ML20082D020
| ML20082D020 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 11/18/1983 |
| From: | Cole S NEW YORK, STATE UNIV. OF, STONY BROOK, NY, SUFFOLK COUNTY, NY |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20082C880 | List: |
| References | |
| ISSUANCES-OL-3, NUDOCS 8311220294 | |
| Download: ML20082D020 (294) | |
Text
_ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _
'O UNITED STATES OF AMERICA i NUCLEAR REGULATORY CCMMISSION Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board
)
i In the Matter of )
)
LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY ) Docket No. 50-322-OL-3 l
) (Emergency Planning) l (Shoreham Nuclear Power Plant, ) )
Unit 1) ~)
)
Testimony of Stephen Cole on Behalf of Suffolk County Regarding Contention 23 (Evacuation Shadow Phenomenon)
Background
1 Q. Please state your name and your qualifications.
A. My name is Stephen Cole. Currently I am a professor of sociology 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. 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.
Since 1962 I have been professionally involved in conducting social surveys. For the last 12 years, first under the name of Opinion Research Associates and starting in 1977 as Social Data Analysts, Inc., I have conducted approximately 150 social surveys for various clients, including Newsday, The 8311220294 831118 PDR ADOCK 05000322 T PDR
_ _ ___j
O Boston Globe, The Baltimore Sun, Gannett News Service, 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. I am the author of more than 25 articles ap-pearing in such journals as Scientific American, Science, Public Opinion Quarterly, American Sociological Review, and American Journal of Sociology. In addition, I am the author of seven books, including a textbook on research methods, The Sociological Method, Third edition (Boston, Houghton Mifflin, 1980). My work in sociology has been recognized by the receipt of a Guggenheim Foundation Fellowship, appointment as Fellow to the Center for Advanced Studies in Behavorial Sciences, and
)
receipt of a Ford Foundation Faculty Research Fellowship. For a more complete description of qualifications and publications, see my Vita, Attachment 1 hereto.
O. What is the purpose of this testimony?
A. Contention 23 concerns the evacuation shadow phenomenon
! and its impact upon the effectiveness of protective actions proposed in the LILCO Plan to be taken in the event of a
! radiological emergency at Shoreham. Other witnesses have addressed this issue and have concluded, based on several factors, that the LILCO Plan cannot be effectively implemanted l
N -
2-
i l -.
)
because of the evacuation shadow phenomenon. See Testimony of Drs. Johnson and Zeigler on Contention 23. The purpose of this testimony is to address Contention 23 and to discuss the results of surveys which I have conducted over the past two years on the issue of the evacuation shadow phenomenon, and which form the basis for some of the conclusions of Drs.
Johnson and Zeigler. In particular, I will focus upon a survey I conducted for Suffolk County in collaboration with Drs.
Johnson and Zeigler and others.
The surveys I have conducted reveal that in the event of an accident at Shoreham, many thousands of people from both in-side and outside the EPZ will seek to evacuate, even though they will not have been advised to do so. Indeed, they may seek to evacuate even though they have been advised not to evacuate. These findings confirm the existence of the evacua-tion shadow phenomenon, and raise questions about whether LILCO's plan will be effective in protecting the health and x
safety of Suffolk County residents in case of a radiological emergency at Shoreham.
I will leave it to other County witnesses, such as Drs.
Johnson and Zeigler, Professors Herr and Pigozzi, and Mr. Polk of PRC Voorhees, to explain precisely how the evacuation shadow phenomenon may affect the adequacy of protective actions called O V
for under the LILCO Plan. In this testimony I will:
(a) describe the survey performed by my company for Suffolk l
County; (b) comment on other surveys which have been conducted, including those done for LILCO; and (c) provide my opinion on 1
how reliable these social surveys are in predicting future 1 human behavior.
The County's Survey O. Please describe your involvement in and the purpose of the survey you conducted for Suffolk County.
A. In April 1982, I was retained by Suffolk County to conduct a social survey t'nat would evaulace how people would react to a possible radiological emergency at the Shoreham Nuclear Power Plant. My colleagues in this research included Drs. Johnson and Zeigler of UCLA and Old Dominion University, respectively, both of whom specialize in social geography, Dr. Kai Erikson of Yale University, a sociologist, Dr. Walter Farrel of the Uni-versity of Wisconsin at Madison, a geographer, and Dr. David Stephenson of Oberlin College, a sociologist.
The purpose of this research was to develop information to be used by Suffolk County's emergency planning experts in prep-aration of an emergency plan to be utilized in case of a radiological emergency at Shoreham. In particular, we wanted to assess the extent of voluntary evacuation that might occur Q (o
both within and outside the 10-mile EPZ, if there were an emergency at Shoreham.
Q. Please describe how the survey was conducted.
A. This was a telephone survey in which we interviewed 2,595 Long Island residents. The methodology of the survey is set forth in detail in our report to the County, which is Attach-ment 2 hereto. Briefly stated, since the primary aim of the research was to find out approximately how many people would evacuate if there was an accident at Shoreham, we developed a set of questions which would measure that behavior. These questions asked the respondent what he or she would do under three different scenarios. They were the most bnportant questions in the survey.
In addition to the answers to the evacuation questions, we thought it would be useful to obtain some additional informa-tion from respondents, such as: attitudes of the respondents toward nuclear power and toward the Shoreham Nuclear Power Plant in particular; the amount of information the respondents had about nuclear energy; the level of fear that the respondents had about radiation from nuclear power plants and other possible environmental hazards; and a series of basic demographic characteristics, such as age, education, marital status, the age of their children, how many children they had, O
Q ,
,, - -- -- ,, ,, ,. .r -. - - - -
1 i
( and where they attended school. All of these variables were considered potentially important to the County's emergency planners in interpreting the results we obtained from the survey.
Q. Was a questionnaire used in administering the survey?
A. Yes. My colleagues and I prepared a draft of the ques-tionnaire which was then pre-tested on a small group of ran-domly selected Long Island residents. The purpose of this type of pretest is to find out how long it takes to administer the questionnaire on the telephone, whether the questions are intelligible to the typical respondent, and if there are some parts of the questionnaire which are difficult to read or to administer. After two pre-tests, the questionnaire was finalized. It appears as Attachment 3 to this testimony. We then trained our interviewers and performed the field work.
Q. Who was interviewed in this survey?
A. The survey was administered to a. stratified random sample of households residing in Nassau and Suffolk Counties. The variable upon which the sample was stratified was distance from Shoreham. Thus, we divided Nassau and Suffolk Counties into five areas depending upon their distance from Shoreham. The first area consisted of all residences within a five mile radius of the Shoreham plant; the second area consisted of all 1
~-
l
() residences within a six to 10 mile area of the Shoreham plant; the third area consisted of all Suffolk County residents living more than 10 miles from, and east of the plant; the fourth area consisted of all Suffolk County residents living more than 10 miles from, and west of the plant; the fifth crea consisted of Nassau County. We completed 527 interviews in the first arec; 551 in the second; 543 in the third; 458 in the fourth; and 516 in Nassau County.
O. How were the respondents in this survey selected?
A. Telephone numbers were randomly generated by computer according to the method set forth in the Technical Appendix.
See Attachment 2, p. 45.
Q. Were any other techniques utilized in structuring the sam-O ple?
A. Yes. The sample was specifically designed to be a random sample of households, not of individuals. We used the follow-ing procedure to select the specific respondent who was interviewed in each household. When the interviewer dialed a number, he or she interviewed the person Who answered the tele-phone if that person was 18 years old or over. In order to make sure that our final sample had an approximately. 50-50 sex distribution, we employed a sex quota. This was necessary be-cause in most areas of the country, women are more likely to O
l
() answer the telephone than men. Therefore, if we always interviewed the person who first answered the telephone, we would end up having perhaps as many as 60 percent of the sample being women. In order to prevent this from happening, we maintained a quota. Each interviewer could not get more than two women ahead of men. If an interviewer had interviewed two more women than men, that interviewer had to interview a man on the next interview, even if it meant turning down a respondent.
We have found this to be an effective way of obtaining a proper sex distribution in samples. In fact, 50 percent of the people interviewed were men.
Q. If you had not attempted to maintain an approximately
' 50-50 sex distribution, would the results of the survey have been changed in any way?
A. Possibly. Men and women have different attitudes towards nuclear energy. Surveys I have done reveal that women are more likely than men to have more negative attitudes toward nuclear energy. It also turns out that people who have more negative attitudes toward nuclear energy are more likely to evacuate under a given scenario. If we had not used this sex quota, and the proportion of respondents who were women had gone up to 60 percent, we would.have found, most likely, an even higher proportion of people saying that they would evacuate.
() Q. You stated that 2,595 people were interviewed during this survey. Is that a large emnple size?
A. Out of the more than 150 social surveys that I have conducted, this is the largest sample size. It is a very large sample for a survey of this type. By way of contrast, a typi-cal nationwide political survey, such as those conducted by CBS-New York Times, will interview approximately 1200 to 1500 respondents.
Q. Does the size of the sample have an impact upon the accu-racy of survey findings?
A. Yes. What's called " sampling error" for surveys is highly dependent 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 popula-tion. In this case, the population would be residents of Nassau and Suffolk Counties. The sample was the 2,595 people whom we interviewed. The larger the sample size is, the smaller the possibility that the actual percentage of people having a certain attitude in the population will vary signifi-cantly from what is indicated in the survey sample.
For this survey, the sampling error for the entire sample was plus or minus three percentage points. That means that if s -
~-
l I
b N/ you were to repeat this survey one hundred times, in 95 out of 100 times the proportion of people who say they would evacuate under a particular scenario, for example, would be within three percentage points of what our survey indicated. In survey re-search, a samplo error of three percentage points is considered quite small.
The purF Sse of this survey, I might point out, was not to measure precisely whether 30 percent, 31 percent or 32 percent of the people would evacuate if there were a Shoreham emergen-cy. Rather, the purpose of this survey was to obtain some general estimates of the size of the group that would evacuate.
So I would say this survey is highly accurate for purposes of making generalizations from the sample to the population.
(}
Q. How many days did it take to conduct the interviews?
A. The interviewing was done over 14 days. It started on May 19 and was completed on June 10, 1982. The interviewing was done between the hours of 6:00 and 10:00 p.m. There were between 25 and 30 interviewers working on the study.
O. What was done after all of the interviews were completed?
A. After all the interviews had been completed, and they had been checked by the supervisors, the interviews were given to a keypunch operator who entered the data directly from the ques-tionnaires onto a computer. We then verified the data entries i
~s
%- to make sure there were no data entry errors, and we tabulated the responses using a computer program.
O. Were all of the responses that you received accorded the same weight?
A. No. In tabulating responses, we employed a weighting scheme to make sure that all geographical areas were equally represented. The weighting procedure is described in the survey report. (See Attachment 2, pp. 46-48.) Given the weighting scheme that we used, we can say that the survey results are representative of the entire Nassau/Suffolk commu-nity. (See Attachment 2, Technical Appendix, for a listing of all zip code zones interviewed and the weight accorded to each.)
(}
i O. Please describe the results of the County survey.
A. In order to find out how Long Island residents would react to a possible nuclear accident at the Shoreham plant, we asked them what they would do in three different scenarios. In sce-nario one, we asked the following question:
" Assuming that the Shoreham Nuclear Power Plant is licensed and begins to operate, we are interested in knowing what you would do if there was an accident at the plant.
l Suppose that you and your family were at home and there was an accident at Shoreham. ,
i All people who lived within five miles of l j the plant were advised to stay indoors. Do )
you think that you and the other members of your family would go about your normal business, or stay inside your home, or l leave your home and go somewhere else?"
i O
Among the approximately 10,000 families living within a five mile zone of the plant, we found that 40 percent said that they would evacuate and leave their homes to go someplace else.
Thus, approximately 4,000 f amilies living within the five mile zone would attempt to leave under a condition approximating that described in the first scenario. We also found that 40 percent of those people who lived within a six to 10 mile zone .
of the plant, or approximately 8,000 f amilies from that area, would evacuate. Among those residents of Eastern Suffolk (outside of the 10-mile EPZ ), 22 percent or approximately 13,000 families would evacuate under conditions similar to those described in scenario one. Among people living in Western Suffolk County, but more than 10 miles away from the plant, 34 percent, approximately 110,000 families, said that they would evacuate. Finally, among Nassau County residents, "'
18 percent or approximately 80,000 families stated that they would evacuate under conditions similar to those described in scenario one. If we combine all the data and look at Long Is-land as a unit, we find that 25 percent of Long Isl'and re-sidents, or approximately 217,000 families, would attempt to evacuate under conditions in which sheltering only'was advised for a five-mile zone. Since for this scenario no one was actu-ally advised to evacuate, all of the more than 200,000 families -
g a l
p v
/
'i, 1
s
(
b j$ .
O
( j who said they would evacuate should be considered voluntary evacuees. These data provide strong evidence documenting the existence and significance of the evacuation shadow phenomenon.
For the second scenario we asked the respondents the fol-lowing question:
" Suppose that you and your family were at home and there was an accident at the Shoreham Nuclear Power Plant. All pregnant women and pre-school children living within five miles of the plant were advised to evacuate and everyone living between six and ten miles from the plant were advised to remain indoors. Would you and other members of your f amily go about your normal business, or stay inside your home, or leave your home and go somewhere' else?"
For this scenario we found 57 percent of people within the five mile zone (5,700 families), 52 percent of people in the six to
\
10 mile zone (11,000 families), 30 percent of people in Eastern Suffolk (18,000 families), 44 percent of people in Western Suffolk (142,000 families), and 25 percent of people in Nassau County (113,000 families) saying that they would evacuate. For the Island as a whole, 34 percent, or approximately 290,000 families stated that they would evacuate under conditions similar to those described in scenario two. The overwhelning majority of these families are voluntary evacuees.
For the third scenario the respondents were asked the fol-lowing question:
?
() '
1 l
" Suppose that you and your family were at home and there was an accident at the Shoreham Nuclear Power Plant. Everyone l living within ten miles of the plant was
! advised to evacuate. Would you and other members of your family go about your normal business, or stay inside your home, or e ,
leave your home and go somewhere else?"
Under these conditions 78 percent of those living within the
! five mile zone (7,800 f amilies), 78 percent of those living
' within the 6 to 10 mile zone (16,000 families), 46 percent of those living in, Eastern Suffolk (27,000 families), 63 percent of those living in Western Suffolk (205,000 families), and 39 percent of the people living 19 Nassau County (175,000 s
f amilies) sdid that they would evacuate. Considering Long Is-
, land,as a whole, we found that.50 percent of the respondents,
() or 432,000 families, said that they would attempt to evacuate under circumstances in which arvevacuation of the entire 10-mile zone is advised. Approximately 400,000 families would
, be voluntary evacuees.
Q. What are the overall results of the survey?
l A. Based upon the survey, I would expect that in the event of a thoreham emergency, a large amount 'of voluntary evacuation i
1
- must be expected. The precise amount of voluntary evacuation
! varies depending upon the perceived severity of the event, except that in all cases (i.e., even the least severe event) a l
- significant number of departures is predicted.'
i
. l n
L - . - , - , , , -, 4,. -
n w e. ...~a.- , , , - - . . + , , . . _ . . , s n ,,. . - a ,
( Other Data on Evacuation O. Have the results of the County's survey been corroborated by any other surveys?
A. Yes. Since the May, 1982 survey was conducted for Suffolk County, four other surveys have been conducted that have in-cluded evacuation scenario questions. These surveys each cor-roborate to various degrees the results obtained in the County survey.
The first such survey was conducted by my company, Social Data Analysts, Inc. for Newsday. The survey was conducted by telephone in February, 1983 among a random sanple of 1,132 re-sidents of Nassau and Suffolk Counties. The results were
~ published in Newsday on February 27, 1983. The survey *
(/ contained the following evacuation question:
Assuming that the Shoreham Nuclear Power Plant is licensed and it begins to operate,.
i we are interested in knowing what you would l do if there was an accident at the plant.
Suppose that you and your family were at home and Suffolk County Executive Peter Cohalan went on radio and TV and said that I
there had been an accident. He asked all-pregnant women and pre-school children liv- .
ing within five miles of the plant to evac-uate and everyone living between six and ten miles from the plant to remain indoors.
He said everyone else was safe and should not evacuate. Would you and other members of your family go about your normal business, stay inside your home, or leave your home and go further away from the plant?
O Q . . . . .
This question essentially replicates the second scenario of the Suffolk County, May 1982, survey. There were two sig-nificant differences, however, between this question and the question used in the Suffolk County aurvey. First, the Newsday survey attributed the evacuation advisory to a specific individual in a position of authority (Mr. Cohalan) whereas the County's survey had not attributed the evacuation advisory to any particular individual. The second difference was that in the Newsday question it was specifically stated that everyone else not advised to evacuate or shelter "was safe and should not ovacuate." The County survey had included no explicit instructions for those people not advised to evacuate or shel-ter.
O Although the Newsday sample was not designed to break the responses down by geographical zones, the results may be gener-alized to all Nassau and Suffolk County households. The results of the Newsday survey indicated that 21 percent of Long Island residents said that they would go about their normal business, 31 percent said that they would stay inside their home, 45 percent said that they would leave their home and go further away from the plant, and 4 percent said they did not
! know what they would do. Thus, the February 1983 Newsday
, survey results showed an even higher proportion of Long Island i
1 l
l l s_, I I
b)
N,, residents saying they would evacuate (45 percent vs. 34 percent) under the "second" scenario than did the County's May 1982 survey.
In September, 1983, Newsday asked Social Data Analysts to reinterview a subsample of the 1,132 people who had been interviewed in February, 1983 in order to determine what their current attitudes toward Shoreham were. Interviews were cor.1ucted with 605 respondents at the end of September and first few days of October, 1983. The results were publishc.d in Newsday on October 9, 1983. The second Newsday survey asked the following question:
Assuming that the Shoreham Nuclear Power Plant is licensed and it begins to operate, O. we are interested in knowing what you would do if there was an accident at the plant.
Suppose that you and your family were at home and a LILCO representative went on the radio and TV and said that there had been an accident. He asked all pregnant women and pre-school children living within five miles of the plant to evacuate and everyone else living within ten miles of the plant to remain indoors. He said that all people living ten miles or more away from the plant were safe and should not evacuate.
Would you and other members of your family
- go about your normal business, or stay in-side your home, or leave your home and go l
further away from the plant?
This question, too, is similar to the "second" scenario used in the 1982 County survey and to the evacuation question 1
~s A
asked in the February, 1983 Newsday survey. However, in light l of the County's decision not to implement a radiological emer-gency response plan and LILCO's development of its own plan, the source of the advisory was identified as a LILCO official.1/ When asked this question, 16 percent of the two-county sample said that they would go about their normal business, 36 percent said that they would stay inside their home, 44 percent said that they would leave their home and go further away from the plant, and 4 percent said they had no opinion. Thus, the second Newsday survey also shows a higher proportion of Nassau and Suffolk residents evacuating than did the May, 1982 Suffolk County survey.
(~N It bears noting that the second Newsday study was a panel d e sig n, meaning that the people interviewed in the second poll were also interviewed in the first poll. Dividing people into
~1/ Another difference between this question and the question used by the County involves a difference in the wording of the "second" scenario in the County question. In that question we did not specify what people who are not preg-nant women and did not have pre-school children and who lived within a five mile zone of the plant should do.
Since the number of people living within five miles of the plant is relatively small, the overall results reported in both the County survey and the first Newsday survey proba-bly were not affected by any confusion created by failure to specify how these few people should behave. Further, it is unlikely that people outside the five mile zone would have been affected at all by the failure to specify the behavior of a group within the five mile zone.
l f
l (_/ l l
l l
1 1
() three categories for each scenario (those who would evacuate, those who would not evacuate, and those who had no opinion), we found that 70 percent of the 605 people interviewed in both February and September gave identical responses at the two points in time.2/ This indicates a relatively high degree of stability in attitudes toward evacuation. This is an important i
point because it has been argued that since most people have never actually experienced a radiological emergency, their re-sponses to questions about hypothetical behavior in such an emergency would not be very meaningful; they would respond with whatever answer happens to " pop" into their heads. If that were the case, however, we would expect to see a lower correla-tion between the responses given by individuals in February to an accident scenario and the responses given by the same individuals to a. similar evacuation scenario in September. In fact, however, we found a relatively high degree of correspon-dence.3/
-2/ In interpreting this figure, it should be pointed out that in surveys it is not unusual to find significant differ-ences in answers given by respondents even to factual questions at two different points in time. It should also be pointed out that the two scenarios in February and in September were similar but not identical. The differences in the scenarios could have accounted for a part of the i
changes in responses given by individuals.
-3/ Compare, for instance, data on two other questions which were repeated identically in the two waves of the panel.
(Footnote cont'd next page)
O A
(,,) Still another survey supporting the County's May, 1982 findings was conducted on behalf of LILCO. In April, 1983, LILCO retained the firm of Bill Johnson & Associates, Inc.
(" Johnson"), to conduct a study in which the questionnaire used by Suffolk County in May, 1982 was essentially replicated.
With respect to the key evacuation questions, however, Johnson used three different forms of the questionnaire. (See Attach-ments 4, 5 and 6). Forms A and B presented revised versions of the evacuation questions, while Form C was virtually identical to the County's evacuation questions.4/ The survey was (Footnote cont'd from previous page)
The first question asked respondents whether they would s
describe themselves as a supporter of nuclear power plants as a means of providing electricity, an opponent of nucle-ar power plants, or you haven' t made up your mind yet on this issue? Seventy-one percent of the panel of 605 peo-ple gave identical responses to this question in February -
and in September. On the following question: "Do you think that LILCO should complete and operate the Shoreham Nuclear Power Plant? Yes/No," seventy-three percent of the panel of 605 gave the identical response in February I and September. These figures indicate that attitudes to-wards nuclear power are relatively stable and that even attitudes toward the complex issue of evacuation are es-
. sentially just as stable as attitudes toward sLmpler questions on nuclear power.
-4/ Form C of the questionnaire was virtually identical to that used by the County in its May, 1982 study. Form B was identical, with the exception that after each evacua-tion question was answered, people who said they would evacuate were asked a follow-up question. Form A of the Johnson questionnaire was identical to the Suffolk County survey with the exception that a change was made in the (Footnote cont'd next page) n_
() administered to persons outside the EPZ in Eastern Suffolk, Western Suffolk and Nassau County.
Johnson's samples for each area were relatively small (100 l people per area). Thus, one must be cautious in making compar-isons between his results and others. Nevertheless, as Table 1 shows, while Johnson's figures for the shadow phenomenon were somewhat lower than the County's, they still indicate a very substantial shadow phenomenom. Note especially the general similarity between Johnson's results for Form C and the those of the County.5/ Thus, the Johnson survey adds to the (Footnote cont'd from previous page) evacuation question telling people who were not affected
\(~)g by the evacuation advisory that they could go about their normal business.
5/ In order to see if the differences between results ob-tained by Johnson and those obtained by the County were statistically significant, we conducted a two-sample test (a kind of statistical test) for the difference between proportions (see Hubert M. Blalock, Jr., Social Statistics. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1960, pp. 176-178.)
For the first scenario, there were no statistically sig-nificant differences between the results obtained on any of Johnson's three forms in any of the three areas he studied and those obtained by the County. For scenario two we did find a statistically significant difference between the results obtained in Johnson's Form A on the East End of Suffolk and those obtained by the County.
There were no statistically significant differences between any of Johnson's other forms and the results ob-tained by the County, and there were no statistically sig-nificant differences on scenario two on any of the forms for the other two areas studied. For scenario three there were no statistically significant differences between the (Footnote cont'd next page)
O substantial body of evidence leading to the conclusion that large numbers of people would seek to leave if there were an accident at Shoreham.
I i
U (Footnote cont'd from previous page)
County results and Forms B and C of the Johnson survey for all three areas. There were, however, statistically sig-nificant differences in all three areas between Form A of the Johnson survey and the County survey. In each case the Johnson Form A survey showed somewhat smaller proportions of people evacuating than did the 1982 County survey. It is difficult to assess whether these differ-ences can be attributed to the change in wording in the evacuation question made by Johnson. In Form A of the Johnson questionnaire people who did not live in the areas affected by the evaucation advisory were told that they could go about their normal business. However, in both of the Newsday surveys people were also given this informa-tion and these surveys showed higher proportions evacuating than did the survey conducted by the County.
\
f'1 V l l
l
TABLE 1 Comparison of Results Obtained by Bill Johnson Associates, Inc.
With Those Obtained in the 1982 Suffolk County Survey Percent Saying They Would Evacuate Eastern Suffolk N Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3 Johnson Form A 100 18 19 27 Johnson Form B 100 14 21 38 Johnson Form C 100 19 29 36
, County 1982 543 22 30 46 Western Suffolk Johnson Form A 100 27 36 45 Johnson Form B 100 25 37 54 Johnson Form C 100 26 35 57 County 1982 458 34 44 63 Nassau County i
l Johnson Form A 100 19 22 25 Johnson Form B 100 15 27 32 O' Johnson Form C County 1982 100 516 13 18 22 25 34 39 One final survey supports the existence of the evacuation shadow phenomenon and the fact that it could assume major proportions in the event of a radiological emergency at 1
Shoreham. In May, 1983, LILCO retained the firm of Yankelovich, Skelly and White, Inc. ("YSW") to conduct a large scale study of the possible reactions of Long Island residents I to a radiological emergency at the Shoreham Nuclear Power Plant. The sample design utilized by YSW was essentially the same as that employed by Suffolk County in its 1982 survey.
The YSW report and questionnaire are Attachment 7 hereto. '
l l
l
YSW designed its questionnaire to inquire about people's 1
reactions to modified versions of the three scenarios posed by l the County. Each scenario was posed in two parts. The initial question approximated the County's question for that scenario.
Based on the initial question for each scenario, YSW found that a total of 17 percent of Long Island residents (compared with 25 percent on the County survey) would evacuate for the first scenario, that 28 percent (compared with 34 percent on the County survey) would evacuate for the second scenario; and that 43 percent (compared with 50 percent on the County survey) would evacuate for the third scenario.
YSW then utilized a follow-up question for each scenario in which all respondents were asked again what they would do if they were told that those persons not advised to take a protec-tive action should go about their normal business. According to YSW, the basis for the follow-up question was to present
" respondents with information more in line with that which would be available in a real emergency notification." (Attach-ment 7, at 9-10.) Combining data from the evacuation question and the follow-up question, YSW found a total of 12 percent of the two-county population evacuating for the first scenario, 21 percent for the second scenario, and 29 percent (almost one-third of Long Island) for the third scenario. I will explain l
\
) later in this testimony why I believe that the estimates obtained by the YSW follow-up questions are not as accurate as those obtained by either the County's 1982 study, the Newsday s tudie s , or the YSW initial question. However, even taking the YSW figures at face value, we can still see that a very substantial portion of Long Island residents would evacuate contrary to instructions.
Surveys as Predictors of Behavior Q. Are surveys useful tools for emergency planning purposes, particularly as a means to attempt to predict human behavior?
A. Yes. In my opinion, surveys provide important data that should be used by emergency planners in developing and s evaluating the workability of an emergency plan. Surveys are used in a wide range of fields to predict accurately human re-sponse to future events. Of course, a poorly designed survey will achieve flawed results; but a well-conceived survey such as was performed for Suffolk County can provide valuable and accurate information to emergency planners.
There are essentially two ways to attempt to assess how people will react to a radiological emergency. First, one can look at how people have acted in similar emergencies in the past. The problem with this approach for predicting the behavior of people in a radiological emergency is that only one
~ ,)
) such event has occurred--the accident at Three Mile Ir, land. In fact, what actually happened at Three Mile Island is one indicator of what might happen if a similar radiological emer-gency were to occur at Shoreham . See Testimony of Drs. Johnson and Zeigler on Contention 23 and Testimony of Drs. Erikson and Johnson on Contention 25.
I have heard it argued that the behavior of people in other types of emergencies, such as floods, hurricanes, or earthquakes, can be used to predict how people will behave in a radiological emergency. In light of the testimony of Drs.
Johnson, Zeigler, Erikson and Saegert, I find this argument unconvincing. (See Johnson and Zeigler testimony on Contention
~
23; Erikson and Johnson testimony on Contention 25; Saegert
testimony on Contention 65 ) . As these witnesses have stated, natural disasters, such as floods, hurricanes, and earthquakes, are events which most people understand and have grown up with in their environment. They know what to expect. They know what the dangers are. They know that when the natural disaster is over, the danger will be ended.
Radiological emergencies are very different. Virtually
~
l nobody who would be exposed to a radiological emergency, were an accident to occur at Shoreham, has ever experienced one b e fo re . The fear that people have of a radiological emergency i
l () .
I
is substantially greater than fear of a natural disaster such as a hurricane. Radiation cannot be seen, felt, or heard and is therefore considerably more frightening to most people than natural disasters. (See Testimony of Johnson, Zeigler and Saegert on Contention 65). In addition, the effects of expo-sure to radiation on an individual may not appear until long after the time of exposure, in some cases more than 25 years after. Because natural disasters are so different from radiological emergencies, it is not logical to assume that peo-ple will react in the same way to these events.
The second way to estimate how people will behave in a radiological emergency is to conduct surveys with the poten-tially affected people and ask them how they would behave under specified conditions. Given the very large number of variables that could affect the behavior of a particular individual in a particular radiological emergency, survey research on this topic is not aimed at predicting precisely what a particular individual will do. Rather, the purpose of survey research is to assess the general attitudes of the population toward a radiological emergency: in general, how frightened are people of a nuclear accident and how likely are they to leave their homes to remove themselves and their families from any possible radiation contact? Survey research is tne best available l
-v- -
.,a - ,e,
O y,j method to answer this question and survey data provide us better data than any other existing data on this topic. In fact, when the results of the survey conducted for the County are compared with the actual behavior of individuals at the only radiological emergency to occur -- Three Mile Island -- we find a high level of correspondence between what people on Long Island tell us they would do and what people at Three Mile Is-land actually did do. For these reasons, I believe that the results of the County survey should be taken into account in developing any emergency plan or assessing the implementability of any such plan for responding to an emergency at Shoreham.
Q: During discovery in this proceeding, several LILCO
(~g consultants criticized the County's survey and questioned
(-) whether social surveys such as you performed are useful in predicting how individuals will respond to a radiological emer-gency. Are you aware of those criticisms .nd do you have any comments?
A: Yes. I am familiar with these criticisms. Thus, Dr.
Mileti who consults for LILCO has stated:
A survey or poll that asks people to specu-late about how they think they might behave in some future emergency can catalogue well the answers that are given if the poll is done well, but may be misleading to some because they might tend to believe that that is how actual behavior would occur in the future, and that is not likely shnply because emergencies by definition are
() unique circumstances and behavior in emergencies is largely situationally deter-mined. That is, it is the result of factors that operate to influence behavior during an emergency, and on a poll or on a l I
survey, folks who are speculating about their behavior are very much unaware of '
what those factors may indeed be during the emergency.
Mileti Dep., 8/25/83, p. 183 5/
6/ A similar LILCO critique was expressed in a document enti-
~
tied "Information Regarding the LILCO-Sponsored Survey of Long Island Residents," which stated:
, Speculation about individual behavior i during a hypothetical emergency situa-
', tion is permeated with pitfalls --
() even if such speculation is based on responses to a public opinion poll.
Research has shown that individual behavior during an actual emergency is determined by a complex set of social processes: people respond in an emer-gency situation after talking with others, seeing activities going on around them, acting to maintain group cohesion; and a host of other factors.
The influence of these many factors on an individual during an emergency sit-uation goes far beyond t.he scope of an opinion poll. As a result of this limitation; polling responses cannot l
be employed to accurately predict fu-ture behavior in the event of an emer-gency.
l Produced in response to Suffolk County informal discovery re-l quest 28 of July 18, 1983.
1
__ ,~
i I agree with one point made by the LILCO consultants but strongly disagree with their overall conclusions. All people 4
involved in the study of evacuation, whether they be consul-tants for LILCO or for Suffolk County, agree that the results of a social survey cannot be used to predict precisely which individuals or precisely how many individuals would evacuate in any given radiological emergency. The reactions of particular individuals will be heavily influenced by the particular 3
circumstances that they find themselves in at the time. Since these circumstances cannot be precisely predicted, there might be substantial variation between how a particular individual answers a question on a survey and how that individual might respond to a given emergency. The possibility of such varia-O tion does not, however, negate the usefulness of survey data.
It seems clear that the variation in actual response vs. the response predicted by a survey could easily be in any direc-tion, including a greater tendency to evacuate, rather than less. The fact remains, however, that the survey data are the
- best estimate of what people are likely to do.
l The LILCO critics seem to argue, however, that since social surveys have limitations in predicting the precise number of people who would evacuate for a given accident, we should conclude that they are of little or no value. It is on
.-. . - - - , , , . . . . . - - ,-,e--. .v ~, . - - - - - -
this point that I disagree sharply. Limitations in the accuracy of a predictor do not mean that the predictor has no value. Even highly developed sciences such as particle physics depend upon probabilistic notions. What surveys can do, and what in this case they have done, is to provide emergency plan-ners with the best estimates available of the magnitude of evacuation responses.
All the surveys conducted, whether they be those sponsored by the County, by LILCO, or by the media, show large numbers of people saying that they would evacuate in case of a radiological emergency at the Shoreham Nuclear Power Plant.
Can these surveys be used to predict precisely how many people
() will evacuate?
ning? Yes.
No. Are they useful tools in emergency plan-Since it is impossible to predict before an accident what type of accident will occur and under what circumstances, a useful emergency plan must be prepared for all types of accidents, including the most serious. All the surveys conducted strongly suggest that especially under the circumstances of a serious accident at Shoreham, a very signif-icant problem would be created by the large numbers of people who tried to evacuate on the limited highways available on Long Island.
k d , , __. . . - - .- _ _ -
There is one additional point that I would like to make about the use of surveys in predicting behavior during a nucle-ar emergency. Although it is true that the behavior of any given individual is going to be determined by the circumstances that he/she faces at the time of a nuclear accident, this does not mean that surveys such as those which have been conducted on Long Island are of no value in predicting individual behavior. Suppose that an actual radiological emergency at Shoreham were to occur and we had data on how every member of all the various studies that have been done behaved during that emergency. We then would be able to classify every respondent as to whether or not they actually evacuated or did not evacu-ate. There would almost certainly be a meaningful correlation
(
between responses given by individuals to the survey question and their actual behavior. It is impossible without the actual data in hand to even speculate about what the size of this cor-relation would be. Anybody predicting individual behavior, however, would have a significantly better chance of predicting behavior on the basis of responses to the survey questions than not having any information at all.
Another critique that has been made of the County survey is that the results of the survey were " biased" as a result of the specific wording of questions or the placement of l
() questions. Some specific examples are discussed hereafter.
Let me note, however, that whether a particular survey or question is biased cannot be determined in any scientific way.
It was possible to demonstrate with data that the C-11ow-up questions used in the YSW survey confused respondents and are less meaningful than responses given to the initial YSW question. (See later discussion in this testimony.) No data have ever been presented to me which show that the Suffolk County survey was either biased or confusing.
The best evidence that any bias which may have existed had no substantive influence on the main conclusion of the County survey is the fact that all the various surveys conducted, whether paid for by the County or LILCO or Newsday all show the importance of the evacuation shadow phenomenon, finding only minor differences in its size.
A further critique of the Suffolk County survey made by Dr. Mileti and Bill Johnson has to do with the categories of scme of the questions used in the survey. In my opinion, most of these criticisms are either irrelevant or of very little significance because they deal with questions which are not crucial in interpreting the results of the survey. However, the categories employed for the evacuation questions, which were crucial in forming conclusions from the survey, were Os s
. . ~ - --< ,- - . . - - . , , .-, , - , . - -n n-. .
l l
\
s/ criticized as being neither mutually exclusive nor exhaustive .2/
In general, I agree that it is desirable to have question categories which are both mutually exclusive and exhaustive.
Some time s , however, because of the complexity of the variable s tudied, it is difficult and perhaps undesirable to create such categories. (Indeed some questions used by YSW did not employ mutually exclusive response categories.) Response to a radiological emergency is one of these situations. There are literally an infinite number of possible responses to a radiological emergency. I believe that the categories used in j the County survey cover the great bulk of these responses.
Furthermore, the primary distinction that the County was inter-
"['}
U ested in was the difference between people who would leave their home and evacuate and those who would not. This distinc-tion was clearly made in the response categories of the questions posed by the County. It would have been possible to ask respondents after reading them the scenario: "If such an accident occurred at Shoreham would you leave your home and 7/ For example, it would be possible for a person's normal i business to include staying inside their home or it would l be possible for someone to say they would do something not covered in the response categories, e.g. , go to church and pray. Thus, it is asserted that the County's questions did not cover every possibility.
O k_)
I 1
, attempt to go further away from the plant: .ye s or no? " Such a question would have choices which were both mutually exclusive and exhaustive, but it is doubtful whether responses obtained from this question would have been more predictive of actual behavior than those obtained from the County question. In fact, YSW chose to use the same response categories in its survey. The suggestion that YSW did so in order to retain comparability with the County survey is not convincing in light of the substantial other changes YSW made in the question, including specifying a more specific scenario than that used by the County. (See discussion infra).
Another critique made by LILCO consultants of the County survey was that the introduction to the County survey and the ordering of the questions created some normative pressure to have respondents attain consistency. The County survey was in-traduced by a statement in which the interviewer identified himself/herself as calling for Suffolk County. It is suggested that since the position of Suffolk County on the issue of Shoreham and evacuation was known, that people may have given the responses they thought Suffolk County wanted to hear. This i
criticism might be valid were the survey conducted today. In May, 1982, however, Suffolk County had not taken a position ~ on whether Shoreham should operate or whether emergency O g 1
l
1 l
l h
\s / preparedness is feasible on Long Island. At the time we were conducting this survey, Suffolk County was attempting to develop an evacuation plan which would be utilized if the Shoreham plant was licensed and operated. It is only in February, 1983, after this survey was conducted and Suffolk County's consultants developed a draft emergency plan, that the County decided to oppose the opening of Shoreham. Thus, it is unlikely that the identification of the interviewers as calling for Suffolk County had any substantial effect at all on re-sponses given to the survey conducted in May 1982.
