ML20235M984
| ML20235M984 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Seabrook  |
| Issue date: | 02/21/1989 |
| From: | Dillman D, Moriearty S MASSACHUSETTS, COMMONWEALTH OF, WASHINGTON STATE UNIV., PULLMAN, WA |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20235K640 | List: |
| References | |
| OL, NUDOCS 8902280526 | |
| Download: ML20235M984 (105) | |
Text
- _ - - _ _ _ - _ - _ . . . _
W (
4, .
& UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ATOMIC. SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD
-- Before.the Administrative, Judges:
. Ivan W. Smith, Chairman Dr. Richard F. Cole Kenneth A. McCollom
)
In the Matter of ) Docket Nos. 50-443-OL
) > 50-444-OL PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY ) (Off-Site EP)
OF NEW HAMPSHIRE, EI AL. )
)
(Seabrook Station, Units l'and 2) ) February 21, 1989 !
)
4 i
n 1 TESTIMOtaY OF DR. DON A. DILLMAN AND SHARON MORIEARTY ON BEHALF OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE COMMONWEALTH q OF MASSACHUSETTS REGARDING JI CONTENTION 48 1 l
l l
1 l
l 1
h22 T
6 89022J KO 443
a J
SUMMARY
OF TESTIMONY The following testimony concerns the inadequacy of the survey which was y,onducted to identify the special needs residents. Dr.
Dillman, an expert on mail and telephone surveys, like the one at issue, analyses and critiques the content, form and manner in which the survey was conducted. In short, the survey components he finds lacking are the sources from which the initial mailing list was drawn; the terminology and language held in the cover letter and questionnaires; the method for " verifying" the survey results; and the resulting tally of targetd individuals.
Dr. Dillman's testimony also sets out the extent to which the common errors of non-coverage, measurement and response rate, all of which must be considered when conducting surveys of this type, are evidenced in the subject survey. Both Dr. Dillman and Ms. Moriearty believe that the open-ended nature of the survey questions will not be conducive to accuracy.
Ms. Moriearty approaches the survey from the perspective of a demographer with practical experience in assessing needs for the disability community. Her testimony includes a brief description of the kind of information this type of survey should have focused on.
She discusses the importance of addressing functional needs in order l
to determine appropriate assistance. She also gives a comprehensive {
discourse on the 1985 United States Census Bureau Survey which focused on function limitations. It is from this document that Ms. Moriearty extrapolates her estimation of what a representative number of l disabled individuals needing assistance would be in the EPZ.
I
4.
'l I
Both exp'er'ts believe that the results of the survey are not l
representative of the~ number of special needs people who might need I
assistance _during an emergency. _
Dr. Dillman shows this by using the
, survey results as a sample representation.
i TESTIMONY l Q. please, each state your name and briefly describe your I professional qualifications. !
A. (Ms. Moriearty) My name is Sharon Moriearty. I am the Deputy Director of the Massachusetts Office of Handicapped Affairs (MOHA). I have acted in this capacity since April, 1986. As deputy director of MOHA, I am responsible for compiling relevant research and demographic information regarding people with disabilities. In this capacity,'I am familiar with a variety of survey methodologies and classification schemes used to characterize disability in the general population. These include surveys sponsored by the federal government, such as census, health interview and housing surveys, as well as self-identification instruments used by private polling concerns, and classification methods used by the medical profession and state and federal regulatory agencies. In addition, through my supervision of the Consumer Services program, MOHA provides services and assistance anually to approximately five thousand individuals with varying levels and types of disability. A copy of my resume is attached.
Additional information on my professional qualifications and my fourteen years experience in the disability field is contained in the testimony I filed regarding JI 49.
- _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - - _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ________-__-_a
N ..
A: (Dr . ,Dil-lman) My name is Don A. Dillman and I have a Ph.D. ' 1 in' Sociology from' Iowa State University. I am presently Direc60r of the Social and Economic Sciences Research Center
. (SESRC) and Professor in the Departments of Sociology and Rural Sociology at Washington State University. I am an authority on the design and implementation of mail and telephone surveys. My book Mail and Telephone Surveys:
The Total Desion Method (1978) was the first book ever
. published which provided detailed procedures for obtaining high quality and quantity of response to mail and telephone surveys, and it still regarded as a leading text in the field. The research center I direct conducts approximately 40 survey-related projects each year utilizing mail, telephone, and/or face-to-face interviews. I am also the author of more than 90 publications, most of which concern the implementation or interpretation of survey information, including the following which are of the most relevance to the evaluation of the proponent's surveys:
1
" Increasing Mail Questionnaire Response for Large Samples '
of the General Public" (1972). "Towards the Assessment of Public Values" (1974). "The Contribution of personalization to Mail Questionnaire Response as an Element of a Previously Tested Method" (1974). " Increasing i Mail Questionnaire Response: A Four State Comparison" (1974). " Decreasing Refusal Rates for Telephone Interviews" (1976). "Our New Tools Need Not Be Used in the Same Old Way" (1977). "Research Ethics: Emerging Concerns for the Increased Use of Mail and Telephone Survey Methods"
4
-(1977). " Mail'and.Self-Administered Surveys"'(1983). "The importance of' Adhering to Details of the Total Design l Method]forMailSurveys" (1984). "You'have Been Randomly Selected . . . Survey Methods for the Information Age" (1985). " Elements of Success (in Needs Assessment Surveys)"'(1987). " Administrative Issues in~ Mixed Mode Surveys" (1988).
'l l
I have twice served as a guest professor at the German Center for Survey Methods and Analysis in Mannheim, West l Germany. I have lectured there on survey issues as well as in the Netherlands and Great Britain, and at numerous universities in the United States. In 1988, I served as instructor for a course on mail and. telephone survey techniques in the University of Michigan's Survey Research Center's Summer Institute. I have conducted numerous technical seminars on the conduct of surveys for such i groups as the U.S. General Accounting Office, and Inspector General's Office of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, the staff of the Washington State Legislature, 1
the Ohio State Department of Mental Health, the 1890 Land Grant Colleges and Universities, the Marshall University College of Education, and the American Statistical Association. My curriculum vita is attached.
Q: Dr. Dillman, what experience have you had in conducting j surveys and gathering statistics?
i l
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ a
~
A: (Dr..Dil1 man) The social and Economic Sciences'Research f Center (SESRC), which I direct,.is.one of:the few university survey research centers in the United States
, 'with an established capability for designing and implementing mail, telephone, and face-to-face interview surveys. The Center conducts approximately 40 survey projects per year. I have designed, implemented, or otherwise worked on surveys utilizing each of these survey methods since 1964. During these 25 years I have designed, implemented, or provided consultation on well over 1,000 surveys for myself and/or other people. The Center I direct has a research program in which we conduct several experiments each year on means of improving mail and telephone surveys with respect to both the quality and quantity of response.
Q: You each have expertise on a different aspect of the subject survey._ Accordingly, I may address certain questions to one, certain question to the other. Alright?
A: (Both) That is fine.
Q: Are you familiar with the manner in which the Applicants have gathered the information regarding the special needs residents?
A: (Dr. Dillman) Yes, I have reviewed some of the materials provided by the proponent. In addition, I have read the Applicants' answers to Interrogatories which bear on this issue. Copies of these items are attached to the Appendix to this testimony. Briefly, it is my understanding that the mail survey primarily consisted of a form letter and one-page questionnaire card which was folded and sealed and
i L
l was thed-sent to residents of-the selected communities l whose names and addresses were taken from utility listings i-L or vot.qr registrations. Respondents filled out this questionnaire and returned it. A second questionnaire was i apparently sent to households which had not responded. I have reviewed the questionnaire and the cover letter. It is my understanding that an attempt was made to survey by telephone those respondents who indicated that an
" impaired" individual resided in their household. I have reviewed the " verification" questionnaire which was apparently used for this follow-up, but it does not include i
a very detailed description of the methods for contacting.
individuals, nor does it include information about how many people were actually interviewed. Apparently, the main purpose of these surveys was not to garner a sample of the resident special needs population but to identify those individuals living in the EpZ, by name and address, who were " impaired" such that they would need special assistance in the event of evacuation.
A: (Ms. Moriearty) I am familiar with the contents of the questionnaires which were sent to households in the survey area in an attempt to identify and verify special needs residents in the EpZ. I am also familiar with section 3.6(c) of the SpMC which states that additional sources of information used "to identify handicapped individuals" are mailings of special needs posters to a variety of organizations in and around the EpZ. There was also a
" response card," geared to residents having a disability or
special needs, which was to b3-filled out and returned.
m
- em N'
'e h
l l
l l
I
.c L L
- p. '
i s
The-method for eliciting the desired information is a series [_of close-ended questions.which do not provide adequate i'nformation about individual needs. The questions seem to assume that. transportation-related needs are.the oilly needs a person might have. and the questions isolate
.i very extreme medical conditions which are less likely tobe found in a.c'ommunity setting. In my opinion, this will translate into an incomplete and inaccurate set of
' nswers.
i In my opinion, the questionnaire seems designed to be very exclusive.
Q. Before we go any further regarding this survey, can you.
both provide any comments you had with respect to the special needs poster?
A. (Dr. Dillman) The most this poster does, indeed,what it is intended to do, is encourage people to call in order to.be surveyed. presumably, the same type of survey would ensue
~
for those who called in as for those who responded by mail. As such, the same types of problems with respect to the subject survey would apply. I would like to add that it was not indicated in the documents I reviewed how many targeted individuals, if any, were able to be surveyed as a result of the poster. As such, its' worth in terms of augmenting the identification process, can't be ascertained.
_7_
L- -
E ,
- 1. .
L I.
V
> c
'(Ms. Mor~iearty) In terms of the poster beingta means of 1 >
L augmenting the'information already derived from the mail-i'n survey + it.should be nated that people with disabilities
^-
R
, are often very reluctant to self-identify for reasons related to" confidentiality. In addition, without the appropriate, prompting and questioning' geared towards- o eliciting information on financial;needs and limitations, some disabled individuals do not even recognise themselves as such. I discuss this again at a later point. People with certain kinds of visual impairment would have to.have posters read to them.
Q. Thank you, Ms.EMoriearty, how would you determine whether a i special'needs assessment survey was in fact representative of the resident special needs population?
A: A. complete survey should document both intrinsic and extrinsic factors which affect an individual's ability to function. In addition to information on the nature of the disability and its functional manifestations, such a survey would include information on environmental factors, such as social and economic resources and physical accessibility of I the environment, the level of technological support I available to the person with a disability, such as professional assistance or adaptive equipment, is also critical. The individual significance of these factors, as well as their interrelationships, varies with each individual. When discussing conditions that entail emergency response, a fourth factor must be added -- that
_a_
3- <
r 1
. i
~
of unusual environmental risk. Situations inducing high !
stress, such as a nuclear disaster might produce, can exacer' hate the conditions of disability in people with vulnerable physiologies, rendering a person less functional ;
than an in situ survey might represent. 1 i
Q: Dr. Dillman, how do you view the accuracy of surveys conducted to identify the special needs residents? l A: (Dr. Dillman) Very inadequate. In my judgment a survey i
conducted in the manner described in the materials provided to me cannot possibly be relied upon to identify the names and addresses of all or even a majority of-the individuals.
who live in the specified geographic area and are -
" impaired" to the degree that they would require assistance ,
during an evacuation. The inadequacy of this survey stems i
from a number of specific deficiencies which when considered together compound the overall inadequacy of the survey for the purpose of identifying all " impaired" individuals living in the study area. .
r ~
In order to produce accurate results in a survey of this type, three of potential survey errors must be addressed in order to be assured that results as accurate as possible are obtained. They include: noncoverace error (making sure every household in the population has the opportunity j to be surveyed); measurement e_trar (being sure that the desired information is accurately obtained); and response rates (obtaining responses from all or nearly all of the
.: , o q.
s.
A ,
hduseholds in the population). A fourth category of survey error - samolina error -- does not' apply to this particular surveyTdnasmuch as the objective was to survey all
, households rather than a sample of them.
, l 1
Q: Dr. Dillman, can you describe how the aforementioned errors.
are evidenced in the SPMC survey?
A: -(Dr. Dillman) Certainly. I'll go through the potential survey errors one at a time, m
RONCOVERAGE ERROR:- 4 The list of households was obtained from utility billing records or; voter registration' lists. I do not have specific knowledge of these lists for these communities.
However, in most communities some utility bills are sent to owners, or a third party, rather than to the occupant.
This is especially true for rental units. Oftentimes.the utility bills are included in the rent. The reasons for this situation varies, but sometimes it happens that landlords want to be absolutely sure that utility. bills'get paid and that such things as heat do not get turned off in the winter when damage might result to property. ~In addition, an effect or correspondent circumstance accompanying the existence of an impairment is a lower income potenti.al. Thus, it seems likely that " impaired" people would more likely than the average person to live in rental housing and would therefore be more likely to remain unidentified through use of utility billing records.
_ - _ - - _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ .- - _ _ - - _ _ - - - _ _ - - - = - _ . - _ - _ - - - - _ _ _ - _ - _ _ - .
a l' 1 A: (Ms. Moriearty) Mr. Dillman is correct in his supposition that people with disabilities are much more likely to be in
. lower income brackets. Indeed, people with' disabilities are'twice as likely to live on poverty incomes as other Americans. As individuals who are twice as likely to be homeless, many do not have a permanent address. persons with lower incomes also move more frequently.
A: .(Dr. Dillman) Similar problems attach with reliance on voter registration lists. Only a portion of the households in any community contain registered voters. -Typically, i
registered voters are more likely to have. higher incomes and greater education. It is possible that certain types of " impaired" people are less likely to be registered voters and therefore not be included on or identified by the voter registration list.
In both the above cases I believe a bias would exist against households in which " impaired" people live.
A: (Ms. Moriearty) .Again, Mr. Dillman's conclusions are correct. Indeed, many polling places and voter registration facilities are not even accessible to people with certain disabilities.
l
l A: (Dr.'Dillman) Another noncoverage problem concerns addresses. It is apparent from the results of'the speciali l needs survey that a substantial number of 'the. households in
, each of the communities had " bad" addresses. .The percentage of mail-outs classified as having bad addresses range from 7.1 percent to 24 percent. This suggests that something is wrong with the mailing list. In the case of the voter-registration list, it is possible that frequent updatings are not made. In the case of the utility list it q
is less-clear where the problem of " bad". addresses might '
lie. In any event, it is. clear that a problem exists. l Q: What is the overall effect of the noncoverage' problem?
A: '(Dr.-Dillman) The overall effect, I believe, is that an unknown but significant number of households did not have a chance to be surveyed and there i's reason to believe that these' households are more likely than others to contain
" impaired" residents.
t Q: Can you expound a bit on the " Measurement Error" portion of your analysis? l I
A: (Dr. Dillman) In many respects the measurement error problem restates the problem which Ms. Moriearty flagged in i
her earlier comment on open-ended questions. By addressing ;
the measurement error problem, you are ensuring that the ;
i information which you are seeking to obtain is, in fact, '
the information which you elicit. Contrary to this
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ . _ _ _ . _ . . _ . _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ . _.__. ._ - - - I
purpose,"the questions asked in the-questionnaire are vaoue and.use terms that are not defined. Moreover, the reliance on opeE-ended questions (as opposed to close-ended
', questions which give answer categories to choose from) presents' additional and special problems.
Q: What are those problems?
A: (Dr. Dillman) The first problem is with:the use of the word evacuation. This word can. refer to being evacuated out of a building or evacuated out of a geographic region. By mentioning several disasters such as a tornado, hurricane, or earthquake, the likelihood is increased that the respondents will think of the word evacuation as meaning i
help in getting outside of the building in which they-l live. Certain " impairments" such as not having upper body strength or not having use of a limb could prevent getting oneself out of the debris of a building in the wake of a natural disaster, yet that person might still be able to drive his car. Conversely, a person might be able to get in or out of any building but might have a type of l
impairment which would prevent her from driving a car.
{
\
Nowhere in the cover letter or questionnaire is it '
clarified as to what kind of evacuation is being asked {
i about.
1 l
a 1
-The second problem is with the word." impaired". The letter l refers to physically impaired. The first questions asks "is anyone in your household impaired to the degree they
, would require assistance during an evacuation?"' Certain I kinds of " mental" impairments might not'be a problem for 3 i
evacuating a building, but.could be a serious problem for
{
leaving a geographic area. This question needs to have included some specification as to what kind of impairment ~
is at. issue. Also, " impaired" is a word not familiar to or understood by many people. No definition or context'is provided. The combination of vagueness with respect to the word impairment in conjunction with similar vagueness on I evacuation are fatal flaws in the questionnaire. For these reasons alone the results of the survey cannot be trusted.
A: -(Ms. Moriearty) This is a crucial point Mr. Dillman is making. In my experience, traditional surveys of disability show enormous error for the reasons Mr. Dillman has mentioned. For planners like myself, who are involved with the day-to-day practical realities of delivering services to this population, traditional methods of counting and classifying disability, in particular the use l of medical taxonomies, can be misleading and incomplete.
