROV n car or car TOTAL ll 21 3l AGE --------+--------+--------+--------+
1 104 l 24 l 5 l 133 younger l l l 53.0
+________+________+________+
2 59 l 12 1 5 l 76 middle l l l 30.3
+________+________+________+
3 35 3 l 4 l 42 older l l 16.7
+________+________+________+
COLUMN 198 39 14 251 TOTAL 78.9 15.5 5.6 100.0
- -_-_-- -- CR0SSTABULATION 0F ----___ _-
AGE Age BY V11A 1 hour1.157407e-5 days <br />2.777778e-4 hours <br />1.653439e-6 weeks <br />3.805e-7 months <br /> of traffic response CONTROLLING FOR..
FORM Survey Form
----- --------------------- PAGE 1 0F 1 VilA COUNT remain i abandon other ROV n car or car TOTAL 1l 2l 3l AGE --------+--------+--------+--------+
1 112 l 21 l 4 137 younger l l 53.7
+ _______+________+________+
2 62 11 3 l 76
)
middle ~ l l 29.8
+________+________+ _______+
3 39 l 2 l 1 42 older l l 16.5
+ _______+________+________+
COLUMN 213 34 8 255 TOTAL 83.5 13.3 3.1 100.0 l
l
)
i l
CR0SSTABULATI0N 0F ----------
AGE Age BY V11B 3 hours3.472222e-5 days <br />8.333333e-4 hours <br />4.960317e-6 weeks <br />1.1415e-6 months <br /> of traffic response CONTROLLING FOR..
FORM Survey Form
= 1. Form A
PAGE 1 0F 1 V11B COUNT l remain i abandon other ROV n car or car TOTAL 1l 2l 3l AGE --------+--------+--------+--------+
1 l 63 63 l 6 132 younger l l 53.2
+________+________+________+
2 45 24 6 75 middle 30.2
+________+________+________+
3 29 l 8 4 41 older l 16.5
+________+________+________+
COLUMN 137 95 16 248 TOTAL 55.2 38.3 6.5 100.0 l
4 1
J
a CR0SSTABULATION 0F --_-__----
AGE Age BY V11B 3 hours3.472222e-5 days <br />8.333333e-4 hours <br />4.960317e-6 weeks <br />1.1415e-6 months <br /> of traffic response CONTROLLING FOR..
FORM Survey Form
- 2. Form B
--- ---------------------------- FAGE 1 0F 1 V11B COUNT remain i abandon other ROV n car or car TOTAL 1l 2l 3l AGE _--____-+-_-_-_--+_-_____-+-___-__-+
1 l 62 l 62 6 l 130 younger l l l 53.1
+________+-_______+________+
2 l 45 23 5 73 middle l 29.8
+________+________+________+
3 l 33 9 l l 42 older l l l 17.1
+_______-+_-______+________+
COLUMN 140 94 11 245 TOTAL 57.1 38.4 4.5 100.0 I
i j
- ___-__--_ CR0SSTABULATI0N 0F -- -_-__-_
V2 How many people with them today?
BY V10A Emergency Response CONTROLLING FOR..
FORM Survey Form
= 1. Form A
____-__-----_--_--_------------- PAGE 1 0F 1 V10A COUNT evacuate seek she leave be other do not k ROV immedia lter ach stay now TOTAL 1l 2l 3l 4l 5l v2 ________+________+________+________+________+_____-__+
g-4 1' 138 8 59 18 l 5 228 l 78.9 S.9 2 30 l l
2 l l
12 5 l l
2 1 l 17.6 51
,orp 6 4 l 10 l 3.5 COLUMN 174 10 75 23 7 289 TOTAL 60.2 3.5 26.0 8.0 2.4 100.0
o s
CR0SSTABULATION OF ----------
V2 How many people with them today?
BY V10A Emergency Response CONTROLLING FOR..