A similar critique was that the County asked respondents their opinion on whether Shoreham should open or not prior to asking questions on the evacuation scenarios. It was suggested that if a respondent said that Shoreham should not open, he would then give an evacuation response to the scenarios in order to support this "value" position. Mileti dep., p. 216.
Although it is bnpossible to prove that this contention is in-correct, it seems highly inplausible. In order for this cri-tique to be correct, respondents would have had to know that the infeasibility of evacuation would be a major reason for op-l position to the plant. At the time the survey was conducted, there was probably very little knowledge among the general pop-ulation about the significance of evacuation. The survey data l
J
s ,l s do show that people who are against Shoreham are more likely to say that they will evacuate than those people who are in favor of Shoreham. The more plausible explanation for this correla-tion is that both responses -- attitudes towards Shoreham and evacuation -- are influenced by the same variable: fear of ra-diation from nuclear power plants. People who have greater fear of radiation are more likely to be against the opening of the plant and are more likely to say that they would evacuate if there were an accident at the plant.
In sum, there fore , I do not believe that the criticisms I have heard of the County survey raise any substantial question regarding the validity and usefulness of the survey data.
( Criticisms of the YSW Survey Q. Do you believe that the results of the YSW survey are re-liable predictors of how people will behave in a radiological emergency?
A. It is my opinion that the YSW survey instrument was constructed in such a way as to reduce the number of people saying that they would evacuate, that the format of the YSW follow-up evacuation questions confused the respondents and put normative pressure on respondents to say that they would not evacuate, that the low completion rate for the survey raises questions of whether the sample is representative of the
(, -
o
t
( population, and that the method in which the data from the initial evacuation questions and the follow-up questions were i
combined was inadequate. Nonetheless, despite the criticisms that I have of the YSW survey (which I discuss in more detail b elow ) , I believe that the results obtained from the YSW ini-tial evacuation questions are further confirmation that a sig-nificant amount of voluntary evacuation can be predicted if there is an accident at Shoreham.
Q. You mentioned that the low completion rate for the YSW survey raises questions about whether it is representative of the population. Please explain.
A. Sample surveys are only useful to the extent that they are representative of the populations they are aimed at studying .
(
In all surveys there are some eligible respondents in the sam-ple who refuse to participate. Survey researchers are always concerned that non-participants would respond differently than did participants to some of the basic questions that the survey aims at answering. This is cause for concern if there is a substantial proportion of eligible respondents who refuse to participate.
A survey completion rate is the proportion of people interviewed, divided by the total number of people eligible to be interviewed in the sample. There are many different ways of
' f]
t_,
i I
i l
() computing this rate. One method widely used by commerical research companies is to divide the total number of completed l
- interviews by the sum of the number of completed interviews plus the number of refusals.
! Computing the completion rate for the YSW survey reveals that interviews were completed with only 46 percent of the eli-gible respondents. In comparison, the County's completion rate was 63 percent. The fact that 54 percent refused to partici-
- pate in the YSW survey casts doubt on whether the results from the sample can be generalized to the population.
Q. You said before that the YSW survey instrument was
- constructed in such a way as to reduce the number of people
() saying they would evacuate. Could you explain this?
It is my opinion that the YSW questionnaire was worded in A.
a manner which had the effect of reducing the number of people i who would respond that they would evacuate when compared with the figures obtained from the County survey. Let me begin by l stating that it is also my opinion that whether a question or a questionnaire can be considered to be " biased" is not a matter which can be scientifically proven. It is possible, however,
, to point out how specific wording of a questionnaire might in-i
, fluence the type of responses given by respondents.
I
.- _ - . - , , . -, _ _ . . _ _ - - . _ . _ . _ . . - , . . . , . _ ...____.-...,__..m_,
y s'
/
() One of the most serious problems that survey researchers must contend with is what is called " normative" responding.
/ ,
For any behavior or attitude for which society believes ;that there is a socially appropriate way to behave or th' ink, it is -
possible that respondents to a survey will tell you they are l behaving or thinking that way in order to conform to social ex- -
pectations or norms, even if their actual behavior or att'itudes differ. A clear example of this can be seen when citizens are asked whether or not they have participated in an election by voting. There is a social norm or expectation in our society that people should vote. Many people, however, do not vote.'
1 When respondents are asked whether they intend to vote or actu-
~ ally have voted, some people tell us that they have voted when in fact they have not. A study which I conducted on this topic for Newsday showed that approximately 25 percent of respondedts '
who said they had voted actually had not in a gubernatorial election in New York State. Survey instruments,;must, there-fore, be developed carefully to ensure that normative re-sponding is minimized.
The introductory statement utilized by YSW in its survey I could have served to set up normative responses. .After being contacted by telephone, respondents were told "We-are inter-viewing a number of people to find out how they 'think they e
(
i
- ~
l
- e l
\ , ?
l
I
/^N
( ,) would react in an emergency." There are social expectations or norms that define how people are supposed to act in an emergen-cy. One such expectation is that an individual should not over-react and should obey official instructions.
By stating at the outset that the purpose of the YSW survey was to determine how the respondents would react in an emergency, the YSW questionnaire could have influenced the results in two different ways. First, because of normative pressures, respondents who felt that they might not react as they are supposed to could have been more likely to refuse to participate in the survey. This could be one reason for YSW's low completion rate. It also could have caused a significant drop in the proportion of people who said that they would evac-
~
uate when asked the evacuation scenario questions later in the survey. Second, defining the purpose of the survey as "to find out how people would react in an emergency" could have suggested to respondents that there was an appropriate way to react to radiological emergencies, thus increasing the proportion who said they would not evacuate.
Q. Do you have any concerns with the actual wording of the initial YSW evacuation questions?
A. Yes, I believe that the relatively small differences in results between the County survey and those obtained from the c - 41 '--
N_,]3 -
)
() initial YSW questions result frcm the fact that the two surveys did not ask about the same scenarios. It should be clear that the more serious an accident is, the greater will be the size of the evacuation shadow phenomenon. The primary reason why YSW found a slightly smaller evacuation shadow in response to their initial question than the County did in the May, 1982 survey was YSW's use of more specific and less serious scenar-ios than the County survey.
kil three of the YSW scenarios included subtle changes to the County's scenarios which served to decrease slightly the severity of the described accident situations. For instance, for the first scenario, the County's survey advised that people
/g living within five miles of the plant should shelter. On the U other hand, for the same scenario, YSW aaid that "all people who lived within five miles of the plant were advised to stay indoors for several hours." (emphasis added). By stating that people would have to stay indoors "for several hours," YSW was describing a scenario that could be perceived as less serious than the County's. The scenario used by the County could cover a broad range of possible accidents. For example, sheltering j might be required for a day, rather than for several hours.
l YSW has thus selected a less serious scenario from among the range of accidents that would be covered by the County l
V Na
- b. _ , , , , . -
scenario. Although these are relatively minor wording changes, they could account for the minor differences in results observed between the two surveys. The same can be said for wording changes in the second and third scena rios.8/ I believe that in all three cases the slightly decreased severity of the accident probably accounts for most of the difference observed 8/ If we look at the second and third YSW scenarios we will also see that they are different from the scenarios used by the County. In each case they are more specific and present a scenario that could possibly be interpreted by the respondents as being less serious than the more general scenario presented in the County survey. For ex-ampl e, in the second County scenario we simply said that there had been an accident at the Shoreham Nuclear Pc';er Plant. For the second YSW survey, respondents were told that there was an accident at the Shoreham Nuclear Power Plant "that created'a possibility of increasing the level Os of radiation around the plant." This wording implies that no radiation had actually been released. It is possible that for the same type of evacuation advisory, some radia-tion could already have been released. Therefore, out of all the possible scenarios that would call for this type of evacuation advisory, the YSW questionnaire emphasized one which may appear to resondents to be on the mild side.
For the third scenario the County once again said "there was an accident at the Shoreham Nuclear Power Plant." The YSW questionnaire added the words "that created a greater risk of releasing' radiation into the area around the plant." Again, the YSW question suggests that no radia-tion may actually have escaped. Yet, for everyone within a 10 mile radius to be advised to evacuate, possibly the most drastic evacuation advisory under existing federal regulations, it is possible that a considerable amount of radiation would have already been released into the atmo-sphere. Therefore, out of all the variations that could be covered under the County's general scenario, YSW empha-sized a relatively less serious scenario.
O . .
k l
ll 1
between the answers given to YSW's initial evacuation questions j i I
- and those obtained by the County survey.
l It could, of course, be debated as to which of the two surveys was "less biased" or presented a more " accurate" i picture of what might happen during a nuclear accident. I believe that such a debate would be fruitless. It comes as no surprise that if people are asked to say what they would do for l
! two different scenarios, one of which is a more general scenar-3 io and the other a more specific scenario in which the seri-i ausness of the accident is minimized, they will be less likely i to say they will evacuate when presented the information on the latter scenario, i
YSW's survey may or may not correspond more precisely with i actual accidents at the plant. It is possible that an accident j at the plant requiring a particular evacuation advisory could be more or less serious than indicated by a specific YSW or County scenario. This is one reason why answers to these type of questions provide relatively accurate measures of the f
- general magnitude of evacuation responses, but not precise estimates of how many people will evacuate for any given accident.
l
! That the changes in the wording of the scenarios for the YSW questionnaire account for the small differences observed
~
)
1
() between their results and those of the County, can be i
demonstrated by comparing the Johnson survey, the YSW survey, and the County survey. The Johnson survey was conducted in April, 1983, just a few weeks before the YSW survey. Since these two surveys were conducted almost at the same time, we can safely assume that attitudes of Long Island residents to-ward evacuation were approximately the same at the time when the Johnson survey was conducted as the time when the YSW survey was conducted. It will be recalled from the analysis of Table 1, that the Johnson survey Forms B and C -- those which were practically identical to the County survey -- obtained results which were not significantly different from those ob-tained by the County. Thus, we car assume that if the County survey had been conducted in April, 1983 instead of May, 1982, it would have come up with approximately the same results.
In Table 2 below, we present data from the initial YSW evacuation questions the County evacuation questions broken a
down by geographical zone. There are a total of 18 different comparisons that can be made. In every single one of these 18 comparisons, the YSW survey showed a smaller proportion of re-sidents saying that they would evacuate than did the County survey. Furthermore, using the two sample test ( see footnote 5, supra) for a difference between proportions, we computed p 1 G
-- - _ _ . . . . _ - - . . . . . _ _ . - . _ . . _ _ - - _ - . _ _ . . . _ _ _ _ - . ~ _ . . . . - - . - . - .
I whether each of the 18 differences were statistically
)
significant. Only two of the differences -- those for Nassau j County scenario two and the five mile zone scenario three --
Q were not statistically significant at the .05 level. This
}
means that the differences in the estimates of the size of the l evacuation shadow phenomenon obtained from the two surveys are j not very likely to be a result of chance sampling fluctuation.
I I
f 1
j 1
l l
l i
i 1
i i
I L
TABLE 2
- Comparison of Results Obtained From Initial YSW Evacuation Questions and County Evacuation Questions 9/
(Percent Saying They Would Evacuate)
Zone 6-10 Eastern Western 5 miles miles Suffolk Su f folk Nassau Total Scenario 1 YSW 24 28 12 21 12 17 (522) (514) (485) (626) (404) (c.1000)
County 40 40 22 34 18 25 (527) (551) (543) (458) (516) (c.1000);
i Scenario 2 YSW 47 42 22 35 23 28 I
(522) (514) (485) (626) (484) (c.1000)
County 57 52 30 44 25 34 (527) (551) (543) (458) (516) (c.1000)
, icenario 3 YSW 74 72 39 56 33 43 l (522) (514) (485) (626) (484) (c.1000) l l County 78 78 46 63 39 50 l (527) (551) (543) (458) '516) (c.1000)'
Since the Johnson survey demonstrated that had the County l
survey been repeated at the same time, we would not have l
l 9/ The number of cases for each cell are presented in parentheses. Since both surveys used weighted data to obtain estimates for the total Nassau and Suffolk County population, .the relevant sample size figure for computing the sampling error is approximately 1000 for both surveys.
1 i
) obtained significantly different results, we can conclude that the differences between the results of the County survey and the initial questions of the YSW survey are a result of the wording changes in the YSW survey.
O. Yo u stated earlier that the way in which YSW combined the results from its initial evacuation question and the follow-up question was inadequate. Please explain.
A. YSW used a format under which evacuation questions approximating the County's questions were posed to respondents.
After each evacuation question, the respondent was then asked a follow-up question as to what he or she would do if the message included a statement that those not advised to take protective i
actions could go about their normal business. Tables 14-16 of the YSW report show the responses to the three scenarios. The bottom half of each table purports to describe the responses to the follow-up question. However, the results reported by YSW for the follow-up question do not reflect the actual responses given. By means of calculations only briefly described in the YSW report (Attachment 7, p. 104), YSW analyzed the raw data it compiled in such a way as to reduce the number of respondents who said they would evacuate in response to the follow-up 1
questions. Let me describe how this was done.
i
() In tabulating the responses to the follow-up questions, YSW first compared a response with the respondent's answer to the initial question. If the respondent said at first that he would not evacuate, YSW ignored the response given to the i
follow-up question, even if it differed from the response given to the initial question. If the respondent said at first he would evacuate, YSW reclassified the response by the answer given to the follow-up question. Table 3 below presents a schematic outline of the 16 possible combinations of answers that a respondent could have given to the two questions posed for the first (sheltering) scenario.
O l
?
I l
l l
(
1 I
' FABLE 3 Possible Answers Given by Respondents to Evacuation Question and Its Follow-up in YSW Survey l
l Follow-Up Question (12b)
Do what Stay Don't Initial Question (12a) normally do inside Leave know i Do what normally do 1 2 3 4 l
j Stay inside 5 6 7 8 Leave 9 10 11 12 Don't know 13 14 15 16 Each cell represents a possible combinatio.n of answers that a particular respondent could have given to the two questions. For instance, an individual may have given the same
( answers to both the initial (question 12a) and the follow-up (question 12b) question. Individuals falling into cells 1, 6, 11, and 16 in fact did give the same responses to each of the two questions. But all people falling into the other cells gave different responses to the two questions. Particularly troublesome to YSW were those people who in response to the original evacuation question said that they would not evacuate, or they did not know if they would evacuate, and then in re-sponse to the follow-up question said they would evacuate.lS/
10/ In its report, YSW states that its purpose in using the follow-up questions was to give respondents more informa-(Footnote cont'd next page)
O
() People falling into cells 3, 7, and 15 meet these criteria.
YSW classified these respondents as giving " inconsistent re-sponses," (Attachment 7, at p. 104) since, in YSW's view, more information should have led to greater compliance with the ad-visory. Th ere fo re , instead of tabulating these respondents as indicating they would evacuate, YSW reported their responses according to the way they responded to the initial question.
The result was to reduce, without basis, the number of people reported as saying they would evacuate. In this way, the results in YSW Tables 14-16 do not accurately reflect all the people who indicated an intention to evacuate in response to YSW's follow-up questions. Thus, YSW's reported figures are inaccurate. The correct figures are found in Tables 28, 31 and 34 of the YSW cross-tabulation which Suffolk County obtained through discovery (Attachments 8, 9 and 10). If the figures from those cross-tabs were accurately reported in the YSW report, it would reflect slightly higher proportions of people who would evacuate under the evacuation scenarios.
It should be pointed out that YSW only reclassified "in-consistent" responses that would have increased the numbers (Footnote cont'd from previous page) tion so they would respond more " appropriately" -- that is in conformance with the evacuation advisory. See Attach-ment 7 at 34, 36, fn.3.
T i
l i
I evacuating. Other " inconsistent" responses, such as those which would not have increased the proportion evacuating, were left alone by YSW. It is a fundamental error in analyzing survey data to impose the analyst's notion of consistency or rationality on the respondent. If YSW had actually ignored all the " inconsistent" responses, it would have had to ignore the response to the second question of a significant portion of the s ampl e.
Q. If YSW had analyzed the results of these questions in a different way, do you think that the follow-up question would have yielded accurate estimates of the size of the evacuation i
shadow phenomenon?
() A. No. I believe that the follow-up question asked by YSW served to confuse the respondents and place normative pressure on them to say that they would not take any precautionary measures. I believe that data obtained frm the YSW cross-tabs and data revealed in the YSW report itself demonstrate that the follow-up question did not provide a more reliable estimate of the size of the evacuation shadow phenomenon than did the ini-tial question.
The first specific question on evacuation, question 12A, ,
begins with the following statement: " Understanding that you may not have given this issue much thought to this point, let D
d 1 1
I l
I me pose some hypothetical situations." (Attachment , at 90).
1 Defining the situation for the respondent as one to which he l 1
had not given much thought could have served to undermine the respondent's level of certainty in the answer that he gave to question 12A, therefore increasing the likelihood that the respondent would change his/her mind when asked the follow-up question, 12B.
The follow-up question could have had the effect of creating normative response among the people being interviewed by implicitly suggesting that they would be acting "irratio-nally" if they did not say they would do just as the evacuation advisory told them to de. It is always possible on any ques-tionnaire to ask a follow-up question which will cause some proportion of the people to change their minds. What would have happened, however, if YSW, instead of asking the follow-up question that it did ask, had asked the following question to people who said they would not evacuate: "What if you saw that many of your friends and neighbors were packing their families into cars and were leaving the area, would you evacuate then?"
This, indeed, is the situation that many Long Island residents who told the YSW interviewers they would not evacuate will ac-tually face in case of a real emergency. Below I shall present data which demonstate that the YSW follow-up question confused O l U
m
l l
people and pressured them into saying that they would not evacuate even in situations where evacuation was the
" appropriate" response for them to take.
As noted above, YSW's purpose in using the follow-up format was to give respondents more information so that they would respond more " appropriately," that is, so that they would respond more in conformity with the instructions given in the evacuation scenarios. However, the follow-up question, rather than serving to increase " appropriate" re s'po nses , in fact confused the respondents and increased " inappropriate" re-sponses among many groups. This can be demonstrated by refer-ence to Table 4 below.
TABLE 4 Answers Given to Most Serious Scenario Question and Follow-up: YSW Survey i % Saying they would evacuate Initial Question Follow-Up Question Area 0 16 C 17 5 miles 74 59 6-10 miles 71 55 Eastern Suffolk 39 25 Western suffolk 56 39
- Nassau 33 22 Source
- YSW Tab Runs Tables 33 and 34 I- J
The first column of Table 4 shows the proportion of people in each of the geographical zonc. Who said that they would evacuate when first read the third (or most serious) evacuation scenario. The second column, h ead ed by " O 17, " shows the
! proportion of people who said they would evacuate when given the additional information in the follow-up question. In every case the proportion of people saying they would evacuate when asked the follow-up question is significantly smaller than the proportion of people saying they would evacuate when asked the initial question. YSW claims that this is because when people are given more complete and realistic information they will act more " appropriately."
i Let us consider what an appropriate response would be for i an individual under the most serious evacuation scenario --
scenario 3. In this scenario all individuals living within 10 miles of the plant are advised to evacuate, and all people liv-ing outside the 10 mile zone are told that they need not evacu-ate. If an appropriate response is defined as following the advice of the evacuation advisory, we can say that an appropriate response for those people living within the 10 mile j zone would be to evacuate, and an appropriate response for those people living outside the 10 mile zone would be not to evacuate. However, as is clear from Table 4, the follow-up 4
1 l
L J
) question resulted in an increase in " inappropriate" behavior for those within the EPZ.
For example, consider first those people living within five miles of the Shoreham plant. When asked the first evacua-tion question, 74 percent of them said " appropriately" that they would evacuate. When asked the follow-up evacuation question, however, only 59 percent said appropriately they would evacuate. There was, there fo re , an increase from 26 to 41 percent in the proportion of people giving an inappropriate response.
Likewise, upon examination of the responses given by peo-ple living within six to 10 miles of the plant, we find that when asked the first question, 71 percent of them said they would evacuate. When asked the follow-up question, however, only 55 percent of these people gave the appropriate response.
~
Thus, asking the follow-up question increased inappropriate re-sponses for this group from 29 to 45 percent; that is, many more people stated they would remain in the danger zone. If the follow-up question was merely providing more information which would enable people to respond more appropriately, how can it be explained that the follow-up question caused people inside the EPZ to give less appropriate responses?
, b4 q_j i
i l
According to YSW, the follow-up question brought abouc an increase in appropriate responses (and a corresponding decrease in the shadow phenomenon) of 14 percentage points among Eastern Suf folk residents, of 17 percentage points among Western Suffolk residents, and of 11 percentage points among Nassau re-sidents. (Attachment 7, Table 16, p. 43). But, according to the same logic, the follow-up question brought about a decrease in appropriate responses of 15 points among people living with-in five miles of the plant, and 16 points among people living six to 10 miles of the plant. In short, for people living in all areas, we see somewhere between an 11 and a 17 point de-l crease in the proportion saying they would evacuate when asked the follow-up question whether such a response was appropriate
{G~] or not. These data strongly suggest that the respondents to the YSW survey were confused by the follow-up format and that the answers people gave to the initial YSW questions are more meaningful than the constructed answers YSW reports from a com-
~
i bination of the first question with the follow-up question.
l l A second example of confusion caused by the follow-up questions is provided by the responses given to the first evac- "
uation scenario. In this scenario all people living within five miles of the plant are advised to take shelter. There-fore, an " appropriate" response for these people would be to 1
3 J
J
) take shelter. An " inappropriate" response would be either to go about one's normal business or to evacuate. The data are presented in Table 5 below.
l TABLE 5 Answers Given to First Evacuation Scenario Question and Follow-up in YSW Survey: Respondents Living Within Five Miles of the Plant Initial Follow-Up Question Question Q 12A Q 12B Do what would normally do 2 14 Stay inside home 71 54 Leave home/go somewhere else 24 29 Uncertain /no answer 3 3 Total 100% 100%
'~'
The first column shows the responses given by people liv-ing within the five mile zone to the initial evacuation question for scenario one. Only two percent of the people gave an inappropriate response by completely ignoring the sheltering advisory and saying they would go about their normal business; 71 percent said that they would heed the advice of the advisory and stay inside their homes; 24 percent gave an inappropriate response by saying they would evacuate; and three percent said they didn' t know what they would do.
a
/
kmg/ When the same group of people was asked the YSW follow-up question, we see a considerable change in the pattern of re-sponses. As can be seen in Table 5, when asked the follow-up question, the proportion of people saying that they would com-pletely ignore the evacuation advisory--thus acting in an inap-propriate manner--increased from two to 14 percent, a 700 percent increase. And, the proportion of people who responded inappropriately by saying they would evacuate increased from 24 percent to 29 percent. (It is this five point increase that YSW considered " inconsistent" in its report and therefore ig-nored in the tabulations presented in Table 14 of the YSW re po rt. ) The proportion of people who would respond appropriately and take shelter declined from 71 to 54 percent, a decrease in appropriate behavior of 17 percentage points.
A third example of confusion caused by the YSW fo llow-up questions concerns YSW's second scenario. In this scenario all pregnant women and pre-school children living within five miles of the plant were advised to evacuate and everyone else living within 10 miles of the plant was advised to take shelter. An appropriate response, therefore, for people living in this area would be for the few families with pregnant women and pre-school children to evacuate and for the rest of the people to take shelter. The data are presented in Table 6 below.
i
[/
( 1 J
l N
TABLE 6 l Answers Given to Second Evacuation Scenario Question and Follow-up in YSW Survey: Respondents Living Within Ten Miles of the Plant j Initial Question Follow-up Question 0 14A O 14B Do what would normally do 6% 18%
Stay inside home 48 41 Leave home/go somewhere else 44 39 Uncertain /no answer 2 2 Total 100% 1 00 %
Source: YSW Tab Run s , Tables 30 and 31 The first column of Table 6 shows the responses that peo-ple living within 10 miles of the plant gave to the first question. Only six percent gave an inappropriate response by saying that they would ignore the evacuation advisory and do what they normally do. However, when asked the follow-up question, the proportion giving an inappropriate response in-creased 300 percent to 18 percent. Once again, we can see how the follow-up question in the YSW survey shnply caused people to say they would be less likely to respond to an evacuation advisory whether asked to or not.
There is one final example of confusion caused by the YSW
! follow-up questions. YSW interviewed 128 families within the O - so -
g .
j
() five mile zone who told the interviewers that they had either pre-school children or a pregnant woman in the household. The data presenting their answers to the second evacuation question and the follow-up are shown in Table 7 below.
TABLE 7 Answers Given to Second Evacuation Scenario by Respondents Living Within Five Miles of the Plant with Pre-school Children or Pregnant Women in the Household, YSW Survey Answers Answers Given to Given to Intial Follow-Up Data in Question Question YSW Report O 14 0 14a Table 23 Do what would normally do 2 4 4 Stay inside home 13 22 25 Leave home/go somewhere else 85 72 69 Uncertain /no answer 0 2 2 Total 100% 100% 100%
^
N = 128 Source: YSW Tab Runs (Table 30) and YSW Report When these 128 respondents were first asked what they would do given the second scenario, only two percent said that they would go about their normal business, only 13 percent said that they would take shelter, and 85 percent said that they would pay attention to the evacuation advisory and evacuate the area. How did this same group of people respond when asked the
_- _ - _- _ . _ _ . - _ . = . - . - - - . - - - -
() YSW follow-up question? In the second column of Table 7 we can see that when asked the follow-up question, four percent of the j
f amilies with pre-school aged children and pregnant women said that they would completely ignore the evacuation advisory and 4
go about their normal business, an additional 22 percent said 4
that they would ignore the evacuation advisory and stay inside their homes, 72 percent said that they would evacuate as advised, and two percent said they had no opinion. Thus, the proportion of this group of respondents giving " inappropriate" responses increased from 15 to 28 percent.
How can these increasco in inappropriate responses be explained? It seems clear that the YSW follow-up questions served both to confuse the respondent and to put some normative pressure on respondents to say that they would not evacuate.
If, for exmnple, an individual lived 20 miles or more away from the plant and was told that nobody living more than 10 miles from the plant would be in any danger, the individual, perhaps because of intense fear of a nuclear accident, might be likely to say he would evacuate. However, when asked another question i after he gives his answer in which the " irrationality" of his response is quite clearly implied, is it any wonder that a sig-l nificant portion of these people changed their stated response to give the more " rational" or " appropriate" response that was implictly expected?
i 1
.a
() All these data on how respondents answered the follow-up questions employed in the YSW survey strongly suggest that the follow-up questions yielded less meaningful and less interpretable results than did the initial questions. The YSW data themselves provide evidence that the follow-up questions introduced confusion rather than clarification into the minds of the respondents. While the exmnples I have offered all consist of data from people interviewed within the EPZ, they are also applicable to respondents outside the EPZ. If the follow-up questions confused and put normative pressure on the more than one thousand YSW respondents who lived within the EPZ, there is no reason to assume that they would not have had the same effect on respondents living outside the EPZ.
Given the fact that the follow-up question did not provide l
any additional meaningful info rmation, the only relevant data from the YSW survey on the proportions of people likely to evacuate under the various scenarios are those obtained from the initial evacuation questions for each of the three scenar-ios. As we have shown above, although these data suggest smaller proportions of people evacuating than did the survey conducted by Suffolk County, they strongly support the conclu-sion of Suffolk County that one result of a radiological emer-gency at Shoreham would be large numbers of evacuees attempting to leave Long Island although not advised to do so.
l V .
) Q. Please summarize your conclusions regarding contention 23.
A. Surveys provide useful information about how a population will react to an emergency in the future, although they do not lead to precise predictions of how many will evacuate in a specific accident. Surveys conducted on Long Island show that thousands, even hundreds of thousands of families will seek to evacuate in the event of an emergency at Shoreham. The vast majority of these evacuees will not have been advised to evacu-ate. The large number of extra evacuees on the roads must be considered by planners in deciding whether it is feasible to develop a workable plan for response to a Shoreham accident.
O
- a a -.a-whew nw.mm-e Me.a m 4.s_.Mh=6 4 w 5-h-4 4. h AM A-4 g- 44-.- - -"_ mmA _ man,Aa.am_,___A AAma ,,
- l i
1 t 4
t I
r I
i I
1 1
I i
i l
4 ;
+
f
- l e
l ATTACHMENT 1 :
I i
l I
l F
1 i
l i
i a
I t
l I
I f
1 I
1
\
l l
e ---e-,- ,, . - . - ~ . wmm- --w---wwe- o w- ---a- -e,- - - e--- m-w-- --ne-n- ,--, , -_____ - ,,_ -_ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ . _ _ _- - - - -, ______ - - , ,-w----r-----, r,-ow--r
l \ ATTACEMENT 1
- ~ '
J i
i, Vita l Stephen Cole ,
L
- Birth Date
- June 1, 1941 Marital Status: Married, two children l
Home Address: 1 Evans Lane Setauket, New York 11733 Phone: 516-751-6414 State University of New York at Stony Brook Office Address:
] Department of Sociology Stony Brook, New York 11794 Phone: 516-246-3439
! Education: B.A., Columbia College, 1962 f Ph.D., Columbia University, 1967 l
! Academic Appointments:
5 1964 Lecturer, Barnard College j
i 1965 Lecturer, Columbia University .
1966-67 Instructor of Sociology, Columbia University j ,h Research Associate, Bureau of Applied Social
- v 1966-76 4
Research, Columbia University 3 1967-68 Assistant Professor, Department of Sociology, i Columbia University 1968-70 Assistant Professor, Department of Sociology, l
j State University of New York at Stony Brook j 1970-73 Associate Professor, Department of Sociology, State University of New York at Stony Brook l 1973-Present Professor, Department of Sociology, State l
University of New York at Stony Brook 1977-Present Research Associate, Center for the Social Sciences, Columbia University Honorary Societies and Awards:
1962 Phi Beta Kappa, Magna Cum Laude, Columbia College i -
1962 Honorary Woodrow Wilson Fellow j 1962-63 National Science Foundation Fellow j 1963-66 National Institutes of Health, Public Health i
Service Fellow j 1963 Bobbs-Merrill Award j 1965-66 John W. Burgess Honorary Fellow of the Faculty of j Political' Science, Columbia University -
1 1971 Ford Foundation Faculty Res.earch Fellow I
~
1976 Sociological Research' Association -
I 1978-79 Guggenheim Foundation Fellowship 1978-79 Fellow, Center for Advanced Study in the-1 Behavioral Sciences, Stanford, California ;
)
- - , v.---, , -,e- - , . ,n .- --
i
- . 4
.~~~. j l
Professional Activities:
From 1966 to the present I have served as a consultant to the following organizations on various applied sociological research projects.
1966-68 Social Welfare Research Council, CUNY 1970-71 Center for Research on the Acts of Man, University of Pennsylvania i
1973-present Newsday .
1973-79 Committee on Science and Public Policy (COSPUP),
National Academy of Sciences 1977 Brookhaven National Laboratories .
1978 The Baltimore Sun 1979 National Bureau of Economic Research 1980 Gannett News Service 1981 Long Island Lighting Company
)
i . 1982 The Boston Globe 1982-83 University of California at Irvine 1982-present Suffolk County i 1974-present Editorial Board of Sociology of Education, Sociological Quarterly, American Journal of Sociology O .
l 1
l
l 1
l Publications:
BOOKS i .
1969 The Unionization of Teachers: A Case Study of the UFT. New York: Praeger Press. (Reprinted by Arno Press, 1980).
1972 The Sociological Method, 1980, 3rd enlarged edition. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company.
1973 Social Stratification in Science (with
, Jonathan R. Cole). Chicago: The University of -
Chicago Press. (Paperback edition published.
in 1981).
I 1975 The Sociological Orientation. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1979, 2nd enlarged edition.
1978 Peer Review in the National Science Foundation:
l Phase 1 (with Jonathan R. Cole and Leonard Rubin).
Washington, D.C.: National Academy of Sciences.
1981 Peer Review in the National Science Foundationt Phase II (with Jonathan R. Cole). Washington, D.C.: National Academy of Sciences.
~
1984 The Sociological Analysis of Science (with Jonathan R. Cole). Cambridge: Harvard University Press. (forthcoming)
PAPERS .
1961 "The Charitable Impulse in Victorian England,"
King's Crown Essays 9, 3-28.
1964 "Inventa y of Empirical and Theoretical Studies of Anom.e" (with Harriet A. Zuckerman). In Marshall Clinard (Ed.), Anomie and Deviant Behavior. New York: Free Press, pp. 243-313.
1967 " Scientific Output and Recognition: A Study in the Operation of the Reward System in Science" (with Jonathan R. Cole), American Sociological Review 32, 377-390. Reprinted as a Bobbs-Merrill Reprint and as an XIP Publication.
I
~
l
. ~ . . . . .
PAPERS Continued....
1968 " Visibility and the Structural Bases of Awareness in Scientific Research" (with Jonathan R. Cole),
American Sociological Review 33, 397-413.
1968 "The Unionizatio'n of Teachers: Determinants of Rank-and-File Support,'" Sociology of Education.41, 66-87. Reprinted in Donald A. Erickson (Ed.),
Educational Organization and Administration.
Berkeley: McCutchan' Publishing Corporation, 1977.
1969 " Teacher's Strike: A Study of the Conversion of Predisposition into Action," American Jor.rnal of Sociology 74, 506-520. Reprinted as Warner Modular Publication R809. Reprinted in Donald Gerwin (Ed.), The Employment of Teachers, Some Analytical Views. Berkeley: McCutchan Publishing Corporation, 1974.
1969 " Determinants of Faculty Support of Student Demonstrations" (with Hannelore Adamsons),
Sociology of Education 42, 315-329.
() 1970 " Professional Status and Faculty Support of Student Demonstrations" (with Hannelore Adamsons),
Public Opinion Quarterly 34, 389-394.
1970 " Professional Standing and .the Reception of Scientific Papers," American Journal of Sociology 76, 286-306. Reprinted as Bobbs-Merrill Reprint S-678. Reprinted in B.T. Eiduson and L. Beckman (Eds.), Scienceas a Career Choice. New York:
Russell Sage Foundation, 1973, pp. 499-512.
Reprinted in P. Weingart.(Ed.), Wissenschaftsso-ziologie I. Athenaeum Verlag, 1973.
~
1971 " Measuring the Quality of Sociological Papers" (with Jonathan R. Cole), American Sociologist 6, 23-29 1972 " Continuity and Institutionalization in. Science: A Case Study of Failure." In Anthony Obserschall (Ed.), The Establishment of Empirical Sociology.
New York: Harper and Row, pp.73-129. Reprinted in Wolf Lepennies (Ed.), Geschichte der Soziologie Suhrkamp Verlag (Frankfurt am Main), vol. 4,31-110, 1981.
(
O G
I'~ .
( )\ PAPERS Continued....
i 1972 " Illness and the Legitimation of Failure" (with Robert Lejeune), American Sociological Review 37, 347-356. Reprinted in Leo G. Reeder (Ed.), Hand-book of Scales and Indices of Health Behavior, 1977.
Reprinted in Cary S. Kart (Ed.), Dominant Issues in Medical Sociology. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley Publishing Co., 1977.
1972 "The Ortega Hypothesis" (with Jonathan R. Cole),
Science 178 (October), 368-375. Reprinted in Eire Gebhardt, Sociology of Science. New York: ,
Seabury Press, 1980.
1975 "The Grcvth of Scientific Knowledge: Theories of Deviance as a Case Study." In Lewis Coser (Ed.),
The Idea of Social Structure: Papers in Honor of Robert K. Merton. New York: Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovich, pp. 175-220.
1976 "The Reward System of the Social Sciences" (with Jonathan R. Cole). In Charles Frankel (Ed.),
Controversies and Decisions: The Social Scieness and Public Policy. New York: Russell Sage,
(/ ,
pp. 55-88.
1977 " Peer Review in the American Scientific Community" (with Jonathan R. Cole and Leonard Rubin),.
Scientific American 237, No. 4 (October), 34-41.
1978 " Measuring the Cognitive State of Scientific Disciplines" (with Jonathan R. Cole and Lorraine Dietrich). In Yehuda Elkana, Robert K. Merton, Arnold Thackray, and Harriet A. Zuckerman (Eds.),
Toward a Metric of Science: The Advent of Science Indicators. New York: John Wiley.
1978 " Scientific Reward Systems: A Comparative Analysis." In Robert Alun Jones (Ed.), Research in the Sociology of Knowledge, Science, and Art.
L . Greenwich, Conn.: Johnson Associates, Inc.
pp. 167-190.
o G
, ~_-
r, M
~ . ~ . . .
PAPERS Continued....
1979 "Which Researcher Will Get the Grant , " Nature 279, 575-576.
1979 " Comment on a paper by Michael Overington," The American Sociologist 14 (February), 17-19.
1979 " Age and Scientific Performance," American Journal of Socialogy 84, 958-977.
1980 " Comments on
- Indicators of Scientific Manpo'wer',"
Scientometrics, Vol. 2, No. 5-6, pp.~ 405-409.
1980 "The Functions of Classical Theory in Contemporary Sociological Research" (with K. Adatto). In F. Kuklick (Ed.), Research in the Sociology of-Knowledge, Science, and Art III. Greenwich, Conn.: Johnson Associates, Inc.
1981 " Chance and Consensus in Peer Review," Science 214, (20 November 1981), 881-886.
1983 "The Hierarchy of the Sciences?", American Journal of Sociology 89, 111-139.
O V
O
-su_2-.Am_-ri.2_4M_.h&MAhJm a45A-h4& &h- m.-h- -- '
-4r. m. *mN-Ae-"E-m- mwrm-ms-am--he-'-- eA--A.--m_ a-_- ---*w--a.- ma awam_..maa ,a.. a--
'I
'l 1e I
l i
l l'
t f ]
! I i ,
i
, 1 l
l i
i i
t I
i i
i t
I ATTACHMENT 2 6
)
i l
1 I
i 1
k l
l i
I l
@ l l
ATTACHIiE11T 2 ,
i l
l s.
j ATTITUDES TONARDS EVACUATION: REACTIONS OF IONG ISLAND RESIDENTS TO A POS SIBLE ACCIDENT AT THE SHOREHAM NUCLEAR POWER PLANT i
June, 1982 O
Prepared for Suffolk County by Social Data Analysts, Inc.
l 4
--p . #e, ,. ,. , , 4 achaupp
d TABLE OF CONTENTS About Social Data Analysts, Inc......................... 2 Executive Summary....................................... 3 TABLE la Answers Given to all Survey Questions Broken Down by Geographical Zone...............ll TABLE 2: Evacuation Plans by Subjective Distance From the P1 ant................................ 33 TABLE 3: Correlates of Evacuation Attitudes............ 34
. Technical Arpendix..................................... 45 Sample............................................ 45 Interviewing...................................... 48 Design of the Questionnaire....................... 50 l Analysis.......................................... 50 1 -
Tables............................................ 52 i
Tape Description.................................. 56 Questionnaire
-m-.au e man-- as*-- es-- --* * * " - - "**** '
...w- em,
l ABOUT SOCIAL DATA ANALYSTS, INC.