First, diagnostic classifications, which are based on medical etiologies and therapies, tend to yield significant underestimations of the target population, because their I
L_________ _
1
- 1. .
1
~
i application depends on cultural parameters as well as b
l treatment taxonomies. For instance, in a 1978 U.S.
[:
p government health. interview survey,.a diagnostil. :ly Ted i
tool which yields an estimate of disability which is higher
.than the 1980 census but lower than the 1986-census report on disability, 273 Massachusetts citizens'in wheelchairs . ,
identified themselves as "without a limitation" and 4640 identified themselves as "without a major limitation." 1 Errors-of both over and under self-identification on diagno' tically-based surveys can be magnified to the extent i that a disability is mediated by compensatory' environments or technology, to the extent the disability has not been ;
diagnosed, has not been successfully treated,'or to the extent that the diagnosis is not understood by the layperson, Second, these classifications tell us little 1
about the actual functional limitations a person might ]
have. For instance, a neurological disorder can have greatly varying functional manifestations which cannot be generalized across a common diagnostic category. A person with cerebral palsy may use a wheelchair or be fully ambulatory, or may be severely specch-impaired or fully l articulate. A person with diabetes may be severely mobility-impaired or experience minimal disruption of major life activities. The primary functional disability of a person with a respiratory disorder or a heart condition
{
}
could be mobility impairment or less disruptive dependence I
1
t, t -
on a pha~rmaceutical regimen. Third, diagnostic classification schemes omit critical information regarding the individual's environment while the severity of a '
disability is also a function of environmental and technological support. A person who'is deaf and fully-equipped.with appropriate communication technology may not' .i i'
consider herself " disabled." If, however, this support were suddenly removed, she would be vulnerable.
Environmental needs also include social and economic dimensions. A poor person who is disabled is less able to compensate for that disability and navigate in a community j i
setting than a wealthy person with a disability. [
~
The advantages of the most recent U.S. Census survey (1985) over methods which are not geared specifically to practical )
needs are that the census survey'is a more intensive, 1
open-ended inquiry and uses functional criteria which illuminate the practical ramifications of disability in day-to-day life. I have attached a copy of this survey in the Appendix. The questions inquire as to practical areas of daily activity using terminology and concepts which are more universally understood within a lay community, such as "can you climb a flight of stairs without assistance?" In i
)
addition to its focus on a practical issue, this kind of
{
l question has the ability to weed out, or at least minimize, environmental and technological compensations which the l
4
~
interviewee may take for granted. The survey explores several different dimensions of daily activity in this way, including activities of seeing, hearing, speaking, walking,
. carrying, lifting, climbing, personal care, and general interior and community mobility. It distinguishes the severity of limitation in each of these categories and includes a more detailed examination of those who need actual personal assistance as well as important social and economic information on the total population identified as disabled.
I believe its application to a situation like emergency planning for a general population is unusually apt, both because of its practical focus and because it also enables a planner to estimate the nature and extent of needs within this population in the event that social, environmental, or technological supports are uddenly disrupted or disabled.
A: (Dr. Dillman) A more general problem with the questionnaire which goes back to Ms. Moriearty's points on open-ended questions and diagnostic classification is that it places the burden upon the respondent to figure out what kind of impairments, disabilities, or handicaps should be reported. Apparently, it's also up to the respondent to figure out and report what king cf " assistance" he would need.1 The " verification" process seems to have been only
'w i.
.. a.
x
~
used to disqualify people from-the category of " disabled requiring assistance".. It does not ap' pear that' effort was L
L Ldevoted to verifying the "not requiring assistance" status
, of the remaining respondents. In other words', the O
verification process was only used to. pare down'the number oof those who were already identified as impaired rather than endeavoring to identify those in the impaired
~
population who claimed they didn't need assistance, a claim which seems to have been made in the context of a lack of' informedness as to what type of assistance would be required relative to the particular impairment and the particular protectite action.
A substantial propo" tion of respondents mentioned "other".
The telephone verif; cation form goes into more detail than the original questio.snaire and in that respect addresses "other" issues that are not likely to have been raised at the initial survey level. Of course, the obvious point to make at this juncture is that this verification procedure only " verifies", in an imcomplete manner, an already incomplete survey result.
Still another problem with the survey questionnaire is that the reqlest for telephone number does not indicate whether the desired telephone number is for the " impaired" person (who may hold down a job) or for the person who filled out
i k
the questionnaire. Simply put, the answers to this questionnaire cannot be relied upon for the intended purpose _of the questionnaire. , J
- Q: Dr. Dillman, can you discuss the " response rate" factor?
A: (Dr. Dillman) Certainly. The reported response rate of 29 percent is less than half of what one would expect from a well-done mail survey. There are several factors which probably contributed to the lower response rate.
First, the vagueness of the questions is very likely to have confused a number of people. As a result, people who might have been otherwise willing to fill out the questionnaire perhaps felt that the results would not be useful and therefore that it was a waste of time to i complete the questionnaire. '
Second, the cover letter was in itself very confusing. It came from New Hampshire according to the letterhead, but concerned evacuations in Massachusetts. The letter informs the reader that the survey seeks to identify "both physically impaired and non-impaired residents." What is a
" physically non-impaired resident"? Is that person the target of the survey? The choice of words here is extremely poor. The letter tells the reader that the in ormation will be used by " local and state emergency management agencies and public Service of New Hampshire in 1_-____-_- - - -
i e,- ,
th event ~of an emergency-to provide assistance to..our physicallyLimpaired neighbors." Again, the language is poorlyT. chosen-and the sentence poorly constructed. . Why is
, .the reader asked for information to help."our" neighbors?
If the primary point of the survey is to get accurate information as to the various disabilities and impairments of members of the household, the letter which focuses on
'"ohysically impaired" and " neighbor', undermines the purpose of the survey itself.
A third problem with the letter is that it was a form rather than " personalized" letter. In my experience, this fact alone can be expected to lower the overall response rate.
l Fourth, the respondents were asked to disclose information which many would consider quite personal and confidential.
There was nothing included in the letter about how this information would be handled and who would have access to it. In fact, the letter tells people right away that the information is to be disclosed to governmental authorities.
For some or all of these reasons, potential respondents !
needing assistance may have decided not to return the information. This problem may have been increased by the fold-over card not being sealed on the ends (if I
.I
understa~nd the structure correctly) so that not even a-
. sealed envelope was availab'le to protect the confidentiality of the personal information.
A: (Ms. Moriearty) Due to the experience of social discrimination which-remains their number one barrier to assimilation, disabled people are very reluctant to-reveal personal information regarding a disability.
A: (Dr. Dillman) It should also be noted that the question on the survey which reads, "should we have to verify any of this information, when would be the best time to call?"
could have a chilling effect on response insofar as some
. readers could construe it as a check on their honesty.
Q: Dr. Dillman, can you sum up your discussion on these three points?
A: .(Dr. Dillman) In sum, the implementation of this survey demonstrates inadequacy on all three of the major sources of survey error applicable to this study: noncoverage, measurement error; and response rate. Methods of overcoming, to some degree, each of these problems should have been used in order to compile a survey with the stated objective of identifying those residents of the area with certain " impairments" who would need assistance in an emergency.
a E.
w
}
l t*
I II H
Q: Dr. Dil man, What is your opinion on the follow up verification that'was conducted?
'A: '(Dr. Dillman) The "special needs survey verification form" was apparently used for the purpose of additionally
' determining whether the 653 respondents initially identified would actually need assistance in-the event of.
an evacuation.
I have reviewed the form used in May, 1988, to conduct the survey. I'am also aware of the fact that the result of the
" verification" was the elimination of 301 people who had initially identified themselves as needing assistance. I have earlier made comment regarding other aspects of what-I perceive to have been the effect of this " verification".
Now, I will discuss the implementation of the verification process as'is indicated by the " verification" form. In short, the contents of the form suggest that the verification process could eppear to be questioning the respondent's honesty in responding to the earlier questionnaire. Thus, the respondent may have become anxious when " verifying" his or her original information.
Second, a fundamental element in "6 ducting telephone surveys is to make sure that each interviewer asks each question in the same way. The questions presented on this verification form do not appear as questions but rather as
,8 l
x
't short phfases. Thus,.it is necessarily left-to'each interviewer to actually phrase the questions. Interviewers are veiy likely to do this in a variety of. ways'and as.a on result get different results. For example, on question 4
+ 4 of the verification form there is a " Description of impairments". One interviewer might simply ask the respondent to describe his " impairments". Another might-read through the entire list and ask which ones, if any, apply. Reading through the entire list is likely to result in a more accurate record. .The same analysis is true concerning-life-sustaining equipment in question 5.
A small, but perhaps significant difference between the verification form and the initial survey questionnaire, is that eye impairments in question 4 are described in parentheses as " blind". How limiting. It appears that sucN things as an inability to drive at night would not be discussed or accounted for.
The pattern of vagueness contained in the. original mail questionnaire repeats itself here. For example, "Does the impaired have Any othe: problem we need to kno,7 about?" It is not clear what kind of problem "we" need to know about.
Q: In sum, what is your opinion on the " verification process"?
4' A: (Mr. Dildman) I do not feel that the information obtained on'the special needs survey verification form meets the.
~
l _standir_ds of professional and-accurate surveys, and I.
further believe that these data should.not be trusted on making decisions about respondent impairments. _The only value I can cee as having possibly been gained through this effort would'be if the original goal and purpose of the survey had been to compile a samole survey. However, if
-the goal is not merely to ascertain the number of individuals within the study area who fall within a certain category, but rather, to identify specific personal information like names, addresses, and the_ types and degree of, impairments necessitating assistance during an emergency, then a sample survey application doesn't really help.
Discussion of this principle at this point however, is useful in illustrating the incompleteness of the existing data.
Q. Mr. Dillman, I want to pick up on that point, regarding the identification of a " sample" of the target population. I recognize that you have made a number of comments describing the inadequacy of the original mail survey and telephone follow-up. However, suppose that the results were to be accepted as valid for those who responded. What is the most that could be claimed with respect to how completely the compared population living in the study area has been identified?
i,'s n a i
A. 'Well, first, I will' return to my conclusion that the q
surveys were so poorly done.that I do not.think the results'
]
can belused to reach any conclusions about the number of households with impaired individuals living in the' study .
area. However, if we were to~ accept the introductory survey material as unbiased, the response rates as acceptable, and the survey itself as valid, then the most s
that could be said is that the survey has only identified a.
fraction of the impaired individuals who live there. If'it is accepted that the number of impaired individuals is 653 or 502 (depending upon which figure supplied by the proponent of the survey you choose), and.we divide that by the total number of positive and negative responses received (5,546), we would then multiply the resulting percentage (11.77 or 9.05) times the total number of households in the area to establish the total population of impaired individuals who live there. This results in an ;
estimate of the total population of impaired individuals in the EpZ area to be more than 1,900 (1,901 to 2,472) individuals. Under this formula, you would come out with the higher figure, 2,472, if you used the lower reported.
result - 502.
Q: Ms. Moriearty, in your opinion, out of a population of approximately 52,500, how many of that number would be ,
considered within the population targeted by the subject '
survey?
e
q --
- q ---
-s ,
. t .
4 L T.
A: (Ms. Moriearty)' Well,~my analysis entails first'an
~
i estimate of how many individuals would be considered a
d i s a bly_d , and-then', of those, how many would be~within the population to be targeted, in other words, residents;with
.disabi'11 ties such that'they could not act independently-in l an emergency. To begin with, out of a population of 52,500, I would estimate that approximately 9,545 would'be disabled. I have attached population reports you gave me to look at in the corresponding appendix.
( Q: hhankyou. How did you reach the number referred to above?
A: (Ms. Mo-iearty) The estimate is extrapolated from the 1985 U.S. Census survey I discussed earlier, which is entitled
" Disability, Functional Limitation, and Health Insurance Coverage." It surveys disability in the general population. As the first major government" survey employing:
functional criteria to define disability, the report is considered by MOHA to be more accurate than previous Census or medical surveys which rely more heavily on diagnostic classifications og diagnostic prompts. The estimate is broken down as follows:
8768 individuals would be residents who, according to the survey trends regarding prevalence in the general l population, could be identified as "having a functional limitation" at the present time. Disorders of the skin,
_u , _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
,o:
i.
which 'cah af fect general physiclogy as' well as' tactile
^
sensation might also fall in.this category as~would,.
conceivably, certain kinds of organic brain dysfunction.
However, individuals with sensory impairment could.have functional manifestations which also place them into categories of mental and mobility impairment as well.
However, althouth this survey is designed to elicit'more practical.information about disability than others, it still relies heavily on self-perception and self-identification. As I mentioned earlier, a small percentage.of individuals who are apparently disabled to a' I surveyor do not identify'themselves as disabled. This phenomenon is corroborated by other government surveys.
Therefore, the estimate is conservative.
Q: Can you describe how that number would include resident special needs individuals apart from those living in institutions or facilities.
A: (Ms. Moriearty) The survey cited above is a survey of.the non-institutional population. A very small percentage of persons with disability (less than 5%) are institutionalized on a long term basis. The 5% estimate includes elderly-disabled individuals. The rate of long term institutionalization among non-elderly disabled persons is much lower, perhaps approaching 1%. As a point 1
of interest, in Massachusetts, about 1-2% of non-elderly l
7 .
IQ 4 k d.
- <7 L u disabled- persons live in government-sponsored
- community-housing programs.. In many' respects, some.of these 4
indivi$ualsarealready-connectedtotrainedand.
knowledgeable staff that could offer assistance in an emergency.
Q: In your. opinion, does a figure of 352, 502, or 653 (all of which are "results" which have been reached by;this survey) out of a total 52,500' represent'an accurate estimate of special;needs residents who>could not act independently.in
- an emergency?
A: No. Based on the aforementioned U.S. Government survey estimates, which present a profile of actual functional' capabilities, any of those figures present a substantial underestimation of the special needs population. Of the 9,545 individuals projected above to have special needs, i
'i approximately 2.235 can be identified, based on this.
survey, as needing personal assistance with a major life- q activity under " normal" conditions. The remainder of the.
estimated special needs population would need varying-intensities of personal assistance in an emergency to the extent that key environmental and technological supports 3 are not available or are disrupted.
Q. It is interesting that you both arrive at figures that are 1 relatively close in range, especially given the fact that you are each coming from a different perspective. Indeed, j the higher of Dr. Dillman's estimates which uses the I reported 502 survey result, and Ms. Moriearty's extrapolation from the Census Bureau come quite close, 2,472 and 2235, respectively.
l l
1 l
_ _ _ _ - . - - _ - _ - _ _ _ _ _ . - - _ - _ - _ _ _ _ _ - - - _ _ - - _ _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ------------J
.a I
L lb (Ms. Moriearty) Yes, it is interesting isn't it? In sum
'it seems that whether you look at the results from Dr.
1 DillmaEI's perspective or mine, it is clear the Applicants'
' survey results are inaccurate.
-Q. ~Dr. Dillman, what are your final thoughts?
A. The overall' survey effort was poorly done and under no; circumstances should the results be used to claim that all or even a majority of the " impaired" residents of the study area have been identified. This conclusion results from several problems, such as: 1) some households did not have a chance to participate because of the bias in the mailing list; 2) the use of the vague and undefined words (e.g.,
evacuation and impairment) resulted in responses that could not be clearly interpreted; 3) an inexcusably low response rate was obtained because of the lack of personalized procedures, the creation of respondent confusion, uncertainty and mistrust by the content of the cover letter and questionnaire; and 4) the use of a follow-up telephone survey that was vague and not written so that interviewers could consistently administer it. In sum, these results cannot be taken seriously as having produced a list of all residents in the study area who have " impairments" that would require them to need help to evacuate the area.
Q. Thank you both. I think we have exhausted this subject.
Shall we sign off now?
A. (Both) Yes.
.y 1
W.:
- February 21,.1989 APPENDIX L
Testimony of Dr. Don Dillman regarding JI 48 i
In the Matter of PUBLIC SERVICE CO.
OF NEW HAMPSHIRE, et al.
(Seabrook Station)
Docket Nos. 50-443-OL 50-444-OL
l
, 4 V %.
l .
A TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 11 lA.-. Don A.:Dillman: Biographical Sketch..................... 1L B..' Memorandum to G. Gram,~J. Crafts, V. Everett, and G. Willant from Millie Munroe dated November 18, 1987 r~egarding Special Needs. Survey...................... 21 e' C. Letter to Special Needs Advocate from Millie Munroe, Special Population Coordinator to the j Offsite Emergency Response Organization dated o September 14,-1987 with accompanying poster..........~.... 22-D. Memorandum on. survey results labelled "Millie Munroe..... 24 E. Special Needs Survey Data................................ 27 F. Memorandum to M. Hawkins, J.' Franks, J. Hart and T. Cotter from George Willant and Sheila Hertel dated February 11, 1988 regarding Mass Special Needs Survey with handwritten note...........'.... 35 G. Special Needs Survey Verification Form................... 37 H. Emergency Preparedness Project Questionnaire............. 40 I. Seabrook EPZ Project for Mass. Residents-Availability of Evacuation Assistance Final Counts...... 42 J. Seabrook Emergency Preparedness Project Executive Summary dated November 12, 1987................ 43 K. Letter to International Survey Research, Attention John Haskin from Ray E. Weber, Impell Project Manager dated May 26, 1987....................... 55 L. Letter to Mass. Resident from Terry L. .Harpster, Director of Emergency Preparedness, Public Service of New Hampshire......................................... 56 M. Excerpts from Applicants' Response to MAG's 2nd Set of Interrogatories to the Applicants on SPMC dated November 1, 1988.............................. 58 1
Biographical Sketch DON A. DILLMAN Director, Social and Economic Sciences Research Center (SESRC)
Professor, Departments of Sociology and Rural Sociology i
Washington State University Pullman, Washington 99164-4014 (509) 335-1511 l
l Don A. Dillman received his B.S. in Agronomy. (1964), M.S. in Rural Sociology (1966), and his Ph.D. in Sociology (1969), all from Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa. He then joined Washington State University as an Assistant Professor in September 1969.
In 1970, Dillman became the founding director of the Washington State University Social Research Center's Public Opinion Laboratory, the first university-based telephone social research laboratory in the western United States, a position he held until 19M He served as Chair tf the Department of Rural Sociology from 1973 to 1981. ;
During 1978, he was Acting Community Resource Development Program Leader for the Washington State University Cooperative Extension Service, and in 1984-85 was Acting Chair of the Department of Child and Family Studies.
From 1980-83, Dillman was a Fellow in the Kellogg Foundation's National Fellowship Program. He was elected 1983-84 President of the Rural Sociological
- Society, a national professional organization with members from throughout the United States and 40 other countries. Dillman received the Rural Sociological Society's 1983 Certificate for Outstanding Service for co-editing the book, Rural Society in the United States: Issues for the 1980's. Dillman is author of Mail add Telephone Surveys: The Total Desian Method and co-author of Beyond the American Housina Dream: Accommodation to the 1980's. In addition, he has authored more than 90 other publications.
Dillman has an active research program which blends efforts to improve survey research methods with the study of issues affecting rural America. Current projects concern impacts of information technologies on people and institutions and the adoption of no-till agriculture by farmers. Other projects focus on the improvement of data collected by mail, telephone, and face-to-face interviews.
He has served as an investigator on more than 20 grants and contracts worth $3.5 million.
In 1985, and again in 1987, Dillman was Guest Professor at the German Center for Survey Methods and Analysis in Manheim, West Germany, and has also lectured in England, Ireland, and The Netherlands. He presented the 1985 Distinguished !
Faculty Address at Washington State University. In 1987 he was elected a Fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science.
A member of the USDA Rural Development Advisory Council, Dillman belongs to six professional associations, including the American Sociological Association, the American Association for Public Opinion Research, the American Association of Housing Educators, and the World Future Society.
Dillman was appointed Director of the Social and Economic Sciences Research Center in February 1986. His administrative responsibilities include Washington State University's survey research facility which conducts approximately 20 surveys each year.
[ June 1988]
ATTACHMENT A -/-
b[ -. r
- p ., )
JanuaryL1989 y VITA-I . Don A. Dillman'
.A. : ADDRESSES Office: Home:
Social and Economic' Sciences .SW 705 Mies Street Research Center' Pullman, WashingtonL .
133 Wilson Hall . . Telephone: (509) 334-1141: ,
,. Washington State University L
Pullman,LWashington' 99164-4014 Telephone: (509)'335-1511.
B. PERSONAL DATA Birth: .0ctober 24, 19)1-is Marital Status: Married November 25, 1964 to Joye Jolly Son: Andrew Scott, born July 8, 1968 Daughter: Melody Lynne, born July 25, 1970' Soc. Sec. No.: 485-50-1354 C. EDUCATION' B.S.: 1964, Iowa State University-M.S.: 1966, Iowa State University Ph.D.: 1969, Iowa State. University Major: Sociology Minor: Political Science D. PROFESSIONAL POSITIONS 1986-Present Director, Social and Economic Sciences Research Center; Professor, Departments of Sociology and Rural Sociology, Washington State l University 1984-1985 Acting Chair, Department of Child and Family Studies, Washington State University 1978-1986 Professor, Department of Sociology; Research and Extension Sociologist, Department of Rural Sociology, Washington State University 1978 Acting Community Resource Development Program Leader, Cooperative Extension Service, Washington State University 1
_ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ - - 9~ . _ - _ -- -
T.
6.-
p^ .
ERQFESSIONAL POSITIONS: (continued):
-1973-1981- Chair, Department of Rural. Sociology, Washington State University
.1973-1978 Associate Professor, Department of Sociology; Associate-Rural Sociologist, Department.of Rural Sociology, Washington State University 1970-Present Graduate. Faculty, Washington State University 1970-1973 . Coordinator, Social Research Center's Public Opinion Laboratory, Washington State University 1969-1973 Assistant Professor, Department of Sociology; Assistant-Rural Sociologist, Department of Rural Sociology, Washington State University 1967-1969 Research Associate, Iowa State University; Associate Director for evaluation study of the Iowa Comprehensive Alcoholism Project-
-1964-1967 Research Assistant, Iowa State University 1961-1962 Trainee, Cooperative Extension Service, Mt. Pleasant and Atlantic, Iowa E. AWARDS. HONORS. AND SPECIAL APPOINTMENTS
'1980-1983 Fellow, Kellogg National. Fellowship Program 1983 Co-Winner, Certificate for Outstanding Service to the Rural Sociological Society (of America) 1983-1984 President,' Rural Sociological Society (of America) 198S Washington State University Distinguished Faculty Address 1985, 1987 Guest Professor, ZUMA /Zentrum Fur Umfragen Methoden Und Analysen (Center for Survey Methods and Analysis),
Mannheim, West Germany 1987 Elected Fellow, American Association for the Advancement of Science 1987-1989 USDA National Rural Development Advisory Council ,
1988 Instructor, 41st Summer Institute, Survey Research Techniques, Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor l
2
- 3 .-
.c q l
e 1
F. . RESE.RCH A AND POLICY: INTERESTS i
A three-pronged research program is maintained which focuses on 1) the i improvement of, survey research methods; 2) the diffusion of new- i technologies; and 3) the impacts of information technologies on rural {
people and organizations. These research thrusts are frequently linked 1 and each is _ complimented by policy interests in the application of - )
research results. Publication efforts are oriented towards appropriate '
policy as well as research audiences, and are frequently multidisciplinary L in nature.
G. PUBLICATIONS Books:
- 1. Dillman, Don A. 1978. . Mail and Teleohone Surveys: The Total Desian Method. New York: Wiley-Interscience. 375 pp.
- 2. Dillman, Don A. and Daryl J. Hobbs, eds. 1982. Rural Society in the U.S.: Issues for the 1980s. Boulder, C0: Westview Press. 422 pp.
Hard and soft cover editions published simultaneously.)
- 3. Tremblay, Kenneth R., Jr. and Don A. Dillman. 1983. Beyond the
,American Housina Dream: Accommodation to the 1980s. Washington, D.C.: University Press of America. 157 pp. (Hard and soft cover editions published ' simultaneously.)
Other Publications:
- 1. Beal, George M., Gerald E. Klonglan, Paul Yarbrough, Joe M. Bohlen, and Don A. Dillman. 1967. System Linkaaes Amona Women's Organizations. Iowa State University, Ames, IA: Rural Sociology Report No. 42. 155 pp.
- 2. Klonglan, Gerald E., Don A. Dillman, Joel S. Wright, and George M.
Beal. 1969. Aaency Interaction Patlerns and Community Alcoholis Services. Iowa State University, Ames, IA: Sociology Report No.
- 73. 302 pp.
- 3. Klonglan, Gerald E., Joel S. Wright, and Don A. Dillman. 1969.
Alcoholism Services: Client Characteristics and Treatment Outcome.
Iowa State University, Ames, IA: Sociology Report No. 74. 271 pp.
- 4. Klonglan, Gerald E., Marjory M. Mortvedt, Don A. Dillman, and Joe M.
Bohlen. 1969. Poverty and Alcoholism in Families. Iowa State University, Ames, IA: Sociology Report No. 72. 461 pp.
- 5. Klonglan, Gerald E. and Don A. Dillman. 1969. Iowa Comprehensive Alcoholism Pro.iect Research Summaries. Iowa State University, Ames, IA: Sociology Report No. 76. 104 pp.
3
-y.
._s, ,
Other Publications:-(continued)
- 6. 'Dillman, Don A. 1971. " Review of Woodruff: A Study in Community.
Decision-Making." Rural Socioloav 36(2):237-238.
- 7. ~Dillman, Don A. 1971. Eghlis Values and-Concerns of WashingtEn ~
Residents. Washington Agricultural Experiment Station Bulletin No.
- 748 (December).
- 8. Dillman, Don A. 1972. " Increasing Mail. Questionnaire Response for-Large Samples of the. General Public.* Public Opinion Quarteriv 35(3):254-257.
- 9. Dillman, Don A. and James A. Christenson. 1972. "The Public Value for Pollution Control." Pp.'237-256 in William R. Burch, Jr., et al., Social Behavior. Natural Resources and the Environment. New York: Harper and Row.
- 10. Dillman, Don A..and Russell P. Dobash. 1972. Preferences for Community Livina and Their Implications for Populatiort Redistribution. Washington Agricultural Experiment Station Bulletin No. 764 (November).
- 11. Dillman, Don A. 1973. . PoDulation Distribution Policy and People's Attitudes: Current Knowledae and Needed Research. Prepared for Urban. Land and Institute under grant from United States Department of Housing and Urban Development. 77 pp.
- 12. Klonglan, Gerald E., Benjamin Yep,. Charles.L. Mulford, and Don A.
Dillman. 1973. "A Survey of the Theory and Practice of Interorganizational Relations." Pp. 331-362 in Voluntary Action Research, edited by David Horton Smith. Lexington, MA: D. C.
Heath and Company (Lexington Books).
- 13. Dillman, Don A. and' James A. Christenson. 1974. "Towards the Assessment of Public Values." Eublic Opinion Quarterly 38(2):206-221.
- 14. Dillman, Don A. and James'H. Frey. 1974. "The Contribution of Personalization to Mail . Questionnaire Response as an Element of a Previously Tested Method." Journal of Apolied Psycholoov 59(3):297-301.
- 15. Dillman, Don A., James A. Christenson, E. H. Carpenter, and Ralph Brooks. 1974. " Increasing Mail Questionnaire Response: A Four-State Comparison." American Sociological Review 39:744-756.
- 16. Christenson, James A. and Don A. Dillman. 1974. " Predictors of Concern for Law and Order: A Path Analysis." Social Indicators Research 1:217-288.
4
-T-
Other Publications: (continued)
- 17. Dillman, Don A. 1975. "Research Implications of, Western Migration."
Western Wire 1(2):2 <
- 18. Dillman Don A. and James A.'Christenson.
s 1975. "The Public~ Value for Air Pollution Control." Cornell Journal'of Social Relations 10:73-95.
- 19. Wardwell, John M. and Don A. Dillman. 1975. -Alternatives for Washinaton. Volume VI. Public Communication and Survey Phase Results. -285 pp.
- 20. Dillman, Don A., Jean Gorton Gallegos, and James H. Frey. 1976.
" Decreasing Refusal Rates for Telephone Interviews." Public Opinion Quarterly 50(1):66-78.
- 21. Carlson, John E., Maurice E. McLeod, and Don A. Dillman. 1976.
Farmers' Attitudes Toward Soil Erosion and Related Farm Problems in the Palouse Area of Northern Idaho and Eastern Washinoton, a Progress Report No. 196 (September). 10 pp.
- 22. Dunlap, Riley E. and Don A. Dillman. 1976. " Decline in Public Support for Environmental Protection: Evidence from a 1970-1974 Panel Study." Rural Sociolcgy 41(3):383-390. . Reprinted in Armand L. Mauss and Julie Camile Wolfe, This Land of Promises: The Rise.
and Fall of Social' Problems in ' America. Philadelphia, PA: ,
Lippincott, 1977. '
- 23. Dillman, Don A. and Kenneth R. Tremblay, Jr. 1977. "The Quality of Life in Rural America." The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Sciense 429:115-129.
r~
- 24. Dillman, Don A. 1977. "Our New Tools Need Not Be Used in the Same Old Way." Journal of Community Development Society 8(1):32-43.
(An expanded version is published in National Conference on Non-Metmoolitan Community Services Research. Committee Print of Committee on Agricultures Nutrition and Forestry, United States Senate, Washington, D.C., 1977, pp. 259-275.)
- 25. Dillman, Joye J., Kenneth R. Tremblay, Jr., and Don A. Dillman.
1977. " Energy Policies Directed at the Home: Which Ones Will People Accept?" Housina Educators' Journal 4:2-13.
- 26. Tremblay, Kenneth R., Jr., and Don A. Dillman. 1977. "Research Ethics: Emerging Concerns from the Increas:ed Use of Mail and i Telephone Survey Methods." Humboldt Journal of Social Relations 5(1):64-89.
I 5
i 1
.. c
1 1
Other Publications: (continued)
- 27. Tremblay, Kenneth R. Jr., Don A. Dillman, and Joye J. Dillman.
1977. Housint satisfactions and Preferences of Washinoton Residents: A 1977 Statewide Survey. College of Agriculture Research Center, Circular No. 605. 16 pp.
- 28. Tremblay, Kenneth R. Jr., Joye J. Dillman, and Don A. Dillman.
1978. Toward a Socioloav of Housina: A Workina Biblicaraohv.
Monticello, IL: Council of Planning Librarians, Exchange Bibliography 1485.
- 29. Dillman, Don A., John E. Carlson, and William R. Lassey. 1978.
The Influence of Absentee Landowners on Use of Erosion Control Practices by Palouse Farmers. College of Agriculture Research Center, Circular No. 607. 13 pp.
- 30. Dillman, Don A. 1978. "A Chairperson's Response to Ad Hoc l Committee on Unemployed Rural Sociology Doctorates." Newsline i (publication of Rural Sociological Society) 6:9-11.
- 31. Dillman, Don A. 1979. "Down a One-Way Road: The Disappearance of Rural Values in America." Pp. 1-8 in The American Heritaae and the Rural Community, edited by Donald H. Bishop. ' Washington State University Publications.
- 32. Dunlap, Riley E., Kent D. Van Liere, and Don A. Dillman. 1979.
" Decline in Public Concern with Environmental Quality: A Defense of the Evidence." Rural Socioloav 44:204-212.
- 33. Fernandez, Richard and Don A. Dillman. 1979. "The Influence of Community Attachment on Geographic Mobility." Rural Socioloav 44:345-360.
- 34. Dillman, Don A., Kenneth, R. Tremblay, Jr., and Joye J. Dillman.
1979. " Influence of Housing Norms and Personal Characteristics on Stated Housing Preferences." Housina and Society 6(1):2-19.
- 35. Dillman, Don A. 1979. " Residential Preferences, Quality of Life, and the Population Turnaround." American Journal of Agricultural Economics 61(5):960-966.
- 36. Tremblay, Kenneth R. Jr., Don A. Dillman, and Kent Van Liere. 1980.
" Relationship Between Community Size Preferences and Housing Preferences." Rural Socioloav 44:509-519.
- 37. Marans, Robert and Don A. Dillman. 1980. The Quality of Life in Rural America: An Analysis of Survey Data from Four Studies.
Survey Research Center, Instituto for Social Research, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI: Research Report Series. 110 pp.
l l
1 6
-?
] ', -
Other Publications-(continued).
- 38. Dillman, Don A.. 1980. " Citizens' Preferences. and Concern About
< Growth and'Its Management." - Pp. 34-40 in Raoid Community Growth:
Is'It Manaaeable?,-edited by Ronald C. Faas. Cooperative Extension Service, Washington State University, Pullman, WA.
- 39. Howell, Robert E. and Don A.' Dillman. 1980. "Needs Assessment Surveys: Potentials, Pragmatics, and Pitfalls." In Dorothy Z.
Price and-Joye J. Dillman, Proceedings of the 19th Annual Western i' Reaional Home Manaaement Family Economics Educators' Conference, Department of Child and Family Studies, Washington State University, Pullman, WA.
- 40. Dillman, Don A. 1980. "After Mount St. Helens: Seven Gray Days in May." Lewiston Hornina Tribune, May 17, Section'D:3-4. (Complete version available as Department of Rural Sociology mimeo, ,
Washington State University. 37 pp.) ;
- 41. Tremblay, Kenneth R. Jr., Charles L. Schwartz, and Don A. Dillman.
1981. " Understanding the Boom Town Problem: Value Conflict Between Oldtimers and Newcomers." Human Services in the Rural Environment 6(1):11-15.
- 42. Dillman, Don A. 1981. " Rural Sociological Research: The Next Ten Years." The Rural Sociologist 1(4):209-220.
- 43. Dillman, Don A. 1981. " Whores, Sex Education, Clawing Sycophantism, and Rural Sociology: A Reply,to Nyberg." The Rural Sociologist 1(6):400-402.