FORM Survey Form
- 2. Form B
-_-_---------------------------- PAGE 1 0F 1 V10A COUNT evacuate seek she leave be other do not k ROV
, immedia lter ach stay now TOTAL l 1l 2l 3l 41 51 V2 --------+--------+--------+--------+--------+------ -+
10 15 2 231 g _ c( ft' l 188 l 16 l l 79.7 l l l l
+--------.----- --+--------+--------.--------+
50 g.g JP' l 39 5 l 3 l 1 l 2 l 17.2 l , l l l l
+--------+----- --+---.----+--------+------ -+
9 10+ # 5 l 3 l 1 l 3.1 l l l
+_--_-_--. __-____._---_---+__----_-+_-------+
COLUMN 232 24 14 16 4 290 TOTAL 80.0 8.3 4.8 5.5 1.4 100.0 1
7_____
O 0
- --- ----- CR0SSTABULATI0N 0F ---_---___
V2 How many people with them today?
BY VilA 1 hour1.157407e-5 days <br />2.777778e-4 hours <br />1.653439e-6 weeks <br />3.805e-7 months <br /> of traffic response CONTROLLING FOR..
FORM 'iurvey Form
= 1. Form A
----------- -- -------------- PAGE 1 0F 1 VilA COUNT remain i abandon other ROV n car or car TOTAL ll 2l 3l V2 --------+-----_--+_-------+--------+
g .y t' 158 l 35 l 13 206 l l 78.9
+________+________+________+
- l 37 l 6 l 2 45 6' l l l 17.2
+_____-__+________+________+
10 10* # 9 1 l l 3.8
+ _______+________+________+
COLUMN 204 42 15 261 TOTAL 78.2 16.1 5.7 100.0 4
.- .-_-__-_.._-________m
O
- --------- CR0SSTABULATION 0F ----------
V2 How many people with them today?
BY V11A 1 hour1.157407e-5 days <br />2.777778e-4 hours <br />1.653439e-6 weeks <br />3.805e-7 months <br /> of traffic response CONTROLLING FOR.,
FORM Survey Form
= 2. Form B
--- ---------------------------- PAGE 1 0F 1 VilA COUNT remain i abandon other ROV n car or car TOTAL lj 2l 3l V2 _-____--+-______-+-----_--+-_-__-_-+
g.q # 181 l 27 l 7 l 215 l l l 79.6 2 46 S9 #ll 37 l l
7 l l
l l 17.0 l 0* / l 8 1 3.3 9
l
+________+________+_______-.
COLUMN 226 35 9 270 TOTAL 83.7 13.0 3.3 100.0
}
- - _ -_-- - - - - _ l
o
/
l l
CR0SSTABULATION 0F ___---_-_-
V2 How many people with them today?
BY V11B 3 hours3.472222e-5 days <br />8.333333e-4 hours <br />4.960317e-6 weeks <br />1.1415e-6 months <br /> of traffic response CONTROLLING FOR..
l FORM Survey Form
= 1. Form A
PAGE 1 0F 1 V11B COUNT remain i abandon other ROV n car or car TOTAL 1l 2l 3l v2 -_______+-_______+-_______+-__-____+
101 82 16 199 g.q X l l l 76.8 l l l
+________+________+________+
S'-9 -T' 31 15 l 4 50 l 19.3
+________+________+________+
jo t # 8 2 10 3.9
+________+________+ _______+
COLUMN 140 99 20 259 TOTAL 54.1 38.2 7.7 100.0 y
.____-__-______________-___l o
s
CR0SSTABULATION 0F ----------
V2 How many people with them today?
BY V11B 3 hours3.472222e-5 days <br />8.333333e-4 hours <br />4.960317e-6 weeks <br />1.1415e-6 months <br /> of traffic response CONTROLLING 70R..
FORM Survey Form )
= 2. Form B l
PAGE 1 0F 1 l V11B COUNT remain i abandon other ROV n car or car TOTAL i 1l 21 3l V2 ----- --+--------+--------+--------+
g-g t' 114 l 84 l 11 l 209 l l l 79.8
.----- _-.------_-+------_-+
5-9 JP' 28 14 3 45 17.2
+----_ _-+-.._---_-+--------+
g o+,h' 6 2 l 8 l 3.1
+----- --+--------+--------+
TOTAL 56.5 38.2 5.3 100.0
- _ _ _ _______ _____ _