Social Lata Analysts, Inc. is a Long Island based research and polling company that has conducted more than 100 social surveys in the last ten years. Clients have included Newsday, The Boston Globe, The Baltimore Sun, Gannett-News l Service, Brookhaven National Laboratories, Columbia University, l the National Bureau of Economic Research, and the Long Island i Lighting Company. Social Data Analysts is a member of the National Council on Public Opinion Polls and 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
([ He is the author of seven books, including a Stony Brook.
popular research methods text and more than 25 articles published in journals such as Science, Scientific American, and Public Opinion Quarterly. Ann Harriet Cole is Director of Field Research. She received an M.A. degree in sociology from Stony Brook in 1975 and has more than 10 years of experience conducting social surveys.
I lO I
_3 EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
In order for the Long Island Lighting Company Shoreham nuclear power plant to receive an operating license from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission a satisfactory evacuation plan providing for the safety of community residents must be filed.
In order to help the County and its consultants prepare such an evacuation plan, Social Data Analysts, Inc. conducted an atti-tude survey among 2,595 residents of Nassau and Suffolk Counties. The primary aim of this survey was to find out how many and what types of residents living in different locations would evacuate under different proposed scenarios. One of the primary variables influencing the reaction of residents to a possible accident at the Shoreham nuclear power plant is the O'- distance between the respondent's home and the plant. In order to make sure that we had an adequate number of respondents living both within a five mile zone of the plant and a six to ten mile zone of the plant and on the East End of Long Island, we used a stratified random sampling technique. (See Technical Appendix) We ecmpleted 527 interviews among the 10,066 telephone subscribers living within a five mile radius of the Shoreham plant. We completed 551 interviews among the 21,060 telephone ' subscribers living within a six to ten mile zone of the plant. We completed 543 interviews among the 59,870 telephone subscribers living more than ten miles away from the plant, but East of the plant. We completed 458 interviews with Suf folk County residents who live more than ten miles away from l -
1 l
l _ _.. ._.._.. _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
the plant and West of the plant. There were 325,381 residen-tial telephone subscribers in this area. And, among the 451,075 residential telephone subscribers in Nassau County we completed 516 interviews.
Answers given to all the questions contained in the questionnaire, broken down by the geographical zone of the respondent, are presented in Table 1.
In order to find out how Long Island residents would react to s possible nuclear accident at the Shoreham nuclear power plant we asked them. what they would do in three different sce-narios. For the first one we asked the following question:
" Assuming that the Shoreham nuclear power plant is licensed and begins to operate, we are interested in knowing what you would do if there was an accident at the plant. Suppose that you and your family were at home and there was an accident at Shoreham.
All people who lived within five miles of the plant were advised to stay indoors. Do you d2 ink that you and the other members of your family would go about your norual business, or stay inside your home, or leave your home and go somewhere else?" Clearly the responses to this ques' tion must be looked at separately for people living in different areas. Among the approximataly 10,000 f amilies living within a five mile zone of the plant we found that 40% said that they would evacuate and leave their home to go someplace else. Thus, approximately 4,000 families living within the five mile zone would attempt to leave under a condition approximating that described in the O
e y-w v ,, - - w-- .,- + = - + ---!- m_ _ ,
?+r
i T
l i
s 1
i first scenario. We also found that 40% of those people who a
i lived within a five to ten mile zone of the plant, or approxi-mately 8,000 families from that area, would evacuate. Among I'
those residents of Eastern Suffolm 22% or approximately 13,000 4
f amilies would evacuate under conditions similar to those I described in scenario one. Among people living in Suffolk 4
County, but more than ten miles away from the plant and West of a
it, fully 34% (or approximately 110,000 families) said that j they would evacuate And, among Nassau County residents 18% or l
)
i' approximately 80,000 families said that they would evacuate under conditions similar to those described in scenario one.
7 If we combine all the data and look at Long Island as a unit we
! find dnat 25% of Long Island residents or approximately 217,000 l 's families would attempt to evacuate under conditions similar to j
)l those described in scenario one.
For the second scenario we asked the respondents the
] following question: " Suppose that you and your family were at
- home and there was an accident at the Shoreham nuclear power plant. All pregnant women and pre-school enildren living within five miles of the plant were advised to evacuate and everyone living between six and ten miles from the plant were advised to remain indoors. Would you and other members of your family go about your normal business, or stay inside your home, or leave your home and go somewhere else?" For this scenario we
) found 57% of people within the five mile zone (5,700 families),
} ' 52% of people in the five to ten mile zone (11,000 families), ,
30% of people in Eastern Suffolk (18,000 families), 44% of people in Western suffolk (142,000 families), and 25% of people in Nassau County (113,000 families) saying that they would eva- l 1
cuate. For the Island as a whole we find 34% or approximately ;
290,000 families saying that they would evacuate under con-ditions similar to those described in scenario two.
For the third scenario we asked the respondents the following question: " Suppose that you and your family were at home and there was an accident at the Shoreham nuclear power plant. Everyone living within ten miles of the plant was advised to evacuate. Would you and other members of your family go about your normal business, or stay inside your home, or leave your home and go somewhere else?" Under these con-
[Us.
ditions fully 78% of those living within the five mile zone (7,800 families), 78% of those living within the five to ten mile zone (16,000 families), 46% of those living in Eastern Suffolk (27,000 families), 63% of those living in Western Suffolk (205,000 families), and 39% of people living in Nassau County (175,000 families) said that they would evacuate.
Considering Long Island as a whole we find that fully 50% of the respondents, or 432,000 families, said that they would attempt to evacuate under conditions similar to those described in scenario three.
As the data reported on above indicate, the closer people actually live to the Shoreham nuclear plant the more likely they are to say that they will evacuate under the various sce-NJ
~ narios described. People living within a five mile radius of the plant are the most likely to say they wculd evacuate, and people living in Nassau County are the least likely to say that they would evacuate. Somewhat surprisingly, a relatively high proportion of people living in Western Suffolk, but more than ten miles away from the plant, say that they would evacuate under the various scenarios described. Geographical zone is a variable based upon the actual location of the repondent. We also asked the respondents to tell us about how far away from the Shoreham plant their home was. An analysis of these data separately by zone showed that the subjective assessment of the respondent of how far away their home was from the plant had very little effect on evacuation plans of people living within
(
the five mile zone, the ten mile zone, and the East End.
(See Table 2) Also the subjective distance that the respondent lives frcm the plant had no significant effect on evacuation plans of Nassau County residents. Among Western Suffolk County residents, however, the respondent's perception of how far away they lived from the plant was strongly correlated with their attitudes towards evacuation. For example' , if we consider only the first scenario we find that among those people who thought that their home was within a ten mile radius of the plant, fully 59% said they would evacuate, among those who said that they lived between 11 and 20 miles from the plant 40% said that I they would evacuate, among those who said they lived between 21 and 30 miles from the plant 18% said that they would evacuate,
- . . . - --- =-
l ____ _ - . . - . . . . - - - ..
among those who said they lived more than 30 miles from the plant 28% said they would evacuate, and among those who said thnt they did not know how far their home was from the plant 44% said that eney would evacuate. Similar results were found for the other tso scenarios.
Using answars given by the respondents to the question on the first scenario as an indicator of whether the respondents would evacuate, we cross tabulated this question with other questions included in the survey which might influence attitu-des towards evacuation. (See Table 3).
- The data in Table 3 lead to the following conclusions:
- 1. The more people are worried about the effects of all types of environmental conditions on the health and well being of their family the more likely they are to say they will evacuate. The effect is particularly strong for worry over radiation from a nuclear power plant. People who believe that living near a nuclear power plant is very dangerous are significantly more likely to say they would evaucate than those people who believe that living near a nuclear power plant is not too dangerous.
- 2. Attitudes towards nuclear energy itself is correlated with evacuation plans. People who are opposed to nuclear energy are more likely to say they will eva-l cuate than people who are pro nuclear energy. This may
/ be a result of the fact that opponents of nuclear
. - . . - . _- _.. _ - p , w, _ y_ _-. m -- _, ,.
energy are more likely to fear the ef fects of nuclear energy than are supporters of nuclear energy. Thirty i
six percent of Long Island residents favor the comple- l l
tion and operation of the Shoreham nuclear power j plant, 46% oppose this, and 18% have no opinion.
- Among those who favor completion 16% say they would evacuate under conditions resembling those described in scenario one, 34% of opponents and 21% of -hose i
without opinions say that they would evacuate.
- 3. People who have relatively low levels of knowledge about nuclear energy are more likely to fear nuclear energy and are therefore more likely to say that they would evacuate. People are relatively well informed about what took place at Three Mile Island with fully i
66% saying that "no one was hurt although the long term effects are unknown." However, knowledge of what took place at Three Mile Island was not correlated with whether or not the respondent would evacuate.
- 4. We asked the respondents how much they would trust various officials to tell the truth about an accident.
I We found generally low levels of trust for all the of ficials we asked the respondents about. The most trusted official was one from the Federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the least trusted official would be one from LILCO. The more trust an individual had in officials the less likely they were to say that
. . . . . . - - -=
10-they would evacuate.
- 5. People with children living at home are slightly more likely to say they would evacuate Chan people without children living at home.
- 6. Young people are significantly more likely than older people to say that they would evacuate. Other demographic variables such as education and income were not significantly correlated with attitudes towards evacuation.
i i
e 4
o
. 4. , - ...
i TABLE 1 ANSWERS GIVEN TO ALL SURVEY QUESTIONS BROKEN.DOWN
- Bh GEOGRAPHICAL ZONE j
e 1
l l
l l
_ , , _ _ _ . - - , - , , - - - - - , - - - ,-- -- -s
o o A ni:A O
i Five Mile Six to Ten Eastern Western Zone Mile Zone Suffolk Suffolk Nassau Tot ,
6.* Considering where you live now, how worried are you about the effects of toxic waste from garbage dumps on the health and well-being of your family?
201 22% 21% 23% 221 very worried 218 33 30 32 37 34 somewhat worried 30 47 46 47 46 40 43 not too worried 1 1 1 1 1 1
don't know 998 100% 100% 100% 1011 100%
TOTAL
- 7. Considering where you live now, how worried are you about the effects of air pollution on the health and well-being of i your family?
i i'
144 18% 14% 184 20% 194 very worried 30 37 46 41 35 37 somewhat worried 45 56 45 34 40 51 i not too worried I 1 0 0 0 0
' don't know .
1014 1011 100% 1004 100% 1001 TOTAL
- 8. Considering where you live
! now, how worried are you about the ef fects of crime on the health and well-being of your family?
37% 31% 46% 53% 48%
very worried 29%
35 36 35 31 33 somewhat worried 36 28 33 18 16 19 not too worried 35 0 0 1 0 0 0
- don't know a
1004 101% 994 1001 100%
- TOTAL 1001 i
- Question numbero correspond to those on questionnaire. First five columns were used for
- j identification.
O O O)
AREA l
Pive Mile Six to Ten Eastern Western i Zone Mile Zone Suffolk Suffolk Nassau Total
~
- 9. Considering where you live now, how worried are you about the effects of radiation from a nuclear power plant on the health and well-being.of your family?
very worried 53% 44% 39% 36% 20% 321 somewhat worried 18 25 25 25 26 26 not too worried 28 30 33 38 45 41 don't know 1 1 3 2 1 2 TOTAL 1001 1004 1004 1014 1001 101%
i
! 10. Considering where you live i now, how worried are you about
- the effects of a fire in your 3
home on the health and well-
. ; being of your family?
very worried 21% 244 194 261 244 24%
i somewhat worried 33 33 34 40 39 39 not too worried ,
46 42 46 34 37 37 don't know 0 0 0 0 0 0 I TOTAL 1004 994 994 1001 1001 100%
- 11. In general, how dangerous do you think it would be to live near an airport?
very dangerous 74 68 84 5% 94 7%
28 30 29 36 33 j dangerous 25 l not too dangerous 67 64 61 65 55 59
' don't know 1 2 1 2 1 1 i
TOTAL 1001 1001 1001 1011 1011 100%
o o AREA o
Five Mile Six to Ten Eastern Western Zone Mile Zone Suffolk Suffolk Nassau Total
- 12. In general, how dangerous do you think it would be to live near a mental hospital?
very dangerous 41 51 51 8% 64 7%
dangerous 23 25 24 27 34 30 not too dangerous 70 67 68 62 59 61 don't know 2 3 3 3 2 2 TOTAL 994 1001 1005 100% 1011 1001
- 13. In general, how dangerous do you think it would be to live near a coal fired power plant?
,very dangerous lit 14% 94 104 114 10%
, dangerous 34 30 35 40 40 39 not too dangerous 50 52 44 45 44 44
-l . don't know 6 5 12 5 6 6
- TOTAL 1011 101% 1001 1001 1011 100%
i j 14. In general, how dangerous,do you think it would be to live hear a
- nuclear power plant?
l very dangerous 46% 461 50% 48% 53% 51%
dangerous 25 28 29 31 30 30 not too dangerous 25 25 19 19 17 18 don't know 3 2 2 2 1 1 TOTAL 994 1014 1004 1004 1014 1001 i
i
AREA 1
Five Mile Six to Ten Eastern Western Zone Mile Zone Suffolk Suffolk Nassau Total
- 15. Would you describe yourself ass i
a supporter of nuclear pwer plants as a means of providing electricity. 254 244 181 201 23% 221 an opponent of nuclear power plants, or 40 43 44 40 34 37 you haven't made up your mind yet on this issue. 35 34 38 39 43 41 TOTAL 1001 1011 1004 991 1004 100%
4 I
J
. i
!l i !
(
l O O - O Five Mile Six to Ten Eastern Western Zone Mile Zone Suffolk Suffolk Nassau Total
- 16. Do you think that LILCO should complete and operate the Shoreham nuclear power plant?
yes 35% 38% 29% 30% 37% 37%
no 54 51 55 49 42 46 don't know 11 12 15 13 22 18 TOTAL 1001 101% 994 100% 1011 1011
- 17. Which comes closest to your opinion on nuclear energy?
all nuclear power plants should be shut down 214 234 22% 214 19% 20%
those plants which are currently operating should be allowed to continue to operate, but no new plants should be built 51 46 55 57 58 57 j we should continue to build new -
nuclear power plants 22 25 16 17 19 la don't know 6 6 7 5 5 5
- TOTAL 1001 1001 1001 1001 1011 100%
i i
- 18. During normal operation, which type i of electricity plant pollutes the l air the least:
an oil-fired plant 135 144 124 14% 13% 13%
a coal-fired plant 8 7 7 7 8 8
. a nuclear-fired plant 45 48 37 43 43 43 you're not sure 33 30 43 36 35 36
{ all about the same 1 1 2 1 0 1
- TOTAL 100% 1004 1014 101% 99% 1011
O O' AREA O'
Five Mile Six to Ten Eastern Western Zone Mile Zone Suffolk Suffolk Nassau Total
- 19. During normal operation does a nuclear .
power plant give off dangerous level of radiation?
yes 211 174 244 22% 22% 22%
no 55 60 46 54 51 52 don't know 24 23 30 23 27 26 TOTAL 100% 100% 1004 991 1001 1001
- 20. When the nuclear accident took place at Three Mile Island which of the following happened?
no one died but some people became ill 54 55 51 54 51 5%
only a few people became ill 6 6 7 6 6 6 no one was hurt although the long term effects are unknown 68 69 59 67 67 66 you're not sure 21 21 29 23 22 23 TOTAL 1004 1014 1004 1011 1001 1001
- 21. Do you believe that technical experts are able to accurately evaluate the riska of nuclear power?
yes 43% 43% 35% 43% 40% 41%
no 51 51 56 52 52 52 don't know 5 6 9 5 8 7 TOTAL 994 100% 100% 100% 1001 1001
- 22. Does LILCO currently have an operat-ing' nuclear power plant on Long Island?
yes 114 134 124 181 17% 171 no 78 76 67 69 61 65 j don't know 11 11 21 14 21 18
, i i TOTAL 994 100% 1001 101% 991 1001 1
AHEA Five Mile Six to Ten Eastern Western '
Zone Mile Zone Suffolk Suffolk Nassau Total
- 23. LILCO is currently completing the Shoreham nuclear power plant which is in Suffolk County about 60 miles from New York City. Suppose that LILCO completes this plant and begins to operate it. If there was an accident at the plant how much would you trust the Governor of New York State to tell the truth about the accident?
a great deal 91 84 94 71 64 78 somewhat 44 39 42 46 46 45 not at all 43 50 45 45 45 45 3 4 4 2 4 3 don't know TOTAL 994 1011 1004 1001 1011 1004 i
- 24. If there were an accident at the Shoreham plant how much would you trusL a LILCO official to tell the truth about the accident?
a great deal 84 64 74 51 34 4%
! somewhat 28 27 30 34 39 36 not at all 62 65 60 60 57 58 2 2 4 1 2 2 don't know s
TOTAL 1004 1004 1014 1001 101% 1004 4
f AREA Pive Mile Six to Ten Eastern Western Zone Mile Zone Suffolk Suffolk Nassau Total
- 25. If there were an accident at the Shoreham plant how much would you l trust an official from the federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission to tell the truth about the accident?
19% 191 181 19% 17% lot a great deal 52 51 47 44 45 50 somewhat 30 28 29 not at all 30 33 31 4 3 7 1 3 3 don't know 100% 99% 101% 100% 100% 1011 TOTAh
- 26. If there were an accident at the Shoreham plant how much would you j
trust the Suffolk County Executive '
to tell the truth about the accident?
164 16% 154 138 131 13%
a great deal 48 48 40 somewhat 46 41 44 i
31 37 35 37 35 36 l not at all 6 3 5 4 i don't know 6 6 99% 100% 100% 101% 101% 101%
TOTAh ,
O , o AREA o Five Mile Si,x to Ten Eastern Western Zone Mile Zone Suffolk Suffolk Nassau Total 27-28 As the crow flies, about how many miles do you think your home is from the Shoreham nuclear power plant?
O to 5 miles 71% 104 14 11 On 11 23 46 4 11 0 6 6 to 10 miles 5 35 21 34 2 16 11 to 20 miles 0 5 20 30 19 23 21 to 30 miles 0 0 19 14 30 22 31 to 40 miles 0 0 15 4 25 16 41 to 50 miles 8 more than 50 miles 0 0 11 0 15 1 3 9 5 10 8 don't know TOTAL 1001 991 1001 991 1011 1011
- 29. Would you consider moving if the Nuclear Regulatory Commission grant-ed LILCO a license to begin operat-ing Shoreham?
yes 274 214 144 16% lin 131 68 75 81 77 84 81 no ,
4 5 4 7 6 6 don't know .
TOTAL 994 101% 994 1004 1011 1001 1
O w AREA .
I Five Mlle Six to Ten Eastern Western Zone Mile Zone Suffolk Suffolk Nassau Total
- 30. Assuming that the Shoreham nuclear power plant is licensed and begins to operate, we are interested in knowing what you would do if there was an accident at the plant. Suppose that you and your family were at home and there was an accident at Shoreham.
All people who lived within five miles of the plant were advised to stay indoors. Do you think that you and the other membere of your family would go about your normal business 44 84 224 20% 40% 301 stay inside your home 52 49 50 43 39 42 l
leave your home and go somewhere else 40 40 22 34 18 25 5 3 5 2 3 3 don't know 101% 1005 998 991 1001 100%
TOTAL i
8 j
l 4
9
d AREA
)
Five Mile Six to Ten Eastern Western Zone Mile Zone Suffolk Suffolk Nassau Total
- 31. Where would you go?
someplace in Suffolk County 201 108 104 61 01 44 someplace in Nassau County 15 14 3 14 1 8 someplace in New York City 17 26 7 22 30 24 some other place 34 36 61 50 49 49 14 15 19 9 10 14 don't know TOTAT. 1001 1Olt 1001 1011 1001 991
- 32. In terms of miles, about how far away is this place from your home?
61 34 14 34 11 21 10 miles or less 8 6 3 3 6 4 11 to 20 miles 13 8 4 7 14 10 21 to 30 miles 6 6 7 13 7 10 31 to 40 miles 10 17 4 14 4 10 41 to 50 miles 62 mgre than 50 miles 55 59 81 60 64 3 2 1 1 5 2 don't know 101% 1011 1014 1014 1011 1001 TOTAL
- 33. Which of the following would you be most likely to go to?
somebody else's home 63% 67% 46% 65% 53% 594 9 6 13 5 5 6 a public shelter 12 10 18 18 21 19 a hotel or motel 9 7 13 3 8 6 somewhere else don't know 7 9 10 8 13 10 TOTAL 1004 994 100% 991 100% 1001 1
1 4
o ,o -
p Five Mile Six to Ten Eastern Western Zone Mile Zone Suffolk Suffolk Nassau Total
- 34. Suppose that you and your family
- l. were at home and there was an l! accident at the Shoreham nuclear power plant. All pregnant women l
and pre-school children living
' within five miles of the plant were advised to evacuate and every-t one living between six and ten miles from the plant were advised to remain indoors. Would you and
! other members of your family:
24 51 198 13% 314 23%
go about your normal business 39 45 42 41 41 stay inside your home 38 leave your home and go some- 52 30 44 25 34 where else 57 3 5 1 3 3 don't know 3 l
994 991 1001 100% 101%
TOTAL 1004 i
t
- 35. Where would you go?
l 10% 91 84 14 6%
someplace in Suffolk County 214 9 15 5 14 3 someplace in Nassau County 15 22 8 18 23 19 someplace in New York City 15 i
37 63 51 50 51 some other place 36 16 14 15 15 10 22 don't know TOTAL 101% 991 1001 101% 994 101% )
w i I
AREA Five Mile Six to Ten Eastern Western Zone Mile Zone Suffolk Suffolk Nassau To t.a 1
- 36. In terms of miles, about how far away is this place from your home?
- 10 miles or less 51 31 21 31 21 2%
11 to 20 miles 7 9 4 7 5 6 21 to 30 miles 12 8 4 5 14 9 31 to 40 miles 7 8 5 10 6 8 41 to 50 miles 11 12 4 14 3 9 mere than 50 miles 55 58 79 59 65 63 don't know 3 3 2 2 5 3 l TOTAL 1001 1011 1004 1001 1004 100%
i i
1 i i 4
i
O Q AREA i !
' ' Five Mile Six to Ten Eastern Western 1 Zone Mile Zone Suffolk Suffolk Nassau Total
- 37. Which of the following would you be most likely to go to?
somebody else's home 64% 69% 46% 66% 51% 58%
a public shelter 10 6 12 6 5 6 a hotel or motel 10 9 19 18 21 19
.somewhere else 10 6 ,13 5 6 6
. don't know 6 10 11 5 17 11 TOTAL 1004 1001 1014 100% 1001 100%
J8. Suppose that you and your family were at home and there was an accident at the shorehar. nuclear power plant. Everyone living within ten miles of the plant was advised I to evacuate. WouM you and other '
members of your family:
go about your normal business 14 24 14% 74 25% 168 stay inside your home 18 17 36 29 34 31 leave your home and go somcshere else 78 78 46 63 39 50 don't know 3 3 4 2 3 3 TOTAL 1004 1004 1004 1011 101t 100%
l 39. Where would you 907 someplace in Suffolk County 191 131 13% 74 14 5%
. someplace in Nassi.au Ciunty 17 16 5 15 2 9 someplace in New York City 14 20 -- 8 23 23 22 some other place 35 36 56 47 57 51 don't know 16 16 18 9 17 13 TOTAL 1011 1014 1004 1014 1004 100%
i i
i
AREA .
Five Mile Six to Ten Eastern Western ,
Zone Mile Zone Suffolk Suffolk Nassau Total .
- 40. In terms of miles, about how far away is this place from your home? I 10 miles or less 54 34 34 41 21 31 11 to 20 miles 7 9 7 3 4 4 21 to 30 miles 9 10 6 5 13 9 31 to 40 miles 10 7 5 13 5 9 41 to 50 miles 11 12 5 14 3 9 more than 50 miles 55 56 74 59 69 64 don't know 3 4 1 2 4 3 TOTAL 1004 1011 1011 1001 1001 101%
- 41. Which of the following would you be most likely to go to?
somebody else's home 634 674 45% 68% 54% 61%
A public shelter 11 10 15 6 8 8 m hotel or motel 11 9 18 17 19 IP somewhere else 9 6 12 4 7 6 don't know 6 8 10 5 12 8 TOTAL 1001 1004 1001 1001 1001 101%
- 42. When you heard the advisory to evacuate would you:
leave immediately 224 141 141 12% lit 121
- wait until everyone in your family could assemble and then leave 76 83 82 86 86 86 1 3 don't. know 3 4 4 2 TOTAL 1011 1011 100% 1001 100% 101%
AREA g
6 Five Mile Six to Ten Eastern Western Zone Mile Zone Suffolk Suffolk tiassau Total
- 43. In the course of your lifetime, have you ever had to evacuate your home in the face of danger such as a hurricane, flood, or any other danger?
'l 161 174 241 161 141 161
- yes 86 84 84 83 76 84 no 100% 100% 1001 1001 1001 1001 TOTAL
- 44. Do you have children under the age of 5 living at home with you?
i 24% 304 144 234 174 19%
- yes 77 83 81 no 76 70 86 1001 100% 1005 1001 1001 1001 TOTAL
- 45. Do you have children between the ages of 5 and 17 living at home with you?
36% 42% 264 47% 304 37%
yes 70 64 64 58 74 53 no 1001 1001 1004 1001 1001 1011 TOTAL i
f i
l i
t
i AREA f I l' Five Mile Six to Ten Eastern Western i Zone Mile Zone Suffolk Suffolk Nassau Total
, 46. If there was an c.ccident at the l
Shoreham nuclear power plant and
, your children were at school in an area that had to be evacuated, would you prefer that your childrens be brought home or to a neighbor's by bus 184 241 191 201 164 19%
, be bussed to a shelter outside the evacuation area 36 32 28 31 39 34 i be kept at school until you i could pick them up 43 41 44 49 41 45 i don't know 3 3 9 1 4 3 i TOTAL 1001 1001 1004 1011 1004 101%
k i
t
[
o Q- o Five Mile Six to Ten Eastern Western Zone Mile Zone Suffolk Suffolk Nassau Total
- 47. Do you currently work full time (30 hours3.472222e-4 days <br />0.00833 hours <br />4.960317e-5 weeks <br />1.1415e-5 months <br />) a week or more) for pay?
yes 49% 58% 51% 60% 59% 58%
no 51 43 49 40 41 42 TOTAL 1001 1011 1001 1001 1001 1001
- 48. About how long does it usually take you to get to work in the morning?
less than 15 minutes 381 34% 59% 351 354 371 15 to 30 minutes 33 33 29 30 30 30 31 to 60 minutes 19 20 6 22 21 20 61 to 90 minutes 0 6 3 7 11 9 more than 90 minutes 4 7 3 7 3 4 TOTAL 1001 100% 1001 1011 1001 1001
- 49. Are you currently: ,
married 71% 764 634 741 71% 72%
14 !! la !? 'O 17
.1. 31e 12 6 5 6 widowed ,
9 3 divorced or separated 6 5 7 7 4 6 TOTAL 1001 991 1004 1001 1001 101%
- 50. Does your spouse currently work full time (30 hours3.472222e-4 days <br />0.00833 hours <br />4.960317e-5 weeks <br />1.1415e-5 months <br /> a week or more) for pay?
yes 554 59% 49% 644 61% 61%
no 45 41 51 36 39 39 TOTAL 100% 1004 100% 1004 1001 1001
AREA Five Mile Six to Ten Eastern Western Zone Mile Zone Suffolk Suffolk flassau Total 9
- 51. About how long does it usually take your spouse to get to work in the morning?
281 57% 25% 30% 291 less than 15 minutes 31%
39 29 33 15 to 30 minutes 38 31 23 19 25 10 25 31 27 f 31 to 60 minutes 8 7 5 8 5 7
! 61 to 90 minutes 2 3 8 8 6 4 i more than 90 minutes 1011 1001 1011 1001 1001 1004 TOTAL
- 52. What is the last grade of school that you completed?
11% 84 Ill 51 54 64 some high school or less 38 31 32 33 42 36 high school graduate 24 24 25 24 23 25 some college 32 34 35 33 30 34 college graduate 1001 1004, 1011 1001 1001 1001
'l TOTAL
- 53. What is your age category?
94 124 124 124' 131 131 under 25 25 28 36 38 21 32 25-35 27 25 32 22 34 23 36-50 22 12 11 21 14 28 51-65 10 19 8 24 8 10 over 65 1011 1014 1004 1001 994 100%
TOTAL i
- 54. What is your total family income?
under $15,000 124 14% ,
274 144 144 15%
30 27 33 31 25 28
$15,000 to $25,000 25 25 32 18 27 25
. $26,000 to $35,000 19 15 18 14 19 19
.! $36,000 to $50,000 7 9 9 10 18 14 l
over $50,000 994 1001 1011 1011 1011 1011 f TOTAI,
O / O AREA O Five Mile Six to Ten Eastern Western ,
Zone Mlle Zone Suffolk Suffolk Nassau Total
- 55. Would you consider yourself to be politically: ,
208 22% 214 174 22% 20%
liberal middle-of-the-road 45 50 50 48 49 49 conservative 35 28 29 35 30 31 1001 1001 1001 100% 101% 100%
TOTAL
- 56. What is your race?
98% 964 95% 97% 951 96%
.j white 2 4 2 4 3 black 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 other TOTAL 100% 100% 100% .1001 100% 100%
- 57. What is your religion?
61% 54% 43% 58% 50% 53%
Catholic 26 26 37 25 19 23 Protestant 3 9 6 7 22 15 Jewish i
5 5 6 3 4 4 other 6 6 8 7 4 6 none .
TOTAL 1014 1001 1001 1004 99% 101% ,
- 58. In general would you say you are:
very religious 224 174 18% 19% 154 171 somewhat religious 62 64 63 59 64 62 !
not religious at all 16 19 19 22 21 21 TOTAL 1004 100% 1004 1001 1006 1001
AREA Five Mile Six to Ten Eastern Western
- j Zone Mile Zone Suffolk Suffolk Nassau Total 4
l
- 59. Ilow long have you lived on Long Island?
all your life 35% 37% 434 39% 344 37%
more than 20 years 30 26 31 26 32 30 10 to 20 years 18 20 15 22 19 20 5 to 9 years 9 11 4 8 7 7 less than 5 years 7 6 6 6 8 7 TOTAL 994 1001 994 1011 100% 101%
- 60. What is your sex 7 male 48% 53% 514 504 47% 49%
female 52 47 49 50 53 51 TOTAL 1001 100t 1001 100% 100% 1004 l
i
- 0. .
I 4
'l
- I l
1 O - 33- 1 l
TABLE 2 Evact =. tion Plans by Subjective Distance from the Plant
% saying they % saying they % saying they Subjective Distance would evacuate would evacuate would evacuate From the Plant under scenario 1 under scenario 2 under scenario 3 (Question 30) (Question 34) (Question 38) 5 Mile Zone 78 1 to 3 miles 40 58 41 61 85 4 or 5 miles 72 6 to 10 miles 38 49 41 58 77 more than 10 miles 77 Don't Know 42 77 6 to 10 Mile Zone 82 1 to 5 miles 38 61 40 51 80 6 to 10 miles 77 11 to 20 miles 42 52 34 48 66 more than 20 miles 71 Don't Know 34 48 East End 25 37 56 1 to 15 miles 44 16 to 25 miles 22 32 21 27 43 more Chan 25 miles 48 Don't Know 28 36 Western Suffolk 1 to 10 miJcI~~ 59 72 94 40 52 70
, 11 to 20 miles 21 to 30 miles 18 25 45 28 37 56 more than 30 miles 83 Don't Know 44 61 i
Nassau County 18 29 48 30 miles or less 34 31 to 40 miles 17 23 19 26 38 41 to 50 e41ss 20 35 more thar. 50 miles 13 45 Don't Krow 26 30 O
H' %
E'W m qM 9+WM e-
_, x, m - -- , -- - - - --
,o
)
{
TABLE 3 CORRELATES OF EVACUATION ATTITUDES
^ " - * * - * "
Percer.t saying they would evacuate if tnere was an accident at Shoreham and all people who lived within five miles of the plant were advised to stay indoors.
6.* Considering where you live now, how worriel are you about the effects of toxic waste from garbage dumps on the health and well-being of your family?
33% l very worried somewhat worried 24 not too worried 21 l 1
don't know 23
- 7. Considering where you live now, how worried are you about ,
the effects of air pollution on the health and well-being of your family?
very worrier! 31%
somewhat wotried 25 not too worried 23 don't know 4
- 8. Considering where you live now, how worried are you about the effects of crime on the health and well-being of your family?
very worried 27%
somewhat worried 23 not too worried- 24 don't know 0
- Question numbers correspond to those on questionnaire. First five columns were used for identification.
O V .
Percent saying they would evacuate if there was an accident at Shoreham and all people who lived within five miles of the plant were advised to stay indoors.
- 9. Considering where you live now, how worried are you about the effects of radiation from a nuclear power plant on the health and well-being of your family?
very worried 36%
somewhat worried 26 not too worried 16 don't know 11 TOTAL
- 10. Considering where you Live now, how worried are you about the effects of a fire in your home on dhe health and well-being of your family?
very worried 284 somewhat worried 25 not too worried 23 don't know 55 TOTAL
- 11. In general, how dangerous do you think it would be to live near an airport?
very dangerous 25%
dangerous 29 not too dangerous 24 don't know- 16 d=e* * =** ** wp-e +=--ame ** *wam a****
- -hg=. _
i Percent saying they would evacuate if there was an accident at Shoreham and all people who lived within five miles of the plant were advised to stay indoors.
- 12. In general, how dangerous do ycu think it would be to live near a mental hospital?
very dangerous 31%
dangerous 26 not too dangerous 24 don't know 21 TOTAL
- 13. In general, how dangerous do you think it would be to live near a coal fired power plant?
very dangerous 35%
dangerous 27 not too dangerous 22 don't know 21 TOTAL
- 14. In general, how dangerous do you think it would be to live near a nuclear power plant?
very dangerous 31%
dangerous 23 not too dangerous 11 don't know 8
- 15. Would you describe yourself as:
a supporter of nuclear power l plants as a means of providing electricity. 13%
an opponent of nuclear power plants, or 32 you haven't made up your mind yet on this issue. 26
Percent saying they would evacuate if there was an accident at Shoreham and all people who lived within five miles of the plant were advised to stay indoors.
- 16. Do you think that LII CO should l complete and operate the Shoreham nuclear power plant?
yes 16%
no 34 don't know 21
- 17. Which comes closest to your opinion on nuclear energy?
all nuclear power ,alants should be shut down 38%
those plants which are currently operating should be allowed to O -
continue to oportte, but no new plants should be built we should continue to build new 24 nuclear power pl.tnts 13 don't know 26
- 18. During normal operati)n, which type of electricity plant ,>ollutes the air the least:
an oil-fired plant 32%
a coal-fired plant 30 a nuclear-fired pl. int 19 you're not sure 28 all about the same 31 s
I
l I
l O-Percent saying they would evacuate ,
if there was an accident at Shoreham and all people who lived within five miles of the plant were advised to stay indoors.
- 19. During normal coeration does a nuclear power plant give off dangerous level of radiation?
34%
yes no 24 don't know 20
- 20. When the nuclear accident took place at Three Mile Island which of the following happened?
no one died but some people became ill 27%
only a few people became ill 32 O' no one was hurt although the long term effects are unknown 24 you're not sure 25
- 21. Do you believe that technical experts are able to accurately evaluate the risks of nuclear power?
yes 22%
no 28 don't know 19
- 22. Does LILCO currently have an operat-ing nuclear power plant on Long Island?
27%
yes no 25 don't know 21 l
O
-m.,.
O-Percent saying they would evacuate if there was an accident at Shoreham and all people who lived within five miles of the plant were advised to stay indoors.
- 23. LILCo is currently completing the Shoreham nuclear power plant which is in Suffolk County about 60 miles from New York City. Suppose that LILCO completes this plant and begins to operate it. If there was an accident at the plant how much would you trust the Governor of New York State to tell the truth about the accident?
a great deal 164 somewhat 24 not at all 28 '
don't know 10 l
l If there were an accident at the Storeham plant how much would you O.24. trust a LILCO official to tell the truth about the accident?
a great deal 14%
somewhat 17 not at all 31 don't know 17
- 25. If there were an accident at the Shoreham plant how much would you trust an official from the federal i
Nuclear Regulatory Commission to tell
! the truth about the accident?
a great deal 20%
somewhat 23 not at all 32 1
don't know 20
l Percent saying they would evacuate if there was an accident at Shoreham and all people who lived within five miles of the plant were advised to stay indoors.
I I
- 26. If there were an accident at the !
Shoreham plant how much would you trust the Suffolk County Executive to tell the truth about the accident?
a great deal 21%
somewhat 25 not at all 27 don't know 27
- 29. Would you consider moving if the Nuclear Regulatory Commission grant-ed LILCO a license to begin operat-ing Shoreham?
yes 47% .
no 20 O* don't know 45
- 43. In the course of your lifetime, have you ever had to evacuate your home in the face of danger such as a hurricane, flood, or any other danger?
yes 31%
no 24
- 44. Do you have children under the ~
age of 5 living at home with you?
yes 34%
no 23
.)
l
l _ _ _ _
l O - .
Percent saying they would evacuate if there was an accident at Shoreham and all people who lived within five miles of the plant were advised to stay indoors.
Do you have children between the 45.
ages of 5 and 17 living at home with you?
yes 31%
no 22
- 47. Do you currently work full time (30 hours3.472222e-4 days <br />0.00833 hours <br />4.960317e-5 weeks <br />1.1415e-5 months <br />) a week or more) for pay?
yes 27%
no 22
- 48. About how long does it usually take you to get to work in the O. morning?