- 44. Dillman, Don A., Patricia A. Tripple, Carole J. Makela, Joye J.
Dillman, and LaRae B. Chatelain. 1981. "A Western States Perspective on Public Policy for Energy Conservation." Housino and Society 8(2):80-92. j
- 45. Tremblay, Kenneth R. Jr., Don A. Dillman, and Joye J. Dillman. 1981.
" Acceptable Housing Alternatives."' HUD Challenae 12(5):25-27.
- 46. Carlson, John E., Don A. Dillman, and William R. Lassey. 1981. Ihe Farmer and Erosion: Factors Influencing the Use of Control Practices. University of Idaho College of Agriculture Bulletin No.
601, April. 11 pp.
- 47. Dillman, Don A., Mark Frederickson, B. Ray Horn, Nicholas Lovrich, Geraldine Plater, and Bruce Throckmorton. 1981. Priorities for ,
Rural Improvement. Report of the Needs Assessment Study Group, l Partnership for Rural Improvement, Washington State University, '
Pullman, WA. 23 pp.
7
-y.
?
Other Publications: (continued)
- 48. Hobbs, Daryl J. and Don A. Dillman. 1982. "Research for Rural America." Pp.1-9 in Rural Socioloav in the U.S. : Issues for the 1980s, edited by Don A. Dillman and Daryl J. Hobbs. Boulder, 00:
Westview Press.
- 49. Dillman, Don A. and Daryl J. Hobbs. ?982. " Issues for the 1980s."
Pp. 414-420 in Rural Society in the U.S.: Issues for the 1980s, edited by Don A. Dillman and Daryl J. Hobbs. Boulder, C0:
Westview Press.
- 50. Dillman, Don A., Joye J. Dillman, and Michael L. Schwalbe. 1982.
" Strength of Housing Norms and Willingness to Accept Housing Alternatives." Housina and Society (Special Issue: Proceedings of the 1980 Annual Conference):123-132.
- 51. Dillman, Don A. and John E. Carlson. 1982. " Influence of Absentee Landlords on Erosion Control Practices." Journal of Soil and Water i Conservation 37(1):37-41.
- 52. Dillman, Don A., Kenneth R. Tremblay, Jr., and Joye J. Dillman.
1982. " Mobile Homes: Should Small Town Policies Change?" Small Towns 12(4):18-22.
- 53. Oldenstadt, Dennis L., Robert E. Allan, George W. Bruehl, Don A.
Dillman, Edgar L. Michalson, Robert L. Papendick, and Donald J.
Rydrych. 1982. " Solutions to Environmental and Economic Problems (STEEP): A New Model for Applied Research." Scient.g 217(3):904-909.
- 54. Makela, Carole J., LaRae B. Chatelain, Don A. Dillman, Joye J.
Dillman, and Patricia A. Tripple. 1982. Enerav Directions for the United States: A Western Perspective. Western Rural Development Center, Publication No. 13. Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR.
- 55. Carlson, John E. and Don A. Dillman. 1983. " Influence of Kinship Arrangements on Farmer Innovativeness." Rural Socioloav 48(2):183-200.
- 56. Tremblay, Kenneth R. Jr., Florence S. Walker, and Don A. Dillman.
1983. Chapter 2, "The Quality of Life Experienced by Rural Families." Pp. 26-40 in Family Services: Issues and 00nortunities in_ Contemporary Rural America, edited by Raymond T. Coward and William M. Smith. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press.
- 57. Dillman, Don A. 1983. " Rural North America in the Information Society." The Rural Sociologist 3(5):345-357.
8
-q L.___________
Qther Publication: (continued)
- 58. Dillman, Don A. 1983. " Mail and Self-Administered Surveys."
Chapter 10, pp. 359-377, in Handbook of Survey Research, edited by $
Peter H. Rossi, James D. Wright and Andy B. Anderson. New York:
Academic Press.
- 59. Dillman, Don A., Michael L. Schwalbe, and James F. Short, Jr. 1983.
" Communication 8ehavior and Social Impacts following the May 18, 1980, Eruption of Mount St. Helens." Pp. 191-198 in Mount St.
Helens. One Year Later, edited by S. A. C. Keller. Cheney, WA:
Eastern Washington University Press.
- 60. Dillman, Don A., Eugene A. Rosa, and Joya J. Dillman. 1983. " Life-style and Home Energy Conservation in the United States: The Poor Accept Lifestyle Cutbacks While the Rich Invest in Conservation." ;
Journal of Economic Psycholoav 3:299-315.
- 51. Dillman, Don A. 1983. "How A National Rural Policy Can Help Resolve Rural Problems." The Rural Sociologist 3(6):379-3d3.
- 62. Dillman, Don A., Joye J. Dillman, and Carole J. Makela. 1984.
Pp. 49-64. "The Importance of Adhering to Details of the Total Design Method (TDM) for Mail Surveys." In Source Book 22, New Directions for Proaram Evaluation, edited by Daniel C. Lockhart.
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
- 63. Rosa, Eugene, A., Marvin Olsen, and Don A. Dillman. 1984. " Nuclear Power and the Public." Pp. 69-93 in Public Reactions to Nuclear Power: Are There Critical Masses?, edited by William R.
Freudenburg and Eugene A. Rosa. Boulder, 00: Westview Press.
- 64. Dillman, Don A. 1985. "The Social Impacts of Information Technologies in Rural North America." Rural Socioloav 50(1):1-26.
- 65. Olsen, Marvin E., Eugene A. Rosa, Riley E. Dunlap, Robert E. Howell, and Don A. Dillman. 1985. "Public Opinion Versus Government Policy on National Energy Issues." Pp. 189-210 in Besearch in Political Socioloav. Volume 1, edited by Richard G. Braungart.
Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
- 66. Jones, Joann C., Don A. Dillman, LaRae B. Chatelain, Don A. Anderson, Donna lams, and Mary Ann Anderson. 1985. " Energy Directions Two Years Later: A Visual Presentation." A slide tape report of research results from Regional Research Project W-159, University of Idaho, School of Home Economics, Moscow, ID.
- 67. Dillman, Don A. 1985. " Factors Influencing the Adoption of No-Till -
Agriculture." Pp.96-107 in Dave Higgins, Proceedings, 1985 No- -
Till Farming Crop Production Seminar. Yielder Drill Company, Spokane, Washington. (Also in 8th Annual Proceedings of Zero-Tillage Workshop, Manitoba-North Dakota Zero-Tillage Farmers Association, pp. 7-30,1986).
9
~ /6 -
1
. j
! t' y {
l i l Other Publications: (continued) 1
- 68. Carlson, John E., Don A. Dillman, Donald M. Beck, and C. Ellen Lamiman. 1985. Early Adopters and Non Users of po-Till in the Pacific Northwest. Final Report to USDA-SCS, Cooperative Agreement 58-0211-177 Department of Agricultural Economics. University of Idaho, Moscow, ID. i i
- 69. Dillman, Don A. 1985. "You Have Been Randcmly Selected . . . Survey Methods for the Information Age." 52nd Distinguished Faculty Address, Washington State University, Pullman, WA. Department of Rural Sociology mimeo and slide set; also on video tape from KWSU-TV, Pullman, WA.
- 70. Dillman, Don A. 1986. " Social Issues Impacting Agriculture and Rural Areas as We Approach the 21st Century." Pp. 19-31 in New !
Dimensions in Rural Policy: Buildina Voon Our Heritaae, edited by Ronald C. Wimberly, Dale Jahr, and Jerry Johnson. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. An earlier version is published in Jnugi Facina Agriculture and Implications for Land Grant Colleaes of Agriculture, edited by Larry Whiting. Farm Foundation.
Oakbrook, Illinois.
- 71. Hirschburg, Peter L., Don A. Dillman, and Sandra Ball-Rokeach. 1986.
" Media System Dependency Theory: Responses to the Eruption of Mount St. Helens." Pp. 117-126 in Sandra J. Ball-Rokeach and Muriel G. Cantor, Media. Audience, and Social Strustura.
Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.
- 72. Carlson, John E. and Don A. Dillman. 1986. "Early Adopters and Non Users of No-Till in the Pacific Northwest: A Comparison." In Conservina Soil, edited by Stephen B. and Ted L. Napier. Soil Conservation Society of America, Ankeny, Iowa.
- 73. 'Dillman, Don A. 1986. " Cooperative Extension in the Twenty-First Century." The Rural Sociologist 6(2):102-119. Condensed version reprinted in Interoaks Interchange, University of Illinois, Champagne-Urbana.
- 74. Dillman, Don A. and Donald M. Beck. 1986. "The Past is not the Future: Urban Quality of Life as We Approach the 21st Century."
Urban Resources 3(3):43-47.
- 75. Dillman, Don A. and Jurg Gerber. 1986. " Sociological Implications of Information Technology: A Bibliography of Recent Publications."
Council of Planning Librarians, Chicago, IL. 32 pp.
- 76. Dillman, Joye J. and Don A. Dillman. 1987. " Private Outside Space as a Factor in Housing Acceptability." Housina and Society 14(1):20-29.
l 10 i
~ /)-
[. ,
1 l
4 . i Other Publications: (continued) I 4
- 77. Dillman, Don A., Donald M. Beck, and John E. Carlson. 1987. i
" Factors influencing the Diffusion of No-Till Agriculture in the )
Pacific Northwest." Pp. 343-364 in Lloyd Elliot, STEEP - Soil l Conservation Concents and Accomplishments. Pullman, WA: Washington 4 State University Press. j
- 78. Carlson, John E., Don A. Dillman, and Dale Boresma. 1987. " Ten I Year Change in Attitudes Toward Soil Erosion." Pp. 333-341 in 1 Lloyd Elliot, STEEP - Soil Conservation Concepts and l Accorolishments. Pullman, WA: Washington State University Press. l 4
- 79. Dillman, Don A., Lesli Peterson Scott, and John Allen. 1987. l Telecommunications in Washinaton: A Statewide Survey. Technical Report, Social and Economic Sciences Research Center. Washington State University, Pullman, WA. 43 pp. q
- 80. Dillman, Don A. 1987. " Farm Research Needs Public Investment."
(Editorial in) The Seattle Times. January 31, p. A-13.
- 81. Carlson, John E., Don A. Dillman, and C. Ellen Lamiman. 1987.
The Present and Future Use of No-Till. Research Bulletin No. 140.
University of Idaho Agricultural Experiment Station. 15 pp.
- 82. Dillman, Don A. 1987. Chapter 11: " Elements of Success.'
Pp. 188-209 in Donald Johnson, et al., Needs Assessment: Theory and Methods. Ames, Iowa: Iowa State University Press.
- 83. Anderson, MaryAnn, Donna lams, Joann C. Jones, LaRae B. Chatelain, Don A. Dillman, and Donald A. Anderson. 1987. Enerav Directions for the United States: A Western Perspective. 1991-1983. Western Regional Research Publications No. 014. University of Wyoming, Agricultural Experiment Station. Laramie, Wyoming. 71 pp.
- 84. Dillman, Don A., Joye J. Dillman, Kenneth R. Tremblay, Jr., and Michael A. Schwalbe. In press. " Housing Norms, Personal Characteristics and Stated Housing Preferences." In Social Aspects of Housina: Research Issues and 00cortunities, edited by Kenneth R. Tremblay, Jr. and Suzanne Lindamood. Hayworth Press.
(Composite and updated version of two previously published articles: Housina and Society 6(1):2-29, and 6(4):123-132.)
- 85. Dillman, Don A. 1988. "The Social Environment of Agriculture and Rural Areas." In Agriculture and Rural Areas Anoroachina the 21st Century: Challenaes for Agricultural Economists, edited by James Hildreth, et al. Ames, Iowa: Iowa State University Press, pp. 61 81.
I 11 o-
{:
_e_ ~
Other Publications: _(continued)
'86. Dillman, Don A. and Donald M. Beck.1 1988. . Information Technologies-
- and Rural Development in the 1990s. dpurnal of State Government, s61(1). January / February: 29-38. .(Earlier version in The Rural Great Plains of -the Future. Great Pl.ains Agricultural Council Publication.125, pp. 185-210.- Lincoln,~ Nebraska).
.87. Dillman, Don A. and John.Tarnai. 1988. " Administrative Issues in Mixed Mode Surveys." In Robert Groves, et al.. Teleohone Survey x Methodoloav. New. York: John Wiley Co., pp. 509-528.
- 88. Dillman, Don A.,- Carl R. Engle, . James S. Long, and C. Ellen Lamiman.
In. press. "Others Influencing Others." Journal of Extension.
- 89. Carlson, John E. and Don A. Dillman. 1988. "The Influence of Farmers' Mechanical Skill on the Development and Adoption of'a New Agricultural Practice." Rural 50cioloav 53(2):235-245.
- 90. Dillman, Don A. Forthcoming. Information Technology in Agriculture:
the United States Experience in Proceedings of International Conference on Information Technoloov in Agriculture Food and Rural Development. Commission of the European Communities. Brussells, Belgium.
'91. Dillman, Don A., Angela Mertig, and Todd Rockwood. 1988. Results of the Sprina 1988 Washinaton State Poll. Technical Report 88-10, Social and Economic Sciences Research Center, Pullman, Washington.
- 92. Dillman, Don A., Donald M. Beck, and John Allen. .In press. " Rural-Barriers to-Job Creation Remain, Even in Information Age." Rural Development Perspectives. (Earlier version published in Proceedings of the 1988 Washinaton Utilities and Transportation Commission Roundtable on Telecommunications Reaulatory Policy, Olympia, Washington, 1988).
H. ' GRANTS AND CONTRACTS 1972' The State Committee for a New Tax Policy; $3,000. Statewide Survey: Attitudes Toward a Proposed State Income Tax.
1974 Washington State Office of Planning and Fiscal Management;
$48,000 (with John M. Wardwell). Alternatives for Washington: Goals for the State of Washington.
1976-1980 W. K. Kellogg Foundation; $947,000 (with others). ,
Collaboration and Integration in Rural Planning and l Development; the Partnership for Rural Improvement. l Chairperson of Site Visit and (later) Advisory Committee for i securing and implementing grant. Washington State University Representative to Inter-Institutional Regional !
Coordinating Committee which administered the grant. l Chairperson, 1979-1980.
12 1
1 h "3-
-[ ]
l
.. l t I GRANTS AND CONTRACTS: (continued) )
1976-Present United States Department of Agriculture; $190,100.
Solutions to Environmental and Economic Problems (STEEP); l' Ftctors influencing acceptance of soil erosion. control practices in the Pacific Northwest. (Annual awards for 13 ;
years.)
1979-1980 Western Rural Development Center; $44,500 (with Robert Mason, Oregon State University). "The Use of Face-to-Face, Telephone, and Mail Surveys in Needs Assessment Efforts."
1980 Washington State University Graduate School, Office of International Development; $2,000. Travel to Fifth World Congress of Rural Sociology under Title XII AID Institutional Strengthening Grant.
1980-1981 United States Department of Agriculture Cooperative Agreement; $5,000 (with Daryl J. Hobbs, University of Missouri). Preparation of monograph, Rural Society in the U.S.: Issues for the 19801.
1980-1982 National Science Foundation; $14,416 (with James F. Short, Jr.). Social Impacts of Mount St. Helens' Eruption.
1980-1983 W. K. Kellogg Foundation; $30,000. Kellogg National Fellowship Program.
1980-1983 W. K. Kellogg Foundation; $958,000 (with others). Renewal, Partnership for Rural Improvement; Chairperson of Regional Coordinating Committee which administered grant, 1980-1981.
1981-1982 Washington State University Graduate School, Office International Development; $10,000 (with Don Messerschmidt, Linda Stone, and Take Tsuratani). Development of interdisciplinary course on Human Issues in International Development.
1983-1985 United States Soil Conservation Service; $60,000 (with John E. Carlson, University of Idaho). Innovation of No-Till Agriculture in the Pacific Northwest.
1985 Farm Foundation; $4,000 (to assemble and chair Task Force).
Travel for preparation of white paper on Impact of Current Agricultural Crisis on Future of the American Family Farm.
1986 Washington State Local Government Study Commission; $15,000.
Statewide Survey of Citizen Opinions on Local Government.
1986 Washington State Legislature Joint Select Committee on Telecommunications; $29,792. Statewide survey of telecommunication needs of Washington residents.
13
-N-
q I. * '
f '.:
' GRANTS AND CONTRACTS: (continued) 1987 Washington Institute for Public Policy Research;~ $2,250.
Seminar on survey methods for committee staffs of Washington State Legislature.
1987 - Washington State Department of Agriculture, Employment Security and Washington. State University Cooperative Extension; $7,000. Farm Crisis survey of Washington wheat growers, u 1987 Yakima Valley College. Agricultural Employee Education .
I Needs Assessment; $8,180. Yakima County assessment of farmers and agricultural businesses.
1987. Impact Assessment, Inc.; $54,882 (with Riley Dunlap).
Socioeconomic Impacts of a Potential High-Level Nuclear Waste Repository at the Hanford Site, Washington. ,
1987 Washington Institute for Public Policy, Phases I and II;
$91,000 (with John Tarnai, Irving Tallman, and Ernst-Stromsdorfer). Washington Longitudinal Study on Welfare Dependency.