27%
less than 15 minutes 15 to 30 minutes 29 31 to 60 minutes 28 61 to 90 minutes 23 more than 90 minutes 27
- 49. Are you currently:
married 264 single 23 widowed 18 ,
divorced or separated 26
- 50. Does your spouse currently work full time (30 hours3.472222e-4 days <br />0.00833 hours <br />4.960317e-5 weeks <br />1.1415e-5 months <br /> a week or more) for pay?
yes 28%
no 22 l
O
O Percent saying they would evacuate if there was an accident at Shoreham and all people who lived within five miles of the plant were advised to stay indoors.
- 51. About how long does it usually take your spouse to get to work in the morning?
less than 15 minutes 24%
15 to 30 minutes 27 31 to 60 minutes 31 61 to 90 minutes 38 more than 90 minutes 22
- 52. What is the last grade of school that you completed?
some high school or less 194 high school graduate 24 some college 27 college graduate 27 C-
! 53. What is your age category?
under 25 38% '
25-35 33 36-50 28 51-65 14 over 65 9
- 54. What is your total family income?
under $15,000 ' 214 515,000 to $25,000 27 S26,000 to $35,000 26 S36,000 to $50,000 26 over $50,000 27 0
- -* * -s-.
& r a
j ,
Percent saying they would evacuate if there was an accident at Shoreham and all people who lived within five miles of the plant were advised to stay indoors.
- 55. Would you consider yourself to be politically:
liberal 29%
middle-of-the-road 26 conservattve 22
- 56. What is your race?
white 24%
black 25 other 53
- 57. What is your religion?
Catholic 27%
Protestant 21 O Jewish other 27 16 27 none
- 58. In general would you say you are very reli.31 ous 25%
somewhat religious 25 not religious at all 27
- 59. How long have you lived on Long Island?
all your Life 23%
more than 20 years 21 10 to 20 years 27 5 to 9 years 46 less than 5 years 29
- 60. What is your sex?
male 25%
female 25 m - .- --
__-______a - - _ - _ - -
O-TECHNICAL APPENDIX Sample The survey is based upon a saratified random sample of )
telephone subscribers. The variable upon which the sample was stratified was distance from the Shoreham nuclear power plant, we wanted to interview approximately 500 people who lived within a five mile radius of the plant, approximately 500 people who lived within a six to ten mile radius of the plant, approximately 500 people who lived more than ten miles away from the plant, but East of the plant, and approximately 1,000 people who lived more than ten miles away from the plant, but West of the plant. Since telephone exchanges lo not correspond O precisely with these geographical zones, we used the telephone exchanges only as a preliminary means of designating the respondent's actual geographical location. We decided to use zip codes as the method of determining in which zone a respon-dent lived. Zip codes, although they do not match perfectly the designated geographical zones we were interested in, do correspond relatively closely with them. .The zip code infor-mation was obtained from the respondents in the course of the survey. In Table Al we present a list of telephone exchanges used in generating the sample for each zone. The procedure used as as follows. First, we determined what exchanges would cover a particular zone. Then we found out what blocks of num- i bers within each exchange had working residential listings.
O
- . . - . . . ~ . - .~ -
l' l
This information was obtained from the Cole's Directory for Nassau and Suffolk counties. Then using a random number generator, we generated telephone numbers using the exchange and four randomly generated digits within the working blocks. We generated numbers '/ithin each exchange in proportion to the number of residential listings in that exchange. Thus, for example, if within the five mile zone approximately two-thirds of the residential numbers have the exchange 744, our sample was generated so that approximately two-thirds of the sample were drawn from the 744 exchange.
Using the random digit generating technique we were insured of including unlisted phone numbers in the sample.
The sample can be considered to be representative of all resi-dential subscribers living in the designated areas.
The exact designation of the respondent's location was determined by zip code information provided us by the respon-dent. In Table A-2 we list all the zip codes that were used in designating the five mile zone, the ten mile zone, and the East End. We also list the number of residential listings in each zip code and the number of' interviews completed. Data on the number of residential listings in each zip code were obtained i
from Cole's Directory. In order to make sure that all geographical areas were equally represented we employed the following weighting procedure: we divided the number of inter-views completed in a given zip code into the total number of residential listings existing in that zip code. If we consider O
- - - , - - ~ - m , ~ , - - , -
l l
l
({ l the number of residential listings to be a rough approximation of the number of households in an area, then the weights employed represent the number of households per interview in each zip code. There were relatively minor differences in the weights used for each of the four sip codes which make up the zero to five mile zone and moderate differences in the weights used for the nine zip codes which were designated as making up the six to ten mile zone. There were significantly larger dif-f arences in the weights used for each East End zip code. Some of the East End zip codes straddled the ten mile zone and were thus over sampled. Some of the East End zip codes were undoub-tedly under sampled as a result of summer residents who main-
) tain residential phone listings not being in residence at the time when the survey was conducted. There was one zip code for which no interviews were obtained. This was taken into con-sideration in computing the weights for the other zip codes in the East End.
Because Port Jefferson Station (zip code 11766) in Western Suf folk had the same telephone exchanges as several areas in the six to ten mile zone,it was impossible to avoid over sampling this particular area. All interviews in Port Jef ferson Station were weighted down so that they would not be over represented in the sample of Western Suffolk residents.
With the exception of Port Jefferson Station all other zip codes in Western suf folk were given the same weight. All zip coe.s in sassau county .ere given an e,ma1 .eight. Sec.use o,
(;)
- - r--,. - -- . . 3--, - e aw - , - . m - -w- - --r -
v- -
i l
the weighting procedure used, the entire sample may be taken as representative geographically of all of Nassau and Suffolk Counties, and the sample within each geographical zone may be taken as being rapresentative of all areas in that zone.
Interviewing All the interviewing was conducted from two rented telephone facilities in Farmingdale and Melville, New York.
The interviews were done by telephone between the hours of 6:00 and 10:00 p.m. on the evenings of May 19, 20, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28 and June 1, 2, 3, 7, 8, 9, 10. The majority of the inter-viewers were experienced and trained people who had previously worked for Social Data Analysts, Inc. Before the survey was begun the interviewers participated in a one hour training session in which the questionnaire was gone over several times and explained to the interviewers. During the interviewing, there was always at least one trained supervisor present on the floor to check the questionnaires for accuracy and to listen in on interviews to make sure that the interviewers were in fact following the designated interview schedule.
In Table A-3 we show the number of telephone numbers dialed and the outcome for each zone. Altogether the sample
- consisted of 10,948 telephone numbers. On approximately one quarter of these numbers (2,588) we received no answers after three call backs. Since the random digit dialing technique is not able to differentiate between residential and business ghone numbers with the same exchange, it is gossib1e that a
[])
significant portion of these numbers were actually businesses l which were not open during the evenina hours in which the sur-vey was conducted. For another 1,345 numbers we found either a continuous busy signal or were not able to find an adult at home after three call back attempts were made. A significant portion of the numbers selected, using the random digit dialing technique, (2,391) turnout not to be working telephone numbers.
This is because not all numbers in active blocks are actually assigned. One thousand five hundred and fifty people refused to participate in the survey. Thus, approximately one out of every three eligible respondents who were contacted refused to participate. In 180 cases we found people who eith'er did not g ) speak English or were unable to communicate with the inter-viewer for some other reason. In order to be sure of obtaining an approximately 50-50 sex distribution we employed a sex quota system. Each individual interviewer kept track of the number of men and women that she interviewed and was not allowed to be -
more than two women ahead. If an interviewer had two more women respondents than men her next interview had to be with a male respondent. Thus, 261 people were not interviewed because we could not obtain a male respondent. Thirty eight numbers were unable to be completed for a variety of other reasons and 2,595 interviews were completed.
Although there is no way to be positive that those people who refused to participate in the survey do not differ signifi-(\ cantly from those whom we interviewed, we were able to compare i
I O
the sample characteristics of this survey with known population parameters and 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 sur-vey and both population parameters 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.
Design of the Questionnaire A draft of the questionnaire was formulated in con-sultation with the consulting committee headed by Dr. Kai Erikson and Dr. James Johnson. The committee met on May 1 to formulate the first draft. Then each committee member sent questions which they wanted to include in the survey to Dr.
James Johnson who forwarded them to Social Data Analysts. We then constructed a second draft of the questionnaire which was modified after consulting with Drs. Erikson and Johnson. A pre-test was then conducted with approximately 16 Long Island residents. Based upon the results of the pre-test and further consultations with Drs. Erikson and Johnscin the final draft of the questionnaire was formulated.
Analysis After the interviews were completed, the data were entered directly onto the computer and then verified for entry errors.
A preliminary analysis of the data has been conducted using the SPSS statistical program.
()-
Computing the sampling error for any particular result in this survey is complicated by the use of the weighting proce-dure. The sampling error for results in the five mile zone, the six mile zone, and the East End is approximately plus or minus four percentage points. The sampling error for Western Suffolk is approximately plus or minus five percentage points, and for Nassau County plus or minus four percentage points.
Treating Western Suffolk and Nassau as a unit the sampling error would be plus or minus three percentage points. The sampling error for the entire sample is approximately plus or minus three percentage points. These computations assume that the survey was conducted under ideal circumstances. Since there are a large number of practical problems in conducting
(}
social surveys, it is possible that the actual size of the sampling error could be larger.
l l
l 0
~
)
I TABLE A-1 ZONES AliD TELEPHONE EXCHANGES Zone Exchange Numbers 5 mile 744 821 929 6-10 miles 331 473 924 928 East End 267 653 283 668
- 288 722 298 725 0- 323 324 726 727 325 728 369 734 477 749 537 765 Western Suffolk All other Suffolk exchanges Nassau All Nassau exchanges O
-we- mo * --ee - - - am
, y ,w. ,,. w.i-
l O TABLE A-2 NUMBER OF INTERVIEWS COMPLETED IN EACH ZIP CODE f
Number of Number of Residential Interviews Zone Zip Code Listings Completed Weight 5 mile 11778 3,724 206 18.08 11786 1,234 77 16.03 11792 2,158 120 17.98 11961 2,950 124 23.79 TOTAL 10,066 527 10 mile 11727 6,082 134 45.39 11764 2,602 69 37.71 11766 1,898 58 32.72 11777 2,596 62 41.85 11789 2,100 85 24.71 11933 1,481 36 41.14 11949 1,383 33 41.91
. 11953 2,129 55 38.71 11980 789 19 51.53 TOTAL 21,060 551 (f
East 11901 6,054 90 69.50 11930 1,791 12 154.21 11931 625 6 107.62 11932 1,276 12 109.86 11934 1,924 11935 1,368 15 94.23 11937 6,991 49 147.41 11939 513 2 265.02 11940 1,043 2 538.81 11941 517 '
. 5 106.83 11942 1,732 18 99.42 11944 1,794 20 92.68 11946 5,285 47 116.18 11947 528 14 38.97 11948 323 3 111.24 11952 1,990 34 60.47 11954 2,182 15 150.30 11955 236 1 243.84 11956 219 6 37.71 11957 489 6 84.21 11958 360 7 53.14 11959 1,119 4 289.04 11960 664 7 98.01 O .
- ^
O TABLE A-2 Continued....
Number of Number of Residential Intitrviews Zone Zip Code Listings Comoleted Weight East 11963 3,729 29 132.86 11964 1,607 11 150.94 11965 124 7 18.30 11968 6,478 52 128.71 11970 287 1 296.53 11971 2,585 27 98.92 11972 325 6 55.96 11975 376 3 129.49 11976 856 6 147.40 11977 815 7 120.29 11978 3,336 18 191.49 TOTAL 59,870 543
- No interviews obtained Western Suffolk Port Jefferson Station 11776 5,908 121 48.83 All other zones 319,473 337 947.99 Nassau County 451,075 516 874.18 l
O .
l l
l l
I TABLE A-3 NUMBER OF TELEPHONE NUMBERS DIALED AND OUTCOME BY ZONE ZONE 0-5 6-10 East Western outcome miles miles End Suffolk Nassau Total No answer (probably business) 444 432 774 376 562 2,588 Busy, no adult at home 271 306 310 218 240 1,345 Not a working number 501 471 560 446 413 2,391 Refusal 306 335 340 257 312 1,550 Language or psycho-40 16 58 20 46 180 O- logical problem Could not obtain correct sex 69 69 29 20 74 261 Other 23 5 10 - - 38 Completed interviews 527 551 543 458 516 2,595 Total 2,181 2,185 2,624 1,795 2,163 10,948 O
1
.i O SHOREHAM EVACUATION TAPE DESCRIPTION 9 TRACK 1600 BPI FIXED BLOCK UNLABELLED LRECL=80 BLOCKSIZE=3200 FILE l= DATA -ASCII- 2595 RECORDS FILE 2= SPSS SETUP -ASCII- 101 RECORDS FILE 3= DATA -EBCDIC-2595 RECORDS FILE 3= SPSS SETUP -EPCDIC- 101 RECORDS O
10 l
l l
mmah,.-- a--- -__ -__u.a. .a4 -.m__w_s.- w - - --- .a-.-u._. ._ aw.__a--. . - - - - - m _ _. - - ---- --_ - ------- - ..- .- - - a -m.._m4e .m, . _ -
l l
l l
1 t
t I
l 4
i f
f l
.I l
i i
ATTACHMENT 3 l
1 f
1 l
FMAL ORAFT ATTACHIIENT 3 SHOREHAM EVAC'JAT*C'; S*JRVEY May 12, 1982 l t
l Hello, my name is and I am calling fcr Suffolk l 1 l County. We are doing a sur-rey on sc=e current social prcblems facing people living en Long Island.
2 3
4 5
t Considering where you live now, how worried are you about the ef fects of each of the followir.g on the hea3 ;h and well-being of your family?
(Categories for O. 6 to 0 10) 1=very worried 2=somewhat worried 3=not too worried DON',T READ [4= Don't Know
- [9= Refuse
- 6. toxic waste from garbage dumps 6
- 7. air pollution 7
j 8. crime 8
(
I J
l
- 9. radiation from a nuclear power plant 9
=l j 10.a fire in your home 10 1
I In general, how dangerous do you think 'it would be to live near j
each of the following:
(Categories for O.11 to O. 14)
I 1=very dangerous 2= dangerous 3=not too dangerous DON'T READ [4= Don't Know
[9= Refuse 1
i 11.an airport 11 i
12.a mental hospital 12 13.a coal fired power plant 13
' 14.a nuclear power plant 14
+
m- 4 , W
~ e 2
15.Would you describe yourself as:
1=a supporter of nuclear power plants as a means cf providing electricity.
\
2=an opponent of nuclear power plants, er 3=you haven't made up your mind yet on this issue?
DON'T READ [9= Refuse 15 16.Do you think that LILOO should complete the Shoreham nuclear power plant?
l=yes DON'T RIAD [3= Don't Know 2=no [9= Refuse 16 17.Which of the following comes closest to your cpinion on nuclear energy?
l=all nuclear power plants should be shut down 2=those plants which are currently operating should be allowed to continue to operate, but no new plants should be built 3=we should continue to build new nuclear power plants DON *T READ [4= Don *t Know
[9= Refuse 17 18.During normal operation, which type of electricity plant pollutes the air the least
- 1=an oil-fired plant 2=a coal-fired plant 3=a nuclear-fired plant 4=you're not sure DON'T READ [5=all about the same
[9= Refuse 18 19.During normal operation dces a nuclear power plant give off a dangerous level of radiation?
l=yes 2=no DON'T READ [3= Don't Know [9= Refuse 19 20.When the nuclear accident took place at Three Mile Island which of the following happened?
1=no one died but some oecame ill 2=only a few people became ill 3=no one was hurt although the long term effects are unknown 4=you're not sure DON'T READ [9= Refuse 20 f- ,g
--- y m.
2
.s ,,/ 21.Do you believe that technical experts are able to accurately evaluate the risks of nuclear power?
1=yes 2=no DON'T READ [3= Don't Know
[9= Refuse 21 22.Does LILCO currently have an operating nuclear power plant on Long Island?
l=yes DON'T READ [3= Don't Know 2=no [9= Refuse 22 LILCO is currently completing the Shoreham nuclear power plant which is in Suffolk County about 60 miles from New York City.
Suppose that LILCO completes this plant and begins to operate it. If there was an accident at the plant how much would you trust each of the following people to tell the truth about the accident?
(Categories for Q.23 to Q.26 )
l=a great deal DON'T READ [4= Don't Know 2=somewhat [9= Refuse 3=not at all
[ \ 23.the Governor of New York State N 13 24.a LILCO official 24 25.an official from the federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission 25 26.the Suffolk County E).ecutive 26 27-28 As the crow flies, about how many miles do you think your home is from the Shoreham nuclear power plant?
DON'T READ [ Code 01 to 993
[00= Don't Know] 27 28 29.Would you consider moving if the Nuclear Regulatory Commission granted LILCO a license to begin operating Shoreham?
l=yes 2=no DON'T READ [3= Don't Know [9= Refuse 29
- 30. Assuming that the Shcreham nuclear power plant is licensed and begins to operate, we are interested in knowing what you would do if there was an accident at the plant. Suppose that you and your family were at home and there was an accident at Shoreham.
All people who lived within five miles radius of the plant were advised to stay indoors. Do you think that you and the other members of your family would 1=go about your normal business, or [ SKIP to O.343 f)
N/ 2= stay inside your home, or [ SKIP to Q.343 3= leave your home and go somewhere else (ASK Q. 31)
DON'T READ [4= Don't Know
[9= Refuse 30
l .
l 31.Where would ycu go?
,/ l= someplace in Suffolk Ocunty 2= someplace in :*assau County 3= someplace in *;ew York City 4=some other place (specify>
5=you don't knov [ SKIP to C. 332 DON'T READ [9= Refuse [ SKIP to Q. 333 31 i 32.In terms of miles, about how far away is this place from i
your home?
1=10 miles or less 2=11 to 20 miles 3=21 to 30 miles 4=31 to 40 miles 5=41 to 50 miles 6=more than 50 miles DON'T READ [7= Don't Know
[9= Refuse 32 33.Which of the following would you be most likely to go to?
1=somebody else's home 2=a pablic shel er 3=a hotel or motel 4=somewhere else (specify)
DON'T READ [5= Don *t Know
[9= Refuse 43
- 34. Suppose that you and your family were at home and there was an accident at the Shoreham nuclear power plant. All pregnant women and preschool children living within five miles of the plant were advised to evacuate and everyone living between six and ten miles from the plant were advised to remain indoors. Would you and other members of your family l=go about your normal business, or (SKIP to 0 38 )
2= stay inside your home, or (SKIP to Q. 38 )
3= leave your he.no and go somewhere else ( ASK Q. 35)
DON'T READ [4= Don't Know
[9= Refuse 34 35.Where would you go?
1= son.eplace in Suffolk County 2=soneplace in Nassau County 3= son.eplace in 3ew York City 4= son.e other place (specify) 5=yce don't knos [ SKIP to Q. 37]
DCN'T READ [9= Refuse [ SKIP to O. 373 35 s
J "O <uwt
l ,
l 3
l
! 36.In terms of miles, about how far away is this place from vour home?
\
f 1=10 miles er less 2=11 to 20 miles 3=21 to 30 =iles 4=31 to 40 miles 5=41 to 50 miles 6-more than 50 miles DON'T READ [7= Don't Know
[9= Refuse 36 37.Which of the following would you be most likely to go to?
1=somebody else's home 2=a public shelter 3=a hotel or motel 4=somewhere else (specify)
DCN'T READ [5= Don't Know
[9= Refuse
~T
- 38. Suppose that you and your f a=ily were at home and there was an accident at the Shoreham nuclear power plant. Everyone living within ten miles of the plant was advised to evacuate.
Would you and other members of your family:
1=go about your normal business, or (SKIP to Q.43 )
2= stay inside your hone, or (SKIF to Q. 43 )
3= leave your home and go somewhere else (ASK Q. 39)
- DON'T READ [4= Don't Know
[9= Refuse 38 39.Where would you go?
l= someplace in Suffolk County 2= someplace in Nassau County 3= someplace in New York City 4=some other place (specify) 5-you don't know [ SKIP to Q. 413 .
DON'T READ [9= Refuse [ SKIP to O. 413 39 40.In terms of miles, about how far away is this place from your home?
l=10 miles or less i 2=11 to 20 miles 3=21 to 30 miles 4=31 to 40 miles 5=41 to 50 miles 6-more than 50 miles DON'T READ [7= Don't Know
[9= Refuse 40
\
4 s
6
l
- r . t '
- 6 41.'a'hich of the fc11owing would yce be nest like'y to go to?
l=somebody else's hcme g
r 2=a public shelter 3=a hotel er motel J 4=somewhere else tspecifys 1
DON ' T READ [5= Don't Know
[9= Refuse 41 42.When you heard the advisory to evacuate would you:
l= leave immediately, or 2= wait until everyone in your family could assemble and then leave f DON'T READ [3= Den't Know [9= Refuse 42 43.In the course of your lifetime, have you ever had to evacuate your home in the face of dsnger such as a hurricane, flood, or any other danger?
1=yes 2=no DON'T READ [9= Refuse 43 44.Do you have children under the age of 5 living at home with you?
l=yes s 2=no
' DCN'T READ [9= Refuse 44 45.0c you have children between the ages of 5 and 11 living at home with you?
l=yes (ASK Q. 46) 2=no [ SKIP to C. 473 DON'T READ [9= Refuse 45 46.If there was an accident at the Shoreham nuclear power plant and your children were at school in an area tnat had to be evacuated, would you prefer that your children:
l=be brought home or to a neighbor's by bus 2=be bussed to a shelter outside the evacuation area, or 3=be kept at school until you could pick them up?
DON'T READ [4= Don't Know [9= Refuse 46 47.Do you currently work full time (30 hours3.472222e-4 days <br />0.00833 hours <br />4.960317e-5 weeks <br />1.1415e-5 months <br /> a week or more) for pay?
1=yes 2=no [ SKIP to C. 493 DON'T READ [9= Refuse [ SKIP to Q. 493 47
)
i a
1 l
7 45.About how long does it usually take ycu to get to work I in the morninc?
l l=less than 15 minutes 2=15 to 30 minutes 3=31 to 60 minutes 4.=61 to 90 minut es 5=more than 90 minutes DON ' T READ [ 9= Don' t Know, Refuse 4b 49.Are you currently:
1-married [ASK Q. 50]
- = single [ SKIP to 0.52]
3= widowed [ SKIP to O. 52]
4= divorced, separated [SK:P to C. 52]
DON'T READ [9= Refuse [ SKIP to C. 52]
49 50.Does your spouse currently work full time (30 hours3.472222e-4 days <br />0.00833 hours <br />4.960317e-5 weeks <br />1.1415e-5 months <br /> a week or more) for pay?
1=yes 2=no DON'T READ [9= Refuse]
50 51.About how long does it usually take your spouse to get to work in the morning?
1=less than 15 minutes 2=15 to 30 minutes 3=31 to 60 minutes 4=61 to 90 minutes 5=more than 90 minutes DON'T READ [9= Don't Know, Refuse]
51 52.What is the last grade of school that you completed?
1=some high school or less 2=high school graduate 3=some college 4= college graduate DON'T READ [9= Refuse]
52 53.What is-your age category?
1=under 25 2=25-35 3=36-50 4=51-65 5=over 65 T..ON'T READ [9=Re. fuse]
53
f g
54.What is your total fanily incene?
1=under S15,000 2=S15,000 to $25,000
' C 3=$26,000 to $35,000 4=S36,000 to S50,000
)
i 5=over S50,000 DON'T READ [9= Don't Know, Refuse]
54 55.Would you consider yourself to be politically:
l= liberal 2= middle-of-the-road 3= conservative DON'T READ [9= Don't Know, Refuse]
55 56 . htat is your race?
l= white 2= black 3=other I
DON'T READ [9= Don't Know, Refuse]
56 57.What is'your religion?
I l= Catholic 2= Protestant 3= Jewish g DON'T READ [4=other
"/ [5=none
[9= refuse 57 58.In general would you say you are:
l=very religious 2=somewhat religious 3=not religious at all DON'T READ [9= Don't Know, Refuse 58 59.htat is your sex?
1= male 2= female 59 l Could you please give me your Zip Code?
j 60 61 62 63 64 1
- [ Interviewer
- Please repeat back the tip Code to verify correctness)
THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION O
V
-e - _ - , - , - . - - , . - - , ,,- . _. p -, -,-- -. , - . v-
l l
l l
!O 3
i 1
)
i I
I l
j l
I h
I
!l ATTACIDiENT 4 b
f t
l I l
l l
~ . ATTACHMENT 4
- ' - - . ~
Sample Foint Number _ _ , _
1-Respondent Number __ 4-5
\
Sex 6 MALE 8 FEMAI.E 6
?orm Q A- 83 8C 7 Hello. . .I'm calling from the Summit Research Group. . .we're taking a survey on some current social problems facing people living on Long Island. . .I'd like to ask you some questions. . .first:
Considering where you live now, how worried are you about the effects of each of the following on the health and well-being of your family. . .
verv worried, somewhat worried, or not too worried. . .for example
- 6. Toxic waste from garbage dumps. . .are you very worried about this, somewhat worried, or not too worried?
8 VERY WORRIED 8 SOMEWHAT WORRIED 8 NOT TOO WORRIED S 8 DON'T KNOW 8 REFUSED 7 How about air pollution. . .are you very worried about this, somewhat worried, or n~ot too worried?
8 VERY WORRIED 8 SOMEWHAT WORRIED 8 NOT TOO WORRIED 9 J
8 DON'T KNOW 8 REFUSED
- 8. What about crime. . .are you y m worried about this, somewhat worried, or'not too worried?
6 VERY WORRIED 8 SOMEWHAT WORRIED 6 'NOT TOO WORRIED 10 8 DON'T KNOW 8 REFUSED
~
9 How about radiation from a nuclear power plant. . .are you very wor-ied about this, somewhat worried, or not too worried? .
6 VERY WORRIED 8 SOMEWHAT WORRIED 8 NOT TOO WORRIED 11
^
8 DON'T KNOW 8 REFUCED
- 10. And what about a_ fire in your home. . .are you m worried about this, somewhat worried., or r.ot too worried?
8 VERY WCRRIED' 8 SOMEWHAT WORRIED 8 NOT TOO WORRIED 12
- 8 DON'T KNOW 8 REFUSED 9
. Sdifasmaa &aYsuems, Daa.
1 In general, how dangerous' do you think it would be to live near each of the following. . . vert dangerous, dangerous, or not too dangerous. . .
for example:
- 11. An airport. . .do you think it would be.verv dangerous to live near an airport, dangerous, or not too dangerous?
6 M Y DANGEROUS & DANGEROUS 6 NOT TOO DANGEROUS 13 8 DON'T KNOW 8 REFUSED
- 12. What about a mental hospital. . .do you think it would be verv dangerous to live near a mental hospital, dangerous, or not too dangerous? .
M VERY DANGEROUS & DANGEROUS 8 NOT TOO DANGEROUS 14 6 DON'T KNOW 6 REFUSED 13 How about a coal fired power plant. . .do you think it would be verv dangerous to live near a coal fired power plant, dangerous, or not too dangerous?
6 VERY DANGEROUS 8 DANGEROUS 8 NOT TOO DANGEROUS 15
/f DON'T KNOW 8 REFUSED q .
14 What about a nuclear power plant. . .do you think it would be very dangerous to live near a nuclear power plant, dangerous, or not too dangerous?
8 VERY DANGEROUS 6 dangercus 6 NOT TOO DANGEROUS 16
/8 DON'T KNOW 6 REFUSED ,
15 Would you describe yourself as a supporter of nuclear power plants as a means of providing electricity, or as an opponent of nuclear power plants, or haven't you made up your mind yet on this issue?
6 SUpp0RTER & Opp 0NENT 6 HAVEN'T MADE Up MIND 6 REFUSED 17 16; Do you think that LILOO should complete and operate the Shoreham nuclear power plant?
@ YES @ NO 6 DON'T KNOW 6 REFUSED 18
%J
~- , a 3,- g. . - - - -
SLUfoAnson & chacutu, One.
(
17 Which of the following comes closest to your opinion on nuclear energy. . .all nuclear power plants should be shut down. . .or, those plants which are currently operating should be allowed .to continue to operate, but no new plants should be buil.t. . .or, we should continue to build new nuclear power plants?
8 SHUT DOWN & OPERATE ONLY EXISTING PLANTS 6 3UILD NEN PLANTS 19
./J/ DON'T KNOW 8 REFUSED
- 18. During normal operation, which type of electricity plant pollutes the air the least. . .an oil-fired plant, or a coal-fired plant, or a nuclear-fired plant, or you're not sure?
6 OIL-FIRED 8 COAL-FIRED /_y NUCLEAR-FIRED 8 NOT SURE 20 8 ALL ABOUT THE SAME & ?E5USED 19 During normal eteration does a nuclear power plant give off a dangerous level of radiation?
6 YES 8 NO 6 DON'T KNON 8 REFUSED 21
- 20. When the nuclear accident took place at Three Mile Island which of the following happened. . .no one died but some people became ill. . .
or, only a few people became ill. . .or, no one was hurt although the long term effects are unknown. . .or, you're not sure?
6 NO ONE DIED 6 FEW 3ECAME ILL 6 NO ONE HURT 6 NOT SURE 22 8 REFUSED
- 21. Do you believe that technical experts are able to accurately evaluate the risks of nuclear power?
8 YES 8 NO 8 DON'T KNOW 8 REFUSED 23
- 22. Does LILCO currently have an operating nuclear power plant en Long Island?
6 YES 6 NO 6 DON'T KNOW 8 REFUSED 24.
i l
l
~
x t e3-1 3 SLEfoAnson Er c4uoatat.as, Daa.
LILCO is currently completing the Shoreham nuclear power plant which p is in Suffolk County about 60 miles frem New York Civy. Suppose that g LILCO completes this plant and begins to operate it. If there was an acciden; at the plant how much would you rust each of the following people to tell the truth abou: the accident. . .for example:
23 The Governor of New York State. . .would you trust the Gqvernor a cent deal, somewhat, or not al all to tell the truth about ar. accident at the plant?
O GREAT DEAL 6 SCIEllHAT 6 NOT AT ALL 6 DON'T KNOW 6 REF 25 24 What about a LILCO official. . .would you trust a LILCO official a rest deal, somewhat, or not al all to tell the truth about an accident a ne plant?
8 GREAT DEAL 8 SOIE. EAT 6 NOT AT ALL 8 DON'T KNOW 6 REF 26 25 How about an official from the federal Nuclear Regulatory Co= mission. . .
would you trust an official from the federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission a neat deal, smewhat, or not al all Ic tell the truth about an accident at the plart?
6 GREAT DEAL 6 SCIE. GAT 6 NOT AT ALL 8 DON'T KNOW $ REF 27
- 26. What about the Suffolk Counif Executive. . .would you trust the .
Suffolk County Executive a cent deal, somewhat, or not -at all to tell the truth about an accident at the plant?
6 GREAT DEAL @ SOMEWHAT 6 NOT AT ALL 8 DON'T KNOW 6 REF 28
- 27. - 28. As the crew flies, about how many miles do you think your hcme is from the Shoreham nuclear power plant?
(specify number of miles) /9/9/ DK 29-30 29 Would you consider moving if the Nuclear Regulatory Commission granted LILCO a license to begin operating Choreham?
O YES 6 NO 6 DON'T KNOW 8 REFUSED- 31 e
e
\vi 2tilgoAason E chaeiatu, Daa.
L: S3-1 4 ,
l
1 l
( 30. Assuming that the Shoreham nuclear power plant is licensed and begins te operate, we are interested in knowing what you would do if there i was en accident at the plant. Suppose that you and your family were at home end there was an accident 9: Shorehem. . . ell pecple who lived within five miles of the plant were advised to stay-indocrs, while all people who lived more than five miles from the plant were told they could go about their normal business. . .do you think that you and the other members of your family would: go about your normal business, or stay inside your home, or leave your home and go somewhere else?
8 IiORMAL BUSINESS (skip to 34) '8 STAY INSIDE HOME (skip to 34) 32 8 LEAVE HOME AND GO SOfeelHERE ELSE (ask question 31) 8 DON'T KNOW (skip to 34) 8 REFUSED (skip to 34) 33F
- 31. Where would you go. . . someplace in Suffolk County, someplace in Nassau County, someplace in New York City, some other place, er you don't know?
6 SUFFOLK COUNTY 8 NASSAU COUNTY 8 NEN YORK CITY JE
/4/ OTFER (specify) -
j 8 DON'T KNOW (skip to 33) 8 REFUSED (skip to 33)
- 32. In terms of miles, about how far eway is this place from your home. . .
10 miles or less, 11 to 20 miles, 21 to 30 miles, 31 to 40 miles, El to 50 miles or more than 50 miles?
8 10 MILES OR LESS 8 11 TO 20 MILES 8 21 TO 30 MILES 35 8 31 TO 40 MILES 8 41 TO 50 MILES 8 MORE THAN 50 MILES 8 DON'T KNOW 6 REFUSED 33 Which of the following would you be most likely to go to. . .
i somebody else's home, a public shelter, a hotel or motel, or somewhere else?
8 SOME30DY ELSE'S HOME 8 ?U3LIC SHELTER 8 HOTEL OR MOTEL 36 8 SOMEWHERE ELES (specify) 8 DON'T KNOW 8 REFUSED O
. 1 i
i ; a q_. _
c, & [$Sokason & 8ssocialss. $ne.
1
i I
34 Suppose that you and your family were at home and there was an accident at the Shoreham nuclear power plant. . .all pregnant women and pre-school children living within five miles of the plant were advised to evacuate and everyone living between six and ten miles frcm the plant were advised to remain indoors, whil-e everyrne living more than ten miles from the plant was told they could go about their normal business. .
.would you and other = embers of your family:
go about your normal business, or stay inside your home, or leave your home and go somewhere else?
6 NORMAL BUSINESS (skip to 38) & STAY INSIDE HOME (skip to 38) 37 6 LEAVE HOME AND GO Sote.iHERE ELSE (ask question 35) 6 DON'T KNOW (skip to 38) 8 REFUSED (skip to 38) 38:
35 Where would you go. .
. someplace in Suffolk County, someplace in' Nassau County, someplace in New York City, some other place, or you don't know?
6 SUFFOLK COUNTY 8 NASSAU COUNTY 6 IE.1 YORK CITY 39 8 OTHER (specify) 8 DON'T KNOW.(skip to 37) 8 RFFUSED (skip to 37) -
- 36. In terms of miles, about how far away is this place from your home. . .
10 miles or less,11 to 20 miles, 21 to 30 miles, 31 to 60 miles.
41 to 50 miles, or more than 50 miles?
8 10 MILES OR LESS 8 11 TO 20 MILES 6 21 TO 30 MILES 40 8 31 TO 40 MILES 6 41 TO 50 MILES 8 MORE THAN 50 MILES 6 DON'T KNOW 8 REFUSED
' 37. Which of the following would you be most likely to go to. . .
semebody else's home, a public shelter, a hotel or motel, or somewhere else?
- 6 SOMEBODY ELSE'S HOME & PU3LIC SHELTER 8 HOTEL OR MOTEL 41 8 SOMEWHERE ELSE (specify) 8 DON'T KNOW 6 REFUSED O
e O ~
,, _ . . n . a . ~ . - ~ .. .
O Q 38. Suppose that you and your family were at hcme and there was an accident at the Shoreham nuclear power plant. . .everyone liVing uie.in ten miles of the plant was advised to evacuate, while everyone living more than ten miles from the plant was told they could go about their normal business. . .would you,and the other members of your family: go about your normal business, or stay inside your home, or leave your home and go scmewhere else?
6 NORMAL SUSINESS (skip to 43) 6 STAY INSIDE HOME (skip to 43) 42 ,
6 LEAVE HOME AND GO SOMFdHERE ELSE (ask question 39) i i
6 DON'T KNOW (skip to 43) 6 REFUSED (skip to 43)
. 43 b 39 Where would you go. . . someplace in Suffolk County, someplace in Nassau County, someplace in New York City, some other place.~or you don't know?
6 SUFFOLK COUNTY 6 NASSAU COUNTY 6 NFd YORK CITY .
EL l 6 OTHER (specify) 6 DON'T KNOW (skip to 41) 6 REFUSED (skip to 41)
- 40. In terms of miles about how far away is this place from your hcme. . .
I m 10 =iles or less, 11 to 20 miles, 21 to 30 miles, 31 to 40 miles, 41 to 50 miles, er more than 50 miles?
6 10 MILES OR LESS 6 11 TO 20 MILES 6 21 TO 30 MILES 4 6 31 TO 40 MILES 8 41 TO 50 MILES & MORE THAN 50 MILES 6 DON'T KNOW 6 REFUSED
- 41. 'dhich of the following would ycu be most likely to go to. . .
semebody else's home, a public shelter, a hotel or motel, or semewhere else?
8 SOME30DY ELSE'S HOME 8 PU3LIC SHELTER 6 HOTEL OR MOTEL 46 6 SOMENHERE ELSE (specify) 6 DON'I KNCW 6 REFUSED O ~
V .
L: ?3-1 71 Sif[himson &c4uociatu. Dna.
- 42. When you heard the advisory to evacuate would you: leave immediately.
or wait until everyone in your family could assemble and then leave?
O' 8 LEAVE I'OEDIATELY 8 WAIT UNTIL EVERYONE COU!D ASSEM3LE 4 8 DON'T KNOW 8 REFUSED )
43 In the course of your lifetime, have you ever had "to evacuate your home in the face of danger such as a hurricane, flood, or any other danger?
8 YES 8 NO 8 REFUSED 4 44 Do you have children under the age of 5 living at home with you?
8 NO 4 8 YES 8 REFUSED .
45 Do you heve children between the ages of 5 and 17 living at home with you?
8 YES (ask question 46) 8 NO (skip to 47) 8 REFUSED 5 46 If there was an accident at the Shoreham nuclear power plant and your childr_en were at school in sh erea that h9d to be evacuated, would you prefer that your children be brought home or to a neighbor's by bus, or be bussed to a shelter outside the evacuation area , or be kept at school until you could pick them up?
8 EROUGHT HOME/TO NEIGH 30R'S 8 BUSSED TO SHELTER 5 8 n.:.rT AT SCHOOL 8 DON'T KNOW 8 REFUSED 47 Do you currently work full time (30 hours3.472222e-4 days <br />0.00833 hours <br />4.960317e-5 weeks <br />1.1415e-5 months <br /> a week or more) for pay?
l
& YES (ask question 48) 8 NO (skip to 49) 8 REFUSED. 5
- 48. About how long does it usually take you to get to work in the morning. . .less than 15 minutes, 15 to 30 minutes, 31 to 60 =inutes, Al to 90 minutes, or more than 90 minutes?
8 LESS THAN 15 8 15 TO 30 8 31 TO 60 8 61 TO 90 5 8 MORE THAN 90 8 DON'T KNOW 8 REFUSED 49 Are you currently married, single, widowed, or divorced or separated?
8 MARRIED (ask question 50) 8 SINGLE (skip to 52) 5 8 WIDOWED (skip to 52) 8 DIVORCED /SEFARATED (skip to 52) ,
8 REFUSED (skip to 52) .
. LI e3-t e $Ufafumon & ekoaiala, L
..c...
l 1
- 30. (I? MARRIED) Does your spouse current "dcrk full time (30 hours3.472222e-4 days <br />0.00833 hours <br />4.960317e-5 weeks <br />1.1415e-5 months <br /> e week or more) for pay?
(a V
l 8 YES 6 NO (skip to $2) 6 REFUSED (skip to 52) 55 ,
- 51. About how long does it usually take your spouse to get to work,in the morning. . .less than 15 minutes,15 to 30 minutes, 31 to eo minutes, 61 to 90 minutes, or more than 90 minutes?
8 LESS THAN 15 & 15 TO 30 8 31 TO 40 & 61 TO 90 56 8 MORE THAN 90 8 DON'T KNOW 8 REFUSED
- 52. What is the last grade of school that you completed. . .some high school or less, or are you a high school graduate, or did you complete some college courses, or are you ,a college graduate? -
8 HIGH SCHOOL GRADUATE 57 8 SOME HIGH SCHOOL OR LESS 8 SOME COLLEGE 8 COLLEGE GRADUATE 8 REFUSED 53 What is your age category. . .under 25, 25 to 35, 36 to 50, 51 to 65, or over 5?
8 UNDER 25, 8 25 TO 35 6 36 TO 50 8 51 TO 65 58 8 OVER 65 8 REFUSED
(\ '54. What is your total family income. . .under $15,000, 315,000 to $25,000, S26,000 to $35,000 S36,000 to $50,000, or over $50,000?
8 UNDER $15K 8 S15K TO S25K 8 326K TO S35K Sc 8 $36K TO $50K 8 OVER S50K 6 REFUSED 55 Would you consider yourself to be politically. . . liberal, middle-of-the-road, or conservative?
8 CONSERVATIVE 6C 8 LIBERAL 8 MIDDLE-OF-THE-ROAD
/8 DON'T KNOW 6 REFUSED What is your race. . white, black, or other?
- 56. .
8 WHITE 8 3 LACK $ OTHER 8 DON'T KNOW 8 REFUSED 61 What is your religion. . Catholic,.Frotestant, or Jewish?
57 .
8 CATHOLIC 8 PROTESTANT 8 JFdISH 8 OTHER 8 NONE 62
~
8 REFUSED
)
e nW e SitgoAnson & e-koowa, Gna
- - .,3 ,2 9 .
1 l
- 58. In general, would you say you are. . .very religious , somewhat religious, or not religious at all?
O @ VERY RELIGIOUS 8 SOIG.lHAT RELIGIOUS 8 NOT RELIGIOUS AT ALL 63 6 DON'T KNOW @ ~ REFUSED 59 New long have you lived on Long Island. . .all your life , .more than 20 years,10 to 20 years 5 to 9 years, or less than 5 years?
6 10 TO 20 YRS 64
@ ENTIRE LIFE 8 MORE THAN 20 YRS 8 5 TO 9 YRS 8 LESS THAN 5 YRS 6 REFUSED Thmk you very much. . . have a nice day / evening.
l 1
LI 33-1 10 SEgo/mten Er efu=t.ta, L. l
- e e
- - i ., , .-y s - * . _
- ---_m_ _ _ - _ _ _
-- _ , - - , - -- _ _ - - -- _. , _ - --- , - - - ,__ ,_,m,- . ---- -- -aam,_,,m_, ,--.--__ _ , _ . _ __- __ - , __ _ a_m_a_ , a. .- ,
I f
j l
(
l l
I 1,
l k
i i
I T
k ATTACHMENT 5 I
,_,p ,, , - -- , ,-- . .- - . --,n- - -., ,,.,.e . - . . , , _ - _ . --. - - , -,..,. - - - _.,,,e- .,.J-,...ne,m,_- - ,,,w-m.m--o-we,- mw =-es e---
l ' '
.2 - . -:.. < . . . -
ATTACm1ENT 5
~ '
Shmple Point Nu=ber _- , M '.l
- ~ ~
'-. ;r-.,.." 4-f
] -
~
Respondent Number 7.
. Sex.. 8 MALE 8 FDIALE
-n .: .
6 e .
l-
~
8 C '.j..h f
- a. s: :
I?orm. .5 A. $3 :. '7
- m. . . ..
. .- - , ~.w...
t ~
Hello. . .I.'m calling from the Su=mit Research Group.
. .we're taking...
4 a survey on some current social problems' facing people living on long .;&ei'-
W Island. .I'd like to ask you'some questions.
. . .first ** c-: GE --
4%) .: ~ .- .
- M % y,p =- N Q- . *?," "'. "i..:;,
'A;7. ; g%25.
3.: ~. - -- -
.., ' mm.n .
e . .. Considering where you-live 'now, how worried are you about the effects :.
.'Y'of each of the following on the health and well-being of your family. .4.W'.R'
' very worried, somewhat worried, or not too worried. .. .for examples;,;h @ t'
.c . .-
3-@."; 79yg 4,.:.@.;;., .~'gy ; .
- 6. Toxic weste from garbage dumps. . 2are you very#worried about'thisr %'
somewhat worried, or not too,worri.ed? ,
.,.,~.,.a f'-@.%
" @$1[,
$.;f.:.p./k.,,.. . . . . .
, ? .
. w. w ,c . ,
E 8 VERY WORRIED' ."! 8 SOMEWHAT WORRIED 8 NOT TOO WORhIED"% $5'
..... , a.. ...r .r :. ... . ,. . . .. :
. . . .. g , n m .. ,.z,.
. .. i.;;;'
- DON ' T .KNO. W >..; .,
. s'.. .:=4 REF.USED ..+ .& .'.~.f. ., .. u&m m
- a ..n ..<
x.
~d-
- a. . .;,A;-M. p.p-.r.M:3_wp.d,.g
. . .:. .?.., . . - ..
.'. -. u. .- : ;.3wg...mt 2 .:..-g ie
,F 7.are.you y g worried about'this,j;some.....v,d.
7 How about air pollution. what
.e . '- ." P?- C'.
worried, or not too worried? :.W .. rj'.-::.:..W < :.. ~.M 3.:
1
, 8 VERY WORRIED
. R= n54.
SOMEWHAT WORRIED ; ,;,.8 NOT. TOO WORRIEDM
..'. .: " . ' *. . . %, Q.3-4 M .+>
h.x:
..~... m, .D.?. .:m. . . . . r . ,. e. : . ~ . . yt:h;9
. . ~- < ... ..
. . -. "w. .g;
. ,.a. . s.v ..;. - p
. .i.6. ..- '~
DON'T KNO.W E.T-
. REFUSED . r.,17. T. ---5.#.2.i
"$'.? ? $.a.,o..i,k.M ;.. ....-
~.-l. '
..D .4 * . w-
~ .. .
. ~. M.i!
s ? &..'~..
- 8. What about crime.
. .are'you very worried about this, somewhat worried ~,l '
or no t too . worried?.. '.72..c..: . ~.>,;.,- .
,. r - .a >*-
- ._r ..
.t . ... .. ~ Q.S2_p- .m' , ,y,L..e4
- 2. .
.q.: . . r:
& VERY WORRIED lf.'f.5,8 SOMEWHAT WORRIED 1.8 NOT;.TOO, WORR rl IDE 1 @
'. .' ; 2,.: L4 %. .. . . , . , .:,. . . . F~ '. .
. . . ;. l ' '. ., -a lW'" ' 8 DON'T KNOW 'l 8 REFUSED. ' 'W':.y:s.,4fr;hw'C,p
.r.
' ;M.'.@ . ;dg-
- ~.
'. . . ;. h.h f.=O '.QCe :.
9 How about radiation from a nuclear power plarit. . . are you y.gy,'_ ~ ('?d!< -
worried about this, somewhat worried, or not too worried?
. .- . "-..g:c.
r.
-.w6_.
8 VERY WORRIED 8 SOMEWHAT WORRIED . 8 NOT TOO WORRIED M.:..p 11
.-. s.; .
~ 8 DON'T KNOW 8 REFUSED ,
[, . "-Y~.w-
. . ((
10.. And what abotit a fire in your home. . .are you very worried about this,-
somewhat worried, or not too worried?
.W..y. ~.
8 VERY WORRIED 8 SOMEWHAT WORRIED 8 NOT TOO WORRIED . (.[.e 1-2
. w..
8 DON'T KNOW 8 REFUSED . - . l' ..,- .='~..~ c~ '.
S iff % = = fr o % e ta w , D a .
3
In general, how dangerous 'do you think it would be to live near each of the following. . . vert dangerous, dangerous, or not too dangerous. . .
for example:
- 11. An airport. . .do you think it would be vert dangerc.us to live near an airport, dangerous, or not too dangerous?
6 VERY DANGEROUS & DANGEROUS 6 NOT TOO DANGEROUS 13 8 DON'T KNOW 6 REFUSED
- 12. What about a mental hospital. . .do you think it would be vert dangerous to live near a mental hospital, dangerous, or not too.
dangerous? .
M VERY DANGEROUS 6 DANGEROUS 8 NOT TOO DANGEROUS 14 8 DON'T KNOW 6 REFUSED 13 How about a coal fired power plant. . .do you think it would be verr dangerous to live near a coal fired power plant, dangerous, or not too dangerous?
6 VERY DANGEROUS 6 DANGEROUS 8 NOT T00 DANGEROUS 15
/f DON'T KNOW 6 REFUSED 14 What about a nuclear power plant. . .do you think it would be vert dangerous to live near a nuclear power plant, dangerous, or not too dangerous?
6 VERY DANGEROUS 6 dangerous 6 NOT TCO DANGEROUS 16
/8 DON'T KNOW 6 REFUSED 15 '1ould you describe yourself es a supporter of nuclear power plants as a means of providing electricity, or as an opponent of nuclear power plants, or haven't you made up your mind yet on this issue?
6 SUFFORTER & OFFONENT 6 HAVEN'T !"ADE U? MIND 6 REFUSED 17
- 16. Do you think that LILCO should complete and operate the Shoreham nuclear power plant?
6 YES 8. NO 8 DON'T KNOW /67 REFUSED 18
\
1 l
.__ - n. s _ ,. , SillfoAnson Erc4uosiatu, Daa.
17 Which of the following comes closest to your opinion on nuclear energy. . .all nuclear power plants should be shut down. . .or,
'- those plants which are currently operating should be allowed.to continue to operate, but no new plants should be built. . .or, we should continue to build new nuclear power plants?
6 SHUT DOWN 6 0FERATE ONLY EX STING PLANTS 6 3UILD NEW PLANTS 19 ,
& DON'T KNOW 8 REFUSED
- 18. During normal operation, which type of electricity plant poilutes the air the least. . .an oil-fired plant, c'r a coal-fired plant, or a nuclenr-fired plant, or you're not sure?
6 OIL-FIRED 6 COAL-FIRED C/ NUCLEAR-FIRED 8 NOT SURE 20 6 ALL ABOUT THE SAME 6 REFUSED 19 During normal creration does a nuclear power plant give off a dangerous level of radiation?
6 YES 6 NO 6 DON'T KNOW 6 REFUSED 2.
- 20. When the nuclear accident took place at Three Mile Island which of the following happened. . .no one died but some people became ill. . .
or, only a few people became ill. . .or, no one was hurt although the '
A long tern effects are unknown. . .or, you're not sure?
\ )
& NO ONE DIED & FEW 3ECAME ILL 6 NO ONE HURT 6 NOT SURE 22 6 REFUSED
- 21. Do you believe that technical experts are able to accurately evaluate the risks of nuclear power?
8 YES 6 NO 8 DON'T KNOW 6 REFUSED 23
- 22. Does LILCO currently have an operating nuclear power plant on Long Island?
6 YES 6 NO 6 DON'T KNOW 8 REFUSED ' 2h I
l s
b -
SQ,6 Mu c.zu, S .
LI *3-1 3
- ..-t_ __. .a -- _ _ - x - . , _ _ _ _
l t LILCO is currently completing the Shorenam. nuclear power plant which is in Suffolk County about 60 miles frem New York Cit /. Suppose that If there was an O LILCO completes'this accident at the plantplant and begins how much would you to trast operate eachit.of the following people ,
to tell the truth about the accident. . .for example: l 23 The Governor of New York State. . .would you trust the Governor a ~
cent deal, somewhat, or not g all to tell the truth abcut an accident at the plant?
8 GREAT DEAL 8 SOMEWHAT 6 NOT AT ALL & DON'T KNOW 6 REF 25 2f& . What about e LILCO official. . .would you trust a LILCO officia a i creat deal, somewhat, or not g all to tell the truth about an accident at tne plant? ,
~
8 GREAT DEAL 8 SOMEWHAT 8 NOT AT ALL 8 DON'T KNOW $ REF 26 25 How about an official from the federal Nuclear Regulator / Commission. . .
would you trust an official from the federal Nuclear Regulatory .
Commission a creat deal, somewhat, or not n all to tell the truth about an accident at the plant?
6 GREAT DEA 1 8 SOMEWHAT 8 NOT AT ALL 8 DON'T KNOW $ REF 27
- 26. What about the Suffolk County Executive. . .would you trust the Suffolk County Executive a g3,n deal, somewhat, or not g g to tell the truth about an accident at the . plant?
8 GREAT DEAL & SOMEWHAT 8 NOT AT ALL 8 DON'T KNOW 6 REF 28
- 27. - 28. As the crow flies, about how many miles do you think your home is from the Shoreham nuclear power plant?
(specify number of miles) @ DK 29-30
- 29. Would you consider moving if the Nuclear Regulatory Commission granted LILCO a license to begin operating Shoreham?
. 8 YES 8 NO 8 DON'T KNOW 8 REFUSED 31
~
O :
S20oImson Er afuoawa, %.
y , y .- --:. . 3 2 g:s t,g,;.+.
y.. w ',- - . .r.
- m. . . .
Assuming that the Shoreham nuclear power plant is licensed and begins t
- p. 30. ~
to operste, we are interested in knowing what you would do if there was an accident at the plant.
v Suppose that you and your family were at home and there was an accident at Shoreham. . .all people who lived s within five =iles of the plant were advised to stay indoors. . .do you think that you and the other = embers of your family would: go about your normal business, or stay inside your home , or -leave y.our home and' go somewhere else?
8 NORMAL'3USINESS (skip -to 34) 8 STAI INSIDE HOME (skip to 34} '32 8 LEAVE HOME AND GO SOMEWHERE ESE (ask next question) '
8 DON'T KNOW (ask next question) 8 REFUSED (skip to 34) Tf.
(IF LEAVE HOME AND GO SOMEWHERE ELSE OR DON'T KNOW) What if people. S who lived more than five miles from the plant were told they could ~~ I ~
go about their normal business. . .do you think that you and the other members of your family would: go about your normal business, or. stay inside your home, or leave your home and go somewhere else? 1 8 NORMAL BUSINESS (skip to 34) 8 STAY INSIDE HOME (skip to 34) .!33 i 8 LEAVE HOME AND GO SOMEWHERE ELSE (ask question 31)
. ~ .
8 DON'T KNOW (skip to.34) 8 REFUSED (skip to 34) it55
..r+
- 31. Where would you go. . someplace in Suffolk County, so.seplace in '94 ~
O Nassau County, someplace in New York City, some other place, or V you don't know?
8 SUFFOLK COUNTY 8 NASSAU COUNTY 8 NEW YORK CITY 34 8 OTHER (specify) . . .
8 DON'T IGOW (skip to 33) 8 REFUSED (skip to 33) '[
- 32. In terms of miles, about how far away is this place from your home. . .
10 miles or less,11 to 20 miles, 21 to 30 miles, 31 to 40 miles, 41 to 50 miles, or more than 50 miles?
8 10 MILES OR LESS 811 TO 20 MILES 8 21 TO 30 MILES' .35 8 31 TO 40 MILES 8 41 TO 50 MILES 8 MORE THAN 50 MILES 8 DON'T KNOW 8 REFUSED -
33 Which of the following would you ba most likely to go to. ..
somebody else's home, a.public shelter, a hotel or motel, or somewhere else? -
8 .SOMEBODY ELSE'E HOME 8 PUBLIC SHEL'EL"4, 8 HOTEL OR MOTEL 36 8 SOMEWHERE ELSE (specify) I d7 DON'TKNOW 8 REFUSED LI 83-1 5b SH%fawa rra-As t o.. t1..
i 1
34 Suppose that'you and your family were at home and there was an accident at the Shoreham nuclear power plant. . .all pregnant women 3
and pre-school children living within five miles of the plant were advised to evacuate and everyone living between six and ten miles from the pla.nt were advised to re=ain indoors. . .would you and other .
members of your family: go about your no=al busi.%ss, or stay inside your home, or leave your home and go somewhere else? _
8 NORMAL 3USINESS (skip to'38) 8 STAY INSIDE HOME (skip to 38) 37 6 LEAVE HOME AND GO SCIEdHERE ESE (ask next question) 8 DON'T KNOW (ask next question) 8 REFUSED (skip te 38)
(IF LEAVE HOME AND GO SCIEdHERE ELSE OR DON'T KNOW) What if peo'ple who '
lived more than ten miles from the plant were told they coul1 go about their normal business. . .do you think that you and other members of your family would: go about your normal business, or stay inside yoa.'
home, or leave your home and go someplace else?
O NORMAL BUSINESS (skip to 38) 8 STAY INSIDE HOME (skip to 38) - 38 8 LEAVE HOME AND GO SOMEWHERE ESE (ask question 35) 8 DON'T KNOW (skip to 38) 8 REFUSED (skip to 38) '
y .
35 Where would you go. . . someplace in Suffolk County, semeplace in Nassau County, someplace in New York City, some other place, or you don't know?
8 SUFFOLK County 8 NASSAU COUNTY 8 IEd YORK CITY 39 OT E (specify) 8 DON'T KNOW (skip to 37) & REFUSED (skip to 37)
~
- 36. In terms of miles, about how far away is this place from your he=e. . .
10 miles or less,11 to 20 miles, 21 to 30 miles, 31 to 40 miles, 41 to 50 miles, or more than 50 miles? -
810 MILES OR LESS 8 11 TO 20 MILES 8 21 TO 30 MILES 40 8 31 TO 40 MILES 8 41 TO 50 MILES 8 MCRE THAN 50 MILES 8 DON'T KNOW & REFUSED .c 37 Which of the foll'owing would you be most likely to go to. . .
somebody else's home, a public shelter, a hotel or motel, or somewhere -
else?
8 SOME3ODY ESE'S HOME 8 PUBLIC SHE"'ER 6 HOTE OR MOS 41 O " " '"'"""" " "" '"' ~
8 DON'T KNOW 8 REFUSED en h amms N ON UN $- M
Suppose that you"and your family were at home and there was an O ' 38. accident at the Shoreham nuclear power plant.
within ten miles of the plant was advised to evacuate.
. .everyone living
. .would you and other members of your family: go about your normal business, or stay inside your home, or leave your home and go somewhere else? 7, 6 NORMAL BUSINESS (skip to 43) 8 STAY INSIDE HOME (s' kip to 43) 42 8 LkAVE HOME AND GO SOEVHERE ELSE (ask next question) ,
~
8 DON'T KNOW (ask next question) 8 REFUSED (skip to 43)
(IF LEAVE HOME AND GO SOMEWERE ELSE OR DON'T KNOW) What if people who lived more than ten niles from the plant were told they oculd go about their nomal business. . .do you think that you and other members of your family would: go about your nomal business, or stay inside ' '
your home, or leave your home and go somewhere else?
8 NORMAL PUSINESS (skip to 43) 8 STAY INSIDE HOME (skip to'43) '43 8 LEAVE HOME AND GO SOEfHERE ELSE (ask question 39) 8 DON'T KNOW (skip to 43) 8 REFUSED (skip to 43) 39 Where would you go. . . someplace in Suffolk County, someplace in 1 Nassau County, someplace in New York City, some other place, or y.ou don't know?
6 SUFFOLK COUNTY 6 NASSAU COUNTY 6 NE.1 YORK CITY hh
- 8 OTHER (specify) - !
8 DON'T KNOW (skip to 41) 8 REFUSED (skip to 41)
- 40. , In terms of miles, about how far away is this place from your home. . .
10 miles or less, 11 to 20 miles, 21 to 30 miles, 31 to 40 miles, 41 to 50 miles, or more than 50 miles?
8 10 MILES OR LESS 8 11 TO 20 MILES 8 21 TO 30 MILES 45 8 31 TO 40 MILES 8 41 TO 50 MILES 8 MORE THAN 50 MILES 8 DON'T IGOW 8 REFUSED
- 41. Wh3ch of the following would you be most likely to go to. . . -
somebody else's home, a public' shelter, a hotel or motel, or somewhere else?
8 SOMEBODY ELSE'S HOME & PUBLIC SHELTER 8 HOTEL OR MOTEL '46 8 SOEVERE ELSE (specify) -
8 DON'T KNOW 8 REFUSED.
O LI 87-1 ?w N' ** ** * * #**-
t ._ _ -. _. _ ._
h2. When you heard the advisory to evacusTTould you: leave immediately, or wait until everyone in your family could assemble and then leave?
8 LEAVE IMMEDIATELY 8 WAIT UNTIL EVERYONE COULD AS3EM3LE 47 8 DON'T KNOW 8 REFUSED 43 In the course of your lifetime , have you ever had'to evac'uate your home in the fece of danger such as a hurricane, flood, or any other danger?
8 YES 8 NO 8 REFUSED 46 44 Do you have children under the age of 5 living - at home with you?
8 YES 8 NO . 8 REFUSED 49 45 Do you have children between the ages of 5 and 17 living'at home with you?
8 NO (skip to 47) 8 YES (ask question 44) 8 REFUSED 3C 46 If there was nn accident at the Shoreham nuclear power plant and your children wero at school in nn area tha1; had to be evacuated, would you prefer thnt your children: be brought home or to a neighbor's by bus, or be. bussed to a shelter outside the evacuation area , or be kept at school until you could pick them up?
8 3ROUGHT HOME/TO NEIGH 30R'S 8 BUSSED TO SHELTER 51 8 KEFT AT SCHCOL 8 DON'T KNOW 8 REFUSED
- 47. Do you currently work full time (30 hours3.472222e-4 days <br />0.00833 hours <br />4.960317e-5 weeks <br />1.1415e-5 months <br /> a week or more) for pay?
6 YES (ask question 48) 8 Il0 (skip to 49) 8 REFUSED 52
- 48. About how long does it usually take you to get to work in the
=orning. . .less than l'5 minutes.15 to 30 minutes, 31 to 60 minutes, Al to 90 minutes, or : ore than 90 minutes?
8 LESS THAN 15 6 15 TO 30 8 31 TO 60 8 61 TO 90' 52 8 MORE THAN 90 8 DON'T KNOW 8 REFUSED 49 Are you cu:;rently married.. single, widowed, or divorced or separated? )
8 MARRIED (ask question 50) 8 SINGLE (skip to 52) 54
. 8 WIDOWED (skip to 52) 8 DIVORCED / SEPARATED (skip to 52) l 8 REFUSED (skip to 52)
O '
LI 63-1 8 . 223Anson &a4samtss; Dna.
. - , . >,,. . . a ' .~c - -.. ; , . \, . .. e ,
.~j ' ; .j.Qjf
.- . . . . - - _ .. \
l
- 50. (IF MARRIED) Does your spouse currently work full ti=e (30 hours3.472222e-4 days <br />0.00833 hours <br />4.960317e-5 weeks <br />1.1415e-5 months <br /> e 3 week or more) for pay?
6 YES 8 NO (skip to 52) 8 REFUSED (skip to 52) 5' l
- 51. About how long does it usually take your spouse to ge: to work in the norning. . .less than 15 =inutes 15 to 30 minutes. 31 to 60 '
=inutes. 61 to 90 minutes, or more than 90 minutes?
8 LESS THAN 15 615-TO 30 8 31 TO 60 6 61 TO 90 56 8 MORE THAN 90 8 DON'T KNOW 8 REFUSED
- 52. What is the last grade of school that you completed. . .some high school or less, or are you a high school graduate cr did you complete some college courses, or are you a college graduate? -
8 SOME HIGH SCHOOL OR LESS 8 HIGH SCHOOL GRADUATE 57 8 SOME COLLEGE 8 COLI.ZGE GRADUATE 8 REFUSED 53 What is your age category. . .under 25 25 to 35, 34 to 50 51 to 65.
or over ~5?
6 UNDER 25 & 25 TO 35 8 36 TO 50 /f 51 TO 65 Sc 8 OVER 65 6 REFUSED -
54 Wha t is your total f amily inccme. .
.under $15.000. 315.000 to $25 000 S26,000 to $35,000. $36.000 to $50,000 or over 350.000?
8 UNDER $15K & $15K TO S25K 8 $26K TO $35K 59 8 $36K TO S50K 8 OVER S50K & REFUSED 55 Would you consider yourself to be politically. . . liberal, middle-of-the-road, or conservative?
6 LI3ERAL 8 MI DlE-GF-THE-RCAD 8 CONSERVATIVE 6C 8 CON'T KNOW 6 REFUSED
- 56. What is your race. . . white . black, or other?
^
S WHITE & 3 LACK 8 OTHER 8 DON'T KNOW 8 REFUSED 61 57 What is your religion. . . Catholic. Frotestant. or Jewish?
8 CATHOLIC 8 FROTESTANT 8 JEWISH- /8 OTHER 8 NONE 62 6 REFUSED -
1 J
c EES*A"*** E* CN"**i
- 0"= -
. .: 3.
~. .
- 56. In general, would you say you are. . .li.A7 religious, somewhat religious, or not religious at all?
6 VERY RELIGIOUS 6 S0yE.f.AT RELIGIOUS 6 NOT RELIGIOUS AT ALL 63 6 DON'T KNOW 6 REFUSED 59 How long have you lived on Long Island. . .all your life , nore thr.n 20 years. 10 to 20 years ~5 to 9 years, or less than 5 years?
6 10 00 20 YES 6h 6 ENTIRE LIFE 8 MORE THAN 20 YRS 8 5 TO 9 YRS 8 LESS THAN 5 YRS 6 REFUSED Thank you very much. . .have a nice day / evening.,
1 I
a l
l N
j -
i 1: 5 2~1 10 .
SLKfofmson & a4uoci.au, L. - l e
~-r,=- an-
l 1
1 l
i j
1 i
l l
i ATTACHMEN'i' 6 !
I I
l 1 l
l
' . ATTACHMENT 6
'S~a=ple Point Number
___ 1-3 Respondent Nu= bey __ h-5 Sex 6 MALE' 8 FIV.AI.E 6
?orm @A _
@3 8C 7 Hello. . .I'm calling from the Summit Research Group. . .we're taking a survey on some current cocial problems facing people living on Long Island. . .I'd like to ask you some questions. . .first:
Considering where you live now, how worried are you about.the effects
- of each of the following on the health and well-being of your family. . .
verv worried, somewhat worried, or not too worried. . . for example: ,
4 Toxic waste from garbage dumps. . .are you very worried about-this, somewhat worried, or not too worried?
6 VERY WORRIED 6 SOMEWHAT WORRIED 6 NOT ICO WORRIED, 8 8 DON'T KNOW 8 REFUSED 7 How about air pollution. . .are you verv worried about this, somewhat worried, or not too worried?
- 6 VERY WORRIED 8 SOMEWHAT WORRIED 6 NOT TOO WORRIED 9 8 DON'T KNOW 8 REFUSED
- 8. What about crime. . .are you very worried about this, somewhat worried, or not too worried?
6 VERY WORRIED & SOMEWHAT WORRIED 6 NOT TOO WORRIED 10 8 DON'T KNOW 8 REFUSED
- o. How about radiation from a nuclear power plant. . . are you very worried about this, somewhat worried, or not too worried?
6 VRRY WORRIED 8 SOMEWHAT WORRIED 6 NOT TOO WORRIED 11 8 DON'T KNOW 8 REFUSED ,
- 10. And what about a fire in your home. . .are you very worried about this, somewhat worried, or not too worried?
8 VERY' WORRIED 8 SOMEWHAT WORRIED 8 NOT TOO WORRIED 12 8 DON'T KNOW 6 REFUS_ED e
e e
O R Q
m
- n general, how dangerous do you think it would be to live near each of the following. . . ve rt dangerous, dangerous, or not too dangerous. . .
for exanple:
- 11. An airport. . .do you think it would be vert dangerqus to l{.ve near an airp wt, dangerous, or not too dangerous?
6 VERY DANGEROUS & DANGEROUS 6 NOT TOO DANGEROUS 13 8 DON'T KNOW 6 REFUSED
- 12. What about a mental hospital. . .do you think it would be verr dangerous to live near a mental hospital, dangerous, or no too dangerous? -
6 VERY DANGEROUS 8 DANGEROUS 8 NOT TOO DANGEROUS 14 8 DON'T KNOW 6 REFUSED .
13 How about a coal fired power plant. . .do you think it would be verr dangerous to live near a coal fired power plant, dangerous, or not too dangerous?
6 VERY DANGEROUS 8 DANGEROUS 8 NOT TOO DANGEROUS ,
15
/8 ' DON'T KNOW 6 REFUSED 14 What about a nuclear power plant. . .do you think it would be verr dangerous to live near a nuclear power plant, dangerous, or no: too dangerous?
8 VERY DANGEROUS f dangerous 6 NOT TOO DANGEROUS 16
/8 DON'T KNOW 6 REFUSED 15 Would you describe yourself as a supporter of nuclear power clants ^
as a means of providing electricity, or as an opponent of nuclear power plants, or haven't you made up your nind yet on this issue?
6 SUpp0RTER & Opp 0NENT* 6 HAVEN'T MADE UP MIND 6 REFUSED 17
- 16. . Do you think that LILCO should complete and operate the Shoreham nuclear power plant?
@ YES @ NO 8 DON'T KNOW 8 REFUSED 18 p
U
.- .,_, , R U S Anan & c4u n w a. Daa.
~- .
p 17 Which of the following cones closest to your opinion en nuclear V energy. . .all nuclear power plants should be shut down. . .cr, these plants which are currently operating should be allowed to continue to operate, but no new plants should be built. . . cr, we should continue to build new nuclear power plants?
6 SHUT DONN 6 OPERATE ONLY EXISTING PLANTS 6 3UILD NEW PLANTS 19 8 DON'T EIOW 6 REFUSED
- 18. During nornal operation, which type of electricity plant pollutes
- the air the least. . .an oil-fired plant, or a coal-fired plant, or a nuclear-fired plant, or you're not sure?
6 OIL-FIRED 6 COAL-FIRED 6 NUCLEAR-FIRED 8 NOT SURE 20 6 ALL ABOUT THE SAME & REFUSED 1
! 19 During normal cuerati'en does a nuclear power plant give off a 1
dangerous level of radiation?
8 YES 6 NO 6 DON'T EIOW 6 REFUSED 2:,
20.. When the nucles.r accident tock place at Three Mile Island which of the following happened. . .no one died but sene people becane ill. . .
n or, only a few people becane ill. . .or, no one was hurt although the f long tern effects are-unknown. . .or, you're not sure?
6 NO ONE DIED @ FIW 3ECAME ILL 6 NO ONE HURT 8 NOT SURE 22 6 REFUSED
- 21. Do you-believe that tech".ical experts are able to accurately evaluate the risks of nuclear power?
8 YES 6 NO 6 CON'T E!CW 8 REFUSED 23
- 22. Does LILCO currently have an opere:ing nuclear power plant en Long Island?
6 YES 6 NO 8 CON'? EiCW 8 REFUSED 26 e
e 5
l r- 53.: _ 3 Sdtganson & ahaawa. Dni.
' LILCO is currently completing the Shoreham nuclear power plant which p
g is in Suffolk County about 60 miles from New York City. Suppose that 1:100 completes this plant and begins to operate it. If there was an acciden et the plant how much would you trust each of the following people to tell ne truth about the accident. . .for example:
L 23 The Governor of New York State. . .would you trust the Goyernor a cent deal, somewhat, or not n all to tell the truth about an accident at the plant?
O GREAT DEAL 8 S0?E4 HAT 6 NOT AT ALL 6 DON'T KNOW 6 ?.EF 2; 24 What about e LILCO official. . .would you trust a LILCO official a zrent deal, screwhat, or not d all to tell the I:.uth about an accident et ne plant?
8 GREAT DIAL 6 SCIE 4 HAT 6 NOT AT ALL 8 DON'T KNOW 6 REF 26 25 How about an official from the federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission. . .
would you trust an official from the federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission a treat deal, somewhat, or not n all to tell the truth about an accident at the plant?
6 GREAT DEAL 6 SOIE. EAT /_]/ NOT AT ALL 8 DON'T KNOW $ ?.EF 27
- 24. What about the Suffolk County Executive. . .would you trust the .
Suffolk County Executive a c eat deal, somewhat, or not at all to tell the truth about an accident at the plant?
6 GREAT DEAL 6 SCIE. EAT 6 NOT AT ALL 8 DON'T KNOW 6 REF 25
- 27. - 28. As the crow flies, about how many miles do you think your home is from the Shoreham nuclear power plant?
(specify number of miles) /3/9/'DK 2C-3C 20 Uculd you consider =cving if the Nuclear Regulatory Commission granted LILCO a license to begin operating Shorehan?
8 YES & NO 6 DON'T KNOW 8 REFUSED 31
\ . -
'd l
Sitt3okan & c4ssoeuaa, Daa.
LI 33-1 4 -
l l
O
~. .
8 3
s / 30. Assu=ing tha; the Shoreham nuclear power clan; :.s _icensed and begins '
I
- c cperete, we are interested in knc'.rin that you *culd de if there was an accident at the plan . Suppose tha
- .rcu and , cur f a=ily . . were at hc=e and there was an acciden; a Sherahan. . .all people wnc lived ;
within five miles of the plan; were sevised 70 stay.indocrs. . .de you think that you and the other =e=bers of your f- il'/ would: go abou; your normal business, or stay inside your hc=e, or leave your hc=e and go sc=ewhere else?
. 6 NORMAL SUS!"ISS (skip to 34) 6 STAY INSIDE HOME (skip to 34) 32 6 LEAVE ECME AND GO SOMEdHERE ELSE (ask cuestien 31) 6 DON ' T KN0'd (skip to 34) . 6 REFUSED (skip to 36) -
23,=
- 31. Where wouli you go. . .sc=eplace in Suffolk County, someplace in Nassau County, sc=eplace in New York ':it/. sc=e other place, or you don't know?
6 SUFFOLK COUNTY 6 NASSAU COUNTY 6 NE'd YORK CITY 3E af u .ur.n.
n m. . r.ar
_ e c _4 ., ,, ),
6 EON'T KN0'd (skip to 33) 6 REFUSED (skip to 33) m i 32. In ter=s of miles, about how far away is 'this place frc= your home. . .
d 10 miles or less,11 El Oc 50 miles, er =cre than 50 miles?
c 20 miles, 21 to 30 miles, 31 c E0 =iles, 6- 1 0 _ .M.'T
. . =S C O. . ~_. =.C. C M .*_' ""e."__.=..C
,=,, .- -- /' 2.' " 3 0 '.FT =.S c
- n 0 haa m a. :.,e -- -~
[a"" .,,, .$ r '
-1 m.C ,e0 n r_:s- .- :' .~no== 2=A N .e,0 .ha.: e
, .e0 g ' m .a . v". C '.1 /~ =. ..
.= =L' = .=. .n
.e - _: d s c"'.e....._'_'.>.=_',", ,o =-., .o. . .
n.,. 4 . o ., r
- 3. ,; . . . _.w o. . e _s _t .. ,,,.i ..s . . .
sc=ebody else's home, a public shelter, a actel er =otel, er semewhere else?
& S0m,.,:s 0DY a c_t.,S n .0..
.us
/_2/ : U_:_L _ C Sn..- n._ __ f2 .0,. :.-. On, MCTEL
,_3,/ 3, Q q a ~r.t..*v.
-ww. ._r.:._0 _ e.r. ' e _y .a C _4.#",.
/
6 CON'T KNOW 6 REFUSE 3 e
1
%)
L: ? ? *. 5= Fi?[ Mn,an F a-.4. o.,a r,. n. n
C
\ 36 Suppose that you and your family were r.: : cme and :hore was an accident at the Shorehan nuclear power :lant. . .all pregnan icmen and pre-school children living within fiva miles of the plant were advised to evacuate and everyone living be ween sin and ten = les from tne plent were advised :o remain indoors. . .::culd yqu and other members of your family: go acout your neraal business, or stay inside your home, or leave your hc=e and go somewnere else? .
- y. i;o.ey,;L mg.e..o~_=3.e . s.,4 p +. <
s,5) F s s". .,"_r --". 3. ..s_= .m. . =. e-g_4. ,o- s,
. . u f ;,
, u.=.n.,<=. .u.0c.L= n.o~D GO c n,< = .lH.=..v,_=. _-~ S.=.
. ~u..._. <.a , ,, e . . , s ..: c . s.:,e/
8 CON'T :GOW (skip to 38) 6 2EFUSED (skip to 38)
-c jv 35 Where would you go. . .semeplace in suffelk coun:y, sensplace in Nassau County, semeplace in New York Ci 7. some other place, or you don't know?