1987-89 Washington State University Graduate School; $5,000 (with John Pierce, Scott Long, Duane Leigh, and Alex Tan).
Interdisciplinary Research Unit, Establishment of State-of-the-State Survey.
1988 Washington State Traffic Safety Commission; $22,t13 (with John Tarnai). Seatbelt Use Surveys.
1988 Washington Department of Social and Health Services; $15,000 (with John Tarnai). State-wide survey of licensed daycare providers.
1988-1989 Washington Institute for Public Policy; $1,000,209 (with John Tarnal and Ernst Stromsdorfer). Washington State Family Independence Study.
1988-1989 United States Department of Agriculture Cooperative Agreement; $12,500. Research Opportunities for Faculty of 1890 Land-Grant Colleges and Universities.
1988-1990 Northwest Area Foundation; $159,312 (with Douglas Young, ;
David Bezdicek, John Carlson, Baird Miller, and David Mull a) . Barriers to Low-Input Agriculture: Implications for Policy, Extension, and Research.
14
~F
q I. INTERNATIONAL EXPERIENCE 1963 International Farm Youth Exchange Delegate to Poland (six months).
1978 AID team to Eastern Islands of Indonesia to write long-term agreement between Washington State University and Association of Eight Eastern Islands Universities (one-month).
1978 Fifth World Congress for Rural Sociology, Mexico City, Mexico.
1983 Consumer Behavior and Energy Policy Conference, Noordwijkerhout, The Netherlands.
1983 Kellogg Foundation Study Seminar, Colombia, South America (two weeks).
1985, 1987 Guest Professor, German Center for Survey Research and Analysis, Mannheim, West Germany (summer).
1987 International Conference on Telephone Survey Methodology, Charlotte, North Carolina.
1988 Information Technology in Agriculture, Food and Rural Development Conference, Dublin, Ireland.
J. CONSULTIN_G ASSIGNMENTS 1972 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Policy Plarning and the Urban Land Institute. Washington, D.C.
1974-1975 Office of Program Planning and Fiscal Management. Olympia, WA.
1975 Washington State Office of the Governor. Olympia, WA.
1975-1976 Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory. Portland, OR.
1976-1977 Department of Rural Sociology, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY.
1977 Farm Home Administration, U.S. Department of Agriculture.
Washington, D.C.
1978-1979 U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C.
1979 Department of Rural Sociology, Pennsylvania State University, State College, PA.
i' 1979 Savings Institution Marketir.g Society of America, Chicago, IL.
1979-1981 A.C. Nielson Compary, Northorook, IL.
1979-1983 Western Region USDA Cooperative State Research Service i Regional Projact, W-159.
1982 The Burke Comp ny, Cincinnati, OH.
15 i
- /c -
- +
CONSULTING ASSIGNMENTS: (continued) 1982 .U.S. Department of Energy, Bonneville Power Administration, Portland, OR.
1983-1984 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
198a AT&T Communications, Basking Ridge, NJ.
1984 Institute for Policy Research, University of Wyoming.
1984-1985 U.S. General Accounting Office, Washington, D.C.
1985 Policy Research Corporation, Chicago, IL.
1985 Oregon Health Sciences University, Portland, OR.
1985 National Science Foundation, Washington, D.C.
1985 Texas Department of Human Resources, Austin, TX.
1985-1986 Alaska Public Employees Association, Juneau, AK.
1985-1987 Energy Resource Consultants and State of Colorado, Denver, C0.
1986' USDA-1890 Regional Research Project-4.
1986 Cornell Institute for' Social and Economic Research, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY.
1986 The Burke Company, Cincinnati, OH.
1987 University of Guam Cooperative Extension, U0G Station, Guam.
1987 Orlando Regional Medical Center, Orlando, FL.
1987 National Centers for Disease Control, Atlanta, GA.
1988 University of Texas, LBJ School of Public Affairs, Austin, TX.
1988 RCG/Hagler, Bailly, Inc., Boulder, C0.
1988-1989 U.S. Department of. Health and Human Services, Regional Office of Inspector General, Atlanta, Georgia.
K. OTHER PROFESSIONAL ACTIVITIES
- 1. Professional Meetina Presentations: Fifty scientific papers; organized and/or chaired twenty-eight sessions.
- 2. Committees and Boards of Professional Associations: Publications Committee, Resolutions .:)mmittee, Membership Committee, Program Committee, Constitutive Committee (Chair), Publications Committee (Chair), and Nominations Committee of Rural Sociological Society; Program Committee and Publications Committee of Pacific Sociological Association; Membership Committee and Program Committee of American Association for Public Opinion Research; Community Section Liaison l
Committee; Environmental Sociology Section Council, American Sociological Association. Editorial Board, Public Opinion Quarterly.
- 3. Referee and Editorial Responsibilities: Editorial Board, Public Opinion Quarterly, 1983-1987; referee for manuscripts submitted to
.American_.S.geioloaical Review, Rural Sociol.o_gy, Sociological i Quarterly, Tmcjal ScieAqe Research, Housing _and Society, Social Forcn, Canadun Journal of Sofiolocv, Evaluation arLd Proaram Planninc, Socioloav and Social Reseal.ch, Public Opinico Quarterly, Demouraphy, Pacific Sociological Review, Urban Affairs Quarterly, S.pcial Science Ouarteriv, Journal of leisure Research, Journal of 16 l.
i
- /? -
?
OTHER PROFESSIONAL ACTIVITIES: (continued)
Soil and Water Conservation, Land Economics, Social Science Journal, Human Organization, Sociological Inauiry, Growth and Chanae, Journal
! of the American Statistical Association, Sociological Methods and i Research, Housina and Society, Annual Review of Socioloav, Journal of '
Official Statistics; research proposals submitted to Competitive Grants Program of the Natitn.al Science Foundation, United States Department of Agriculture, National Institute for Mental Health, Western Rural Development Center, and Canadian Social Research Council.
- 4. Soecial Review Panels: USDA Cooperative State Research Service Reviews of Departments of Rural Sociology at University of Wisconsin, Cornell University, Iowa State University, North Carolina State University, University of Kentucky, and Montana State University; National Institute for Mental Health research proposal review.
- 5. University Addresses and Invited Seminars: Eastern Washington University (1972); Brigham Young University (1974); Utah State University (1974); Iowa State University (1975); Western Washington University (1976); Portland State University (1976); University of Idaho (1979); University of Arizona (1980); University of Nevada (1980); University of Wyoming (1980); University of Kentucky (1980);
University of Wisconsin (1980); University of Georgia (1981); The Pennsylvania State University (1981, 1984); Universities of Mannheim and Heidelberg (joint,1985); Texas A&M University (1983); Cornell University (1984, 1986); University of Leyden (The Netherlands)
(1985); Free University and University of Amsterdam (joint, 1985);
Oregon Health Sciences University (1985); University of Missouri (1986,1988); University of Guam (1987); University of Washington (1987); City University of London (1987); University of Louisville j (1987); University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill (1988); and Marshall !
University (1988).
l
- 6. Keynote and Other Ma.ior Invited Addresses: M. E. John Invited Lecture, The Pennsylvania State University (1984); National Conservation Tillage Conference (1984); North Central Region >
Agricultural Deans and Directors Conference on Issues Facing Agriculture (1985); American Association of Housing Educators (1985);
National Community Resource Development Program Leaders Workshop (1985); Washington Planning Association (1985); American Agricultural Economics Association Conference on the 21st Century (1985); Cornell University Biennial Extension Conference (1986); University of Guam j Annual Extension Cor,ference (1987); Expert Seminar on Survey Methods, Amste< dam, The Netherlands (1987); European Conference on Mail and Telephone Survey Methods, Mannheim, West Germany (1987); Economic and Social Research Council Postal Survey Seminar, London, England (1987); Washington State University All-Faculty Extension Conference (1987); State Councils of Government Jobs, Education and Technology Conference (1987); Great Plains Agricultural Conference (1987); North Dakota Rural Health Conference (1988); Small Community Revitalization 17 I
- _ - - e- -
OTHER PROFESSIONAL ACTIVITIES: (continued)
Forum _ (1988); The Ireland Agricultural Institute Information. .
Technology Conference (1988); USDA Rural Intercity Transportation Seminar (1988); Kellogg National Fellowship Program Seminar ~(1988);
Utah Rura1' Economic Summit (1988); and National Agriculture and Natural Resources Program Leaders Workshop (1988).-
- 7. Survey Seminars. Courses, and Workshoos: Distinguished Trainer, two-day seminar, Ohio Department of Mental Health (1984). Seminar leader for intensive USDA-CSRS sponsored one-week workshop on improvement of survey research skills for 30 faculty from the "1890" Land-grant Colleges and Universities (1984). Application of the Total Design Method to the Dutch and German situations sponsored by the German Center for Survey Methods and Analysis (1985). Washington State Legislative Committee Staffs (1987); American Statistical Association Tutorial (1987); American Hospital Association (1987); Council- for Advancement and Support of Higher Education (1987); Center for Health Research (1987); U.S. General Accounting Office (1988); College of Education Distinguished Scholar Fund, Marshall University (1988);
Department of Community Development, University of Missouri (1988);
Inspector General's Office, U.S. Department of Social and Health
. Services (1988).
- 8. Legislative Testimony: Washington Joint. Select Committee on Telecommunications (1985, 1987); Washington House Committee on Agriculture and Rural Affairs (1987); Washington House Committee.on Economic Development (1987); U.S. Ser. ate Committee on Small Business (1988).
- 9. Faculty Associate for Visitina Fulbricht Scholars: Anton Nederhof, from the University of Leyden, The Netherlands (1982); Edith Deleeuw from- the Free University, The Netherlands (1987).
- 10. Board Responsibilities: Western Region Social Research Advisory Committee (1973-1976, Chair 1975); Western Rural Development Center Advisory Committee (1973-Present, Chair 1982); Partnership for Rural Improvement Regional Coordinating Committee (1976-1981, Chair 1976-1977); State Board of Directors Family-Community-Leadership (1980-1983, Secretary 1982); USDA National Rural Development Advisory Council (1986-1988); Northwest Policy Center (1988); and Seattle Health Group Cooperative (1988).
- 11. Graduate Student Committees Chaired: Six (6) Masters of Arts and sixteen (16) Doctors of Philosophy.
l 18 l
I,7 ,
e L. MEMBERSHIPS Professional: ~American Association for Public 0 pinion Research.
. American' Association for the Advancement of Science American Association of Housing Educators American Sociological Association .
. Rural Sociological Society t World Future Society Honorary: Phi Kappa Phi , :p Alpha Kappa Delta
. Gamma Sigma Delta
- Alpha Zeta' s
19 g.
y 3
i i
" l ,4 -
1: .: ~1
- ' ( l
, MENORANDUM l >
r TO:l '3. 3 ram. V. Everett. ,
J. rafts G. W111 ant
-FROM: ' 'Millie Munroe '
l DATE:' November 'YS,1987 - ,
SUBJECT:
L SPECIAL NEEDS' SURVEY
a-
. . :h ~
The Special Needs ' Survey for Massachusetts is' finished. - My ~1:r.ediate -
concern is the hearing itcaired. Respondents did not indicate the-
-type of incairment or to'what extent they. were affected. ' We need to ,
know if the person is "hard of- hearing", " deaf", or "hearine impaired".
We obviously need to ask more questions' to assess their needs.; ' A ,
" Hearing . Impaired Survey" needs to be done. ALouestionaire should 'be. "
-mailed to these inc~.viduals.
In' view of the colitical'elimate and a chance of ta coor response from individuals to NHY. :I will suggest having the Survey mailed back to.
one. of these. deaf organizations. They willlin turn ~ Rive it to NHY.
(A stipend wouldn't hurt either). .,
.This would be consistant with New Hamoshire's effort.
I will be contacting.several- deaf organizations for. ipout into this task. . D.E. A.F. ,' Inc. , Massachusetts Association for ' the Deaf, and -
Massachusetts Commission for the Deaf.
L i
or/620 1
-y H I ATTACHMENT B -4/-
... ,c.,.
4
=
, .(
to-vm=$
.r > *x -
r" i
Public Service of New 14Girp.hiie New Hampsnire Yankee Division September 14, 1987
Dear Special Needs Advocate,
The enclosed poster has,been designed by New Ha=pshire Yankee to help eva-luate Special Needs and Elderly populations for emergency preparedness at Seabrook Station.
Some handicapped and elderly individuals have specialized ~needs and we would like to assist them in =aking their needs known.-
This infor=ation will also assist emergency personnel' during =an-made disasters such as industrial accidents. chemical spills or a natural dt?sster such as hurricanes, tornadoes, and floods.
Please display this poster in a highly visible space. We would also appre-ciate the s=all black and white copy included in any newsletter as a public service to these individuals.
Thank you for your cooperation. If you should have any questions regarding the enclosed infor ation, please contact me at 1-603 474-9521 extension 3804.
Sincerely,
- St Millie A. Munroe Offsite Emergency Response Organization Special Population Coordinator i
- This mailing was assembled by Greater Newburyport Opportunities Workshop. !
i ATTACHMENT C -AA- l
d s i t
n o
a e
nl om
@b -
e l
u e a p
o mr oe t e
4 p yc d
s e: u mwnu r a f s b' o m @
Nl e ab ne on e r s i
r n i
a a c g er me k o rh O oV l
e n pi nAMopc e ,e i
ad s
n a pe y
la n
y e
yl n
ed gn r
e a t
u03 c l d e r c e n me em 0 e l e rg e e y ry h emru u o u f n n a r a
ir c
s l
l a
2, pf t o nb bs n yo t
's.
i i
4 o C 7_
S i
yo wi e e is i
ei vt r a e a e ae l v v n
no ncrc
?
e 4 uSNSh s
t e L o sa 2 m i
- x e ak t t i go n0. a 'i, e -
n or ee i3 m ^ s l v i t
c a b n0 o2 f o r
s i
P 0 ,
0, a
u e i t
7 n
dS a r4 i
n o he y r d e2 -
e r
8 Hk ct t h i
s n r ui0s0 n8 u r
t .
u -
ei es ob o - f >
1 n pwc1 r o <
nwyer l al f l
ao -
u Ytegbt iws r n uNiapey c e c u s
ee s
at c
o G
oV oh i
po e e u n s w rl a ,
Y l
q s, o HeoNWipt ml af e e c r ol i
@I l
udi wt h eeo yhow 1 f e r Nfo f ww e
I I 9
' g o
e I s
i y;g[ g < ,
.- . s ..
.o. 3
. _a. . , , , , , _ , , , , , , , ,
.,,.a
,33 ,3
, 97 ;3 ..
.' f - . ^1:7 ' '. ; : ^ ~
" l.
?::i/e. { 3We / ;, ; Fig 7;;py3e g. , 3 d a. f a. a . .3. ,,; .:. :. .. . ,,.
. r ** * *20
. J:er :::er J e -: . 3 *. :3 : n e d ) and :nen b;. ,13 ki n z r g 3 3 ; .,3 3., ; ;; g ., . ,
, . , ., a : .
.. m .. 5 . . .:] .....
..t.....
. v: a . a . ,. .
After dis:;ssing the s u rv re wi:5 severai seaple in the :: :mmuni:tes .e reason ;; r ::: cist;ke were i
1
.. ue s:ians we re taa /2:ue. !
. i
-. .e farm was not ::Sp l e te l:. iealed fer return. i i
1
- 3. E'.derly and handicapped are reluctant to give informati;n :a i people they don't know as this leaves them vulnurable to c rime ,
i I
. iome respondents didn't '. i k e :ne survey because they felt it was too imperscnal.
1 1
- o te : I called 12 households personally to verify information on the survey. those Amesbury. All 12 contac t s we re pleased that I called. They were clear!" impre ssed with our e f forta. Tw o people stated they were anti Seabrook b t :ney commended us for "carinz e.cugh to call."
t
.e1.cphone contact is time ;; nsuming and tedious, However, results migh; be worth the effort:
ssl/301 ATTACHMENT D
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - w-
3
.e -
l l-l l
~; '~.paire; -
. .' 'l e . .;; .]; in;;cj;g ne ;y;rge ;; ;m; air-
$ ; r'/ e ) ". n e d s :) b e . ., n e ;) jgter-ing t; 33 inj{f;-
"'ent. .17 ; 2 . '";"i
,a
'.a...... ,.),i..," .. 31 a J
- ya. a . g 3 ,. 2. ,. 3 . o
.s a
..t.. .. . . . .. ..3 3 ,. .. .,. . . 3. .s .. 3. 4 . . i. . m e . a......;.3. 2
. s ..:
.. . - , . , . ..J.
k
- sight impairmen:. Re spondants did ne: indicate :ype or 'seve ri::.
- f imo 2ri en
- . ~e '. eon:ne ::nta:03 need 0 be made. Ques: ion to identify seein; e :e : gs.
- In the nex: survey more detailed cuestions should be at: ached for 3;;r: and hearin; mpaired. .