6- ~ CUT.TOLK
. COUIP_V_ /f._7 NA.c..e..'- U CO UNT .M ..
l ". 0. " .- "& ' ,': C 8 OTHER (specify)
~
/f/ 20N'T GOW (skip to 37) 6 REFUSED (skip to 3,7)
- 36. In terms of miles, abcut how far away is nis place frca your hote. -
10 miles or less.11 to 20 miles. 21 to 30 miles. 31 to 60 miles, El to 50 miles, or more th?n 50 miles?
5 ' O .'.".". TS 0:. '-_TSS. . J...
F '. 90 "u'..'.T.c b _/T, *. m
._ a 3 0 m"" .r.z . "n
.- u
@ ]1 TO 40 MILES 6 41 20 50 MILIs S. 022 IHAN 30 MI~IS 8 20N'T KNOW ,& :.I?USED yr, . 1h.i ..". o.' *..".a "o ' le .. .i. .s .. c u ' .d. .~
. . = . ...-e..
.-- .'.3.>.=.'.,-
. . ..- ,v .,
. .a.
sc=ebcdy else's home, a public snel er, s he:al or notel, or scmewhere else?
6 SCIE 30DY ELSE'S HOME & .:UELIC SHII.!IR 8 ECTIL OR MOTEL E1 8 SOME'EERE ZLSE (specif.-)
8 DON'T KNOW 6 REFUSID s .
- - .e ir. c. . . . c. - ., n
. l l
~. .
. -...-.~.,,
n
- 2. Suppose that you and you- -N-i'y .ere 20 hc=e and there was an accident at the Shoreha= nuclear pc.:=- "'$ -
. . svarvene li in-s-ithin ten miles of the plant vas 2dvised - eva:na:e. . . .culd you and other members of ycur family: g: a: u your n:rmal business, er sisy inside ycur hc=e, or leave y:ur .:=e and go scmewhere else?
9
- ^
aT A{U.C P' aria
' ? * **".at .C, i t.?.C .6. # s1r.4
( . *o h,} )i
. af' O . .C9. 9 / T..7] $.?...T. *..TQP. *]T. ( e.k.42 a.w h3 ')
a hO-(
, O1 7_,.7.Aa'T U.0I% .
- T AI'D .
a u0 q0?.4T -. .'V. O.3.._7 -- ?? C.T (.aa s e..
s as*4c
.. ,19) 8 EON'T KIiOW (skip to 43) 6 RE?USED (skip to 43) ,
39 Where would you go. . . someplace in Suffolk Ocunty, semeplace in Nassau Coun y, semeplace in Ilew York Cit /, seme other place, cr. -
you don't know?
6 SUFF01.Z COUNTY 6 NASSAU COUNTY 6 NEW YORK OITY S4 6 OTHER (specify) 1 6 DOI!'T KI!OM (skip to 41) C :IFUSED (ski- to 41)
- 40. In te. s of miles, about how far away is this place from your hcme. . .
10 miles cr less, 11 to 20 miles, 21 :o 30 miles 31 : EO miles, l 41 to 50 miles. cr more than 50 miles?
/_'"7 _' O III_*S 6. 3 ? .T..c 5
. 87l' 'n_ 2 0 "...' _T "
62'_
m_ ,. ;O g"177_. . S h _<
M ,
m . ".O 00 '..I'. TS . 3, 2' . _ c. .e , "..__. ~- ,C.
"v.s", .:._= '.-v. o..! 5 O g'17_7__e .
/F DON ' '. *.~'",W c,M 27_ "us" n
. . s
- 31. 't!hich of the folicwing would you be ces; likely to go to. . .
sc=ebody else's home, a public shelter, a hotel er actel, or somewhere i else? I l
Mg- e.03.i_ 0 DY . ..e..:.. -. e u. .n. - ._:-
f5- :. ,_ _ .-
2, .._ . u._r
. ___. :. 4s9 .v..~. _.,--
- n .m. . 4. ,,rie-.2 4
6 S0tL: Tn= =. =. _. .. e_=. its e s ._~.,. ) .
,m_., _~e..g . m..e ?.e..r , = = . _ = = , . . . __ = .
m . .
O ~
\ .
EdTSRasan & a-luaawa. %.
a.
- _A.------______ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
h2. ' 't! hen you heard the advisory to evacuate would you leave i==ediately.
~,
- wait until everyone in your fn=ily could assemble and then leave?
( 6 LEAVE I!G1EDIATELY 8 NAIT UNTIL EVERYONE COULD ASSE13LE 4' 8 DON'T KNOW /2 REFUSED
- l' h3 In the course of your lifetime, have you ever had to evacuate your hcme in the face of danger such as a hurricane, flood, or any other danger?
8 YES 8 NC 8 P.EFUSED SE SE. Eo you have children under the age of 5 living at home with you?
Zi7YES ZI7NO z37 REFUSED . as 45 Do you have children between the ages of 5 and 17 living at home with you?
8 YES (ask question h4) /j NO (skip to 47) /F REFUSED- 3C Er. If there was an accident 9: the Shorehem nuclear power plant and your children were at school in nn area that h9d to be evacuated, would you prefer th9t your children: be brought home or to a neighbor's by bus, or be bussed to a shelter outside the evacuation area, or be kept at school until you could pick them up? -
8 3ROUGHT HOME/TO NEIGE30R'S & SUSSED TO SHELTER 5.'
6 IGT AT SCHOOL /8 DON'T KNOW /j REFUSED h7 Do you currently work full time (30 hours3.472222e-4 days <br />0.00833 hours <br />4.960317e-5 weeks <br />1.1415e-5 months <br /> 9 week or more) for pay?
6 YES (ask question h8) @ NO (skip to 49) 6 REFUSED 52 he. Abcut how long does it usually take ycu to get to work in the morning. . . le ss than 15 minute s , 15 to 30 =inu te s , 31 to 60 minutes, di to 90 minutes, or more than 90 minutes?
6 LESS THAN 15 & 15 TO 30 6 31 TO 'O 6di TO' 90 , 52 6 ."0RE THAN 90 8 EC N ' T KNC'.! /J REFUSED hc. Are you currenti married, sing'le, widowed. or divorced or separated?
/17 MARRIED (askquestion50) ZZ7 SINGLE (skip to 52) 54 6 't/ID0tlED (skip to 52). & DIV0RcID/SEFARATED (skip to 52)
/37 REFUSED (skip to 52) 6 J
LI 83-; c SGjoAnson E clueeGau, Dna.
. ~
- 50. ' ' F MARRIID) Dees your spouse curren:l'j'7/ci-k full time (30 hours3.472222e-4 days <br />0.00833 hours <br />4.960317e-5 weeks <br />1.1415e-5 months <br /> a p week or =cre) for pay?
I -
g YIS G/ I'O (skip to 52) 6 RI?USID (skip to 52) 35
- 31. About how long does it usually take your spcuse to ge: to werk in the =crning. . .less than 15 minutes, ' 5 to 30 minutes 31 Oc 60
=inutes, 61 to 90 minutes, or more than 90 =inutes?
8 LISS THAN 15 & 15 TO 30 8 31 TO 60 /P 61 TO 90 56 8 MORE THAN 90 8 DON'T KNOW & REFUSED
- 52. What is the last grade of school that you cc=pleted. . .sc=e high school or less, or are you a high school graduate, or did you cc=plete sc=e ecliege courses, or are you a college graduate? -
8 SOME HIGH SCHOOL OR LESS 8 HIGH SCHOOL GP.ADUATE 57 8 SOME COLLEGE 8 COLLEGE GRADUATE 8 REFUSED 53 What is your ese category. . .under 25, 25 to 35, 34 to 50, 51 to 65, or ever ~5?
8 UNDER 25 8 25 TO 35 8 36 TO 50 8 51 TO 65 5e 8 CVER 45 & REFUSED
\
33 ha t is your ;ctal f amily incc=e .
. . .under $15,000, 315,000 to $25,000, S26,000 to S35,000, 336,000 to $50,000, or ever S50,000?
8 UNDIR ' S1.'M 6 315K 20 S25K 8 S26K TO S35K 59 8 S36K I'. 350K 8 OVER S50K /g REFUSED 55 Meuld you censider ycrself to be politically. . . liberal, middle-of-the-read, er ocnserve :ive?
8 LI2IRAL d MIDDLI-GF-THI-RCAD 8 00NSI.O.VATIVI 60
. _47 -m,;
-- m. v...gg..,
.. /_T) . ..:.:..-:-
, ..w
- 56. 'c.' hat is your race . . . thite , black, er c her?
8 WHITI 8 3 LACK 8 OTHIR 8 DON'T 'GOW 8 REFUSED 61
- 57. Whe is your religicn. . . Catholic, Protestant, or Jewish?
8 CATHOLIC 8 FROTESTANT 6 JEWISH /8 OTHER 8 NONE 62
~
8 REFUSED O
V
.- . Sittganson E c-luaawu. One.
-- n.. .- : .
- 58. In general, would you say you are. . .very religious, somewhat religious, or not religious at all?
6 VERY RELIGIOUS & SCIErlHAT RELIGICUS 6 NOT RELIGIOUS AT ALL 63 6 DON'T :CCW @ REFUSED 59 How long have you lived on Long Island. . .all your life, more than 20 years, 10 to 20 years, 5 to 9 years, or less than 5 years?
6 10 TO 20 YRS 6h
@ INTIRE LIFE 8 MORE THAN 20 YRS 8 5 TO 9 YRS 8 LESS THAN 5 YRS 8 REFUSED Thank you very much. . .have a nice day / evening.
l l
l l
~
_: 57 - 10 Sdt i,%.. S c:4u i.tu. A.
__r__ __.._ .,m,- -_- m._m .aaa e. .-a_.s. ,m._,m__6 a.w E A a_ 6_ E. -- g e - - . .s - _.__ _ --------_- , - _- , , - - - - - - -- -
i l l i
3 l
l ATTACILMENT 7 I
i 1
l I
ATTACH?i2NT 7 l
t i l-1 STATUS REPORT ON PUBLIC RESPONSE TO I l EMERGENCY PLANNING EFFORTS l
Prepared for Long Island Lighting Company I
I Prep & red by Yankelovich, Skelly and White, Inc.
t -
i July, 1983 I, l l
. ~ . . . . - . . . .
TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 1
OVERVIEW...................................................
I. INTRODUCTION AND STUDY PURPOSE....................... 6 II. STUDY METHODOLOGY.................................... 8 III. RESULTS A. Public Awareness, Attitudes and Knowledge........ 12 B. Indications of Planning by the Public for Esergencies.................................. 27 C. Public Information/ Education Issues.............. 51 D. Needs of People Living Within Ten-Mile Zone Regarding Evacuation............................. 65 IV. APPENDICES A. Sample De sign and Study Methodology. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74 B. Questionnaire.................................... 86 C. Classification of Respondents Living Around Actual Emergency Planning Zone Boundary. . . . . . . . . . 98 D. Reading of the Tables............................ 103 4
- 1 I
96
==*w -m *N - -%*
- - - - - - - - - - - - . - - - , e ,,- - , - . - , . . - - - ,
.e, - -~ - - ----
, e , _. -. -
p 4 me oG O
OVERVIEW I
l
{
i 1
I e
l t
e
'e a
%e e *e e
- * ** +eeo-e .
1 OVERVIEW This report presents the results of a survey of Suffolk and Nassau County residents designed to assess emergency planning needs associated with the start-up of the Shoreham Nuclear Power Plant in Suffolk County. Because this takes place prior to implementation of any public emergency response plans, the emphasis of the study is on determining the current state of emergency preparedness on the part of the public, instead of j
,trying to estimate exactly how people would respond to a future event about which they currently have very little information.
We believe this study provides useful guidance for planning efforts related to the plant.
A sample of 2,625 residents of the two-county area was surveyed in approximately 20-minute interviews conducted between May 5 and May 12, 1983. Respondents were selected using a stratified ran-dom sampling approach in a manner that permits very accurate pro-jection to the total Nassau/Suffolk County population as well as to five specific segments within these counties: residents within a 5-mile radius of the plant; residents living 6-10 miles from the plant; the remainder of residents in East and West Suffolk County; and Nassau County residents. All survey proce-dures have been carefully supervised by YSW staff and the survey instrument was thoroughly reviewed by a number of experts to eliminate any detectable bias.
2 O- The results indicate that the Shoreham Nuclear Power Plant is a very high visibility enterprise, with nearly universal awareness
~
throughout Suffolk County and high awareness in Nassau County.
Reflecting the extensive debate that has been carried on, it is also a sensitive project. Three of every four people in Suffolk and Nassau Counties have at least some concerns about its open-ing, and nearly half the residents of Suffolk County are very concerned.
- Yet the majority of Suffolk and Nassau County residents, espe-cially those most concerned about Shoreham, appear to be basing
~
their opinions on misconceptions about the actual risks associ-ated with nuclear power plants. Over half believe that nuclear
-s power plants can blow up, over half believe normally operating
\w- power plants expose one to more radiation than dental x-rays, and l most people agree with several other statements about which there is a great deal of evidence which goes in the opposite direction.
Thus, while their concern is logical in light of their beliefs about nuclear power, some of the basis of that concern is open to
~
debate. .
One of the more interesting findings of this study is that, al-though most people in Suffolk and Nassau Counties believe they would be affected by a serious accident at Shoreham, only a hand-ful have done any planning for that contingency. This is not surprising since the plant is not yet opened. At the same time, O
e
-_ _. . _ _ _ = _ - _ _ - - _ , _ - - . __ --
3 O' though, the majority of the population expresses a strong desire for additional information about emergency planning.
This lack of personal planning, coupled with the high level of fear about nuclear plant operations, is the key to understanding why many people react in an exaggerated and often inconsistent
- manner when presented with hypothetical scenarios describing emergencies requiring varying public reactions. In each of three scenarios, people living within a specified distance (either 5 or 10 m das) are advised either to stay inside their houses or to evacuate the area. Each time a substantial portion of the popu-lation franging from about 1 in 10 to more than a third), both
, inside and outside of the specified area, indicate they would I
leave their. homes and go somewhere else. That this is attribut-able at least partially to a lack of any serious forethought is apparent when respondents are provided with more specific infor-mation telling them they can go about their normal business if they live outside the area. In each case, the proportion of re-spondents who indicate they would leave the area declines by about a third.
Another indication of the lack of planning and the need for more information is the proportion of people living within 10 miles of the plant--more than 1 in 4--who, when presented with a scenario t in which they are advised to evacuate, indicate that they would not do so. This type of response is especially true of some groups, such as older residents.
, O .
, e @ & =
m., .- . - , , , _ _ .- - w -.--,
4 l -
O ~
These findings on reactions to emergency scenarios illustrate the importance of the form and substance of any emergency communica-tions.
~
In evaluating communications, it is important to distinguish be-tween information dissemination as part of the planning process distinct from the information that would be provided in an actual emergency. In this study, respondents were asked their views and sources of information about emergency planning related to the Shoreham plant. Most people now rely on Newsday and television for information about nuclear power issues. But a large majority (81%) desire more information from the media than they have re-ceived to date, and a significant minority (32%) view the cover-age to date as biased against the plant. Further, a substantial
[}
proportion of the two-county population views neither LILCO nor the Suffolk County Executive as credible sources of information on nuclear power.
This situation poses a challenge for emergency planners. As part of planning efforts it is important to communicate with the pub-lic through credible sources, and to make those most closely involved (e.g., LILCO and the Suffolk County Executive) more credible. Accomplishing this is essential to effective communi-cations, and as this study clearly indicates better communication l
is a necessity. There is a public desire for more information on emergency planning and, judging' from responses to the O:
l e =gue d
5
~
hypothetical emergencies in this survey, a need for clear guidance on the types of emergencies that could be anticipated and the responses that would be most appropriate.
b e
f 4 e
te
- O ;
9 G
- . = -. w-, - --e---a an-~. -- --en-- - - - + - - - - - -es-. - -- , ------ - -- - - - --
4 .
l
'I il l
I e-4 I
i
+
t i
i I. INTRODUCTION AND STUDY PURPOSE l
O 4
w---- . .--..-~n,--ne-- , , - , - - - _ , - - . . .--
,--e -- - ..--n,-------- - - , ,- --- - - .-- - - - - - ---- - - , , - - - ,, ,-- - ,. -- -- -
. - , - ~- --.--.-.. - , , -+ , -
6 O I. INTRODUCTION AND STUDY PURPOSE This study was commissioned in order to obtain an assessment of the attitudes of Suf folk and Nassau County residents about the Shoreham Nuclear Power Plant and to determins how well people are prepared for the emergency planning effort that must accompany operation of that plant. YSW was pleased to accept this assign-ment because it provided us with an opportunity to explore a num-ber of important issues related to a clearly controversial event and, we hope, a chance to shed some light on those issues.
It is important to begin with a statement of the basic assump-The feasibility' of plans for coping
{)
v tions guiding this study.
with all possible emergencies that might affect residents around the plant is one of the central issues influencing licensing pro-ceedings. Clearly the public response to those plans is all-important. However, it is notipossible at this time to assess through a survey exactly how the public might respond to an emer-gency situation. The primary prerequisite for an appropriate public response--dissemination and publicizing of emergency response information and directions--has not taken place. Never-theless, it is important to understand at this point how recep-tive the public will be to those plans and what concerns or questions are likely to guide their actions.
O
7 O The specific study goals are to:
... Assess the current state of public readiness: awareness of, knowledge and concerns about the plant.
... Determine responsiveness of the public to hypothetical emergency plans and instructions.
... Identify appropriate communications vehicles, the types of information people need, and credibility of various authorities.
. . . Generate data to help planners anticipate specific public
() needs in the event of different types of emergencies.
In other words, this study attempts to bridge the gap between current public attitudes and emergency response plans by examining the forces underlying those attitudes and identifying some of the questions that will have to be answered in order to develop an effective plan.
The next section of this report briefly describes the methodolog-ical approach of the study; a more detailed technical description j is appended. Detailed study results and data tables are then presented.
O
. . _ - . . _ - - - - _ - - - . . . - . - _ - - __ ._. . . ._-. .-- --- . . _- = . .--- . _
l i
l O t i
r i
I I
i d
J l
1 ,
J II. STUDY METHODOLOGY
!O i
i j
I 4
4 l
i 1
4 i
.,,...---,----.,,,.-.--..-l.- . , , , , - - , + , ,
- i l
l 8
l l
O II. STUDY METHODOLOGY This study is based on a survey of 2,625 adult residents of Suf folk and Nassau Counties. Using a stratified random sample of ,
households with approximately equal numbers of respondents drawn from each of five areas: a zone within a radius of five miles of the Shoreham Nuclear Power Plant; a zone in a radius between six and ten miles of the plant; the balance of the Suffolk County population living east of the plant and the balance living west of the plant; and Nassau County.
The survey was conducted between May 5 and May 12, 1983 by WATS telephone calls made from five facilities located in New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Minnesota. A random digit, dialing procedure 6
was used, drawing from telephone exchanges in each of the five strata. Businesses, research professionals and power company employees were screened out. Interviewers followed a prespeci-I fled procedure for selection of a household member to respond to the interview. Interviews lasted 20 minutes on average.
Completed interviews were computer tabulated and assigned to one of the five geographic strata using the zip cofe provided by re-spondents (since telephone exchanges are less accurate). A small number of completed interviews outside of the sample area or in
9 reported zip codes that could not be identified were excluded i
from the sample used for analysis. Interviews were weighted us-tag scandard procedures to bring the sample into the correct pro-portion of the total population of Suffolk and Nassau Counties.
Because the population living close to the plant represents only a fraction of the total population being examined, those survey segments (5 and 10. mile zones) account for less than 4% of the total weighted sample even though based on a larger number of in-terviews. Sampling and weighting procedures and response figures are discussed in detail in the Appendix A.
The questionnaire for this study was developed after extensive review by YSW survey experts as well as outside reviewers. The
() intent was to develop an instrument that obtains insightful in-formation on public knowledge, attitudes and behavioral inten-tions in a manner that reduces any possible bias. Several com-ments should be made about this.
First, there was a desire to obtain results to several questions that had been asked in the 1982 Suffolk County-sponsored survey of Long Island residents. Consequently, these questions--asking about projected behavior in three specific emergenciec--were posed in a manner similar to that prior survey, using the same response codes, even though the response alternatives are not mutually exclusive and thus somewhat confusing. Follow-up ques-tions were also posed presenting respondents with information n
v
h-10 L
l D more in line with that which would be available in a real emer-gency notification. Comparisons of these results are discussed in the report.
Second, this survey constituted an attempt to understand, to some extent, why people feel as they do about the Shoreham plant, and where it fits into their lives. Methodological research by YSW has shown that many people express attitudes about specific issues, but those attitudes often are volatile; they are subject to being changed easily. In foreign policy, for example, we have found that people often express attitudes on issues about which they may not have given much thought. To measure this phenome-non, the survey posed a number of questions to determine how sa-
) lient an issue the Shoreham plant is to residents and how much people have actually planned for possible emergencies. As this report indicates, the responses to these questions provide sub-stantial guidance in understanding attitudes about the plant.
Third, it is always difficult to conduct surveys of highly visi-ble issues because of the potential for publicity influencing re-spondents. In this case, on the day the interviewing began the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) warned the operators of the I
f 11 1
Indian Point nuclear power plants that the plants might be closed because of deficiencies in their emergency plans. During the l course of interviewing there was substantial media attention to that event as well as to the current status of the Shoreham plant and emergency plans.
I 0
- m i
i i
f l
i l
4 f
i
__ ' e- ,y__, ,_
"'"~--' - ,
. _ :, _ _ _ _ ---.-n,..,.._.. ,,
l e
i III. RESULTS A. Public Awareness, Attitudes and Knowledge 6
1
3 l
12 4
1
. III. RESULTS ;
! A. Public Awareness, Attitudes and Knowledge i
I Before the public information aspect of the emergency plan for Shoreham is implemented, it is useful,to understand the knowledge i .
l and attitudes people have about the Shoreham Nuclear Power Plant, l nuclear power in general, and the perceived impact of the plant i
on their lives. Understanding knowledge and attitudes about the
, plant can help determine what types of information need to be ,
j disseminated.
- This survey confirms that the debate about, and resulting media
() attention associated wi.th, Shoreham has.ereated a very high level of awareness of the plant and a divers'ity of views about its merits and shortcomings. A substantial majority of the popula-l tions of Suffolk and Nassau Counties expresses at least moderate 7
concern about the plant. At the same time, it is obvious that
, people in the area are basing their opinions on widely differing l perceptions of the specific risks associated with the operation l of the plant.
l 1
J Specific results are discussed below:
- 1. Awareness of the Shoreham Nuclear Power Plant is very l i
high (Table 1) .
s 4
13 0 . . .Nine of every ten adults in Suffolk and Nassau Counties are aware of the existence of the plant, and 9 out of 10 of those aware of it can name it.
Awareness is at the 99% level within the 10-mile radius of the plant, de-clining to 81% in Nassau County.
...Most (75%) know that LILCO is responsible for its operation and most (77%) are aware of its current status.
Ninety-two percent of people living within 10 miles of the plant believe it O is either ready to operate or still under construction.
...Most people know approximately how far the plant is from their homes, though some appear either to underestimate or to overestimate the distance (Table 2).
One-quarter of those within five miles of the plant place themselves farther away.
of those living 6-10 miles from the plant, 10% place themselves closer and over a third place themselves farther away.
O
14
)
O -
About 1 in 1C living at least ten miles from the plant in the balance of Suffolk County believe they are actu-ally within 10 miles of the plant.
~
. This is partially explained by the definition of the Emergency Planning Zone used.
See Appendix C for further information.
- 2. The prospect of the Shoreham Nuclear Power Plant begin-ning to operate is a source of some concern to most peo-ple in Suffolk and Nassau Counties (Table 3).
...Three-quarters of residents express concern about the plant opening versus 21% who indicate the prospect of its opening is pleasing.1/
. . .The level of concern is higher in Suffolk i County, where half the population indicates they l
would be very concerned, than in Nassau County where the comparable figure is 38%.
In addition, those who perceive them-selves as close to the plant more often are very concerned about the plant opening than those who perceive them-selves as living further away (Table 4.)
~~
1/ As phrased thase responses to this question are not I
mutually exclusive; people can be pleased about having a new power source, yet still be concerned about the possible risks associated with it.
15 O ... Women are much more concerned about the plant opening than are men (Table 5).
. . . Level of concern about the plant varies somewhat by age of respondent--younger people (under 35) slightly more often report being concerned than those over 35 (Table 6).
Concern varies little by income or edu-cation levels of respondents.
- 3. Given the very high proportion of the population with some concern about Shoreham, it is important to under-stand the knowledge base upon which people rely for mak-ing these judgments. The survey results'suggest that there is a considerable amount of misinformation about nuclear power plants, little certainty and little agree-ment, even on issues about which experts on both sides of the issue agree.
Respondents in this survey were presented with a series of statements--some phrased in a positive manner and some in a negative manner--about nuclear power plant operations. For several of the statements there is agreement between nuclear energy experts, whether they are nuclear plant opponents or proponents, as to the ac-curacy of the statements (in particular, an item regard-ing the possibility of a nuclear plant exploding, and
. x - -
16 O another item on the relative radiation exposure from dental X-rays and a normally operating nuclear power plant). On the others there is some room for disagree-ment among experts as to the exact interpretation of the statements.
Irrespective of the agreement or disagreement among ex-perts about the facts in each statement, the majority of respondents expresses views which demonstrate more ex-treme concerns about nuclear power, women more so than men (Tables 7 and 8).
...For example, half of all respondents believe strongly that a nuclear reactor can blow up.
O ...More than 4 in 10 believe there would not be sufficient time to evacuate safely in the event of an emergency.
These responses go a long way toward explaining the high level of concern many people have about the plant. Most people hold atti-4 tudes consistent with their beliefs. If they believe nuclear plants can blow up, they are concerned about Shoreham Nuclear Power Plant, and so on (Table 9).
- l
- (~'/)
s_
l l
' t 1
TABLE 1 QUESTIONS 4, 6a, 5: AWARENESS OF SHOREllAM NUCLEAR POWER PLANT (By area of residence) 4 Areas 6-10 Balance of:
5 Mile Mile Eastern Western Total Zone Zone Suffolk Suffolk Nassau l
% 4 -
Are aware of a nuclear power plant on Long Island 87 99 99 95 93 81 Know that name is Shoreham 77 95 95 87 87 67 Understand LILCO is responsible for plant operation 75 92 88 84 81 67 Believe Plant Ist 3
- 2 4 Currently operating 1 1 3
- 2 2 4 Previously operated, now closed 1
, Ready to operate 48 48 56 52 54 42 i Under construction 28 47 36 35 30 26 Uncertain /i:o answer 5 3 5 6 5 5 l
1
'
- Less than 1%.
U
18 O
TABLE 2 QUESTION 9: PERCEIVED DISTANCE FROM SHOREHAM (By area of residence 1!)
Area (By Zip) 6-10 5 Mile Mile East West Zone Zone Suffolk Suffolk Base 100 100 100 100 Distance Respondent Believes Home Is from Shoreham Power Plant
() 5 miles or less' 72 10 1 3 6 to 10 miles 23 53 6 10 11 to 15 miles 2 23 12 14 16 to 20 miles
- 7 17 20 21 to 30 miles
- 3 23 29 Over 30 miles -
1 34 14 Uncertain /no answer 2 3 7 10
~- 1/ See Appendix C for further discussion of the specific geographic zone.
Less than 1%.
O
t 19 i
l 5
I TABLE 3 i QUESTION 7: REPORTED REACTION IF SHOREHAM j PLANT BEGINS TO OPERATE
, (By area of residence) 1 i l i l t Areas "
l i
i 6-10 Balance of:
5 Mile Mile Eastern Western Total Zone Zone Suffolk Suffolk Nassau l!
i l
Base 100 100 100
- 100 100 100 Very pleased 10 10 5 7 8 11 i
j Moderately j pleased 11 12 11 10 11 12
!I l
Moderately concerned 33 26 31 26 33 34 l
i Very concerned 42 49 48 53 45 38 f
I Uncertain /
no answer 4 3 5 4 3 5 i
l l
I i
I i
,mu , , , , .. . --
a , , -..
20 O
TABLE 4 QUESTION 7: REPORTED REACTION IF SHOREHAM PLANT BEGINS TO OPERATE (Among People Living Different Distances From the Plant)
Perceived Distance From Plant 5 Miles 6-10 10 Miles or Mile or O Less Zone More Base 100 100 100 Very pleased 11 7 11 Moderately pleased -
10 9 12 Moderately concerned 18 34 33 Very concerned 51 48 40 Uncertain /no answer 10 2 4 l
O
21 0
TABLE 5 QUESTION 7: REPORTED REACTION IF SHOREHAM PLANT BEGINS TO OPERATE (By sex)
Men Women Base 100 100 Very pleased 14 6 Moderately pleased 19 4 Moderately concerned 30 35 very concerned 32 51
, Uncertain /no answer 5 4 O
~
I 22 O
TABLE 6 QUESTION 7: REPORTED REACTION IF SHOREHAM PLANT BEGINS TO OPERATE (By age)
Age Under Over 35 35-50 50 Years Years Years Total 100 100 100 very pleased 6 10 14 Moderately pleased 10 14 11 Moderately concerned 41 29 27
. Very concerned 41 43 41
,, Uncertain /no answer 2 4 7
I 'I
- TABLE 7 OUESTION 30: BELIEPS ABOUT NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS
- Percent Who Pind Statement: -
Very Completely
. Believable Unbelievable 1
I I i i i I 6 5 4 3 2 1 Nuclear reactors can blow up if something goes wrong 41 10 9 14 9 16 A serious nuclear power plant accident is likely to happen no more of ten than once every 100,000 years of nuclear power plant operation 11 5 7 15 15 46 The exposure to radiation someone receives from normal nuclear power plant operations is less
., than that received from one dental X-ray 16 9 9 18 13 30 The accident at the Three Mile Island nuclear power plant exposed many people who lived around the plant to high levels of radiation 32 15 13 20 8 11 Because nuclear power plants are designed to contain radiation, you would have ample time to leave the area after notification that there was an accident 15 9 11 22 16 26 Most nuclear power plants cost less money to operate than power plants that use oil as a fuel 22 12 12 18 10 22 Living close to a nuclear power plant is bad for your health in the long term even if there never is an accident 25 10 10 18 13 23 QUESTION: Now I am going to read you a series of statements about nuclear power. After I read each statement would you respond in the following way. Using a 6-point scale, where "6" means very believeable and "1" means completely unbelievable, how do you rate these statements? w
O- O'
' ~
O
~
TABLE 8 QUESTION 30: BELIEFS ABOUT NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS (By sex)
I f
I -
Hen Women l _
_Un- Very Un- Very believable
- Believable ** believable
- Believable **
t i % % % %
Total 100 100 100 100 Nuclear reactors can blow up if something goes wrong 31 46 20 55 A serious nuclear power plant accident is likely to happen no more octen than once every 100,000 years of nuclear power plant operation 60 19 63 13 The exposure to radiation someone receives from normal nuclear power plant operations is less than that i received from one dental X-ray 38 32 46 19 The accident at the Three Mile Island nuclear power plant exposed many people who lived around the plant to high levels of radiation 25 37 15 56
'I continued...
l
- Scale responses 1, 2.
- Scale responses 5, 6.
~'
i TABLE 8 QUESTION 30: BELIEPS ABOUT NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS (Continued)
(By sex)
Men Women Un- Very Un- Very believable
- Believable ** believable
- Believable **
! Total 100 100 100 100 Because nuclear power plants are designed to contain radiation, you would have ample time to leave the area after notification that there was an accident 41 28 44 21 Most nuclear power plants cost less money to operate than power plants that use oil as a fuel 30 42 33 27 Living close to a nuclear power plant is had for your health in the long term even if there never is an accident 44 32 29 37 1
- Scale responses 1, 2.
- Scale responses 5, 6.
m 26 TABLE 9 QUESTION 7: REACTION TO SHORERAM NUCLEAR POWER PLANT OPENING (Aided)
Beliefs About Impact of Nuclear Power _1/
Total Negative ! Moderate Positive Base 100 100 100 100 Very pleased to have a new source of power 10 7 9 15 Moderately pleased 11 5 12 13 Moderately concerned about risks associated with it 33 30 33 36
{
very concerned 42 51 42 32 Uncertain /no answer 4 7 4 4 1/ Respondents are categorized using responses to three scaled questions: (1) nuclear power plants can blow up; (2) normal nuclear power plant operations expose one to less radiation than dental x-rays; (3). living close to a nuclear power plant is bad for your health in the long-term even if there never is an accident.
Responses to the second item were statistically reversed l and each respondent's answers to the 3 questions
! were summed to yield an index score that can be used to describe respondents' beliefs about the potential impact of nuclear power.
2/ Negative group defined as those respondents with scale responses 14-18; moderate are 8-13; positive are 3-7.
1
. , _ . . - - . . . .-- .. .. . - . . . ~ . - - - - - - . . ~ . -
I i
l I
\
l 9"
i I
I' 2 ;
t r--
t_
B. Indications of Planning by the Public for Emergencies f
L_
f ,
, .e .
8 I
I a
e l
I e .+---e-.mam-+.-.we * . = -
27 P
B. Indications of Planning by the Public for Emergencies Any survey can provide only general guidance in projecting the future behavior of a population group. In most instances--for example, projections of future investment decisions or future energy use--the responses given by individuals about their inten-tions are often modified over time by changes in the information available and circumstances involved with the future behavior (energy prices increase, interest rates change, the person loses his job, etc.). This is particularly true when asking people to project how they would behave in a situation (e.g., a power plant emergency) with which they have no prior experience and which, moreover, involves stress. Furthermore, since no instructions have been disseminated to residents of the area regarding what to do in an emergency, most people must react in an information vacuum; lacking specific guidance, their reactions are a rela-tively close reflection of their more general attitudes about the plant.
This survey provides some indication, however, of how many area residents have done any emergency planning, as well as their projected reactions to several emergency situations involving differing amounts of information.
As one might expect at this stage of the emergency planning pro- ,
cess, most people have made no plans regarding what they would do
28 O
if there were an emergency at the Shoreham Nuclear Power Plant after it began to operate. This is the case, even though they believe they might be affected by such an emergency. Most people express a strong desire for information that would help them plan for an emergency, regardless of how far they live from the plant.
Respondents in this survey were presented with several hypothet-ical situations describing emergencies of varying seriousness at the power plant and were asked how they thought they might react.
When presented with an abbreviated message concerning an emer-gency at the plant substantial numbers of people indicate they would react by leaving their homes, even if they live outside the affected area. However, the introduction of additional informa-tion specifically directed at people not living close to the plant would cause a significant proportion of these people to change their response to the question (that is, they say they would not leave the area).
Those who are most concerned about the plant opening, who are also the ones negative about nuclear power in general (recall Table 9), react most sharply to hypothetical emergency .
situations.
Reactions to the hypothetical emergency scenarios also demon-strate in the opposite way the need for additional information about emergency behavior. In each came, a substantial minority
29 O' of up to one-quarter of respondents in the area presumably af-fected by the emergency indicate they would not take the minimum actions advised to protect their safety.
The overwhelming conclusion that these findings and those in the previous section point to is that there is a dearth of informa-i l tion in the hands of area residents on the types of emergencies I they might expect, who would be affected and how they should react.
Specific findings are detailed below.
- 1. Although 9 out of 10 residents living within the 10-mile zone believe they would be affected by a serious problem
()
1 at the Shoreham Nuclear Power Plant, only about 1 in l 10 have done any planning for how they would respond in an emergency.
...The proportion of people who believe they would be affected by a problem c'iclines with increas-ing distance from the plant, dropping to a still-high 64% in Nassau County (Table 10).
. . .But only within the 5-mile range of the plant have as many as 1 in 4 residents done any plan-ning for an emergency.
O
a-.
30
...Those residents who are most concerned about the prospect of the plant opening are also most I' likely to believe they would be affected by an i
emergency and to have done some planning for r-
[
that contingency, though even among this group only a portion have done some planning (Table 11).
- 2. Nearly 6 out of 10 residents surveyed indicate a strong desire for additional information on emergency planning (Table 12).
. . .Those who are concerned about the plant's open-() ing indicate a greater desire for emergency planning information. -
...Most people indicate a desire for more informa-tion about emergency planning, regardless of whether they live inside or outside the 10-mile
- zone (Table 13).
- Even those who indicate they have done some planning want more information.
l
- 3. When presented with hypothetical scenarios describing potential emergency situations (see Exhibit A), a large proportion of the population both inside and outside the l
l l
l
31 theoretically affected areas reports that they would either do more or less than the emergency instructions indicated.
...In each of three scenarios describing increas-ingly severe emergency situations, two-thirds to three-quarters of those people living in unaf-fected' areas indicate they would respond by taking actions that would not be required under the framework of the scenarios (i.e., either
' I staying inside their homes or leaving their j I' homes to get out of the area). (Tables 14, 15, I 16).
O' ...However, the introduction of additional informa-tion into each scenario explaining that other areas are not affected causes many people in l those unaffected areas who believe they would otherwise have left the area to remain (Tables
- 14, 15, 16).
[ -
In the scenario calling for evacuation
'"~
of a 10-mile area, the proportion of people outside the area who think they would leave their homes drops by a third from 43% to 29% (Table 16).
f O .
32 EXHIBIT A l Hypothetical Emergency Scenarios
['
Scenario One:
Understanding that you may not have given this issue much thought to this point, let me pose some hypothetical situations. Suppose that you and your f amily were at home and there was an accident at the Shoreham Nuclear Power Plant. Some radioactive steam was released into the atmosphere and all l >
people who lived within five miles of the plant were advised to
- stay indoors for several hours. Given where you live, do you think that you and the other members of your f amily would oe likely to:
Addition to Scenario One: If the announcement included a message that people living more than five (5) miles from the plant were advised they could go about their normal business, again given where you live, is it likely that you would:
Scenario Two:
. Suppose that you and your f amily were at home and there was an accident at the Shoreham Nuclear Power Plant that created a possibility of increasing the level of radiation around the plant. All pregnant women and pre-school children living within five miles of the plant were advised to evacuate and everyone O else living within ten miles of the plant was advised to remain i ndoors. Given where you live, is it likely you and other members of your family would:
Addition to Scenario Two: If the announcement included a message that people living more than 10 miles f rom the plant were advised they could go about their normal business, again given where you live, is it likely you would:
Scenario Three:
Suppose that you and your f,amily were at home and there was an l accident at the Shoreham Nuclear Power Plant that created a L greater risk of releasing radiation into the area around the plant. Everyone living within ten miles of the plant was
, advised to evacuate until the problem was solved. Given where ,
I you live, is it likely that you and other members of your family would:
Addition to Scenario Three: In this last situation, if the
, announcement included a message that people living more than 10 miles from the plant did not need to evacuate, again given where you live, is it likely that you would:
Responses for Each Scenario:
- Do what would normally do Stay inside your home
- Leave your home and go somewhere else
r-33 O 4. Several factors have a substantial impact on reactions to these hypothetical emergencies.
...The distance from the plant people perceive
~
themselves to live has a slight influence on reactions (Tables 17, 18).
People who perceive themselves as liv-ing inside the affected zone are more likely to react with actions at least as sharp as those advised.
(-
[ -
People who perceive themselves living outside the affected zone show a com-mensurately greater likelihood of going about their normal business.
O ... People who express a high level of concern about Shoreham Nuclear Power Plant are much more likely than others to indicate they would leave the area in any emergency even if they are advised it is not necessary (Table 19).
... Men and women indicate the same propensity to stay and leave, though in each scenario women more often indicate they would stay inside their home while men indicate they would go about their normal business (Table 20).
l 34 1
... Younger people (under 35) are more likely to in-dicate a propensity te evacuate in all circum-
- stances; older people (over 50) are more likely to stay inside their homes regardless of circum-stances (Table 21).
. ...Those who hold the most negative beliefs about i
the impact of nuclear power are more likely to say they would leave the area in an emergency r- when presented with limited information (Table 22).
But, they respond more appropriately when provided with complete informa-tion.
O
...In the second scenario, responses are clearly affected by the presence of pregnant women or preschool children, the two specifically tar-geted groups (Table 23).
- 5. Given the considerable variability in responses to these L hypothetical scenarios, it is difficult to make projec-l tions to the total population. Further, these projec-
~
tions do not have the type of real-life validation of survey forecasts as is available in other areas--for ex-ample, voting behavior or product-purchase behavior--
because no empirically-derived and tested model exists.
'O
- ~-
1
. l 35 O
~
Understanding this, projections to the total population i of the two-county area, using what we understand to be the most realistic emergency communications scenarios, would yield the following results: 1!
. . .In an emergency wi.ere people within five miles of the plant were advised to stay inside and others outside the area advised they could go about their normal business, representatives of
- approximately 100,000 households in Nassau and Suffolk Counties currently say they would leave their homes and go someplace else. ! All of these people would be responding with an action
~s/ more drastic than advised in tne emergency notification.
. . .In an emergency where pregnant wonen and pre-school children living within five miles are advised to evacuate, all others within ten miles requested to stay indoors, and anyone living further than ten miles from the plant advised
_1/ Population pro]ections are based on April, 1983 census counts by tract. The projections are based on the per-centage of the total survey sample that indicate they would leave their hcae in each of the three scenarios where full information is provided.
~-
2/ Adjusting for a statistical sampling error of + 2%
on the 12% of the population who think they would leave yields a projection of between 80,000 and 120,000 )
households,
[d' 1
l 1
1 i 36 f
a they can go on with their normal business, approximately 175,000 household representatives currently say they would leave the area. 1/ Of these, fewer than 2,000 would be responding as suggested; this group would be the pregnant women and children living within five miles of the plant. The remainder would be reacting more strongly than advised.
-- . . .In an emergency where everyone within ten miles is advised to evacuate and others told they don't need to, approximately 245,000 representa-tives of households currently say they would
() leave the area. ! Of these, 18,000 would be responding as instructed; the remainder would be
/
from outside the affected area.
1/ Adjusting for a statistical sampling error of + 3% on
- he percent who think they would leave would yield a projection range of 150,000 to 200,000 households.
--2/ Adjusting for a statistical sampling error of + 3% on the percent who think they would leave would yield a projection range of 220,000 to 270,000 households.
~'
3/ We discovered after completion of this survey that the actual emergency planning zone is slightly different than the one used here. If results are examined using that zone, the number of households responding appro-priately (by leaving) in this scenario would rise to 24,000, leaving 221,000 responding with actions more drastic than necessary. See Appendix C for further ;
discussion of the Emergency Planning Zone boundaries. l l
1 1
Y
~ -
t
\
TABLE 10 QUESTION 10b: PLANNING FOR NUCLEAR PLANT EMERGENCIES
.i Areas 6-10 Balance of:
5 Mile Mlle Eastern Western Total Zone Zone Suffolk Suffolk Nassau -
Respondents who believe they would be affected by a serious problem at Shoreham/not sure 79 93 94 84 88 70 t llave done some personal
!, emergency planning 11 27 17 16 15 6 1
f, Itave done no planning
- for emergencies related to Shoreham operations -
68 66 77 68 73 64 l'
Respondents who believe they would not be affected by a serious problem at Shoreham 2.1 2 1. 15 L2 3.D f
i
I 38 O
i r
TABLE 11 QUESTION 10b: PLANNING FOR NUCLEAR PLANT EMERGENCIES l
1 Reaction to l Shoreham Ooeninc Total Pleased Concerned
% % % l I
Respondents who believe they O would be affected by a serious problem at Shoreham/not sure 79 63 84 l
Have done some personal emergency planning 11 8 11 Bave done no planning for emergencies related to Shoreham operations 68 55 73 Respondents who believe they would not be affected by a serious eroblem at Shoreham JJ, jl 15 O
- 2. _ . . . . . . . , . , _ , _ , . . . . _ . . . .
39 i
i O
1 TABLE 12 QUESTION 11b: PLANNING INFORMATION NEEDS Reaction to Shoreham Opening Total . Pleased Concerned Base 100 10d 100 In Terms of Planning for Emergencies Related to Shoreham Nuclear Power Plant:
O j _ Definitely need more information 44
>58%
26
>35%
49
>64%
2- 14 9 15 3- 13 21 11 4- 8 9 7 5- 7 12 5 6
Do not need 14 23 12 more information
. Uncertain /no answer * -
1
- Less than 1%.
1 I
O
40 O
/
TABLE 13 QUESTION 11b: PLANNING INFORMATION NEEDS Believe Affected by :
Nuclear Emergency Live Witnin Live over 10 Miles 10 miles Have Have Have Not Have Not Planned Planned Planned Planned
?
Base 100 100 100 100 O In Terms of Planning for Emergencies Related to Shoreham Nuclear Plant:
3 _ Definitely need 29 43 37 45 more information
>44% >53% >54% >60%
2- 15 10 17 15 1
3- 12 15 14 13 4- 12 8 10 7 5- 11 5 7 7 Do not need '
6 21 18 15 13 more information Uncertain /no answer -
1 - -
l O .
_ _ _ , , , , s . ..m. e .e- - **
O O O TAbbH 14 QUESTIONS 12a AND 12b:__ PROJ1CTED REACTION TO EMERGENCY SCENARIO ONE Areas ___ _ _
6-10 Balance of:
5 Mile Mile fastern Western Total Zone Zone Suffolk Suffolk Nassau Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 Projected Reaction to an Emergency Requiring:
People Within Five Miles of Plant to Stay Indoors Do what would normally do 31 2 12 25 22 40 Stay inside home 49 71 59 59 54 45 Leave home/go somewhere else 17 24 28 12 21 13
. Uncertain /no answer 3 3 1 4 3 2 People Within Five Miles of Plant to Stay Indoors and Others are Told to go About Their Normal Activities 4
Do what would normally do 32 3 12 26 24 42 Stay inside home 53 71 62 61 56 47 Leave home/go somewhere else 12 22 24 8 16 8 Uncertain /no answer 3 4 2 5 4 3
_1/ See Appendix D, item C.
N
O O TABLE 15 QUESTIONS 14a AND 14b: PROJECTED REACTION TO EMERGENQY SCENARIO TWO Areas _ __
6-10 Balance of:
5 Mile Mile Eastern Western Total Zone Zone Suffolk Suffolk Nassau Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 Projected Reaction to an Emergency Requiring:
Evacuation of Pregnant Women /
Preschool Children Within Five Miles and Others Within Ten Miles to Stay Indoors _
Do what would normally do 25 3 7 25 17 33 Stay inside home 44 47 49 49 45 41 Leave home/go somewhere else .
28 47 42 22 35 23 Uncertain /no answer 3 3 2 4 3 3 Evacuation of Pregnant Women /
Preschool Children Within Five Miles and Others Within Ten Miles to Stay Indoors; People Outside the Ten-Mile Area Could Continue as Normal Do what would normally do 27 5 8 26 20 35 Stay inside home 48 54 54 55 50 45 Leave home/go somewhere else 21 37 35 15 27 15 Uncertain /no answer 4 4 3 4 3 5
_1/ See Appendix D, item C.
b
~ -
(
- s TABLE 16 OUESTIONS 16 AND 17: PROJECTED REACTION TO EMERGENCY SCENARIO TilREE-Areas __
6-10 Dalance of:
5 Mile Mile Eastern Western -
Total Zone Zone Suffolk Suffolk Nassau Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 Projected Reaction to an '
Emergency Requiring:
Evacuation of Everyone Within Ten Miles of Plant Do.what would normally do 22 2 5 18 14 29 Stay inside home 31 22 21 39 26 35 Leave home/go somewhere else 43 74 72 39 56 33 Uncertain /no answer 4 2 2 4 4 3 Evacuation of Everyone Within Ten Miles of Plant; People Living Beyond Ten Miles Need not Evacuate Do what would normally do 26 5 11 22 19 33 Stay inside home 41 34 32 48 38 43 Leave home/go somewhere else 29 58 54 24 30 20 Uncertain /no answer 4 3 3 6 5 4
_1/ See Appendix D, item C.
C
44 I O
TABLE 17 QUESTION 12a: PROJECTED REACTION TO AN EMERGENCY REQUIRING PEOPLE WITHIN FIVE MILES OF PLANT TO STAY INDOORS (By perceived / actual distance from plant)
Perceived Zip Distance Code from O Area 5 Miles or Shoreham 5 Miles or Less Less Base 100 100 Do what would normally do 2 6
, Stay inside home 71 63 Leave home/go somewhere else 24 30 I Uncertain /no answer 3 1 ,
O
l i ..
45 t
- O,-
TABLE 18 f
QUESTION 14a: PROJECTED REACTION TO AN EMERGENCY REQUIRING EVACUATION OF PREGNANT WOMEN AND PRESCHOOL CHIDREN LIVING WITHIN FIVE MILES AND OTHERS WITHIN TEN MILES OF PLANT TO STAY INDOORS (By perceived / actual distance from plant)
{
! Perceived Zip Distance
. Code from Areas Shoreham Under Under 10 10 -
Miles Miles ,
Base 100 100 Do what would normally do 6 2
{ Stay inside home 48 46 i.
Leave home/go somewhere else 44 51 Uncertain /no answer 2 1 O
i-46 e-TABLE 19 QUESTION 12a: PROJECTED REACTION TO AN EMERGENCY ADVISING PEOPLE WITHIN FI7E MILES OF THE PLANT TO STAY INDOORS i
/ (By concern about Shoreham)
Population' Living Within 5 Mile Zone Reaction to Shoreham Pleased Concerned Base 100 100 Do what would normally do 4 1 Stay inside home 86 66 Leave h'ome/go somewhere else 10 29 Uncertain /no answer - 4
. O l
47
(:) l l
i TABLE 20 QUESTION 17: PROJECTED REACTION TO AN EMERGENCY ADVISING PEOPLE WITHIN TEN MILES OF THE PLANT TO EVACUATE; ALL OTHERS CAN GO ABOUT NORMAL BUSINESS (By sex)
O Men Women Base 100 100 Do what would normally do 31 21 Stay inside home 36 45 Leave home/go somewhere else 28 30 Uncertain /no answer 5 4 lO
48 O
TABLE 21 QUESTION 17: PROJECTED REACTION TO AN EMERGENCY ADVISING EVERYONE WITHIN TEN MILES OF THE PLANT TO EVACUATE PEOPLE LIVING BEYOND, TEN MILES NEED NOT EVACUATE (By age)
Age Under Over 35 35-50 50 .
Years Years Years l
Base 100 100 100 Do what would normally do 23 27 28 Stay inside 37 37 48 Leave home/go somewhere else 37 33 17 Uncertain /no answer 3 3 7 O
49 l
~
TABLE 22
() QUESTION 17: PROJECTED REACTION TO AN EMERGENCY ADVISING PEOPLE WITHIN TEN MILES OF THE PLANT TO EVACUATE: PEOPLE LIVING BEYOND TEN MILES NEED NOT EVACUATE (By beliefs about nuclear power) 1 1
i Beliefs About Impact of Nuclear Power _1/
l Negative Moderate Positive Base 100 100 100
( Projected Reaction to an l Emergency Requiring:
. Evacuation of Everyone Within Ten Miles of Plant Do what would normally do 16 20 31 Stay inside home 32 32 28 O Leave home/go somewhere else 50 44 39 Uncertain /no answer 2 4 2 Evacuation of Everyone Within Ten Miles of Plant; People Living Beyond Ten Miles Need Not Evacuate Do what would normally do 22 24 33 Stay inside home ,
49 41 37 Leave home/go somewhere else 27 30 27 Uncertain /no answer 2 5 3 1/ Respondents are categorized using responses to three l scaled questions: (1) nuclear power plants can blow up; (2) normal nuclear power plant operations expose one to less radiation than dental x-rays; (3) living close to a nuclear power plant is bad for your health in the long-term even if there never is an accident.
l Responses to the second item were statistically reversed l and each respondent's answers to the 3 questions were summed to yield an index score that can be used to O. describe respondents' beliefs about the potential impact of nuclear power. These respondents categorized as negative are most fearful of the impact of nuclear power plants.
L- - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
- . - . =. - ._ .- . . - - _
50 O
TABLE 23 QUESTION 14b: PROJECTED REACTION TO AN EMERGENCY REQUIRING EVACUATION OF PREGNANT WOMEN / PRESCHOOL CHILDREN WITHIN FIVE MILES AND OTHERS WITHIN TEN MILES TO STAY INDOORS; OTHERS COULD CONTINUE AS NORMAL (By presence of affected groups) 1!
l Areas 5 Mile Zone 6-10 Mile Zone No No Preschool Preschool Preschool Preschcol Children / Children / Children / Children /
Pregnant Pregnant Pregnant Pregnant Os Women in Women in Household Household Women in Women in Household Household Base 100 100 100 100 Do what would normally do 4 5 6 8 Stay inside home 25 60 38 58
. Leave home/go somewhere else 69 31 56 31 I
Uncertain /no answer 2 4 -
3
_1/ The proportion of households containing these groups is 25% within the 5-mile zone and 22% in the 6-10 mile zone.
~
I t
e 4 C. Public Information/ Education Issues
51 l
O C. Public Information/ Education Issues Effective emergency planning requires an understanding of how best to reach the population of the area. This survey reveals two major challenges for planners. First, the area population appears less than completely satisfied by eitner the completeness or the fairness of news coverage about the plant. Thirty-two percent of the two-county population consider media coverage biased against the plant. Second, no single official source is viewed as highly credible by a majority of the population. LILCO and the Suffolk County Executive each are viewed as highly credible by less than a quarter of the population.
Specifics are the following:
- 1. The single most important source Suffolk and Nassau County residents rely on for information abuut nuclear power issues is Newsday, followed by television and the New York City newspapers (Table 24).
...Those who are concerned about,the opening of Shoreham rely more heavily than those pleased by the prospect of its opening on Newsday and TV for information on nuclear issues (Table 25).
While those more favorable about Shoreham report greater reliance on O
52 O ,
other sources, especially government agencies.
...Although a significant proportion of Suffolk and Nassau County residents, especially those close to the plant, have received materials about Shoreham from LILCO or from opponents of the plant, only a handful report substantial reliance on those sources for information (Tables 24, 26, 27).
People with more negative beliefs less of ten have received brochures on Shoreham either from LILCO or opponents to Shoreham, or have watched news segments.
( .
More than 2 out of 5 have seen TV special segments or news stories about Shoreham.
- 2. Even though there obviously has been substantial media attention devoted to the Shoreham plant, most of the two-county residents rate media coverage either incom-plete or inadequate. Further, though a plurality rate
.i media coverage of Shoreham to date as balanced in ap-proach, one-third believe that it has been biased against the plant (Tables 28 and 29).
)
O
53 I
O ...These views are not substantially different among those groups pleased with and concerned about the plant, though people with more favor-able attitudes toward the plant are more likely to believe media coverage has had a bias against the plant (Tables 30 and 31).
- 3. Of those groups or individuals most closely involved with the Shereham plant, state health officials, Civil Defense and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) are viewed as credible by the largest proportions of the Suf folk and Nassau County populations when nuclear power issues are discussed, though even these groups are con-O).
\s. sidered hig.)1y credible by only about half of the population (Table 32).
...The two most active Shoreham participants, LILCO and the Suffolk County Executive, are the least credible of all these sources.
- Their respective rankings vary sharply according to whether they are being rated by people pleased with or con-cerned about Shoreham, with those most concerned more positive about the County Executive and those less con-cerned more positive about LILCO (Table 33).
l
- ^
i 54
.i l
i j - The Governor and TV or radio reporters l get credibility ratings slightly higher i
i than, but within the same range as, r
LILCO and the Suffolk County Executive.
l i
t l
I j
i
[
i I
. 1 4
1 4
I l
i i
G
^
55 O
TABLE 24 QUESTION 33: PRIMARY SOURCES OF INFORMATION ON NUCLEAR POWER ISSUES Areas 6-10 Balance of:
5 Mile Mile Eastern western Total Zone Zone Suffolk Suffolk Nassau c Base 100 100 100 100 100 100 Newsday 34 29 32 22 34 34 Television 19 13 13 15 18 21 New York City O newspapers Governmental 14 11 7 19 9 18 agencies 7 5 7 6 7 6 Other local newspapers 5 3 6- 7 6 5 Radio 4 5 7 4 4 4 Discussions with friends and neighbors 3 8 3 4 5 1 Suffolk Life 3 9 8 9 4 -
Brochures / mail from utilitiss 2 4 3 3 1 2 Brochures / mail from nuclear power opponents 1 2 4 2 2 1 Other sources 7 9 9 7 7 7 No answer 1 2 1 2 1 1 1
a 1
56 lO I TABLE 25 l
1 QUESTION 33: PRIMARY SOURCES OF INFORMATION ON l NUCLEAR POWER ISSUES (By concern about Shoreham)
Reaction to Shoreham Ooeninc Pleased Concerned I
I Base 100 '100 O Newsday Television New York City newspapers -
30 11 14 36 21 14 Governmental agencies 11 5 Other local newspapers 10 4 Radio 5 4 Discussions with friends and neighbors 3 3 Suffolk Life 2 3 Brochures / mail from utilities 3 1 Brochures / mail from nuclear power opponents ** 2 Other sources 11 6 No answer . ** 1 5
- Less than 1%.
O
, , t'+ M.. -
_, , , , -y,, , .. - - , .w ,
s s 4
a TABLE 26 QUESTIONS 34, 35, AND 36: INFORMATION RECEIVED ABOUT TIIE SIIOREllAM POWER PLANT i Areas -
1 t 6-10 Balance of:
.! 5 Mile Mile Eastern Western Total Zone Zone Suffolk Suffolk Nassau g* ga %* %* %* %*
' Percentage _Who:
llave received brochures / mail from 1.ILCO discussing Shoreham 41 82 82 46 46 34 llave received brochures / mail from opponents of Shoreham 28 49 44 39 34 22 Ilave seen TV specials / news segments about Shoreham 42 49 36 35 45 41
- Multiple responses.
58 l
O TABLE 27 QUESTIONS 34, 35, and 36a: INFORMATION RECEIVED ABOUT THE SHOREHAM POWER PLANT (By beliefs about nuclear power) ,
Beliefs About Impact of Nuclear Power _1/
Negative Moderate Positive i %* %* %*
Perdentage Who:
Have received brochures /
mail from LILCO discussing Shoreham 36 41 46 O
1 Have received brochures / l mail from opponents l of Shoreham 24 29 31 Have seen TV specials / news segments about Shoreham 34 43 46
- Multiple responses.
_1/ Respondents are categorized using responses to three scaled questions: (1) nuclear power plants can blow
- up; (2) normal nuclear power plant operations expose one to less radiation than dental x-rays; (3) living
'e close to a nuclear power plant is bad for your4 health in the long-term even if there never is an accident.
Responses to the second item were statistically reversed and each respondent's answers to the 3 questions were summed to yield an index score thatrean be used to describe respondents' beliefs about the potential impact of nuclear power.
~_- . .
smW 4
'e ; 1 ' a<
l 59 O
TABLE 28 QUESTION 36b: COMPLETENESS OF NEWS MEDIA COVERAGE OF SHORERAM NUCLEAR POWER PLANT Total Base 100 -
Informative and complete 11 Informative but not complete 46 Inadequate 35 Uncertain 8 O
60 0
TABLE 29 QUESTION 36c: BIAS OF NEW MEDIA CCVERAGE Total O Base 100 Biased in favor of the plant 8 Balanced 45 Biased against the plant 32 Uncertain 15 O
i-61 O,.
l t
TABLE 30 ,
QUESTION 36bt COMPLETENESS OF NEWS MEDIA COVERAGE OF SHOREHAM NUCLEAR POWER PLANT Reaction to l Shoreham Opening Pleased Concerned O % %
Base 100 100 Informative and complete 15 10 Informative but not complete 39 48 Inadequate 39 35 Uncertain 7 7 I
l O
i
- l.
i 62
!O
/
i 9
~
TABLE 31 QUESTION 36c: BIAS OF MEWS MEDIA COVERAGE ,
Reaction to Shoreham Opening Pleased Concerned 4
Base 100 100 Biased in favor of the plant 3 10 Balanced 38 46 Biased against the plant 47 28 Uncertain 12 16 O
O O O' TABLE 32 QUESTION 18: CREDIBILITY OF INFORMATION SOURCES REGARDING NUCLEAR POWER Areas 6-10 Balance of:
5 Mile Mile Eastern Western Total Zone Zone Suffolk Suffolk Nassau Percentage Who Would Rate as liighl' Believable Statements About NuclearPowerIssuesby1[
Civil Defense 51 43 49 50 49 53 State health officials 51 46 46 47 51 51 The Nuclear Regulatory Commission 44 43 33 38 45 45 The Police 41 42 39 46 38 42 The Governor 32 33 24 35 29 34 TV and radio reporters 30 27 27 28 29 31 The Suffolk County Executive 23 27 25 27 27 21 LILCO 23 24 14 13 21 25
- Multiple responses.
_1/ Hated "5" or "6" on a 6-point scale where 1 equals completely unbelievable and 6 equals completely believable.
O
64 r
l TABLE 33 QUESTION 18: CREDIBILITY OF INFORMATION SOURCES REGARDING NUCLEAR POWER (By views about Shoreham)
Reaction to Shoreham Ooening i
Pleased Concerned Percentage Who Would Rate as Hichly Believable Statements About Nuclear Power Issues by Civil Defense 50 51 State h2alth officials 45 52 The Nuclear Regulatory Commission 53 42 The Police 44 39 The Governor 33 31 TV and radio reporters 26 30 The Suffolk County Executive 16 25 LILCO 39 18
- Multiple responses.
1/ Rated "5" or "6" on a 6-point scale where 1 equals completely unbelievable and 0 equals completely believable.
l O
O
~
D. Needs of People Living Within Ten-Mile "one Regarding Evacuation O
O
l l 65 l
l D. Needs of People Living Within Ten-Mile Zone Regarding Evacuation In order to anticipate potential population needs in an emer- !
gency, people living within ten miles of the plant were asked where they would go in an emergency requiring evacuation, how they would plan to get there and what special needs they might have. Recognizing that most people will have some difficulty answering these questions (especially since most have not planned for this contingency) the answers provide a general indication of needs.
- 1. If they had to evacuate, about half of the people living within ten miles of the plant would leave Long Island (Tables 34 and 35).
... Fourteen percent are uncertain and another 4%
indicate they would not leave their homes.
9
- 2. The vast majority would travel by car (Table 36).
...Three percent would plan to take boats.
...Only 1% indicate they would need transportation.
l
66 O 3. About 7% of the households contain a handicapped er dis-abled person, but only 1% would require some transporta-
, tion assistance (Tables 37 and 38).
... People with school-age children (one-third of the households in the 10-mile zone) would most often prefer to pick their children up at school in an emergency if time permitted, rather than having them bused directly out of the area or brought home (Table 39).
- 4. Only 7% of the people within the 10-mile zone indicate they would need a public shelter. Nearly 6 out of 10 would plan to go to somebody else's house if they left
(}
the area (Table 40).
~> -
67 1
TABLE 34 QUESTION 20: DESTINATION IN CASE OF AN EMERGENCY
- Population Living Within 10-Mile Zone -
Areas ,
6-10 5 Mile Mile Total Zone Zone Some place in Suffolk County 19 19 19 Some place in Nassau County *15 19 13 Some, place in New York City 23 18 25 Some other place 25 24 27 Stay at home 4 6 3 Uncertain 14 14 13 l
1 Refused - - - '
l
. . - , . . . n w. n -- ~ -. . , , - - - .~. - - - - -
68 l
O TABLE 35 QUESTION 21: DISTANCE OF EVACUATION DESTINATION FROM RESIDENCE
- Among Those Who Would Evacuate and Live Within 10 Miles of Plant-Areas 6-10 5 Mile Mile Total Zone Zone Respondents who would evacuate 82 80 84 10 miles or less 8 8 8 11 - 20 miles 6 7 5 21 - 30 miles -
7 7 8 31 - 40 miles 5 7 4 41 - 50 miles 11 9 12 More than 50 miles 42 39 43 Uncertain /no answer 3 3 4 O
69 l O
I t
i TABLE 36 QUESTION 23: MODE OF TRANSPORTATION Among Those Who Live Within Ten Miles of Shoreham and Would Evacuate -
Areas 6-10 5 Mile Mile Total Zone Zone O Respondents who would evacuate 82 80 84 Car 70 69 70 Boat 3 3 3 Train 2 1 2 Would need transportation 1 1 -
Other means 3 4 a l
Uncertain /no answer 3 2 5 I
O
., ->,--r -- -
a- e-
70 O
TABLE 37 QUESTION 28: SPECIAL CONDITIONS OF HOUSEHOLD MEMBERS
- Population Living Within.10-Mile Zone -
Areas O 5 Mile 6-10 Mile Total Zone Zone In need of special medical /
dietary supplies 12 13 11 Disabled or handicapped 7 6 8 Pregnant 3 2 3 l
O ,
1 l
l 71 O
e-TABLE 38 QUESTION 29: TRANSPORTATION NEEDS OF DISABLED /
HANDICAPPED HOUSEHOLD MEMBERS
- Population Living Within 10-Mile Zone -
1 Areas 6-10 5 Mile Mile Total Zone Zone Have disabled oerson in household 7 6 8_
l Have own transportation 6 4 7 l Need special transportation 1 2 1 l I
O .
72 O \
I i
TABLE 39 .
QUESTION 27: PREFERRED EVACUATION PROCEDURES FOR SCHOOL-AGE CHILDREN
- Among Those with Children Ages 5-17 Years -
Areas 6-10 0 Total 5 Mile Zone Mile Zone Have school-age children 32 26 36 Pick children up from school 20 16 22 Bus children directly out of the area to designated locations 7 7 8 Bring children home 4 2 5 l
Uncertain /no answer 1 1 1 O
l
73 TABLE 40 QUESTION 22: TYPE OF DESTINATION
- Among Those Who Live Within Ten Miles of Shoreham and Would Evacuate -
- Areas 6-10 5 Mile Mile Total Zone Zone O % % %
Respondents who would evacuate 83 80 84 Somebody else's home 56 59 54 A hotel or motel 10 4 11 A public shelter 7 9 8
- Somewhere else 8 7 9 Uncertain /no answer 2 1 2 l
l 0
O IV. APPENDICES A. Sample Design and Study Methodology O
74 O
A. SAMPLE DESIGN AND STUDY METHODOLOGY Sampling Objectives
~
The sampling plan for this project was designed to meet the fol-lowing criteria:
...To deliver representative and projectable samples of the general public, 18 years of age ,or older, who reside in five specified areas in Suffolk and Nassau Counties. The five areas are defined in terms of proximity to the Shoreham Nuclear Power Plant and are:
i Within a five-mile radius of the Shoreham O Nuclear Power Plant Within a six- to ten-mile radius of the plant More than ten miles from the plant and east of the plant
- More than ten miles from the plant, west of the Plant and in Suffolk County In Nassau County.
O
75 O
~
...To ensure that each sample was distributed across all neighborhood segments in proportion to the numbers of l
households in those segments so that the sample yielded a truly reliable cross-section of each area being surveyed.
r 1
...To utilize random probability sampling procedures in the stratification and selection of sample households and to include rigid sample controls so as to prevent the intro-duction of possible bias into any of the samples.
...To include a procedure for randomly selecting one adult 18 years of age or older from among all available in each sample household so that all individuals in the popula-tion being surveyed had an appropriate probability of being selected in the sample.
. . .To provide for the proper inclusion of specific types of households which are inaccurately represented in tele-phone surveys without the use of sample control pro-cedures; namely, households with unlisted phones, households with multiple phone listings, one-person l households, households with all adults at work during the day, and households where adults are not at home.
O l
76
...To use updated U.S. Census counts to merge the individual samples from each of the specified areas into their proper proportions so that they accurately reflected the totals of Suffolk and Nassau Counties.
r
. ...To balance the completed sample on key demographic class-ification groupings (i.e., age, sex, household size) so that it accurately reflected U.S. Census distribution on those classifications.
r l
...To use the basic definitions of each survey area (i.e.,
the zip codes to be included and sample sizes) as on the 1982 Suffolk County sponsored survey of Long Island
)
residents.
Sample Design To meet these criteria YSW developed a sample design based upon the following methodology:
. ..The universe under study was defined as the general pub ,
lic, 18 years of age or older, living in households within Suffolk and Nassau Counties. Suffolk, County was divided into four distinct areas: five-mile, six- to ten-mile, east and west.
O
77 0 ...Each of the five specific areas was defined by the zip codes developed in the previous study. Each zip code was
[~ checked to ensure that the majority of the population of I
that zip code resided in the area to which that zip code r
I was assigned.
...All telephone exchanges in Suffolk and Nassau Counties were assigned to one of the five areas. (Exchanges which overlapped areas were assigned to the area which contained the majority of working telephone listings at this stage. However, completed sample households were
, included in the appropriate area on the basis of actual zip code information obtained during the interview.)
. . .Within each area, individual components (i.e., city, town) were arrayed by population size to create a comprehensive profile of the distribution of area households.
. . .The specific sample frame superimposed on that profile i
consisted of computer tapes which contain information on all active working banks of telephone numbers within exchanges.
\
l 78 l
O
..Using a random start and a systematic selection procedure (i.e., every " nth"), an initial sample of telephone i numbers was selected and printed on sample control sheets. The arrangement of the sample frame and the systematic procedure with probabilities proportionate to size (in terms of numbers of households within area, exchange, etc.) ensures that the final sample will be accurately distributed over all geographic and population size components.
F
...The specific telephone numbers for the sample were
~I created from the initial sample by a random digit proce-dure which automatically provides for approximately equal probabilities of selection among households with unlisted telephones as well as those with listings in telephone directories.
. . . Predesignated random procedures identified one specific
- respondent for interview from among all qualified individuals at home in each sampled household. A maximum
'~
of four attempts (original call and three callbacks) were made to reach each sample household to interview the selected individual.
\
l y , _ . . _ _ _ , ., ,_ - --
79 O Field Procedures
...All interviews were conducted from five central telephone facilities in New Jersey, Pennsylvania and Minnesota from f
May 5, 1983 to May 12, 1983.
I
...All interviewers received a detailed briefing session covering.all aspects of questionnaire administration and sampling methodology before starting to interview.
Interviewers were required to have prior interviewing experience and no interviewer was permitted to complete more than 2% of the total interviews in the study. All i
interviewers were required to sign a confidentiality statement and a statement verifying that all work was completed according to all specifications.
...YSW professional staff monitored interviews from each of the central telephone facilities to ensure proper proce-dures were followed. At all interviewing times, at least
. one trained supervisor was present to review interviews for proper completion and to monitor, at random, inter-viewers.
. . . A minimum of 20% of each interviewer's work was indepen-dently validated by telephone with the actual respondent.
O
. l l
80 0 .. 2,676 interviews were completed from 11,039 telephone numbers on which a total of 20,663 attempts were made. A detailed breakdown is shown below in a separate table.
Of the 2,676 interviews, 51 were rejected because the zip i
code information was missing or invalid.
...All completed interviews were checked for quality, edited, keypunched and computer tabulated.
Weighting Procedures Weighting procedures, outlined below, were applied in the tabula-ting phase of the project to align the final sample of completed interviews to known population sizes and characteristics.
(
...Some households, in which interviews were completed, had multiple telephone numbers (not extensions on the same line) and therefore had an increased probability of being included in the sample. Interviews with these households were adjusted downward so that their probability of being interviewed was approximately equivalent to those house-holds with only one line.
i
...To ensure that each area was properly represented in the total sample, a weighting procedure was developed to i
pa
81 O project to the total number of households in each area.
Data on the number of households are based upon the 1980 l; U.S. Census. These data were then updated to April, 1983 based on reports from the 1981 and 1982 Sales and l
Marketing Management Surveys of Buying Power. These data and the weights for each area are shown below in a separate table.
- In three areas (five-mile, ten-mile and east Suffolk), each individual zip code was weighted t
to reflect the total number of households in that zip code. In three casas, groupings of two or three geographically contiguous zip codes
() were made to reduce the overall range of weights and thereby improve the efficiency of the sample.
In west Suffolk, all zip codes were checked to ensure proper representation of each zip code within the area. Zip code 11776 was found to be overrepresented and therefore was weighted indi-vidually. The remainder of west Suffolk was di-vided into the two main postal geographic areas (first three digits of a zip code) and each area was weighted to reflect the total number of households in that postal geographic area.
O
82 O -
Interviews conducted in households in Nassau County were weighted in total to the number of i households in Nassau County.
...A sample balancing procedure was applied to the data to adjust the sample, by county, on the following character-istics:
Sex of respondent. ,
r-Number of people in household.
Age of respondent.
i I
() ...As a result of the sample balancing procedure, a small correction weight was applied to each of the five areas to put the areas back into their proper proportion. i
.4
I 83 O DISTRIBUTION OF POPULATION AND SAMPLE I
1 4
l
' Number of Number of Households Interviews i Area Zip Code April, 1983_1/ Completed Weight 5-mile 11778 3,423 200 0.17 11786 1,370 105 0.13 11792 1,684 85 0.19 11961 3,529 132 0.27 W 0T6 m 10-mile 11727 6,668 68 0.97 11764 2,633 111 0.24 i 11766 2,119 59 0.35 11777 2,737 71 0.39
, 11789 2,081 120 0.17 11933 1,454 15 0.96 11949 1,565 15 1.04 11953 2,239 35 . 0.63 O 11980 722 22,218 20 3T4 0.36 East 11901 6,408 51 1.25 11930 624 12 0.51 11931 514 2- 1.55 11932 281 18 0.31 11934 1,921 24 1.10 11935 1,175 17 .0.68 11937 3,825 45 0.85 11939 338 3 1.12 11940 1,174 6 1.10 11941' 653 5 . 1.29 11942~ 1,315 10 1.31 i 11944 1,510 12 1.25 11946_ 3,833 41 0.93
--1/ Based on 1980 U.S. Census data updated to April, 1983 based on the percent change from 12/31/80 to 12/31/81, as reported in the 1981 and 1982 Sales and Marketing i Ma nageme nt Surveys of Buying Power.
I Continued...
P t
n
1 84 1 DISTRIBUTION OF POPULATION AND SAMPLE (Continued) ,
Number of Number of i Households Interviews
__ Area Z ip - Code _ , Agefl, 1983_1/ Completed Weicht
- East 11947 339 4 1.55 '
(Cont'd) 11948 304 6 0.50 11952 1,637 25 0.65 11954 1,234 20 0.61
. 11955 229' - -
11956 177 4 0.44 11957 409 4' 1.02 11958 300 4 0.75 11959 456 6 0.76 11960 422 5 0.83 11963 2,428 42 0.58 11964 616 12 0.51 11965 346 5 0.68 11968 4,266 49 0.87 11970 , 240 1 1.55 l 11971 2,087 17 1.22 11972 360 6 0.60 11975 193 3 0.64 t
i 0 11976 11977 11973 506
'478 1,641 7
8 11 0.31 0.60 1.48
'~ 42,239 175 West _2/ 11776 5,933 135 0.44 117xx(excluding 321,776 435 7.40
, 119xx 11776) 12,224 39 3.11 339,933 3 79
\ ,
Suffolk County Total: 414,396 2,130 Nassau County Total: 428,000 495 9.97 i '
Total Suffolk and Nassau Counties: 842,396 2,625 1/ Based on 1980 U.S. Census data updated to April, 1983
~~
based on the percent change f rom 12/31/80 to 12/31/81, as reported in the 1981 and 1982 Sales and Marketing Management Surveys of Buying Power.
--'/ Includes all zip codes in Suffolk County not classified in the 5-mile, 10-mile or East areas.
85 ANALYSIS OF TELEPHONE NUMBERS DIALED i
! f i Number
' '~ 11,039 Total Telephone Numbers Attempted ,
Nonworking number 1,587
- Business / government 444 i
No answer 2,194 i
.! Busy 390 l
i Total Households contacted 6,434 i
i Deaf / language barrier 196 No adult at home 391 Work for power utility or market
/ }
research ccmpany ,
53 Total Elicible Households 5,794 Refused interview 2,793 Terminated before completion 325 Completed interviews 2,676 4
l O
w - = e
I o
e B. Questionnaire s
/
t
36 Ysanelovt:n, 3'.; ally and 4htte. Inc. study 94025
.se y , 1983 t-2-
D.ERCCfCT PIMNTNG 5t"JDY 3-
.- 4,
- rc:- ; : c e --o.... u .aa ,e :- .evt...
i l ! l i : tame of Respondents C79 S- 6- 7-I" Respondent Telepnene 6: "ates Monta ::ey 8- 1- 10-Interview Started: Interview Completed:
Interviewer Names Intervtew :.asted: Minutes 11- 12-317 C::DE CPT CJRATE:.Y FICM PAGE 6 l l l l
l 13= 14 15- 16- 17 t
lc::n .= ract 12l Sex:
Male.... -1 Female.. -2 l
8I a u w. - u.: w n u. h . u . 12
+' 1 I ara gotng to begin by reading you a list of different issues facing Americans.