Sugges: ions - A sample s:udy should be done door to door. Merrimac would be a good :anidate. The town is small and the survey for Merrimac needs to be done oVer anyway.
- . 3 ,, , : never changed from first time report was written. This is not mathematicly possible. Th e same number was used in following reports.
- We have no verification on mailing dates. (Me te r d's) Proo f o f comple tion repo rt.
- :SR should send SmY all remaining questionairs. They are pre-
.sentil) stored at ISR.
1 3J.,a / s\,u6 i.=,
,e .
r
. , 1 I
1
- e,' - ,
e I
)
...;1'. ; : . .a .s.a . : . ..,.
. . .. . . . . . . A. s...,. . .a 2. ..
v .. . . - 3. . + . . . .. -
.s ..
....:. - 4 d " i ". . .' V.'.-. 7.'.*.*.'.'
. ' ' ~ . . ~W
.....~. .2.
'1"...' "..- .a.' . _*.
,_ . . . ~ . . ' -
I ti:n ' :. s :- I'15 : .u ie : . "2rri a: *seds.::.be' dane r/er.
- u.c nousenoi s were n.ot,surye.yec te,r ~
- cal ?.?E.'<
I 1
- Letter was 3ent to t:vn o f ?)wle y saying we woull be . 5;r , . ein;
( see a::::hed le tte r)
- .etr ::wn and we didn't. ,
I a
l
'l Faur people are needed to veri: .informati:n for
- l. '.'.H. hearing impaired
- 2. Ma. nearing impaired
- 3. ' verification of Special Needs Survey for Mass.
- ereening an, inte rviewing personnel f or t.nis :as,t is essential as the
.ssues are very sensitive. PSNH re tirees may be a good source of experience.
(' /
Cues: ions for Survey need to be short concise, clear and disigned to .
extra:: per:Inent in:ormation Ior emergency planntag purposes.
_3 ssl/301.3
... . .. . . . . _ - _ _ ~~ 2b ?
. [. ..
SPECIAL ':EECG SU3VEY
", 2" H0 usa * : Ne.,curycor , " 3s,30nusetts HouSenolds niin *O resoCncents .e d,679
'Hou5enolds unwil.g to Cooper 3te 46
'ousenolcs witn taa aedresses 513 sousenolds Witn resconcents witn imoairnents 241 (1 -cuseroics witn no impairments 1,708=
TOTAL 7,187 Housenolos f
l Housenolds - amesoury, Massachusetts Housenolds with.no respondents 3,510 Housenolcs unwilling to cooperate 24 Housenolds with bad addresses 441 Housenolds with resconsdents with impairments 165 Hooseholds with.no impairments 1,281 TOTAL 5,421 Households-Two tonn total households 12,608 Two town total housenolds with respnodents 2,395 Two tewn total households with impairments 406 Two town total households with bad addresses 954 Two town total housenolds with no respondents 8,189 Two tcwn total households with no impairments 2,989 C/CC2393.1 ATTACHMENT E
- _ _ - _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ .______-__________-_______~_k?_T____. __ _ - - _ . _ .
I V
l.g 3PECIAL i;EECS SURVEY 1
f HCUSEHOLC3.- . ldS3URY , :iASSAC;iUSETTS-l
.i.
Househoics wt:" ne rescencents 3,510
. Houser 01ds u willir; to ceccerate 24 Housen01cs with 030 accresses 441 Houcerolcs with rese;ncents witn incairments 165 l Housencics .itn-no impairments 1,231 TOTAL 5,421.
.i 4
L J
l l
C/CC2393.2 l 1
l
~M~ __ _ _ _. _ _ _ _ _ __ _.______.____._a i
~\
'a ,
,4 SPECI AL: NEEC3 SUPNEY HOUS2HOLCS - 2.'1ESIURY, itASSACi;U3ETT3 :
.' Households <.t-- -
rescor. cents. 3',510
~ Houseno' ids unni;* g :o c00:erste 24 LHousehoics witn bac acdresses 441-
'Hausencids witn res Oncents witn icoairments 165 ecusenolcs witn r.o impairments 1.291 TOTAL 5,421 I
e i 1
i L
C/CC2393.2
..;9
SPECIAL f;EEDS SURVEY' MOUSEHOLDS - SALISSUF.Y, fMSSACHUSETTS
-ousencid3 usen ro res:cr. cents 1,7a7
~ Households unailling to C000erate 11 H0useholc3 with cac' addresses 829 Housenoids a,th resconcents with icoairments 113 Housenoids witn no incairments 673 TOTAL 3,373 i
C/CC2393.5 i
~ ~
\ _ _ _ _
g..a,' . j 3
b g J . / % g j $
4
. - e a
.', p ,.
. (
,' .. ; 4,.,(
y . e.
.4.
SPICI/ L ;3:05 SU3VEY-a v,:
HOUSEHOLDS -' NE',i2URY?OTT, l%SSACHUSETT3 i
i.,
i T ,
i '
l -0;3enoids wi,tr n0 resocndents 4,373
' rous9901d3 anati'i".g t: ,c ccerate 46 Housencic3'with Cad' addresses '513 WOusenolds with' respondents with impairments 241-housenolds with no impairments ~, '1.70s TOTAL 7,187 3
i.
l 1
i 4
i l
C/CC2393.6 1
M
- .c 3
-l .*
e c e. v. - . ....a
, : 0 - e. , .oA, =.,/
FCUSEHOLCS - hE'.5URY,'f1ASSACHUSETT3 Houcencies with n0 rescencents 933 HouseholdG Una1'lir) 3 COCDerate '
13 Housenolcs Witn 05j 3dcresses 278 Households witn.reso0ncents with impairments 45-Housenolds with no incairments 399 TOTAL 1,673 I
I 1
)
I 1:
l l-C/CC2393.7 j 1
i
(? -
I TASLE 3.5-1 MAXIMUM EVACUATI.'iG PCPULAT:CN Peak Housencids Dermanent Pcoulation Survev :esidents o tal H:st C:- u---. c" *:ertn Ardever Amescury 5,421 14,258 19,359 Merrimac 1,390 4,420 6,079 West Newoury 1,167 3,296 4,630 TCTAL 21,974 30,068 Host Community of Beverly Salisbury 3,373 6,726 .18,919 Newburyport 7,187 16,414 23,481 Newoury 1,673 5,479 10,476 TOTAL 28,619 52,876 70TAL MASSACHUSETTS EPZ 20,211 50,593 82,944 NOTES:
Numbers are derived from the Seabrook Station Evacuation Time Study and Traffic Management Plan Updcte, August '2, 1986, KLD Associates, Inc. and from the data compiled through the aerial survey of seacoast areas in Massachusetts and New H6mpshire conducted July 18, 1987 by Avis Airmao of Braintree, Massachusetts. These figures are suoject to update as part of the continuous planning process.
- 2. Peak population total reflects summer, midweek data.
- 3. Evaceation is conducted on a municipality-by-municipality basis.
1 of 1 Revision 0 C/CC2393.9
, ..i, I '
g
. +
1 ;,s
, , n;, :;g* - ;
- f. -
- . ,4'- .
)
5 SPECIAL MEIDS SURVEY _j l 1 ECUSEHOLOS - SIX TOW:15 PASSACHLSETTS EPZ.
Housenoids eith r.o reccencents 12,322 ricuseholas L.rdill 'n;; ~ t o coopera te 105
'ousenolds with oaa sacresses 2,361<
-ousenolds with respondents with i cair: tents 657 I Meuse 0; s ni h no iroairments 2.766
'1 TOTAL 20,211 t.'
(
f ,I h,-
{
t i
i C/CC2393.8 !
- - - _ - _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ - _ - - - _ _ _ - - - _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ ?_W " .- _ _ . _ . ._ _ - _.
t 00Pv:
MEMORANDUM M
- l A 70: M. -anA:SS .. - RT b
- 4. FRANKS . C OT T E:. ,
h
$\ .
+~ > ". "-
FROM: SECROE a: .uAN7 /EnE:. A -E:TE.
-; 7 h-
'DATE: EEALARY 1*, '988 ,
IW.-
(
SUBJECT:
MASSAC.USETT5 SPEC:AL '.EE:5 SURVEY h g Tne Scecial Neecs Survey ccne for assacnusetts crocuceo 5E3'resecreents ano w
incica:ec ney nac an 1meatrmen: te.g. sign , nearing, mcotiity) wn : may l dd W recuire s ecisi attention oy :ne %Y CRC.
1 C 0 4 .03 ->ese resconses sncu'.c ce ver,'1ec ey teleonone con:ac: so trat ceta4;ec int:rmaticn can ce octaineo on :ne scecific neecs of eacn incivicual. Tne our-cose O! nis verification is tc:
'. cetermine :ne tyces of assistance anc ecu1 cme.'t whien t?ay ce recuirec Oy :ne rescenctit (e.g. smouiance, cus, aneelenate van, coecial "o:-fica: .
- 2. crovice tne most efficien; aliccation of cersonnel anc resources in tre NHY ORO, ano:
- 3. o fulfill tne requirements of FEMA Guicance Memorandum - 24 Attacnec :o tnis memo is tne creccsec Gurvey Verification Form, anics enere staff woul:: use to verify the 653 res:cnses. It is estimatec eacn :elecnone call dii: take sporoximately 20 minutes, not including necessary cali ::acks cue to cusy signals, etc.,
3asec en :nis assumotion, it wouic taxe accroximately 327 wnr< hcurs to comoiete ene ver1f cation. Tnis coes not incluce tne time to recruir anc trein eersonnel to ma<e :ne enene cails or the time to sucervise tneir efforts. It snould also I
ce nctec :nat tne majority of :nese :ncne calls will neec to ce mace after work nours in crcer to reacn ceooie wnen : ey are at home.
M/SS2822 ATTACHME' I F
~W-
~
1
- Ana: ree:s :: ce ce erm nec :s nne sn0u.c cerr0rm . .
r.is norK an: a*e" :es -
neec :: egin. :n terms cf wno cres : e nor<, :nere are :nree :::::as ar* - ae nouic sugges .
- 1. uti *:e ex s trg s:aff mem0ers cr :5NH volunteers trasnec ey Nny stafd Or
.x s- ; 00 sul ants. In1s me:n : s acvar:a: ecus ir. :na:
I
- acuia ce nos:
' Oy cos: add e :7ve anc fa1riy easy :: c Orcinate anc sucervise. -:never, :nis O y ** - :: ='==~ ":: =* v'***= "5 c ; : 've
- oro co "'c' * * * ~~~ *'
bb .$ . g i 2. .- ':e rSNH C.s:Omer derv70e ce.50rnei. re acvantage is na : ey s n o u '.
. - .. .. 3sy .4
.. a..1 . .. ..
-..-. ...../
. .-.3j
.. 3..
. .g egn
.- , . . . -3. r..-i..
7
.. . ..-3.-..~3'
~
3.te. .
~~e : sacVantage is inat it again may n0t ce v7ewec as an : ;e:- ,e a Cr:30-
. ..- . 3 y, -
.. .. 2 .-..-.1 . 3 3. 1...,3...
- 3. -3'.e an Ou sice " survey 3-
- m. - a ec Oy N-? s~ad' or ex s: ; ::as.' arts.
.....: .. ... ..jo.rp. p.o.
... ... .. .. .,3.
s.
4
.-3...-
.... . T e. i g ...".
<-. . 1s SCVar.*.a v *.*.'5. ** . s*.
0L:s:09 f**m acule ce vieWec as :;ect'Ve in 00:alning s'.rVey *"f;rma: :".
CesJ'.:s cf :ne none ver*ca** acui Ce ce" elve0 as nere ~9I'ac'.e. " -
- cu:c ce c e :na: :ne 9ntervencrs usec a similar mete c - - e r
' a s * * - * *. d.. * .* .* .* .* Se . Aa. . - 8 5. P. '*-
y a' . ~ *. *. ". '. s s-. -'s a n . s *y e 1 s . a *. . - - "2 .**.
. **.c C0ule ce more exDens've : 'm0leme*:
- nan u 11127ng in-nouse e* IOyees ar maj ecuire a s.Os an:1al s ar; ;; e440rt 1r ne searon f r a 39 are : e
- ::essing of Orco0sals anc cur: nase Orcers.
- n re'e-ence as :o wnen : sncui ce :ne. e feel :na: t nee:s :: ce c:moie e:
cy tre exer::se s :nat :rere s an uc-:0-cate 1,s: cf scecial ree:s i etv :uais at - e -avern'il 3: aging A es. Ir a:::- on, :ne f0iica-uo en0ce ver ' :3 :;-
snoul ce One as s0Cn as :Oss7Cle after tne resCCnses nave " ten "?:Urre: an' "e tne s.rvey is fresn in : e resecncerts m nes. Tne survey was ::m::e:e: -
Oc:ccer - Novemcer 1987.
- ciete :nis activ1 y ae wouic accret,. ate 1: it you acu : rev ew
.n er:er 0 .
- ne er :csea meinecology anc crev :e as at:n your comments anc sugges:1cns :n tne ces aay :: croceec.
CC: M. Sinciair N. 3 0 )C.".e r M. .uunroe
,w c...?poo.*
.uu
SPECIAL NEEDS SURVEY VERIFICATION FORM Reference 2 : age :
T'ME !a~E :: CONTACT: j
! -e i " :,
- s at nome? This is L New namosntre rankee to verify informat.cn en -ne Emergency P ecarecnesscalling for Ouest1:nnaire to ver you suemittea for Emergency Planning. :o you nave a few minutes
- y tre nformation on tne Questionnaire?
. ier1 3 y Name ;ano stelling) of impaireo Oesicential Aacress Mail *".g Address (if Oifferent)
- s the imcaired a seasonal resiaent?
If yes, anich montns? .
Teleonone Numcer(s)
- 2. age cf imcaired incivicual Gender
- 3. Name c' Caller /Resconcer
- elat,onsnip with impaired Calier/Pesconcer telepnene No(s)
Mailing Address 4 Description of impairments.
Hearing Eye (blind) (( Emonysema
[_~
Mentally Ratarded/Ill Dialysis __
Becridden
__ Wheel Chair p_
Walker / Cane Seizure Disorcer -
Life Support [ Other b Heart Patient
__ Descrite:
Descrice; Comments on Impairment:
C/LK2808 ATTACHMENT G E[ gj
- - - - - = - -
m S. ..( '
g
. m ;
3,. <w o.
_l e, ,
Bhy; 3, <
,r> ,
'5. *
/pe':C Life-Sustaining Ecutoment:
i j
H' 'M '.
i,,,, ' ann-Type: Peso 1rator ,
WA :: con L;ng): ,
U. uraisse_- Type Respirator (Chest)
+ !_,,,,-
T.ectrically Operateo Aespirator
' j- Suct3cn Macnine-(Pumo) t 1 !
. N -emooialysis'Ecuipment.(Kidney Machine)
!Atermittent Positive Pressure cespirator--
)
_,,, hygen Air-Conditioner-(Reason:
Soecial
__).
y Other,j Please Descrice:
3 s
Does tne equipment nave a cacxuo power sou'ce? r '(descrice)_
i '.):N
- s tne equioment cortsele?
5.
,30es tne impa1reo have any special transoertation requirements? ' -
Descrice:
Oan'tne impaired sit uo at all for a short period?
s
- s tne recuireo transportation accessible'to the. impaired?
If no, nnat' type of transportation is necessary? _,,_
- of peco'e it transoort sc Does anyone in Descrice: the nousenold cr,marily speak a language other tran Englis 8.
Is scecial notification requireo due to hearing impairment?
f Or otner reason? 5 How can you be contacted in an emergency? .
_{
Neighbor? t Telephone?
Is there a respons1ble person living in the household who eculd assist the impaired in an emergenc'/? Name:
l _ j Is there a close neighbor who could assist L
the impaired in an emergency?
Name:
V i
C/LK2808.1 E _._________-_---_-_----------______---_--E------------ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ~ ~ ~
l 1 * .
I 9.
l, Oces - e 'noatrec nave iny otner ::coolem t st ne need to know scout? t Thanx you very muen for your time.
<ou may ce c:ntactea once again to clarify airections bc to your house er any otner matters tnat may come uo. You will also scre:ntacteo in an transoort, actual emergency, to confirm your neecs ano arr.snge 4:r your as required.
Thanks Again and Have a Nice Cay!
l
\
C/LK2808.2
}
i
~39 - J
, ~
f ..
Emergency Preparedness Project Questionnaire
- t. Is anyone in your household impaired to the degree that they would require assistance'during an evacuation?
Yes No .
If you answered "NO", please refold and seal this card using the instructions given l on the reverse side. Thank you for your assistance.
you answered "YES", please supply the following information: i
- 2. Name(s) of impaired Type of impairment (s): Check all that apply) parson (s): i. i Etsrad mr i Hearing Sight Wheel- . Confined Other
- Impaired Impaired chair to bed
)
- 1f "other," please specify the nature of the impairment (s).
i
)
l I
.. .'elephone number: j Horne: Woric _
ATTACHMENT H ' tra- ]
l
- 4. If your name or address on the mailing label is incorrect, please give the correct information:
Name _
Address City State Zip
- 5. If the person completing this card is not the addressee, please provide the following information about yourself:
Name Address ,
City State ___ Zip Telephone number - Home: _._
Work:
Your relationship to addressee:
- 6. Should we have to verify any of this information, when would be the best time to call?
Please fold and seal this questionnaire using the glue strip provided. Be certain that the business reply face is on the outside when returning questionnaire. No postage is necessary.
No PoSTAGi -
NECESSAR4-IF MAILED IN THE UNITED STAT 1 BUSINESS REPLY Mall llllllllllllllllllll CHCAGO lt N FIRST CLASS PERMIT NO 72259 SS.
E POSTAGE wiLL BE PAfD 3Y ADORE 5SEE Emergency Preparedness Project """'"
mummmmmmmme Post Office Box 11095 mummmmmm.
Chicago, Illinois 60611 =========
mmmmmmmmme N
- Y/ -
- i. . n: ;;'
SEABROOK EPZ PROJECT FOR MASSACHUSETTS RESIDENTS AVAILABILITY OF EVACUATION ASSISTANCE 1,,
FINAL COUNTS NUMBER PERCENT CAN GET ASSISTANCE YES 259 46.1%
NO' 303
.f 53.9%
TOTAL 562 100.0%
i 1
l l
I l
i
- J .
t ATTACHMENT I
-Y2-
O /!? ) x' /N;,,. ~ "
~4 _
4 ll /2-f$'?
< a SEABROOK EnEpagyCY PREFARECHLSS PROJECT EXECUTtVE SUMtthny 5
4
(
i f
4
(
j I
ATTACBMENT J 4rg ._ )
n l
4 i
I l
SEABROOK EMERGENCY. PREPAREDNESS PROJECT EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
I. PURPOSE International Survey Research Corp. was engaged by the Impell -
Corp. to conduct the Special Needs Survey for Massachusetts residents within the 10 mile Emergency Planning Zone surrounding the Seabrook nuclear power generating station. The purpose of the survey was to identify persons living in non-institutional residences who are physically impaired to the degree that they would require assistance in the event of an emergency evacuation.
To be licensed by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the plant must have a plan in place which would provide for the orderly evacuation of all residents in the Zone should an emergency arise. The information collected by ISR would be used by the ,
planners in determining how physically impaired residents would I be removed from the area.
II. METHODOLOGY Work on the project began in early 1987 with the design of a questionnaire by ISR. Drawing upon questionnaires used success-fully in similar projects for other facilities, ISR applied its expertise in instrument design to make the questionnaire as easy to understand and complete as possible. These steps include using large typefaces and international symbology for impairments.
The instrument was constructed as a self-mailing document; after completion, it could be folded, sealed, and returned to ISR via postage paid business reply mail. (See Exhibit A).
The recipient was first asked whether there were any persons in the household who were impaired to the degree that they would require assistance in the event of an evacuation. If "Yes", further information was requested regarding the impaired person (s):
the nature of the impairment (s), corrected address and telephone numbers for the household (and respondent, if not the addressee,) q and the best time to contact the respondent if other information was needed. A question on whether there was someone in the household without impairments who could assist in an emergency was added at the request of the planners. The respondent was then asked to fold, seal, and return the questionnaire to ISR.
If the recipient responded "No" to the first question, he/she was ]
instructed to seal and return the questionnaire. i 1
A cover letter was provided by Public Service of New Hampshire for inclusion with the questionnaires. The letter, signed by ;
i l
1 l
l m_. --_--m__m__ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . - m_ _ .
1 i
4 e '
3
)
i Mr. Terry Harpster of PSNH, stated the purpose of the survey 4 and urged all recipients to respond. Both pieces - questionnaire and cover letter - were inserted in envelopes with International 1 Survey Research as the return address and the message "!MPORTANT l QUESTIONNAIRE ENCLOSED" prominently displayed. l The target population consisted of residents in eight Massachusetts i towns: Amesoury, Byfield, Merrimac, Newbury, Newburyport, West l Newbury, Salisbury, and Salisbury Beach. At the outset it was estimated that 17,000 households existed in this area. ISR was to be furnished with three sets of mailing labels, along with a !
computer tape containing the names and addresses of targeted house- i holds. ISR was subsequently informed that there would be only one l set of mailing labels and no computer tape, and that some 19,000 j households would be surveyed.
]
i on May 13, ISR received the labels. A manual count was taken, and 21,137 labels were found. The labels for all towns except Merrimac ) l were drawn from utility billing records, and some attempt had been )
made to remove non-residential addresses. The Merrimac labels were '
allegedly drawn from voter registration rolls, and had only last names. ISR questioned the use of voter registrations as they would probably be incomplete, but were informed that no other alternative i existed. The Merrimac labels were examined and 74 obvious duplicates .
removed.
1 ISR rranged to have the labels keyed onto a computer tape. During '
the keying process, 20 labels were deleted due to insufficient address or duplication. This left 21,042 valid addresses. Impell representatives were notified of the unexpectedly large number.
ISR was directed to send questionnaires to all addresses.
While the labels were being sorted out, ISR developed the software to administer and track the survey process. Two databases were designed to supply the required information. One, called MAIL MASTER, would contain one record for every household, This record would have the names and addresses as supplied by Impell, as well as a response code. When the database was loaded with the keyed names and addresses, every household record was assigned a unique six digit identific.ation number. The first digit represented the recipient's town, and the last digit was a " check digit". (A check digit is computed by adding and subtracting combinations of the first five digits. It allows the ID number to be validated, preventing the wrong record from being updated due to a data entry error.)
The MAIL MASTER was used to generate mailing labels and track responses. When the first set of labels were produced, the response code on every record was set to 'l'. As questionnaires were returned, the response codes were updated as follows: '2' = No impairment;
'3' = Impairment; '4' = Returned for bad address.
When a questionnaire was received indicating impaired persons in a household, the data from that questionnaire was placed in a second database, called IMPAIRMENT. This file would be the source for l all reports on impaired individuals.
l
-vi
a l ,
. t i
l On Friday, June 26th, ISR received word from Impell to mail out the questionnaires immediately. The mailing took place on Monday, June 29. Within several days ISR began to receive large numbers 3 of envelopes returned for bad addresses. These were spot-checked !
against the addresses provided by Impell and were found to be l correct. Impell representatives were notified, but could offer no I explanation. j 1
As questionnaires were returned to ISR the responses were keyed i and the databases updated. On July 13 and again on July 17 response i counts were computed and forwarded to Impell. By early August '
questionnaire returns had slowed considerably, and the second mailing was planned. Returns to this point were as follows:
Impairments indicated 405 No impairments indicated 2,930 Returned for bad address 2,374 Invalid response
- 332 5,636
- Glank or defaced questionnaire.
The second mailing was originally intended to go only to the house-holds which did not respond to the first mailing. However, the unexpectedly large return for bad addresses (11% of the total sent) was still a concern. There was some speculation that because the area encompassed many vacation / resort properties the population might be fairly transient. To thwart that possibility, it was decided to add a line to the address label under the name that would read "OR CURRENT RESIDENT" and include the bad address locations in the second mailing.
Another minor change was to exclude from the second mailing those who returned questionnaires uncompleted but with comments stating opposition to the Seabrook facility and the survey process. A list of persons who responded in that manner directly to the facility was forwarded to ISR and combined with those received by ISR. A total of 109 names were deleted from the second mailing. (Many more questionnaires were returned with negative remarks, but had all identifying information obliterated or removed.)
The second mailing was sent out on August 14 to 17,599 households.
Once again, a large number of questionnaires were returned for bad addresses, although not quite as many as before. All of these came from the same addresses as the first mailing. On September 9, an interim report on responses through August 28 was sent out at the request of Impell.
By mid-September the return rate had diminished to a trickle. The collection period was cutoff on September 18, with 4,270 questionnaires returned. Responses to the second mailing were: 272 with impairments, 2134 with no impairments, 1746 bad addresses, and 118 others (blank or defaced questionnaires, with a few duplicates from people who responded too late to the first mailing to be excluded from the second.)
yb -
i i
-4~ (
A final set of reports was sent out on September 23. (See Exhibit l B for statistical summaries.) The total returns from the project 1 were:
Impairments indicated 653 i No impairments indicated 4,693 Returned for bad address 2,374 1 Invalid or no response 13,122 21,042 l
III. CONCLUSIONS The fact that over 26% of surveyed households returned valid question-naires should be considered quite good, considering the nature of the project and the controversial environment in which it was conducted. Two areas of concern remain: the extraordinarily high return for bad addresses (11.3%) and 'ine potentially incomplete Merrimac addresses. Both issues could impact the outcome of -the study.
The only valid conclusion that can be safely made is that 653 house-holds in the area surveyed indicated the presence of one or more physically impaired persons, and that 4,893 households indicated no impaired persons. There is no way to ascertain whether the people who responded to the survey were representative of the population as a whole, thus it would be improper to infer or make assumptions about the non-respondents based on the data collected.
l l
l l
l l - - - - - 97) -
4 EXHIBIT A SAMPLE QUESTIONNAIRE l
I 1
i 1
i
{
_yy. l
1 9 9 L. J Emergency Preparedness Questionnalro For Massachusetts Residents
- 1. Is anyone in your household impaired to the degree that they would require l assistance during an evacuation? j Yes No I
if you answered "NO", please refold and seal this questionnaire using the instructions given on the reverse side. Thank you for your assistance. 1 If you answered "YES", please supply the following additional information:
- 2. Name(s) of impaired Type of impairment (s): (Check all that apply) person (s) in your household:
Hearing Sight Wheel- Confined Other*
Name impaired Impaired chair to bed i
"If "other," please specify the natura of the impairment (s).
- 3. Are there other members of your household that do not have an impairment who could assist the impaired in an emergency? Yes No 1 - - - -- w ~ - ~ -
m .<
}
r
, s
, 6 i
l l
i EXHIBIT B FINAL STATISTICAL SUMMARIES 1
i 1
.I I,
l I,
i h---_._-___._._a.___ .. __
.. n; l ..
SEABROOK EPZ PROJECT FOR MASSACHUSETTS RESIDENTS TYPES OF IMPAIRMENTS BY RESPONDENT HOUSEHOLD FINAL COUNTS
' NUMBER ~ PERCENT HEARING IMPAIRED NO 446 68.3%
YES 207 31.7% 7,4k
)$1 TOTAL 653 100.0% fj0 '
SIGHT IMPAIRED NO 481 73.7%
V 39 S YES 172 26.3%
TOTAL 653 100.0%
WHEELCHAIR
~
NO 543 83.2%
1 YES 110 16.8%
TOTAL 653. 100.0%
CONFINED TO BED NO 618 94.6% .
YES 35 5.4% l 1
TOTAL 653.- 100.0%
OTHER NO 262 40.1%
YES 391 59.9%
TOTAL 653 100.0%
l l
l t
l l
l
_______Lu.____-.____ -f/-
- s . ..
y.
.SEABROOK EPZ' PROJECT FOR MASSACHUSETTS RESIDENTS {
IMPAIRED PERSONS PER RESPONDENT HOUSEHOLD-
.s FINAL COUNTS NUMBER PERCENT l
.j IMPAIRED PERSONS 'l NONE LISTED 18 2.8% l 1 PERSON 547 83.8% i 2 PERSONS :71 10.9%
3 PERSONS 12 1.8% l 4 PERSONS 5 .8%
TOTAL 653 100.0%
i i
[ l o ,
l
~b~
.a, SEABROOK EPZ PROJECT FOR MASSACHUSETTS RESIDENTS 1
AVAILABILITY OF EVACUATION ASSISTANCE FINAL COUNTS f
i NUMBER PERCENT l.
CAN GET ASSISTANCE YES 259 46.1%
NO 303 53.9%
TOTAL 562 100.0%
l l
I
. i
)
\ ~ .. -C$ -
w-_--_-___-.
e a
I i
ee 0
__ _-5 y.. __
, /
(/h O
L%PELL CORPORATION May 26, 1987 1630-009-NY-003 l
International Survey Research 303 East Ohio Street Chicago, Illinois 60611 ATTENTION: John Haskin Gentlemen:
As discussed in our telecon of 5/21/87, attached is the approved version of .
the special needs survey and cover letter. I Please proceed with the actions necessary to print and prepare the survey.
When New Hampshire Yankee gives us the go-ahead, we will notify you to mail the surveys.
If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at 603-474-9521 ext. 2730.
Very t uly urs,
)
Ray E. Weber Iepell Project Manager REW/cc Enclosure cc: W. Kerekes R. Seiter 225 BROAD HOLLOW ROAD + MELVILLE. NEW YORK 11747*(516)420 3200 ATTACHMENT K . gg _
S
,7 j' -[' I
,.e_
,q i
.d ~ ib .i D b -
M Service of New Hemipshire New Hampshire Yankee Division 1
.)_-
j i
i l
Dear Massachusetts Resident:
i The enclosed survey is being conduc" N to identify both physically impaired and non-impaired residents.in your area. The information will be used by I local and state emergency management agencies and Public Service. of New Hampshire in the event of an emergency to provide assistance to our physically impaired neighbors. Should a disaster occur such as a tornado, I hurricane, earthquake or nuclear emergency, residents .with physical {
disabilities would receive special evacuation assistance.
It is just as important to identify households without impaired family-members. In planning for an emergency, local agencies will benefit from ir. formation on all households regardless of the member's physical status.
Please take a few minutes to complete the questionnaire. As a way of -
thanking you for your assistance, we have enclosed a small gift as a token of our' appreciation.
Sincerely,
/ -
(G }W Terry L. H 2 ster Director o Emergency Preparedness i
\
nn n . -- -
ATTACHMENT L -$$ -
- . ~ - - . - - - - -
,r
-s F 1 L J i
i Emergency Preparedness Questionnaire :
For Massachusetts Residents l
- 1. Is anyone in your household impaired to the degree that they would require .!
assistance during an evacuation? !
Yes No if you answered "NO", please refold and seal this questionnaire using the ,
instructions given on the reverse side. Thank you for your assistance.
If you answered "YES", please supply the following additional information:
- 2. Name(s) of impaired Type of impairment (s): (Check all that apply) person (s) in your household:
X @ s Hearing P: ;
Sight Wheel- Confined Other
- Name Impaire_d Impaired chair to bed l
i l
- lf "other," please specify the nature of the impairment (s). I rAo l Ipfnif*O f
l
- 3. Are there other members of your household that do not have an impairment who I could assist in an emergency? l Yes No !
_ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - l
l ...
,.. ,\
~*-
ll
-i Acclicants' Resnonse I
The care and supervision of individual patients /
residents in hospitals and special facilities rammins the L
responsibility of the facility administrators.
! Interrogatory No. 39 Identify the person (s) in NHY's ORO who.is most knowledgeable about the SPMC's plans and procedures for those persons in the Massachusetts EPZ who may have special notification, evacuation or other needs.
Acelicants' Reseense Applicants incorporate herein their response to interrogatory No. 29.
Interrocaterv No. 40 Explain the meaning of the priority codes assigned to each special needs individual listed in Appendix M, and explain how these codes will be used.
Amelicants' Resconse Priority codes indicate the order in which to call special needs individuals and are based upon the type of need )
and transportation requirement.
Interrogatory No. 41 i
When was the last special needs survey conducted and when do you expect that the next one will be conducted? How frequently will such surveys be conducted?
Amelicants' Resconse l The last special needs survey was conducted during the period June 1987 to September 1987. The manner in which the 1
ATTACHMENT M
- car - -
-a l
1 Special Needs List will be kept updated is discussed in the SPMC, Section 3.6.c Special Population /Special Facilities. {
Interrogatory No. 42 Regarding the last special needs survey, identify the persons or organization (s) that conducted the survey, and state how many surveys were mailed out and how many completed survey were (sic) returned?
Aeolicants' Resnonse The last Special Needs Survey was done by International Survey Research Corporation.
Initially, 21,042 surveys were mailed. A second mailing of 17,599 surveys was performed, for a total of 38,641 surveys . A total of 653 completed responses identified households with impaired individuals.
Interrogatory No. 43 Do you have any information concerning whether upon receipt of the Special Needs Survey there were special needs individuals who refused to complete the survey, completed it with factually incorrect information and returned it, and/or turned in their surveys to advocacy groups. If so, please describe this information and identify any and all documents 4 which concern such events and/or indicate that such things ,
may have happened.
Acclicants' Resnonse 4 Applicante have no information regarding special needs individuals who may have completed and returnad the survey with factually incorrect information or turned their surveys
}
over to advocacy groups.
NHY possesses approximately 12 letters and two documented phone calls indicating an unwillingness of some
$9-
5, ,
1 i
l
)
individuals to complete the survey form. These documents will be produced.
The initial survey mailings produced preliminary 1
findings that there were 653 households which~ indicated they had one or more individuals with impairments. This information was subject to verification efforts in the spring of 1988 which resulted in the confirmation of 352 impaired j b
individuals. The difference between these two numbers
(
reflect those surveys where it was found that the responder I i
required further clarification of the information requested. [
Interrogatory No. 44 Section 3.7.2(f) of the SPMC (p. 3.7-3) indicates that a Special Needs Poster was distributed in the fall of 1987 to various advocacy groups in the six Massachusetts EPZ municipalities as well as agencies surrounding the EPZ.
Please identify these advocacy groups and agencies by name and address.
Acclicants' Reseense The computerized mailing list used for the distribution of the Special Needs Poster to advocacy groups contains the names of approximately 380 such organizations (including some duplicate entrees). Applicants will produce this document.
Interreaatory No. 45 Appendix M, p. M-17 (Amendment 6), indicates the number of mobility-impaired people with special transportation needs: (a) for each town; and (b) the total number of such people in all six towns. The sum of the numbers set forth for each town, however, is substantially less than the number given as the total. Please account for this discrepancy (sic) and state the correct numbers for each town and the ;
total.
-- Lo .
1
( ,
4 Aeolicants' Resnonse The discrepancy is due to administrative and arithmetical error. The numbers for each town are: Amesbury !
- 67, Merrimac - 33, Newbury - 27, Salisbury - 53, 1
Newburyport - 132, West Newbury - 8. The total is 320. l Interroaatorv No. 46 Appendix M, p. M-17 (Amendment 6), Note C .4.ndicates that the sources for the data on the mobility-impaired population were a special needs survey by International Survey Research company, "by personal knowledge and references," and through j a special needs hotline. Regarding these sources:
(a) Where is International Survey Research Company located, and who was the person there who was principally responsible for conducting the survey; (b) State'how many mobility-impaired persons were identified through each of-these three sources; .
1 (c) Describe what efforts were taken, if any, to verify the information about those with mobility impairments obtained from these three sources.
Amelicants' Resoonse a) International Survey Research (ISR) is located in :
Chicago, Illinois. John Hoskin and Gary Berger of ISR were principally responsible for overseeing the conduct of the Special Needs Survey.
u b) Applicants incorporate herein their response to interrogatory No. 47.
Contacts through the special Needs Hotline and "by personal knowledge and references" confirmed data already gathered by the Special Needs Survey.
. _JV' . _ - _ _ _ _ . - _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ - - _ -
- . j
, 2 :
3 c) See response to (b) above.
Interrogatory No. 47 Identify all the sources used to obtain the names, addresses, and other information about persons in the Massachusetts EPZ with sensory impairments and persons with mental / emotional impairments and state how many persons were identified through.each of these sources. For each such sources, (sic] also describe what efforts were taken, if any, to verify the information acquired about those with sensory-impairments obtained from that source.
Aeolicants' Resnonne The Special Needs Survey conducted by mail from June to September, 1987 by International Survey Research Corporation of Chicago, IL, utilized utility customer billing records for Amesbury, Newbury, Newburyport, West Newbury, Salisbury, Byfield and Salisbury Beach. Voter registration lists were used for the survey in the Town of Merrimac.
The survey efforts identified 653 households where those responding indicated one or more people with impairments resided. In May, 1988, a telephone survey was undertaken to verify the information on the survey questionnaire. Where survey responders could not be contacted or declined to cooperate, the original information on the survey questionnaire was retained as valid.
The result of this verification was the identification l
l of 352 individuals with impairments that required special 1
notification and/or transportation during an emergency.
l l
\
{
l V - ax -
4 Interrogatory No. 48 Do you have any intention to change the methods used to identify persons-in thel Massachusetts EPZ with special needs?
If so, please describe these changes.
Amelicants' Reseense I
No. ;
Interrocaterv No. 49 How many unredacted copies of the special needs.
population listings contained in Appendix M exist, who has them, and what steps have been taken to assure the security of this information?
Aeolicants' Reseense In total 33 unredacted copies of Appendix M have been i
issued by NHY. The list below identifies the individuals or )
ORO positions holding / assigned a copy or copies.
Access to the information is ,ontrolled by EP and Community Relations Procedure 90700 entitled " Proprietary Information Handling." A copy of the procedure will be made available for inspection.
The only copy not subject to the above controls is that in the possession of Judge Smith of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board.
HOLDER A. Callendrello C.H. Heckscher Robert McCormack (15 Copies)
Ropes & Gray, Mr. Thomas Dignan
- f@ - .... .
.I 'a Judge Ivan W. Smith Charlotte Provencher Copies maintained at ORO EOC per Procedure 90700 for:
Bus Company Liaison Evacuation Support Coordinator Radiological Health Advisor Special Population Coordinator Assistant Reception Center Coordinator Copies maintained at ORO Staging Area per Procedure 90700
'for:
Evacuation Support Dispatcher (4)
Monitoring / Decontamination Leader (3)
Staging Area Leader Interroaatorv No. 50 i
Are he original Special Needs Surveys that were returned still being maintained? If so, who has them, where are they located, and what steps have been taken to assure l the security of this information?
Aeolicants' Resconse The original Special Needs Survey forms and two computer printouts are under the control of NHY and are locked in a storage space within the owner's on-site controlled area.
Only one individual has the key to this locked area. {
While the survey forms and computer printouts were in i
the possession of International Survey Research Corporation, l
l
~ V/ -
. l j .
they were kept in locked areas on the company's prumises when not being used or reviewed by ISR personnel.
Interroaatorv No. 51 From the time the Special Needs Surveys were returned, for each step in the process of collecting the completed surveys, analyzing them, compiling the data, and producing l
the special population listings contained in Appendix M, state:
(a) How many people had access to the acquired information: ,
(b) Whether copies were made of the surveys of the information acquired; and j (c) What steps were taken to assure the security of the acquired information.
Aeolicants' Resconse a) The number of people with access to the Special Needs Survey data varied depanding on the internal use being made of the survey results, but is estimated at 20-25 individuals. Access was limited to those NHY personnel directly involved with the analysis, verification and processing of the data for use in developing the SPMC.
The holders of 33 unredacted copies of the SPMC have access to the information.
b) Two copies were made of the original computer printout of the Special Needs Survey results for use in the verification process, c) Applicants incorporate herein their response to interrogatory No. 50.
- (, g .
'L.
s i e
.a.
Interrocaterv No. 52 What date (sic) gathering efforts, if any, have you or your agents undertaken to identify individuals willing and capable of assisting handicapped persons in the Massachusetts Ep2 in the event of a radiological emergency at Seabrook Station? 1 Aeolicants' ResDonse Other than recruitment of ORO personnel for this purpose, no additional data gathering efforts have been undertaken.
Interrocaterv No. 53 Describe any and all steps, if any, your (sic) or your agents have taken to have persons with handicaps, their families, and/or agencies serving or advocating for the handicapped review the SPMC's plans and procedures for protecting persons with handicaps. Describe the result of this review process and identify any and all communications and other documents you and your agents have which concern this review process. .
l ADelicants' Resoonse No such review process has been undertaken.
Interrogatory No. 54 Has the NHY ORO found an alternate location for the staging area apart from the one at 145 Water Street in Haverhill, MA? If so, identify the location selected.
Acolicants' Resoonse A s'inulated mock-up in Salem, New Hampshire was used in the June 28 - 29, 1988 Exercise, but NHY does not consider this to be an alternate location.
l
- 4 ,an 6 .
- h i
Acolicants' Resconse Applicants will produce any documents responsive to this !
request.
Recuests Nos. 16(i) and Ni made after January 1,All correspondence and other records of communicat 1987, and which refer to pertain to or contain information relevant to emergency respo,nse planning for a radiological engage emergency at Seabrook, or the refusal to in such planning, or the assessment of response each of the following: capability, between New Hampshireand Yankee (an 1.
individuals in the Massachusetts EPZ Who are transit dependent persons or.who may be in need of transportation assistance in the event of a radiological emergency at Seabrook Station; j.
individuals in the Massachusetts EPZ who have or may have sensory impairments, movement impairments, ;
or mental / emotional impairments, and organizations l and individuals who assist such persons.
Aeolicants' Resconse As of December 21, 1988, Applicants have identified 502 special needs individuals who may need transportation and/or some other form of assistance. Of those individuals, 139 are hearing impaired, 106 are sight impaired. The remaining 257 individuals have some form of mobility impairment.
i 1
- y;
.t 1 4
',K y
' UNITED STATES OF AMERICA UN;Qi?
NBCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD '89 FEB 22 P6 :16 Before the Administrative Judges:
1 vi n,, .
f Ivan W. Smith, Chairman M U 7,', 'O
~~
Dr. Richard F. Cole Kenneth A. McCollom I
) ,
I In'the Matter of ) Docket Nos. 50-443-OL' I
) 50-444-OL PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY ) (Off-Site EP)
OF NEW HAMPSHIRE, EI AL. )
)
(Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2) ) February 21, 1989
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Pamela Talbot, hereby certify that on February 21, 1989, I made service of the within documents:
- 1. TESTIMONY OF SHARON MORIEARTY ON BEHALF OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR THE COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS:
- 2. COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS TESTIMONY OF GEARY W.
SIKICH ON THE INADEQUACIES OF THE SPMC AS IT PERTAINS TO SPECIAL POPULATIONS IN THE EMERGENCY PLANNING ZONE;
- 3. TESTIMONY OF GEARY W. SIKICH ON BEHALF OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS REGARDING JI 54;
- 4. TESTIMONY OF FRANK BEEVERS, ACTING CHIEF OF POLICE FOR THE TOWN OF SALISBURY, MASSACHUSETTS, ON BEHALF OF ATTORNEY GENERAL JAMES M. SHANNON, REGARDING JI 4 (TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT);
t .
.t e
- 5. TESTIMONY-OF MAUREEN ~ MANGAN AND JOHN PAOLI'.LO,- ON NEHALF OF ATTORNEY GENERAL JAMES M. SHANNON, REGARDING THE ACTUAL AVAILABILITY 0F THE SPMC'S MANNED-VEHICLES AND DRIVERS;
, a
- 6. TESTIMONY OF DR. THOMAS J. ADLER ON BEHALF OF' JAMES M.
SHANNON, ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR THE COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS, CONCERNING CONTENTION JI 4 (TRAFFIC,
/'
MANAGEMENT PLAN);- 1 l
- 7. . TESTIMONY OF GEARY W. SIKICH ON BEHALF OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS REGARDING THE ADEQUACY OF SECOND-SHIFT STAFFING FOR CERTAIN EVACUATION SPECIFIC ,
i POSITIONS (JI 11 AND JI'12); !
- 8. COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS TESTIMONY OF KATHRYN i BARNICLE ON STATEMENTS OBTAINED FROM SCHOOLS AND SPECIAL .
FACILITIES IN THE MASSACHUSETTS EPZ, HOST AND HOSPITALS {
AND'THE SHRINER'S AUDITORIUM; l
- 9. COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS TESTIMONY OF DR. JENNIFER j LEANING ON THE RESOURCE NEEDS OF THE RADIOLOGICALLY INJURED;
- 10. COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS TESTIMONY OF GUY DAINES ON 1
THE INADEQUACIES OF THE SPMC AS IT PERTAINS TO SPECIAL POPULATIONS IN THE EMERGENCY PLANNING ZONE;
- 11. TESTIMONY OF ARTHUR LONERGAN ON BEHALF OF THE ATTORNEY l
GENERAL FOR THE COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS REGARDING j l
JI 54; l l
l l
e i
\
- 12. TESTIMONY OF DR. GORDON THOMPSON, DR. ROBERT L. GOBLE, AND DR. JEN BEYEA ON BEHALF OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR THE COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS ON CONTENTIONS REGARDING THE ADEQUACY OF THE SPMC;
- 13. TESTIMONY OF LYNNE D. FILDERMAN ON BEHALF OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR THE COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS ON JI CONTENTION 39, CONCERNING PRE-EMERGENCY INFORMATION;
- 14. TESTIMONY OF DR. DON A. DILLMAN AND SHARON MORIEAR1Y ON :
BEHALF OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS REGARDING J1 CONTENTION 48;
- 15. TRIAL BRIEF OF THE MASSACHUSETTS ATTORNEY GENERAL ON JOINT INTERVENOR CONTENTIONS ON THE SEABROOK PLAN FOR MASSACHUSETTS COMMUNITIES (SPMC); and
- 16. MASSACHUSETTS ATTORNEY GENERAL'S SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO APPLICANT'S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES, via Overnight Mail as indicated by (*] and by First Class Mail on February 22, 1989 to:
.a Ivan W. Smith, Chairman .
- Kenneth A. McCollom Atomic Safety & Licensing Bd. 1107 W. Knapp St.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Stillwater, OK 74075 Commission East West Towers Building 4350 East West Highway Bethesda, MD 20814 0 Dr. Richard F. Cole
- Docketing and Service Atomic Safety & Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Cummission Commission East West Towers Building Washington, DC 20555 4350 East West Highway Bethesda, MD 20814
w . . ..
--- ~- ~ ; - - - -
4 r l '!k . '
' L 's ., ,
% , , %W . v '
.W.. ,
p
', i 9 ,
p' f*RobertlR. Piercec Esq. . .
Thomas G. Dignan, Jr.- .
I y LAtomicLSafety'&. Licensing;Bd. , ,
Katherine Selleck. ;
A,, ,
,U.-S.~ Nuclear. Regulatory Commission Ropes.& Gray.
l East" WesO ' Towers Building One International Place'
?4350 East; West Highway '
Boston, MA 02110
!Bethesda,(MD:- '24814-
- H). , Joseph Flynn)~Esq'. *SherwinjE. Turk, Esq. d
, 4x ~ Assistant General Counsel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory ,
Commission-
-Office;9f General Counsel' FederalEEmergency: Management Office of1the' General' Counsel' Agency 15th Floor o
- t
, 500 C Street, S.W. 11555 Rockville Pike 1 i Washington,HDC 20472 Rockville, MDl20852.
c, Atomic Safety 1& Licensing Robert A. Backus, Esq. ,
"i Appeal Board Panel Dackus, Meyer &' Solomon U.S.. Nuclear Regulatory 116 Lowell Street D
' Commission- P.O. Box 516
. Washington, DC- 20555 Manchester, NH 03106 Atomic Safety & Licensing Jane Doughty
, ? Board Panel ,
Seacoast' Anti-Pollution League.
U.S. Nuclear. Regulatory 5 Market' Street
! . Commissi'on Portsmouth, NH 03801 Washington,.DC 20555
/v ' Charles P. Graham, Esq . Barbara;St. Andre, Esq.
Murphy & Graham Kopelman & Paige,2P.C.
133 Low Street 77 Franklin' Street J Newburyport, MA ;01950 ' Boston, MA 02110 O . Jtidi th H . Mizner,~Esq. '
R. Scott Hill-Whilton, Esq.
o, ,79LState Street Lagoulis, Clark, Hill-Whilton
~! 2nd Floor- =& McGuire Newburyport, MA 01950 79' State Street i s .Newburyport, tm 01950 i 'Dianne Curran, Esq. Ashod N. Amirian, Esq.
, Har. mon, Curran, & Towsley 145LSouth Main Street W Suite 430 P.O. Box 38 2001"S Street, N.W. Bradford, MA 01835 Washington, DC h, Senator Gordon J. Humphrey Senator Gordon J. Humphrey U.S.' Senate One Eagle Square, Suite 507 Washington, DC 20510 Concord, NH 03301 L (Attn: Tom Burack) (Attn: Herb Boynton)
{,
L .'
s -; k -
George Dana Bisbee, Esq.- Phillip Ahrens,.Esq.
Assistant. Attorney General Assistant Attorney' General Office of the. Attorney General. Department of.the Attorney 25 Capitol Street General Concord,-NH 03301 Augusta,'ME 04333
~
- John.H. Frye,-III Alternate
- James H Carpenter, Alternate Ghairman Technical Member Atomic Safety and-Licensing 'AtomicLSafety and. Licensing Board Panel Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory U.S.' Nuclear and Regulatory-Commission , Commission Washington, DC 20555 ' Washington, DC 20555 Sandra Gavutis, Chairperson Calvin A. Canney Board of Selectmen >
City Manager RFD 1, Box 1154 City Hall Rte. 107- 126 Daniel Street Kensington, NH; 03827 Portsmouth, NH 03801-Gary W. Holmes, Esq. Richard A.-Hampe, Esq.
Hampe-& McNicholas Holmes.& Ellis 47 Winnacunnet Road 35 Pleasant Street Concord, NH 03301
-Hampton, NH 03842 Robert Carrigg, Chairman J.P. Nadeau Board of Selectmen. Selectmen's Office Town' Office 10 Central Road Atlantic Avenue Rye, NH 03870 North Hampton, NH 03862 William S. Lord Boata or Selectmen Town Hall - Friend Street Amesbury, MA 01913 JAMES M. SHANNON AT*fJRNEY GENERAL COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
- O 0 4LL .A k Dh'~
< John Traficonte Allan Fierce Pamela Talbot Leslie Greer Assistant Attorney Generals Nuclear Safety Unit Department of the Attorney General One Ashburton Place Boston, MA 02108-1698 (617) 727-2200 DATED: February 21, 1989
- _ _ - _ _ _ - - _ - - _ - _ _ _