%fter i have reed tne list, I would like you to tell me wnte's of *.nese you talan is the sont serious prooles today. (RZAD LIST: 0RC*.2 Ctc M5WER ONCE3 *MCST SERICUS*)
- 1. Whica of taeee do you tains is the least serious preoles? (CIRC 2 CNE ANSWER CNCER
- ZAST
. SERICCS*)
01 Q.:
Most West Serious Serious
- e. The det er ior ation of puolic senoo1s. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18-1 19-1
- b. Inflation................................................... -2 -1
- c. The possibility of an accident at a nuclear power plant..... -3 -3
- d. Inc r ease in cr 1ae . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . -4 -4
- e. The tareat of war........................................... -5 -5
- f. Unemployment................... ............................ -4 -4
- 3. Are you aware of any nuclear power plant taat is operating or meing built on Iong Island?
Yes................. 20=1 No (SEIP TO Q.7) . . . . . -2
- 4. What is the name of that plant? (D010:' READ)
Shorenaa..;... 21-1 Other.......... -2 i Don't snow..... -3 s
- 5. whten of sne following statements beet descr4bes tae current status of that nuclear power plant? (READ AND CIRCLE ONE)
('-
Carrently operating....................................... 22-1 It was operating, but it has been closed. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . -1 it is *eedy to operate, but has not yet begut to do so . . . . . -3 It is 3 0111 under construction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . -4 (DON'T READ) Don'tesow................................................. -5 6a. What organization or company is *esponsible for building aid operating that plant?
(D0 .C:" READ)
Iong Island Lignting Company /LILCO/tne power company /tne electric utility. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23-1 Suffolk County................................... -2 The federal government /TEMA...................... -3 Con Edison....................................... -4 l 0tnee............................................ -5 Don't know....................................... -4
- 5. What organizatiori of company has the roeponsibility to see tha. it is safe? (00 NOT READ)
Iong Island Lighting Company /L:LCO/the power company /tae electr ic ut 111ty. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24- 1 Suffolk County................................... -:
The fede r al gever nment/7EMA. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Con Edison....................................... -4 State Sealth Department.......................... -5 Cther............................................ -4 Don't know....................................... -7 O
l 88 p n=s . - am c.oa w w
- 7. As you may snow, tne Long Island :.ignting campany is currently completing sne Shorenam Nuclear Power Plant. wnten is in Suffolk County about 60 males from New Yorm City. It is not yet operating. Suppose taat it cegins to operate, would t3at same you feels (READ AND CIRCLE CNE)
Very pleased to have a new source of power..................*5-1 Mode r a t e ly p le as ed. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . -2 Moderately concerned aoout tse rists associated wita it... .. -3 Very concerned.............................................. -4
. (DC a - D. En:,,ac.,,> ="'c Refused.....................................................- -'
-4 4a. On a scale of 1 to 6, vnNe *1* seans taat the issue aff ects you personally very little and *4* means taat you really feel desoly involved in this issue, wnere wou4d you place yourself wnen it comes to tse tesue of opening tae Shorenas Nuclear Power Plant? (CIRCLE CNE)
I i a i e i 26 4 3 4 3 2 1 Deepay very Involved *ittle
- c. On a scale of 1 to 6, where *1* means that you f eel you definitely neeJ mee information on the issue and '6" means tnat you do not f eel you need to have any more information on the issue, waere would you place yourself with respect to opening the $borehas Nuclear Power Plant? (C13CLE CNE) 1 6 4 4 4 4 27-4 S 4 3 2 1 Do not :efinitely Need More Need More Information Internation
- c. On a scale of 1 to 6, waere *1* means that you and your friends and f amily rarely, s if ever, discuss the issue and '6" means that you and your friends and fam1Ly discuse it relatively of ten, waere would you place yourself with respect to opening the Shorenas Nuclear Power Plant? (CIRCLE CNE) l t I a ) i 28-4 5 4 3 2 1 Discuss Discuss of:en Rately
- d. On a scale of 1 to 6, wnere *1* means that you could change ycur sind very easily on tais issue and 6* means that your mind is made up, waere would you place yourself? (C:3CLE ONE)
I a i 6 6 29-6 5 4 3 2 1 Mind Is Change Made Up Mind Easily
- 9. About how many miles would you say your home is from tse Shoreham Nuclear Power Plant? (CIRCLE ONE RESPCNSE 3ELOW. DCit'y READ. CIRCLE APPROPRIATE CATEGORY.)
e 5 miles or less....... 30-1 6 to 10 miles.......... -2 11 to 15 miles......... -3 16 to 20 miles......... -4 21 to 30 miles......... -5 31 to 40 211es......... -4 41 to 50 miles......... ~7 More taan 30 miles..... -4 Don't snow............. -9 i
l
89
- 13. As part of tne process of =perating a nuclear power plant, a plan has to me developed to inform pecple living around the plant aoout wnat they snould do La une j event of a serious prooles wita sne plant. The type of action suggested muld <
fopend on tne seriousness of sne prooles--for example people signt be asned to stay indoors for a wntle, or pecple vtta certain pnysical conditions mA;nt me told to leave the area for awn 11a, or in more serious situations, all peopia living around tne plant algnt be told to leave the aree until tne prooles La solved. *at w ass you some questions acout now you feel acout tats.
- a. First, given wnero you live, do you taina you would be aff ected if a serious proolea developed at the Shorenam Nuclear Power Plant af ter it started operating?
Yes.................. 31-1 No (SCP TO 2 11) . . . . . -2 Mot sure.............. -3
- 3. Save you done any planning aoout how you would cope vita any emergencies tnat signt arise if ne Shorenaa Nuclear Power Plant begins operating?
Yes.... 3*-1 No...... -2 114. On a scale of 1 to 4, where *1* means tnat the issue affects you personally very little and '6' :neans that you really feel deeoly involved in tais issue, wners would you place yourself in terms of personaAly planntng for any emergencies related to tne shoreham Neclear Power Fant?
I i i i i a 33-6 5 4 3 2 1 Deeply very involved Little
- c. On a scale of 1 to 6, where "t* means that you feel you definitely need more information on tne issue and "6' means enat you do not feel you need to nave any more information on the issue, wnere would you place yourself in ter:s of planning b for any emergencies related t.o tne Shorenan Nuclear Power Plant?
I e a i a i 34-4 5 4 3 2 1 Do Not Definitely Need More Need More Informatic1 1.. formation
- c. On a scale of 1 to 6, vnere *1* seems enat you and your friends and family rarely, if ever, discuss sne issue and '6' means that you and your friends W family discuss it relatively often. waere would yvu place yourself in terms of planning for any emergencies related to the Shorenam Nuclear Power Plant?
6 6 i e 6 1 35-6 5 4 3 2 1 Discuss Rarely often Discuse
- d. On a scale of 1 to 6, where *1* seans that you could caange your mind very easily on tais issue and '6 seans that your mind is made uo, vnere would you place yourself regarding wnat you would do in an emergency? (C:3C*.2 CNE) 6 a a i i L 36-4 5 4 3 2 1 Mind Is Change Aind Made Op Zasily w
+
90 i
124. Understandtag taat you may not save given this tasue auca thought to this point,
, let se pose some nypotnetscal situations. Succese saat you and your f amily were at acme and taere was an accident at the Shorenam Muclear Power Plant. Some l_ radioactive steam was released into the atmoepnete and all people wno lived witain five siles of tae plant were adetsed to stay indoors for several nours. Given
]4 wnero you live, do you taina taat you and the otaer memoors of your fas11y would be 11xely to: tRI.AD AND C. 2CLE CNE)
' - Do we st you would normally do. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37-1 Cr, stay inside your some..................... -2 Ji Cr, leave your home and go somewnere else..... -3
-4 pl Don ' t k now . . . . . . . . . . .-s. . . . . . . . . .
g .T READ)fus.d.......................................
- b. If tae announcement included a message taat people living more taa. five (S) miles from the plant were advised they could go aoout taoir normal Desinees, again given i
wnero you live, is it likely saat you woulds (READ AND CIRCLE CNE)
- o wnat you w uld normally do................... 38-1 (SKIP To Q.14) cr, stay inside your home........................ -2 Cr, leave your some and go somewnere else. .. .. . . . -3 I **"***************************************
1 (DON'T READ. SKIP TC Q.14) fused.......................................... -5 i
i 13. Would everyone leave or would some members of tBe housanoid stay?
Every % t would leave.... 39-1
,' Some wouls. *=7,......... -2 Uncertain................ -3
, 14a. Suppose taat you and your family were at mora and taere was an accident at the snorenam Nuclear Wer Plant that created a possibilicy of increasing the level of
- radiation around 'se plant. All pregnant women and pre-senool c..11dren living j witain five sales of the plant were advised to evacuate and everyone else living
' within ten ailes of the plant was advised to remain indoces. Given where you live, is it likely you and otaer memoers of your family woulds (READ AND CIRC 1E CNE)
Do what you would normally do. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40-1
- or, stay inside your a=me..................... -2
- Cr, leave your home and go somewnere elae..... -3
"'t 'n "************************************ ~4
] (DON'T P M
! -5 l Re f u s ed. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3 w
i n. If sne announcement included a message taat people living more taan to miles from sne plant were advised taey could go anout tasir normal musiness, again given wnere you live, is it likely you woulds (READ AND CIEC'E CNE) 1 -
gggg ;g g, , g) , Do vnet you would normally do................... 41-1
! Or, stay inside your home........................ -2
-3
] or, leave your nome and go somewnere else. .......
(DCN'T READ. SK P TC Q.10 iD"I""*"*************************************** ~4 fused.......................................... -5
- 15. Would everyone leave or would eone members of the household stay?
Everyone would leave.... 4:=*
Some would stay...... ... -2 j "ncertain............... -3 3 s
91 i g 16. sacoose taat you and your f amily were at some and there wa t an accident at the sharenas Nuclear Power Plant tast created a greater riss og releastag radiation into tse area around tae plant. Everyone living within ten siles of tse plant was adetsed to evacuate until tse procles was solved. Given wnero you live, is it likely that you and other memoers of your f amily would: (RZAD AND C:aC:.E ONE) 30 wnst you would norma 11y do. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3-1 Cr, stay 1*tside your home..................... -2 Or, leave your nome and go somewnere else..... -3 gg,; y , Don't know.................................... -4 Rafused....................................... -5
- 17. In tais last situation, if tse announcement included a message taat people living more than 10 siles f rom the plant did not need to evacuate, again given wnere yo.:
Live, is it likely tsat you woulds (READ AND C:3CLE CNE)
Do wnat you would normally do................ 44-1 Or, stay inside your home..................... -2 Cr, leave your nome and go scuewnere else..... -3 Don't snow.................................... -4 (DW'T READ) fu.ed....................................... -i
- 18. I'm going to read the names of several individuals or groupe who might give out information about nuclear power. After read each source would you respond in the followsng way. Using a 6-point scale weiere '6* means very believanie and *1* means completely unnelieveale, how do you rate these information scura:es? (2EAD EACE SCCACE AND CI3C*E CNE ANSWER FOR EACE SDURCE BELDN)
Selievanle Completely very s
Once11evaale Believesele
- IIJ:C................................... 45-1 -2 -3 -4 -5 -4 2e Suffolk County executive............ 46-1 -2 -3 5 -4 The Ca ernor............................ 47-1 -2 -3 -4 -5 -4 2 e Po lic e. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48-1 -2 -3 -4 -5 -4 2e Nuclear Regulatory Comunission... .... 49-1 -2 -3 -4 -5 -4
-'t and r adio r eporter s. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50-1 -2 -3 4 -5 -4 State 59alta officials.................. 51-1 -2 -3 -4 -5 -4 Civil Defense........................... 52-1 -2 -3 -4 -5 -4
- '. The following questions are based on various Zip Code aream. would you please tell so wnat your tip C.de is? (RECCRD CAREFUL:.y) tip Codes' '
53 55- 56- 57-IF REFUSE "'O CT73 ZIP CODE. ASK NAME OF TOWN AND STREET ADDRESS 38-59-(ENTFA NAME CF *CefN)
(STREET ADDRESS) f a
i l
l l
92
- 10. If Shorenas opens and an accident oc=urs at the plant coquiring you to evacuate tse area, vnere do you taina you would go? Is it linely you would go to (READ AND CIRC:.Z ONE) l Someplace in S uff aix Ocunty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40-1 Someplace in Nassau County................... -2 Someplace in New Yor z 01:y. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . -3 Otner (SPIC *FT) -4
" *********************************** ~'
(Dott'T READ. SK ? TO Q.26al - R4 fused...................................... ~4
- 21. In terms of miles. aeout how far away is tais place from your home? (DON'T READr CIRC *Z APPRC#RIATE CATEGCRY) 10 miles or less...... 61-1 11 to 20 milee......... -2 i 21 to 30 miles......... -3 31 to 40 miles......... -4 41 to 50 sales......... -5 More tsan 50 miles..... -4 p. READ) lD*"It""************* ~7 Refused................ -4
- 22. Which of the fo11 coring would you be most likelv to go to? (??EAD AND CIRCLE ONE)
Sonsoody else 's home. . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 2- 1
' A puolic smelte r . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . -2 A tyrtel or note 1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . -3 Somewnere else.................... -4
{
(De mD. S.:, :0 a . 2 , J =Re=a't fused. .... . . .....
-4 l
- 23. How wod you get to that place? (D0 NOT READ)
Car............................... 63-1 3oet............................... -2 Train.............................. -3 8us................................ -4 Ride with friends or relatives..... -5 Would need transportation.......... -4 0ther.............................. -7 Don't know......................... -4
- 24. What nuncer of people in this household would leave tae house 7 (D0 NOT READ)
One............ 64-1 Two............. -2 Three........... -3 Four............ -4 Five............ -5 Six............. -4 Seven........... -7 Eight........... -4 Nine............ -9 Ten or more..... -0 Uncertain....... -x
\
l 93
- 25. In terms of getting to where you would want to go. do you tains because of road or nignway traffic, you would nave a very difficult time, a moderately difficult time, or would it to relatively easy?
Very difficult........... 65-1 l
Moderately difficult...... -2 Relatively easy. . . . . . . . . . . -3 l Don't know................ -4 1
26a. Bow many people in total live in tais housenold including yourself? (C .t"E CNE i NrNBER UNCER A BELOW)
- n. sow many are under 5 years old? (CIRCLE CNE NCMBER CMDER 5 RE:4W)
- c. Bow many are from 5 to 17 years old? (C:2C*E CNE NUMBER CNCER C BELCW)
- d. Md now many are 18 or older including yourself? (CI2CLE CNE NUMBER UNDER D BELOW) 3 C 0
- .A
- etal Under 3 S - 17 18 or older 64-1 67-1 64-1 69-1
-2 -2 -2 -2 NOTE: CHECE *O SEE TEAT
-3 -3 -3 -3 CCLCMN3 '5' 'C' AND *D*
-4 -4 -4 -4 A D C7 TO TOTAL IN CCLCHN *A*
-5 -5 -5 -5
-4 -4 -4 -4
-7 -7 -7 -7
-4 -4 -4 -4
-9 or more -9 or more ~9 or more ~9 or more
- 27. ASE ONLY CF "50SE wtTN CHILDREN 5 -ALL OTEERS GO TC Q.26: If your children were at scnool ana enere was an azacent requiring evacuation, would you ratt.or have the proper authorities (READ AND CIRCLE ONE)
Bring your caildren home......................................... 70-1 Or, aus them directly out of tae area to designated locations..... -2 Cr, would you pica enen up yourself............................... -3
- 28. Is anyeody in this nouseholds (READ)
Yes
- a. Pregnant........................................... 7*-1
- 3. In need of special medical or dietary supplies..... -2
- c. Disanled or handicapped............................ -3
- d. None............................................... -4
- 29. IF *TES* *C 0 28 *=.* ASR ALL OTHERS SKIP TC Q.30. Does the dinaaled/ handicapped person nave nas or ner own transportatton or would tney need special transportation?
Have own........ 72-1 Need special..... -2 i
l l
1 94
- 30. Now I as gotag to read you a series of statements aoout nuclear power. After : 1 read eacs statement would you respond in tae following way. Osing a 6-point scale. '
wnere *5* means very eelievenole and *1" means ecspletely unoelievaolo, how do you rate these state 9ents? (RZAD M STAT :4E:rt: CIRC *.3 ONE ANSWER yCR ZACE RESpCNSE BZ:. W)
Believaolo Canq)ietiy ' ary Once11evanle salievaole
- a. Nuclear reactors can alow up if sometning goes wrong.... 73-1 -2 -3 -4 -5 ~6
- c. A serious nuclear power plant accident is likely to happen no more often than once every 100.000 years of nuclear power plant operation........................ 74-1 -2 -3 -4 -5 -4
- c. me exposure to radiation someone receives from notsal nuclear power plant operations is less than tnat rece ived f rom one dental X-r ay. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75-1 -2 -3 . -4 -5 -6
- d. Se accident at tse 3ree Mile Island nuclear power plant exposed many people wno lived around tse plant to hign levels of r adiation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 6- 1 -2 -3 -4 -5 -6
- e. Because nuclear power plants are designed to contain radiation, you would have ample time to leave the area af ter notification that taere was an accident....... 77-1 -2 -3 -4 -5 -4
- f. Most nuclear power plants cost lose money to operate then power plants that use oil as a fuel........ 78-1 -2 -3 -4 ,-5 -6
- g. Living close to a nuclear power plant is bad for your healta in the long term even if there never is an accident.............................................. 79-1 -2 -3 -4 -5 -4 80-1
- 31. Some people believe that we should continue to bum nuclear power plants in the United States as a source of electric power, while others believe that they create proelene for comunities and should not be built. Which cne of these positions ccanes closest to acar you feel?
CARD 2 Continue to but14. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-l Too many peculems/stop building..... -2 Don't know.......................... -3
- 32. Recognizing t5e Denefits and problems with nuclear power, would you strongly approve, approve, disapprove or strongly disapprove of snutting down existing nuclear power plants in tae United Statee?
Strongly approve....... 6-1 Approve................. -2 Disapprov e. . . . . . . . . . . . . . -3
- Strongly disapprove..... -4 e
i 1
P l
N
)
J
95
\
l i
^ 33. Wien one of the following sources do you rely on met for information acout nuclear power issues? (READ T.IST CIRC *E ONE)
Newsday........................................... 7-1 Suffolk Life....................................... -2 Cther local newspapers............................. -3 New York City newspapers........................... -4 F
Rad 1o.............................................. -5 Television......................................... -6 Gove r nment al agencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . -7 Brochures or asil from nuclear power opponents..... -4 Brocnures or sail from ut111 ties................... -9 D iscuss with fr iende or neignoor s. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . -0 other.............................................. -x
- 34. Eave you ever received any trocaures or mail free * **" discussing tse Shorenas Nuclear Power Plant and its ef fect on you?
Yes.... 4-1 No...... -2
- 35. dare you ever received brocnures or emil from opponents of the Shorenma Nuclear
. Power Plant?
Yes.... 9-1 tio . . . . . . -2 36a. Bave you seen any special TV snows or news segments aoout the Shotonesi Nuclear Power Plant in the last few sonthe?
Yes........... 10-1 No............. -2 Don' t mow. . . . . -3
^
- c. How do you feel aoout the news media coverage of tDe Shotenas Nuclear Power Plant?
Do ycu tains it has beens (READ AaC CIRCLE ONE)
Informative and complete . . . . . . . . 11-1 Informative but noc coeplete..... -2 Inadequate................... ... -3 (DCN'T READ) Don't know................... ... -4
- c. Do you thina the news media coverage has boens (ItEAD AaC CIBC 2 QNE)
Biased in favor of the plant. .. 12-1 Balanced......................... -2 stased against the plant......... -3 i (DON'T READ) _ Don't know....................... -4 l
t t
l k
1 i
l 1
1 i
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ i
96 s rc~ ;s . - :mmucs 2's Line to asa you gust a few more questions aoout you and your family.
- 37. What is your age?
l 18 - 2 4 years. . . . . . . . 13-1
', 25 - 34 years......... -2 35 - 49 years......... -3 5 0 - 64 ye ars . . . . . . . . . ,-4 65 years and over..... -5
- 38. What is your poettion in mis housenold?
Male ased....... 14=1 Female need...... -2 Other sale....... -3 Qtser female . . . . . -4
- 29. What is your marital status? Are yous (READ OFF)
Single (never married) . . . . 15-1 Married.................... -2 Widowed....... ............ -3 Divorced, separated........ -4
- 40. utiat is your employment status? Are yous (READ CFF AND C3C2 OME)
Employed full-time. . . . 16-1 Employed part-time..... -2 Retised................ -3 Unemployed............. -4 S tudent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . -5 Ecemmamer.............. -4
- 41. How many cars are taere in this household?
One............. 17-1
' Two.............. -2 Thr ee . . . . . . . . . . . . -3 Four or more..... -4 None............. *5
97 g 42. What level of education nave you completed?
Les s tnan hign senool gr aduat e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18- 1 31gn senool graduate....................................... -2 Some :ollege er advanced tecnnical/ vocational training.... . -)
College graduate........................................... -4 Postgraduate............................................... -5
- 43. How long have you 717ed in tais CCCNTT7 (C 2C2 ONE) 0 - 3 ye ars . . . . . . . . . 19- 1 4 - 6 year s . . . . . . . . . . -2 7 - 9 ye ar s . . . . . . . . . . -3 10 - 15 years . . . . . . . . -4 16 - 20 year s . . . . . . . . -5 21 years ce more. ... . -6
- 44. Did you vote in tne met recent county election? (C:2CI.E CNE)
Yes.... 20-1 No...... -2
- 45. Do you own or cent your home?
Own...... 21-1 Rent...... -2 otner..... -3
- 44. What is your approximate annual family income? Is its (READ AND CIEC2 QNE)
Under $15,000....... 12-1 515,000 - 24,999..... -2
$25,000 - 34,999..... -3 535,000 - 50,000..... -4 over $50,000......... -5 47a. Does tais pnene on unica w are speaming have a listed or elisted nunner?
T.isted...... 23-1 Unlisted..... -2
- m. How many different pnones are there in tais housenoldt by taat, 2 seen now many dif *erent paone nunners, not entensions?
One............. 24-8 TWo.............. -2 Three............ -3 Four............. ~4 Five or more..... -5
- 48. Sea (BT '41031
. Male...... 25-1 Female..... -2
-s M E ICE E. mon @
j - :=.===== . - e, -:-- i s
l y n - h
c.
1 I
I i
s a C. Classification of Respondents Living Around
, A:tual Emergency Planning Zone Boundary t
I O
t
98 O.
C. CLASSIFICATION OF RESPONDENTS LIVING AROUND ACTUAL EMERGENCY PLANNING ZONE BOUNDARY For the purposes of this study, the Emergency Planning Zone (EPZ) was defined as that area comprised of the 13 Suffolk County zip codes which are entirely within a 10-mile radius of the Shoreham Nuclear Power Plant. This is the same definition utilized in the 1982 Suffolk County-sponsored survey of Long Island residents.
- In actuality, the true EPZ varies slightly from this to also in-I clude portions of nine other zip code areas that are more or less within a 10-mile radius of the Shoreham Nuclear Power Plant.
6
('
\
Inspection showed that 271 of our 2,625 respondents were found to reside in the " partial" zip code areas. In our primary analysis, these individuals were treated as if they were all outside of the EPZ, in either East or West Suffolk, depending upon the zip code.
Using zip code information gathered during the interview, Cole's Directory for Suffolk County and detailed maps, we found 67 of these
. respondents resided in the true EPZ, 118 were outside the zone, and 86 were unable to be located either because they had unlisted phone i
- l 1
numbers or their addresses could not be pinpointed on the maps.
i While not of critical bearing on this study, we observed how the 185 discernible respondents reported they would react to the emer-gency scenarios posed in the interview. The unweighted results of this analvsis are found in Tables 41, 42 and 43.
v
! 99
() The first observation is not surprising. People living within the zone react more drastically to all scenarios than do their l
i '
counterparts outside the zone. A second observation is that as 7
a' group, these 185 respondents seem to react to all scenarios in I a manner which more closely resembles people who, in our primary i
l analysis,l'ive within the 13 zip codes presumed to be the EPZ, than i
do those placed outside the 10-mile zone.
Lastly, if the results of those household representatives who re-ported in our primary analysis they would leave home or go elsewhere l in response to Scenario Three, were adjusted to account for the individuals located inside the true EPZ, the number of people who t'
! report acting more extremely than advised would decrease by approx-imately 6,000 households.
e t
5 i
(
\
+ - ,.,,--n_ - , . . - - . - - - , . -
100 QUESTION 12a: REPORTED REACTION TO EMERGENCY SCENARIO ONE I
T AREA i
Inside Outside 10-Mile 10-Mile Zone tone Do what would normally do 7 14 i Stay inside home 53 53 Leave home/go somewhere else 36 30 Uncertain /no answer ,
4 3 0 .
QUESTION 12b: REPORTED REACTION TO REVISED SCENARIO ONE
- Among Those Who Would Leave in Scenario One -
AREA Inside Outside 10-Mile 10-Mile Zone Zone i
Do what would normally do 9 16 Stay inside home 54 56 i
Leave home/go somewhere else 31 23 Uncertain /no answer 6 5 4
t l
. __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ )
= . _ . . . _ _ ._ - - _ .
101 O
QUESTION 14a: REPORTED REACTION TO EMERGENCY SCENARIO TWO AREA i Inside Outside 10-Mile 10-Mile
{
Zone Zone Do what would normally do 4 8 Stay inside home 34 46 Leave home/go somewhere else 58 44
! Uncertain /no answer 4 1 QUESTION 14b: REFORTED REACTICN TO REVISED SCENARIO TWO
- Among Those Who Would Leave in Scenario Two -
AREA Inside Outside 10-Mile 10-Mile Zone Zone
- Do what would normally do 9 10 Stay inside home 40 53 Leave home/go somewhere else 45 35 Uncertain /no answer 6 2 0 .
e
. - = - - . . _ . . .- . _ _ . - ._
102 QUESTION 16: REPCRTED REACTION TO EMERGENCY SCENARIO THREE
, . AREA
.I Inside Outside
- 10-Mile 10-Mile Zone Zone Do what would normally do - 4 Stay inside home 16 26
- Leave home/go somewhere else 82 66 i
Uncertain /no answer 2 4 4
QUESTION 17: REPORTED REACTION TO REVISED SCENARIO THREE
- Among Those Who Would Leave in Scenario Three -
AREA Inside Outside 10-Mile 10-Mile Zone Zone
, Do what would normally do 4 6 I Stay inside home 33 41 Leave home/go somewhere else 60 48 Uncertain /no answer 3 5 1
j' V
i
103 O
i D. Reading of the Tables )
{ A. Presentation of Data r- A number of tables represent qualified information. By
' this we mean that responses to some questions are re-ported only for respondents who answer a particular way 1
to an earlier query, e.g., only those respondents who indicate they are aware of a nuclear power plant on Long Island are asked if they could name that power plant.
1 I In such instances the reduced bases are indicated on the j table. The incidence levels of those who respond to the follow-up question are then repercentaged to reflect
) their comparison to the total population of that partic-ular cell.
B. Rounding of Percentages All percentages are rounded to whole numbers. Those percentages which are 0.5 or greater are rounded up; those which are 0.4 or less are rounded down. Tables
- are also reconciled to total 100% in each column. Where
\
' necessary the number representing the highest incidence of the response categories is adjusted accordingly.
s_ , -
104 O C. Calculation of Responses to Hypothetical Emeroencies The determination of how many people would respond to
[ specific emergency messages was based on a two-step cal-culation. For each of the three hypothetical emergen-cies, respondents were presented with two separate messages. In the first message, incomplete information was provided. In the second, a fuller message was pro-vided. Calculation of responses to the fuller informa-tion was based on: first, those people who indicated they would stay home or proceed on their usual business in the first case; and second, the responses to the ful-ler message provided by those who indicated they would leave in the first instance. (People who indicated they were uncerta'in were classified as such.) A few individ-uals living outside the affected area who indicated they would go about their usual business when provided with an incomplete message responded to the complete message by indicating they would leave. This is an inconsistent
, response and therefore results have been adjusted to ex-clude such responses. The total population response is i
not affected in a statistically significant manner by this adjustment.
amic-m e O
O
a El1ERGEllCY PLN#41tC SluDY 181026 YNIKELOVICil. SKELLY 1 MtITE (a >
1AULE 20 i 3.128 CilAtCE WE1 rote 5 n1LES .
, LIVL U/Ill 5 nl LIVE 6-10 nl L1W ) 10 n1 BELIEVE BELIEVE EELIEVE ACTUAL DISINCE FR0ft PLNif PERC AFFECIED M FECIED MIECl[D
___. ....._______________._______ _ _____'VED ..... DISTANCE nuRE 6-10 0-10 LESS TilAN HOT 1A)T 180 T garpt Har igjr 5 nl. nl. MI. EAST. L'EST. TalAN 6-10 10 Aff- PLAll- PL/Ji- N F- PLNi- Plott- (EF- PLAlld Plai-TOTAL ZCIE ZCHE ZDHE SUFF. SITF. IIASS. 6 MI. MI. N!. ECIED LED IK D ECTED l1D lE D ECIED MD in D L21UTD. BASE 2631 522 514 1036 485 626 484 526 509 1433 33 159 330 30 116 366 270 206 110's UGTD. 10TAL 0437 100 223 323 425 3378 4291 212 533 6705 7 27 66 13 37 173 1759 024 W2 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 00 uiAT YOU 3716 14 40 74 187 1186 2270 17 88~3289 3 4 8 6 4 50 1160 226 2247 UOULD NORf1 ALLY DO 44.0 14.0 26.7 22.8 44.0 34.9 52.9 7.0 16.5 49.0 33.5 13.8 11.6 43.7 12.1 28.6 66.0 27.4 40.Y STAY INSIDE H0nE 3059 54 97 151 164 1390 1355 98 263 2208 4 12 30 6 15 75 406 344 20S5 ,
36.3 54.0 43.6 46.8 38.5 40.9 31.6 46.4 49.2 34.1 50.9 44.5 58.2 49.9 41.7 43.5 27.6 41.7 37.4 '
LEAW H0tE Ate 1351 29 61 89 61 669 532 85 137 943 1 to 18 1 16 44 85 216 955 C0 SonEUHERE ELSE 16.0 28.8 27.7 27.7 14.3 19.7 12.4 39.9 25.6 14.0 10.6 35.0 27.8 5.0 42.9 25.4 4. 0 26.1 17.4 DON'T KHOU 308 3 5 8 12 153 135 12 45 180 0 2 2 0 1 4 28 39 232
. . 3. 7
- 3.2 2.3 2.6 2.7 4.5 3.1 5.8 8.5 2.8 -
5.9 2.4 1.4 3.3 2.1 1.6 4.0 4.2 REFUSED 3 0 1 1 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 s -
0.3 0.2 0.5 m - -
0.1 s - - - - -
0.4 - - =
HD ANSUER 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 l
9 ATTACilflENT 8
- - -- - -- . . ._,. -- _ -.. - .. ~ .. .. . . - - - . . . . .
i i
1 J
t 1
4 s
I
?
I e
a 1
ATTACHMENT 9 l
1 4 .
1- l l
l
! l I
f i
i i
a 1
t I
l8 l
i l
I y
=
M I I e 8 s
n N o. > M.
M 9
> M. Q T. W o. Nu on "D tg ,Og 4 IQ: Qi P. =
w
=l Co
.w!
i-, =
Q m
-n8
- m. S k*
-m S4
-n NT NT
-N @ 4
- 4 6e a f
o s' awe @
Q -e sws . s of ol
= *Qs 4 CN-T o. N S n. A N.
Q m M o. a o. ,
as e
i Ika e
e t
i Ig
-e l NCC o
=M N
NT n Ma T
w A
N
' 4 "
- 8 b
h'h.l
-,u as=t
. o
= ts w = .1 N > o. r4 n nTn Q N. 4 N.
C 4>
m .
oi e, -
U 444 66e gw
.duwe = NNo aow o=
4 N N
o 4 Imi p I i I =
nQ T4 of s I eQ4
,w.
k- 4m 4N o. C N.
M T 4 o. 4 . = T. m o
23.'_Qs N N ~ N Ci .-e .. n-8 M n n i iv. 2 i -
21 it! e i 4No en T4 >> oi
- o. oi 4li lh! i e E
- $_ 'e :"8' d d n n .
, , a . -
d!d wiw!.
aim -w ic i, o n-m o. n o. N N. o o. of os os i ai e o a N n 4we Z %g u= .e o M n Ima wt =
C40 a m. ol et 1 1 5 e
t Q[ . Qgg. *f Q s m4 n m. h '^ o. N T b. 6 Ce ws M o Q M 4
8 '-e .I o n M ni ut a e m 4 ewe Ze the '
I el of a t age *Qs S A o.
nN N N. m m. n m o. a n.
N9 $% I kyl ao m
8 N M m
T n si i e n 191 4 a i =
de
-e -ww, 4of M N o.
n N m. M b. N N.
of 01 On
",eidi1 Ekc: wI 8
R 5 N Wt QtW
. 4 o=4
.I e m n o.
me TNo N
w T. N T N. o.
%M == nN wM TT n
4 n. ou ot de m l >
=Ce l
=4o m
NT NM wN m
w' o.t
>> v n. =W == ol Q mmt om S M o. 4 . 4 m. k N. .
Q 4 I Cl e
nnoo N NN a W *nM a o w $!.
W
=
We mi WTwo mgCe nNo
.i
- N Nm o.
o4 m
T n
4 N.
o ao N-N e o M N.
T os oi We W. e o M 4 5 as a-4e =
m 0 .I 4N of of 1 tts i T
@> a o. O o. .T. >. N m = b. m.
> I. I TNo 50 TN SM mM J n e To =T mM M J W i =
I 4mo O f. NO =. om ol a .e m J W60 N.
- SN N * =4N. o a m I 4mg" mm =T
~" ~" ~ og =M d El d I ~
m W
m
. .. e n o. n. W. 4.
m o. N n. o.
6 kbl GN 4 . N
- N .
o J m
mLi TTo wW mo N N o a 431 O M T M 6 C Wml =
0 I o== .y l og D
w we 4 m o.
MN e n.
n m M m. 4N o. N N. M N.
&Es.e o
~1 on8 M
g
-e oi 1
N --
- T -R
- i 4
w e -s o eE.W I.
vn
-N nNo
- o. 4 -. 2 n. o E N.
e T o.
M
- n.
o ei N > 4 Ne o N n n 9o y kl' " $el
. i N
N 8 o. . n.
4 . - TN. n N.
os ei o I n~.
"~8 -
4 %
- 9 -No -> -- em m- n. oi 8
o dii 09
- m. Nm8' R* $n4 R"A nR N Mn
= -i -
M E W gwa R tw d . dd 4-BN
.d
_ E. m
> So W J g > b so Z
X .
d.
./n\d t"
~o 2*
s >
juW sH- 8_ G $8 W E
__ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ J
O e
f-( i -
fr:ERGEsEY PL#NING STUDT N4026 YNMELDVIDI. SKELLY & WillIE 1ADLE 34 4.17 OIAfEE SEYOls) 10 MILES LIVE W/IN 5 til LIVE 6-10 nl LIVE ) 10 ft!
BELILW BELILVE BELIEW ACTUAL DISTANCE FRGil PLANT PERC'VED DISTANCE AFFECTED AffEE1ED _,Aff}ECILD__
. FIORE 6-10 0-10 LESS THAN NOT liDT NOT HOT NOT HOI 5 ft!. nl. ill. EAST. WEST. THAN 6-10 10 AFF- PLAN- PLAN- (IF- PL AN- PL/.H- (EF- PLAN- PL AN-TOTAL ZONE- ZUNE 20lE SUFF. SUFF. HASS. 6 flI. FII. n!. ECTE0 HLD HED ECIED NED NED ECIED IED NI D l#dJiD. BASE 2631 522 514 1034 485 626 494 526 509 1433 33 159 330 30 116 346 278 206 1805 Lt;TD. TOTAL 8437 100 223 323 425 3398 4291 212 533 6705 7 27 46 13 37 173 1759 824 5492
, 100.0 100.0 100.0 300.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 00 talAT YOU 2554 7 25 33 113 793 1615 10 40 2312 2 2 4 3 1 28 899 136 1407 U0ULO HORilALLY 00 30.3 :7.4 11.4 10.2 26.6 23.3 37.4 4.5 7.5 34.5 22.6 6.5 6.1 25.6 3.1 12.2 51.1 16.5 27.1
- STAY INSIDE HorE 3043 31 71 102 185 !!!7 1638 28 184 2342 4 7 20 9 9 54 446 2+R1 2022 36.1 30.9 32.0 31.6 43.5 32.9 38.2 13.1 34.8 35.2 53.5 25.7 30.7 64.8 24.3 31.1 36.7 30.0 35.8 LEAVE HorE #S 2544 59 122 180 107 1 921 172 270 1844 2 17 40 1 26 94 196 411 1750
, GO SorIEIAERE ELSE 30.2 58.7 54.6 55.8 25.3 . 21.5 81.1e 50.5 27.5 24.0 42.1 61.0 9.6 71.1 .54.4 11.2 49.9 31.9 DON'T l(HOW 291 3 4 7 16 152 117 3 37 184 0 1 1 0 1 3 19 20 230 3.5 2.9 1.8 2.1 3.7 4.5 2.7 1.2 7.0 2.7 -
5.4 2.2 -
1.5 2.0 1.1 3.4 4. 2 REFUSED 5 0 1 1 4 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 2 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.2 0.9 s -
0.1 0.1 a -
0.4 - - -
0.4 -
0.2 m HQ ANSWER 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .0 0 0 e
4 G
i ATTACliMENT 10
. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ - _ . _ . __ _ _ . - - .