PUBLIC KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTIONS
OF CHEMICAL RISKS IN SIX COMMUNI™
     FOLLOW-UP SURVEY RESULTS
           Report Prepared by
        David B.McCallum, Ph.D.
          Susan L. Santos, MS

           Columbia University
      Center for Risk Communication
               May 1994

-------
                          ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors would like to thank Drs. Ann Fisher and Elizabeth David for their
assistance in preparing the survey instrument and their constructive comments on
the report.  In addition, Pamela Young, Marcia Marshall, and Dr. Sharon Hammond
were invaluable in the preparation of the report.

This work was funded in part through a cooperative agreement with the U.S.  •
Environmental Protection Agency (CR 817760-01), Lynn Desautels, project officer.
Additional funding from Columbia University and  private sources is gratefully
acknowledged.                        -.

-------
                    TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION
SECTION 1
1.1
*••'
SECTION 2V
2.1
;2.2
2.3
,2.4
2.5
SECTION 3
3.1
3.2
3.3
SUBJECT
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Overview of Survey
Major Findings and Recommendations
1.2.1 Communication Planning
1 .2.2 Additional Research and Developmer
INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE
Introduction and Background
Purpose of Community Baseline Study
Survey Methodology
2.3.1 Sample .Design
2.3.2 Response Rate
Weighting
Statistical Tests
2.5.1 Design Effect
2.5.2 Description of the Sample
RESULTS
Perception of Environmental Quality
Seriousness and Character of the Perceive
Chemicals in the Community
3.2.1 Unaided Identification of a Threaten
3.2.2 Awareness of Facilities and Whethe
are Threatening
Environmental Information Sources and Cj
3.3.1 Sources of Information and its Conl
3.3.2 Trust of Information Sources
3.3.3 Perception of Sources' Knowledge
3.3.4 Overall Impressions
PAGE
1
1
'• '.- . - 1
3
it 4
6
I.
6
9
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
18
d Threat of' 19
ing Facility 20
r Facilities 24
lannels 26
ent 26
30
31
31
3.4
Self-Rated Knowledge
                                                         34

-------
3.5
3.6

3.7

3.8

3.9
     Attitudes and Perceptions about Chemical Risks
     and Risk Management
3.5.1       Attitudes                .
3.5.2       Perceptions of Community Risk Management
          " Efforts

     Personal Activities Related to the Environment

     Symptoms and Their Attribution

     Job Performance of Responsible Parties

     Factor Analysis
3.9.1       Analysis of Factor Scores
SECTION 4 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS
4.1
4.2
      Summary of Discussion
4.1.1       Environmental Quality
4.1.2       Job Ratings of Responsible Persons
4.1.3       Personal Activities
4.1.4       .Attitudes                         '  ,*
4.1.5       Information Sources
4.1.6       Knowldege
4.1.7       Similarities and Differences in Communities
      Conclusions

      REFERENCES

      PUBLIC KNOWLEDGE AND
      PERCEPTIONS OF CHEMICAL RISKS
      IN SIX COMMUNITIES: Analysis of a
      Baseline Survey (Executive Summary
      of Progress Report, January 1990)

      MEDIA ANALYSIS

      ANALYSIS OF PUBLIC OPINION:
      THE ROPER CENTER FOR PUBLIC
      OPINION RESEARCH

      BASELINE II 1992 QUESTIONNAIRE

      STUDY OF PUBLIC KNOWLEDGE AND
      PERCEPTION OF CHEMICAL RISKS:
      WEIGHTED TABULATIONS
        36

        36
        37
        39

        43

        45

        47
        50

        57

        57
        57
        58
        58
        58
        59
        59
        59
        60

        61

APPENDIX A
                                                         APPENDIX B

                                                         APPENDIX C



                                                         APPENDIX D

                                                         APPENDIX E

-------
 SECTION!:     EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
 1.1    Overview of Survey

4Jnder a Cooperative Agreement with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the
^Center for Risk Communication at Columbia University conducted a survey of public
 perceptions regarding chemical risks in six U.S. communities.  The purpose of the
 study was to evaluate changes in knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors related to toxic
 chemicals. * An initial survey (Baseline) was conducted in July and August 1988; over
 500 citizens in each community (3,129 total) Were randomly selected for a 25-minute
 telephone survey of their perceptions of the risks of chemicals in their community.
 The follow-up survey was conducted in the same six communities during the period
 of August through October 1992.  The same selection  procedures and daily calling
ttimes were used as in the Baseline Survey.  Approximately 400 interviews were
 completed in each community (total sample of 2,469).

iThe six communities surveyed were:   Albuquerque, New Mexico; Cincinnati, Ohio;
 Raleigh-Durham, North Carolina; Middlesex County. New Jersey; Racine, Wisconsin;
 and Richmond, Virginia.  The purpose for the resurvey  was twofold:  (1) to assess
 changes and evaluate potential trends in citizen and community knowledge, attitudes,
'Concerns, and behaviors regarding chemical and environmental risks since the Baseline
 survey in 1988, and (2) to evaluate whether, and to what extent, changes may have
 been  influenced by risk  communication activities such as those occurring under
 Superfund and SARA Title 111. The contribution and importance of proximal events
 was [also evaluated by tracking major news stories and other communication activities
 in th|e Baseline communities.

 This; report provides an initial summary of the 1992 resurvey;results and compares
 how citizens in these six distinct communities viewed environmental risks in 1988 and
 1992. This report also describes changes within and  among  the six communities
 since the Baseline Survey.
 1.2   Major Findings and Recommandations

 The Baseline Survey report (McCallum, Hammond, Morris, & Covello, 1990) made a
 number of recommendations to improve  communication, at  the local level,  of
 information made available under SARA Title III.  The Local Emergency Planning
 Committees (LEPCs) were made aware of the initial survey results and were given a
 communication manual developed through a collateral project (see McNeil, Arkin, &
 McCallum, 1989).   Due to a lack of funding, the project staff offered no  special

-------
assistance or communication support to any of these LEPCs.  Hence, most of the
recommendations resulting from the initial survey aimed at improving communication,
particularly at the local level, were never implemented. Therefore, the results of this
evaluation are those of a natural experiment.

Over the intervening years, the level of communication activities did vary in the six
Baseline communities.  Cincinnati, Raleigh-Durham, and Racine appear to have been
more active than Richmond and Middlesex County, but none of these communities had
a  formal  communication  program.    Albuquerque's newspaper  had the most
environmental reporting, but it had little on TRI or emergency  plans.  Coverage
focussed on environmental incidents, such as river pollution by sewage, and activities
at the WIPP (Waste Isolation Pilot Projecthsite.

The 1992 survey shows little evidence that information from Title III is reaching the
general public.  Knowledge, awareness, and actions related to chemicals in  the
environment, chemical facilities, emergency plans, and personal activities in response
-to concern over toxic chemicals have not increased substantially since 1988 in any
of the six communities.        •

-Awareness and self-rated knowledge have not increased. Recall of information about
the  environment has decreased.  There have been subtle  changes in  reported
activities. For example, people report contributing more to environmental causes and
drinking more bottled water, but less attribution of minor symptoms to environmental
causes. Even though trust of  authoritative information sources is somewhat lower,
job  ratings for responsible parties have improved,  there has been a decrease in
environmentally related concern and activity, reflecting a decrease in level of attention
by the public. Even so, there is evidence that more of the public believes that there
has been a reduction in the danger of toxic substances in their communities.

Differences among the communities that were present in  1988 remain.  The six
communities have maintained their relative differences, but there are subtle differences
in the pattern of change.  For example, while Middlesex County remains the most
negative in terms of views on environmental quality, their reports of threats have
decreased and they have increased their positive views on environmental quality
dramatically.  Cincinnati shows a contrary pattern, where there is more awareness of
environmental threats and less positive change in environmental quality ratings.  This
report examines some of the similarities and differences both over time and between
the communities.                                          .

 Many of the recommendations made as a result  of the 1988 Baseline Survey still
apply.  The fact that very few of these recommendations have been implemented
 since the results of the Baseline  Survey were released may in part account for the
. relatively subtle change in public knowledge^ attitudes, and information needs since
that time.                            .        .

-------
               .*'
  Most of the recommendations on communication planning made in the initial Baseline
  Survey report in 1988 still deserve attention; The follow-up survey reinforces these
  recommendations, which are summarized in Appendix A.

  The [following recommendations are based on the data analyses that have been
  completed and an initial comparative analysis of data in both surveys.  -

  1.2.1 Communication Planning          •                   i .
 •A    ,     - "           '   .  .  -,        '               -'!•.'-    .' ,      . .
 |Jn the absence of concrete intervention and communication plans, the public is unlikely
 *to attend to information available through Title III. Results of the baseline study and
  resurvey should be used to support distinct communications planning efforts that
  recognize the importance of community differences, as well as individual differences,
  in a Dumber of EPA programs.  Communications planning should:

       •     Identify target audiences and develop relevant rrielfisagcg

.#     •     Identify  characteristics  of   the   target  community  that  affect
 $    |       communication

 f     •     Pretest messages  for relevance and appeal to specific target audiences

       •     Recognize credibility of information sources in  a specific community.

 * . •  \ 9     Recognize the importance of  mass media in  carrying environmental
 •*• •   i- .      messages                                      I

       «    Use new sources and intermediaries (e.g., physicians)
    " •      '            .   •.      •     -     '"      - '       t"  ''•'''.•••.
       Specifically, communications planning efforts should:

       1.   Develop messages based on the public's concept of environmental issues
            and risk information  needs.  Message development should focus on
            safety  and what  will be done to  mitigate risks.  Communications
            strategies should include key messages to describe! pollution prevention
            efforts and overall risk reduction.                            ;

       2.    Government agencies and LEPCs need  to become more active sources
            of environmental information, which may result iri an increase in trust
            and credibility.

       3.    Recognize the importance of health professionals a:» trusted intermediar-
            ies for health and safety information. Work with health professionals and
            involve them  in disseminating  environmental  information so that the
            personal implications of health factors  can be addressed.  Develop
            workshops and provide materials for their use in disseminating informa-
            tion.    ,  •     "•-•-'--        '       .  '   I            " '.

-------
      4.    Improve public access to information on risk reduction efforts,, emer-
            gency planning and toxic releases. Provide channels to actively dissem-
            inate information rather than relying on passive techniques, and provide
            more interpretation of TRI information.

      5.    EPA and companies should work to develop community intervention
            programs  on toxic waste, Superfund, clean air, solid  waste, and
            emergency preparedness issues to  improve awareness to stimulate
            effective community involvement and respond to generalized concern
            within communities and develop long-term strategies to enhance public
            understanding of risk information.              .

      6.    Recognize that  benefit accrues to all stakeholders when  community
            environmental problems are discussed  and addressed.  Use  this to
            stimulate consensus building in community.

      7.    Capitalize  on the trend that at least  some segments  of the public are
            willing to  discuss  risk priorities and recognize their role  in pollution
            reduction.

      8.    Communicate more effectively, so  that diminished  attentiveness to
            environmental information does not exacerbate the public's willingness
            to deny major environmental problems that need attention.

      9.    Make the information from TRI reporting more meaningful to community
            residents; make it a community right-to-understand activity.

1.2.2. Additional Research and Development

The current report only begins the analysis of these data and introduces ideas about
the flow of environmental health information at the community level. Future research
should  exploit the data gathered to characterize  the  differences among these
communities.  ..                                                          /

      «    Convene a workshop  to bring together public health, environmental,
            emergency response representatives, and communications experts to
            identify key issues and concerns and to qualitatively review the reasons
            for differences among th© communities and explore  ways to enhance
            communication at the  community level              -
                     \             '     '                 •          •••/.'-
      •    Explore more effective technology transfer methods  so that results of
            this study and other risk communication research are incorporated into
            programs such as Superfund community relations activities

      •    Explore  knowledge   and attitudes  of minority and economically
            disadvantaged  subgroups  in  the study population to  improve our
            understanding of environmental equity issues.

-------
            Based on the factor analysis, develop a short interview
            can  be  useful  in  quickly  characterizing  communities
            environmental incident occurs
            Evaluate the effectiveness of specific messages and strategies in these
            communities using the current studies as background
            Develop   and  test  innovative   strategies  to
            preparedness based on these data
achieve  emergency
*
*
     iristrument that
         where an

-------
SECTION 2:     INTRODUCTION & PURPOSE
2.1   Introduction and Background                  ,
                                                   '                  {

In 1984, a Union  Carbide Plant in Bhopal, India experienced the release of massive
quantities of the highly toxic chemical methyl iso cyan ate.  This incident resulted in
over, 2,000 deaths and an estimated 200,000 injuries. This incident/following others
that involved injury to residents of communities near chemical  facilities, sparked
American concern over the location of chemicals near residential areas and the lack
of adequate emergency plans.

In 1982, the European Community (EC) issued a directive (the Seveso Directive) on
the major accident hazards of certain industrial activities.  The Directive was
developed as  a result of several major chemical accidents including one which
occurred in Seveso, Italy  in 1976.  The Directive -was designed to prevent  major
accidents and to limit the consequences of unpreventable accidents.  It contained a
number of provisions  regarding the development of on-site and off-Site emergency
plans, and an explicit provision that communities be informed about the potential for
major hazards (accidents) and "what-to-do" in the event of an emergency.

Article 8 (1) requires.member states to "ensure that persons liable to be affected by
a major accident...are informed in an appropriate manner of the safety measure and
of the correct behavior to  adopt in the event of an accident" (European Community
Directive  82/501/EEC).   This is the first EC directive ever to require provision of
information to the public or to call for any form of public participation, which is why
the article was originally framed in such general terms.

The meaning of the terms "an appropriate manner," "safety measures/ and "correct
behavior" were interpreted and consequently applied differently throughout the
member countries.  Studies done for the European Commission noted delays, and
varying degrees of implementation of the Directive, especially, relative to Article 8(1).
As a  result, the Article  was made more specific in the second amendment  to the
Directive on November 24, 1988.  The amendment strengthened Article 8(1) by
specifying that the information shall be supplied to the public withouttheir request and
shall be repeated and updated at appropriate intervals.  The information to be provided
is specified in Annex VII of the amendment. It includes information on the hazardous
substances, and  general information on the nature of the major accident hazards
including potential effects on people and the environment. Information to promote
public awareness is  to  be provided,  including  industry  and local  government
emergency plans.  The  European experience indicates that  passive  provision  of
information was  not  sufficient to  meet the requirements or intent of the Seveso
Directive (European Community Directive 82/501 /EEC).

-------
 Following the Bhopal incident, the United States experienced Ian immediate call for
 better public access to information about industry's use and jmariage'ment of toxic
 chemicals.  Within weeks, numerous bills  were  introduced.   These  bills were
 formulated around the concept that communities have a right to know about the types
 and  quantities  of toxic chemicals  used by industry  and businesses  in  their
 neighborhoods.             .                             I
     '-     .      .••.--_      -    ^         ,      ..   - | '...•'•
      . •   "    -     -   •   .-.'•",.       r •      •      " * '' I- '•'•"',
 The [earliest .biljs  focused on planning procedures to help  communities"• and in
 particular, fire-fighters and  other emergency personnel - respond to toxic chemical
 accidents.  Ultimately, proposals were expanded to include communities' right to
..know about routine emissions. In September 1985, less than si year after the Bhopal
vspill, Senator Stafford introduced the Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) concept on the
 Senate fldor (September 19, 1985):                        I
 ' '•'..      ' * ''   -  • '   • '..     -:' ' •    -     -• '   '-  '   .     1 '.••••.''-•'"..•,."..•'
                   The intent behind this amendment is to requiire
                   manufacturing facilities handling substantial
                   quantities of toxic chemicals to report  the
                   annuaf quantities of these chemicals thby
                   dump into the: environment.  These reports,
                   when complied, will constitute an inventory
-                  which tells us where the toxic chemicals are    .
^                  and where they  are being released into  the
*?                  environment.  Such an inventory will be a
                   valuable tool for environmental regulators, for
                   health professionals, the concerned public,
'    ,              and the  companies themselves.

 A  unique feature of the  proposed legislation  was  the creation of  a  national
 computerized data base which would make information available to the public. This
 was  the first such database ever-  required.   While many questions surrounded
 introduction of the legislation, opposition was lessened by the memory of the Bhopal
 incident. This was kept fresh in people's  minds by ongoing media coverage of less '
 serious spills in the U.S. such as one at Union Carbide's West; Virginia facility, after
 which the Bhopal plant  was modeled.  A number of states and cities had already
• begun experimenting with community right-to-know programs. As; a result, Congress
 saw  strong  public support  for legislation increasing community preparedness and
 allowing citizens to become better informed.  On October 17,  1986, the  effort to
 collect a national chemical inventory was  formalized. The provisions were included
 into the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986.
                                -.                    •     i
 The Emergency Planning and Community Right-tt>;Know  Acl; of 1986, commonly
 known  as  SARA Title III,  establishes requirements for federal, state, and  local
 governments,  as  well as certain industries,  for emergency planning  and  public
 reporting of the use, storage,  manufacture,  and release of hazardous and  toxic
 chemicals. The purpose and legislative intent of Title III was to increase the public's
 knowledge about, and access to, information on the presence of hazardous chemicals
 in their communities and releases of these chemicals into the environment. The law
 also mandates the formation of local emergency planning committees (LEPCs) made

-------
up of representatives from business, industry, local government, the media, health
professionals, fire and police departments, and citizen groups to develop emergency
plans; to  produce a method for  accumulating  release and storage data;  and. to
disseminate emergency and non-emergency information related to toxic chemicals in
the community. Each LEPC was required to have completed the emergency response
plans for its community by October 17, 1988.

in addition to the emergency planning provisions, Title III also called for a national
inventory.  Beginning on July 1, 1988, firms that manufacture, process, or use any
of the over 300 listed toxic chemicals in excess of specified threshold quantities are
annually required to complete a toxic chemical release form for each of these specified
chemicals. Beginning in  1992, companies are also required to report on pollution
prevention activities.                            ;

The  purpose of  these reporting requirements, according to, the  Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA), is to inform government officials  and the public about
releases of toxic chemicals  in the environment and to assist in  research and the
development of regulations, guidelines, and standards. After submission of the release
forms to the state and EPA, both EPA and the state are  required  by law to provide
public access to this information, but not necessarily to actively disseminate it.  EPA
has established and maintains a computerized national toxic chemical database known
as the Toxic Release Inventory (TRI), which is now available to the public.

While the statute lists various reporting requirements and communication provisions,
the legislation did not provide explicit funding to LEPCs  or states to implement the
provisions of Title III.  Additionally, no  federal funding was targeted to  support
disseminating the Title III information.  Companies  have  reported their Section 313
emissions data for five years, and the data have been "available" for public review and
use. While explicitly requiring that EPA maintain a database that is available to the
public. Title III did not contain provisions (or funding) for the active dissemination of
information. Thus, to date, the data have received  limited attention from the public.

The data have been used by EPA to develop regulations.  The data were used to help
establish priorities and support reauthorization of the Clean Air Act Amendments in
1990. EPA has also used the information to develop their 33/50 voluntary pollution
prevention and  emissions  reduction  program  with industry.   In 1991,  then-
Administrator William Reilly mailed a letter to 600 companies asking them to
voluntarily reduce the emissions of 17 toxic chemicals tracked by TRI. The 33/50
program targets specific chemicals for emission reductions of 33% by 1992 and 50%
by 1995. The program was later expanded to invite 6,000 companies to participate.
By April 1992, more than 300 companies joined the 33/50 program, pledging over
300 million pounds of emissions reductions.

Beginning with the  1.991  Title III  reporting, industries, firms, companies,  and
businesses were required to report quantities of toxic chemicals treated,  burned, or
recycled. Previously, they had only been required to report chemicals released to the
environment or shipped off-site.  The new data are intended to help show whether
companies used source reduction or pollution control measures.

-------
             '•--•'"         '         ••           I •'   '       . " ''  . ' '

Many environmentalists have continued to question both the 3skn w«i W
and reported overall TRI decreases in emissions  Th« IL   ? *oluntary program

National Wildlife Federation, and others r^ve^ewed^^ TSSffi? T°XiCS C*™»*W>

changes in TRI reporting, in question is whl^^i^f ?Qproflrani and annual
                    ,     ueston s whi
  avalia^ity of informa    is aeS


  *'2   -Purpose Of Community P?3eline StMtfy             [

  The widespread availability of information about the storaae ,  V

                     ^^
 reduct,ons in risk and emissions. While noble in ^islativehuert? wh«J ?f^ >m ^

























 HI provided a natural experiment for evaluating the impact of environmental risk
 communication activities in diverse communities -         °| env.ronmental risk

                                                '               "
                                                  .,   -

Anallti1s9(?HPW '.TSS'Sl!" ?* C°"lrtlunication of the lnstftfc *» Health Policy

                                  ^r^^a inc=r

                               rs^rK^
toxic Zml^' Pri0^t0 thlavailabllltV or widespread dissemination of the l"t«e  n
I h«5 /«   ,  re'ease data. The collection and analysis of the survey data provided
HI  RCRA C^L! "^ evaluatin9fe^k communication efforts related to S/RA Title
drtnkSSt«Sfr^          3S otherissueS such as pesticides] toxic chemicals in
                 Vm       emergency response programs, hazardous waste
                 S^erfu"d sites),  and future siting of v^/aste management
                 ,  these data provided guidance to those! who plan commu-

-------
nications activities about toxic and hazardous chemicals in both the public and private
sectors, and at the national, state, and local levels.
                                                                            >,
The three overall objectives of the 1988 research were to:

      1.    Provide an empirical basis for designing risk messages and
            selecting sources and channels to deliver  information  to
            various constituencies;                                 :  .

      2.    Provide a baseline against which  data from follow-up
            studies could be compared  to assess the effectiveness of
            risk communication strategies in various communities; and
            to   " •     '     ' ;         •    .-,'•' :-','   . '  v, ;•'  •

      3.    Begin tracking over time how community events influence
            the awareness, knowledge, attitudes, and behavior of the
            public and different population segments regarding chemical
            risks.  '      '        ,                             .

This six-community study is one of several projects undertaken by IHPA and Columbia
University to  examine  risk  perceptions  and  communications about hazardous
substances in the wake of Title III: During the summer of 1988, a series of qualitative
research projects were conducted, including 15 focus groups with citizens, members
of LEPCs, business and industry, local  officials,  and local  risk  communicators
(Georgetown University/EPA Cooperative Agreement No. CX815190-01-0; report
submitted to EPA).  Interviews were also conducted with about thirty local emergency
officials in Pennsylvania and New Jersey and with government  officials, private
environmental  groups, industry, and academics.  Anticipated and actual response to
iTftle  III reporting requirements, as well as problems and needs related to public
understanding of the new reporting requirements and information about hazardous and
toxic substances, were discussed with these individuals. Forty-two national surveys,
conducted by  various polling firms  between 1984 and  1987, were examined to
determine trends in public attitudes toward the environment and regulatory agencies
governing environmental issues.  This analysis showed that attitudes remained
relatively stable over this three-year period.  In addition  to providing input for the
design and analysis of the baseline survey, all of these research projects can help
 planners understand the public's reaction to risk communication activities and develop
 more effective communication tools and  strategies. A comparable review of 900
 questions from national studies conducted from 1988 to 1992 was conducted to
 provide background for the changes in the six communities.    ~

The  original intent of the  Baseline Survey  was to utilize the results to develop
 communication intervention strategies in several of the communities.  Following these
 interventions,  the resurvey would then be able to compare changes in knowledge
 levels  and  perceptions  in  communities  with  and without  communications.
 Unfortunately, no such interventions were funded in the intervening years since the
 initial Baseline Survey.  Hence,  the follow-up survey  evaluates the effects  of the

-------
   unaided fin\A/ rt* .
   s  ''WW Of f^f^ \/frOn ryi,  _   *



    unication support.   'n orma*
-------
2.3.1 Sample Design

The sample for this survey was designed to produce representative samples of the
adult population, 18 years of age and older, in each sampled community. The samples
were selected independently for each area and were drawn by Survey Sampling, Inc.,.
of Westport, Connecticut following PSRA's specifications. The selected samples are
random digit samples of telephone numbers selected from telephone exchanges within
each community.
                                                                    / •:•  '
The random digit aspect of the sample is used to avoid "listing" bias.  According to
the most recent estimates based on data from the 1990 Census, there are just under
93.7 million household in the United States, and just under 95% of them contain One
or more telephones.  Telephone directories only  list about 73% of such "telephone
households"  and numerous studies have  shown  that households with  unlisted
telephone numbers are different in several  important ways  from listed households.
Moreover,  nearly  15% of listed telephone numbers are  "discontinued" due to
household mobility and directory publishing lag,  and it is reasonable to assume that
a roughly equal number are working residential numbers too new to be found in
published directories.  .
 •                                              "••.',•
In order to avoid these various  sources of bias, a random digit procedure is.designed
to provide representation of both listed and unlisted (including not-yet-listed) numbers.
The design of the sample ensures this representation by random generation of the last
two  digits of telephone numbers selected on the basis of their area code, telephone
exchange (the first three digits of a seven  digit telephone  number), and telephone
"bank" number (the fourth and fifth digits).
The selection procedure produces a sample that is superior to random selection from
a frame of listed telephone households, and the superiority is greater to the degree
that the assignment of telephone numbers to households is made independently of
their publication status in the directory. That is, if unlisted numbers tend, to be found
in the same telephone "banks" as listed numbers and if, in general, "banks" containing
relatively few listed numbers also contain relatively few unlisted numbers, then the
sample that results from the procedure described below will represent unlisted
telephone households as well  as it represents listed households. Random number
selection within "banks" ensures that all numbers within a particular "bank" (whether
listed or unlisted) have the same likelihood of inclusion in the sample, and that the
sample so generated  will represent listed and unlisted telephone households in the
appropriate proportions.

The telephone exchanges were selected with probabilities proportional to their size.
The first eight digits of  the  sampled telephone numbers (area code,  telephone
exchange, "bank" number) were selected to  be proportionally stratified  by county in
the case of the Richmond MSA, which is a combination of counties, and by telephone
exchange within county (for the remaining five communities which are single county
samples). That is, the number of telephone numbers randomly sampled from within
a given county or given exchange within county is proportional to that county s share

-------
 of telephone households in the MSA or that exchange's share/of telephone households
 in the county. Estimates of the number of telephone household:? within each county
 are derived from 1990 Census data on residential telephone incidence that have been
 updated with state-level information on new telephone installations and county-level
 projections of the number of households.

 Only working "banks" of telephone numbers are selected.  A working "bank" is
 defined as 100 contiguous  telephone numbers containing three or more residential
 listings.   By eliminating non-working "banks" of numbers from the sample,  the
 likelihood that any sampled telephone number will be associated with a residence
 .increases from only 20% (where all "banks" of numbers are sampled) to between
 60%iand 70%.                                           j
 '•••."•.      *     .        '        '  '          .    -    .   •],...'•••-•.'..•
 Trie sample was released to the field for interviewing in equal portions for each of the
 six communities. Using portions of each community's sample at one time (instead of
 releasing  the entire sample at once) ensures that the complete call procedures are
 followed  for  the entire sample.   Releasing  sampled telephone numbers in this  way
: works to increase the representativeness of the final sample of completed interviews.
 •* •    '                 •      •               "              [ .         •,,'...
 At least six attempts (callbacks) were made to complete an interview at every sampled
 telephone number. The calls were staggered over times of day and days of the week
 to maximize the chances of making a contact with a potential respondent. In each
 contacted household, interviewers asked to speak with the "youngest male 18 years
 or older who is at home."  If there is no eligible male at home, interviewers asked to
 speak with "the oldest female  18 or older  who lives in the  household."   This
 systematic respondent selection technique has been shown empirically to produce
 samples that closely mirror the population  in terms of age and i gender.

 All interview break-offs and refusals were re-contacted at least once, and more often
 twice, in  an effort to complete refusal conversions.  Interviewers attempted refusal
 conversions immediately for households where break-offs occurred either immediately
 or very early in the interview.  In this initial refusal conversion, interviewers reassured
 respondents that the call was not a sales call, and either attempted to complete the
 interview or to schedule a more convenient time for the respondent to be contacted.
 A second attempt at refusal conversion also was made to potential respondents  who
 refused at the first conversion attempt.                     !
     !        ~       _    '     '       '            - ^        J .    -           I'l •
 2.3.2 Response Rate

 The overall response rate for each community was. calculated using the following
 formula:

       Response                   Complete Interviews
       Rate        =       Callbacks + Breakoffs + Refusals + Completes

       Callbacks:         Respondents who indicated on the original call that they
                         would prefer to be called at a later tiipe. These individuals
                         were unavailable on all subsequent attempts.

-------
          Breakoffs:
          Refusals:
                            Respondents who began the interview but
                            at some point during the interview
                            interviews were nbt completed on
                                                                        ^   •
                                                                            'nated
                                                                               to
                            project are provided in Tab,e 2.3.1 for each community and
     TABLE 2.3.1  RESPONSE RATES
           Albuquerque
           Cincinnati
           Middlesex
           Racine
           Raleigh-Durham
           Richmond

          Total Sample
Response
Rate {%)

 63.2
 61.5
 56.0 ' .
 63.9
 67.0
 60.0

61.9
Completed
tntarvif my \

   439
   401
   384
   424
   416
   405

 2469
                                                        Callbacks «•
                                                        Breakoffs •+
                                                          255
                                                          251
                                                          302
                                                          239
                                                          205
                                                          269
                                                          1521
 communities, so That the «rtS3^^LSKL?l2>OI'llini relative » *• other
 appropriately according to its                          "*"'""'" MC"
into alignment with the dem
did the demographic
                                                       ara«eri»«<» of the sample
population, and tht-lv1? for different '""flroups of the
interest.  For example, men are more <%£,*%  TO °" questions of substantive
                                      14

-------
The demographic weighting parameters for this survey  werej derived from 1990
Census data.  For each of the six communities, demographic data for the adult
population, 18 and over, were obtained for age, sex, race, and education. The sample
data were weighted to bring the  demographic characteristic of each community
sample into alignment with the demographic characteristics of the adult population of
that community and were further weighted to bring the overall distribution of the six
communities into alignment with the distribution of the adult population across the six
communities.                                              |

The weights are derived using an iterative technique that simultaneously balances the
^distributions  of all  weighting  parameters,  the within-comryiunity  demographic
distributions as well as the overall community.distribution.  Afteir an optimum sample
balancing solution is reached, the weights were constrained to fall within the range
of 1 to 12. This constraint is useful to ensure that individual respondents do not exert
an inordinate effect on the survey's overall results.

The 1988 survey was reweighted to 1990 census by using the same technique. This
accounts for demographic shifts in various communities and improves the comparison
between  the surveys, by;adjusting population estimates to j the same  reference
^population.                          •
^2.5   Statistical Tests                                     i

 PSRA calculated the effects on the statistical efficiency of the sample design, so that
 an adjustment can be incorporated into tests of statistical significance when using
these data;  This so-called "design effect" or "deff" represents the loss in statistical
 efficiency that results from systematically under-sampling (through sample design and
 non-response) parts of the population of interest (see Table 2.5.1.).  Separate design
 effects were calculated for each sample sub-group. The square root of the design
 effect and the number of interviews for each community are also presented in Table
 2 5 i            '           '        •       ..'.•'    -I'     •' '
 4»*W a 1 •             '                  • •      •               i.      i'
   TABLE 2.6.1
DESIGN EFFECTS V* SAMPLE SUB-GROUPS
         Richmond
         Raleigh-Durham
         Albuquerque
         Cincinnati
         Mjddleaex
         Racine

         Total Sample
                  JL

                  405
                  416
                  439
                  401
                  384
                  424

                  2469
Daff

 1.11
 1.1.4.
 1.08
 1.11
 1.08
 1.32
                                                          Sort of Daff
[1.0S
1.07.
1.0*
1.08
1.04
LS&

1.18

-------
2.5.1 pesiqn Effect

The square root of the design effect should be multiplied by the standard error of a
statistic in computing tests of statistical significance. Thus/the formula for computing
the 95% confidence  interval around a percentage is:

      1.96 * (sqrt of the design effect) * sqrt of [(p)(1-p)/unweighted n]

Using this formula,  we calculate  the 95 percent confidence interval for results
expressed as percentages in this study as plus or minus  2 percentage points for
results near 50% based on the total sample. We also calculated the 95 percent
confidence internals for each key state {Table 2.5.2).   '
  TAtUE 2.5.2    CONFIDENCE INTERVALS FOR RESULTS NEAR:


  Sample          10%/90%    20%/80%     30%/70%    40%/60%     ,  50%

  Richmond              3     .     4           5           5           5
  Raleigh-Durham          3          4           5           5           5
  Albuquerque            3          4           45.        5
  Cincinnati              3          4           55           5
  Middlesex              3          4           5           55
  Racine                 3          4           5           5           5

  Total Sample            1          2           22           2
The formula for computing the 95 percent confidence interval around the difference
between percentages is:

      1.96 * sqrt of [(deff for group 1 * (1-n/N)((p1)(1-p1)/unweighted nD) + (deff
      for group 2 * (1-n/N)(p2H1-p2)/unweighted n2))l

The above formulas may be used to calculate the confidence interval around any
percentage or any difference between percentages  for the results  reported in the
tabulations volume. For example, to test if the percentage of Richmond residents who
report that Richmond has "clean air and water" (question 5) is significantly different
from the percentage of Raleigh-Durham residents saying the same thing, the following
information would be needed:

                            _2L       Deff        Unwt.N

      Richmond            75%      1.11        405
      Raleigh-Durham       83%      1.14        416

-------
The formula would be applied as follows:

      1.96 * sqrt of 1(1.11 (75*25)7405))+ {1.14((83«17)/416))]
     i 1.96 *sqrt of 1(1.11*4.6296) + (1.14*3.3918)] =    [
      1.96 *sqrt [5.1359 + 3.8667] = 5.88                 |
     !'  •                        '       •'.-'.'•.'    •/!",'
This Result indicates  that it would be necessary to observe at least a 6 percentage
poim difference between these two groups in order to say with! 95% confidence that
the observed difference is statistically significant. Therefore, the observed difference
of 8% is significant at the 95% level of confidence.  Richmond respondents are
'significantly less likely than Raleigh-Durham respondents to report they have "clean
air and water."                           '    ,            I
•     : -  - »     -           -         -     .-,.-•   -„>.   -
  ' •           ' '              ,              •          •   , --\ -.,'.*-
2.5.2 Description of the Sample                           I
         ,                          -•         .            i              .

Samples in  1988 and 1992 are demographically similar (see Table 2.5.3).  In all
communities, reported income rose from  1988 to 1992. In Albuquerque and Racine,
the number of married respondents decreased more than 10 percentage points from
1988 to 1992. The samples under-represent lower socioecononnic groups, as do most
telephone surveys. Based on other surveys (Roper, 1990) affluence is associated with
more environmental interest and knowledge. Therefore, if a bias exists, it should over-
represent the general communities' awareness of environmental  issues.
1 .
TABLE 2.5.3
COMPARISON OF COMMUNITY
. ; Z&SM

- 1
Education .
> HS
Afl*
< 30
30-50
>50i
IneonM
< »26.000
>$SO.OOO
Minted
1988

59

23
48
29

22
19
57
1992

65

23
SO
28

17
28
55
DEMOGRAPHICS (PERCENT)
Rich. R»I-D.
1988

62

21
49
30

24
20
51
1992

62

23
52
25

17
27
56
1988

67

24
so'
25

22
21
54
1992

76

26
50
25
*
16
29
55
Alba.
1988

65

23
48
28

25
16
58
1992

38.

19
49
33

24
22
47
Cine.
1988

55

24
45
32

29
16
54
1992

59
"" •
20
48
31

21
23
54



Midd. .
1980

B2

n
•5
28

12
26
56
1992

67

28
49
23

10
42
60
:

' R«cn.
1988

48

20
50
30
- .
21
15
66
1992
': '••••'.
55

20
52
29
-'' .'''••'
20
19
54
'••''•.-' ' - , ' •

-------
SECTIONS:           RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
3.1   Perception of Environmental Quality

The perception of quality of air and water, and the absence of environmental hazards,
are opinions that can be  influenced  positively or negatively by the availability of
information about emissior.s and emergency plans. Theoretically, a greater awareness
of toxic emissions would erode the public's view of environmental quality, albeit views
on environmental quality are influenced by a myriad of other factors.

Comparing the 1988 and 1992 ratings of environmental! quality (Table 3.1.1) shows that
in most of the communities the ratings have stayed the same or improved.

Table 3.1.1 also shows that in the .same period, another indicator, satisfaction with the
health care system, declined by seven to twelve percentage points in each of the
communities.  This point  verifies that attitudes on  all subjects have not remained
constant. The fact that health care was a more prominent issue than the environment
in the Presidential campaign in 1992 may have influenced this measure.
  TABLE 3.1.1    COMPARED TO MOST OTHCTAHEMI, DO YOOTWNICYOUB COMMUNITY HA«...
                          ClMn Air         Good H*atth            Few Environ.
                         and W«t«r             Car*            m*nt«l Ri«fc«
                        1988  1992         19M    1992         1991  1992

  Richmond                72   75          90     93'          62   87

  R«ltJQh/Durh*n   '         85   83          95     83°          73   72  -

  AJtouquwqu*'             65   72'          t4     7S'          69   65

  Cincinnati                58   54          92     83'          59   48'

  Mdditi.x                37   55'          88     76°          42   47'

  R»cln«                  61   78'          87     79*          72   85'
                                           * , • • '    "    " *
  •OiffMtncw b«wt«n 1988 and 1992 arc significant atp < .05.
The ratings of environmental quality are corroborated by the data reviewed from national
polls concerning the quality of the environment (see Table 3.1.2).  Rating categories
ranged from excellent and good (positive) to not good, fair, and poor (negative).  Most,
interesting in this data is that two thirds of Americans think their local environment has

-------
good air and water quality, while most view the overall U.S. env rpnment in a negative
light.
  TABU; 3.1.2
QUESTIONS ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY (NATIONAL SURVEYS OBTAINED FROM THE ROPER
CENTER)
(Raiponaaa in parcantagai)
  1989 Data:
  1990 Data:
Air quality, local
Watar quality, local
Quality of tha local
 •nvironmant

Air quality, local
Watar quality, local
Quality of tha national
 environment
 Potitiva'

    67
    66

.    35

    60
    61

    28
 Negative"
    3,2 •

- •  «k
     •r
    39
    39
    71
    Pooitiva » Excallant/Good
    Negative - Not Good/Fair/Poor
  Sourc««: ABC/Wa«hington Pott Poll, 1989; ABC Poll, 1989; Harm Poll. 1989; Ropar Poll,, 1 !>90; Yankalovich Poll. 1990.
 *•    .              ' • ;       •             -     '             ,'. .  '         '     f '
The differences between the communities in this series of questions! (as shown in Table
3.1.1) is interesting to explore. Cincinnati and Racine showed a significant decrease in
the population indicating that their community  had few environmental health risks.
Anecdotal evidence  suggests that  LEPCs  may  have  been more  active in these
communities.   However, newspaper coverage of environmental issues in these
communities  did  not reflect  more  communication activity  in these  communities.
Although during" this  survey, Cincinnati was conducting  a mock emergency exercise.
Beach pollution and cleanup along the Great Lakes was a major issue during the survey.
This may have influenced Racine respondents to report that they had clean air and water
because clean-up had been accomplished, while at the same time having fewer reporting
few environmental risks. Albuquerque showed a similar pattern of response and also had
ongoing water pollution and cleanup stories in the news.      j

Middlesex County showed a dramatic increase in positive ratings for the environment,
but remains the most negative of the six communities. Throughout the report, there will
be cojrroborating data suggesting a more positive view of the environment, or at  least
less negative views.                                 '        |


3.2   Seriousness and Character ef the Perceived Threat of Chernicjals in the Community
 A series of questions in both the 1988 survey and the 1992 survey were designed to
 address the extent to which residents were aware of chemicals and facilities in their
 communities, antftheir level of concern.  The hypothesis was that information released
 would increase awareness and concern about chemicals in these communities. Overall,
 it appears that there has been a small but significant decrease in awareness and in the

-------
  perceived seriousness of having chemicals  in the communities (see Tables 3.2 1  to


  In response to a question about the seriousness of the problem of chemicals in the
  commurmy, Richmond, Raleigh-Durham, and Middlesex showed a decrease in th^number
  lfP^P eurankl"? the Problem as seri°^ °' very serious compared t^«rT^tTa^d
  safety  risks.  The other communities  showed no significant changes (Table 32  n
  Richmond and Raleigh-Durham  showed a large increase in those  .ndiStfng "not a
  problem- whereas Middlesex did not show an increase in "not  a problem - This mav
  ±aant ±9 « T1 °f inVOlvement ln Middlesex. Raleigh-Durham and Richmond^e
  perhaps less attentive to environmental issues.
*TAitI 3.2.1
SERIOUSNESS OF CHEMICAUIIN THf COMMUNITY (PweMit)
Ssrious/Very
Serious Problem

Total
"Richmond
R«ltigh-Durh«m
Atbuqutrqu*
Cincinnati
Mfddltt.x
R*Ctn*
1988
28
17
19
19
28
46
9
1992
20
11'
10'
17
28
32'
7
Slightly Serious/
Minor Problem
1988 1992
01
99
99
00
62
46
68
62
93'
63'
92
91
*•;
81V
Not • Prafalam
1988
12
12
11
21
9
6
22
1992
IS
20'
23'
ia
;• 7 • . •
' 8
27
Don't Know
1988 1992
2
3
2
1
1
2
2
•'.4 "
6
•*
3
4
2
5
   •Oiff«ftfWM b«tw«n 1988 and 1992 w« signifieMt at p < .OS.
 3-2.1  Unatded Identification of » ThrftnTftninn Fflfflt!tY
                                     '         -       •    -          **'."• r,
 Another measure of awareness and concern is whether respondents identified a facility
 that posed a threat to the environment (Table 3.2.2). There was a significant decrease
 in three of the six communities in the percentage of respondents identifying a facility
 (Richmond, Raleigh-Durham, and Middlesex) and a significant increase in identified
 facilities in Albuquerque and Cincinnati.  Racine showed no change.

 Table 3.2.3 illustrates the types of facilities mentioned by respondents to the 1992
 survey as being a threat to the safety of the environment. Comparing 1988 to 1992
 ITM ^Jf JPthanges in several communities in the type of threatening facility identified
 (Table 3.2.4).  In Raleigh-Durham, those identifying chemical plants dropped from 53%
to 15%, while those identifying nuclear facilities increased from 38% to  55%.  During
the 1988 survey, a chemical fire occurred in Durham and people had to be evacuated.
During the 1992 survey, no such  event occurred.  Siting a  low-level nuclear waste
facility in North Carolina was reported on in several stories during 1992, as well as a
nuclear incident in Japan. These results suggest that proximal events, particularly those

-------
SECTION 3T:       RESULTS AND DISCUSSlbN
3.1  i Perception of Environmental Quality  ;

The perception of quality of air and water, and the absence of environmental hazards,
are opinions that can be  influenced positively or negatively by the availability of
information about emissions and emergency plans. Theoretically, a greater awareness
of toxic emissions would erode the public's view of environmental quality, albeit views
on environmental quality are influenced  by  a myriad of other factors.

Comparing the 1988 and 1992 ratings of environmental quality (Table 3.1.1) shows that
in mokt of the communities the ratings have stayed the same or improved.
Table 13.1.1 also shows that in the same period, another indicate r
health  care  system, declined by seven to twelve percentage
communities.   This point  verifies that attitudes on  all  subjects
constant. The fact that health care was a more prominent issue
in the! Presidential campaign in 1992 may have influenced this measure.
                                              , satisfaction with the
                                              points in each of the
                                                have  not remained
                                              than the environment
  TABLE 3.1.1
COMPARED TO MOST OTHER AREAS, DO YOU THINK YOUR COMMUNITY
  (Poaitiva raeponeee)
                                                              HAS.
                          Clean Air
                         and Water
                        1981  1992
                          Good Health
                              Cere
  Richmond

  Raleigh/Durham

  Albuquerque

  Cincinnati

  Middloaox

  Racine
          72

          85

          65

          56

          37

          68
75

83

72'

54

SS'

79"
1988

90

95

84

92

88

87
1992

83'

83*

75'

83'

76'

79'
Few Environ-
mental Ri«ke
19(18  1992

62   67

73   72

69   65
59
48*
42   47*

72   65*
  •Difference* batwaan 1988 and 1992 are significant at p < .05.
The ratings of environmental quality are corroborated by the data
polls concerning the quality of the environment (see Table 3.'
ranged from excellent and good (positive) to not good, fair, and
interesting in this data is that two thirds of Americans think the
good air and water quality, while most view the overall U.S.
light.
                                              reviewed from national
                                             1.2).  Rating categories
                                              poor (negative).  Most
                                             r local environment has
                                           environment in a negative
                                        18

-------
 TA1LE 3.1.2
  1989 Data:
  19SO Data:
QUESTIONS ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALTTY (NATIONAL SURVEYS OBTAINED FROM THE ROPER

CENTER)
(Reaponaea in percentagee)
Air quality, local
Water quality, local
Quality of th« local
 environment

Air quality, local
Wattr quality, local
Quality of tha national
 environment
Paeitiva!

   67
   66

   35

   60
   81

   28
Negative"

    32
    33

    6*

    39
    39,

   .71
    Po*itiva «• Excallant/Good
   ' Negative - Not Good/Fair/Poor
  Source.: ABC/W..hin9ton Po« Poll. 1989; ABC Poll, 1989; Harri. Poll, 1989: Roper Poll. 1990; Y.nklovich Poll. 1990,
The differences between the communities in this series of questions (as shown in Table
3 1 1) is interesting to explore. Cincinnati and Racine showed a significant decrease in
the population indicating that their community had  few environmental health risks.
Anecdotal evidence  suggests that  LEPCs  may have  been  more  active  in  these
communities.   However, newspaper  coverage  of  environmental  issues  in  these
communities  did  not reflect  more  communication  activity in these communities.
Although during this survey, Cincinnati was conducting a mock emergency exercise.
Beach pollution and cleanup along the Great Lakes was a major issue during the survey.
This may have influenced Racine respondents to  report that they had clean air and water
because clean-up had been accomplished, while at the same time having fewer reporting
few environmental risks, Albuquerque showed a similar pattern of response and also had
ongoing water pollution and cleanup stories in the news.

Middlesex County showed a dramatic increase in positive ratings for the environment,
but remains the most negative of the six communities. Throughout the "PM ttw» ««'
be corroborating data suggesting a more positive view of the environment, or  at least
less negative views.
                                  f the Parcel
 3.2

 A series of questions in both the 1988 survey and the 1992
 address the extent to which residents were aware of chemicals and facilities in their
 communities? and their level of concern.  The hypothesis was that information released
 would increase awareness and concern about chemicals in these communities.  Ovjnw.
 ft appears that there has been a small but significant decrease ,n awaren^s and in, th.
 perceived seriousness of having chemicals in the communities  (see Tables 3.2.1 to
 3.2.7).     :

-------
In response to a question about the seriousness of the problem of chemicals in the
community, Richmond, Raleigh-Durham, and Middlesex showed a decrease in the number
of people ranking the problem as serious or very serious compared to other health and
safety risks.  The other communities showed no significant changes  (Table 3.2.1).
Richmond and Raleigh-Durham showed a large increase  in those;  indicating "not  a
problem", whereas Middlesex did not show an increase in  "not a problem." This may
indicate a higher level of involvement in Middlesex.  Raleigh-Durham and Richmond are
perhaps less attentive to environmental issues.             "!.'•"'..
  TABU 3.2.1    SERIOUSNESS Of CHEMICALS IN THE COMMUNITY (Percent)
 *    ;     .   .   Serious/Very      Slightly Serious/                   i
      !         ,  Serious Problem    Minor Problem      Not e Problem      Don't Knew
   .              1988    1992    1988    1992    1988    1992    1986  1992
   •*         *               .                         " • '        '
  Total            26      20     61      62      12      15       24
  Richmond         17      11'     69   '   63*      12      20'      3    6
  Releigh-Durham     19      10°     89      63'      11      23'      2    4
  Albuquerque       19      17     60      62      21      18      ;1   ,3
 -Cincinnati         28      29     62      €1       9       7      jl    4
 .Middlesex         46      32'     46      58*   '    8       8      I 2   .2
  Racine           9      7      68      61*      22      27       25
  'Differjincee between 1988 and 1992 are significant at p < .05.              .   j


      !  -..  '        •'     .      •  •           ..-....'     j        ,..-.-      . . :
3.2.1 Unaided Identification of a Threatening Facility          j
      i       •         •    .       . .          '                . [          _
Another measure of awareness and concern is whether respondents identified a facility
that posed a threat to the environment (Table 3.2.2, page 21).  There was a significant
decrease in three of the six communities in the percentage of respondents identifying a
facility (Richmond, Raleigh-Durham, and Middlesex) and a significant increase in identified
facilities in Albuquerque and Cincinnati.  Racine showed no change.

Table 3.2.3 (page 21) illustrates the types of facilities mentioned by respondents to'the
1992 survey as being a threat to the safety of  the environment.  Comparing 1988 to
1992, there were changes in several communities in the type! of threatening facility
identified  (Table 3.2.4, page 22).  In Raleigh-Durham, those identifying chemical plants
dropped from 53% to 15%, while those identifying nuclear facilities increased from 38%
to 55%. During the 1988 survey, a chemical fire occurred in Durham and people had to
be evacuated. During the 1992  survey, no such event occurred.  Siting a low-level
nuclear waste facility in North Carolina was reported on in several stories during 1992,
as well as a nuclear incident in Japan.   These results suggest that proximal events,
particularly those that receive media attention, influence the types of facilities that the
public targets for attention. Hence, communication strategies should address short-term
and long-term issues.

-------
TABtE 3.2.2        IDENTIFIED A THREATENING FACJUTY (PERCENT)

Total
Richmond
Ralaigh-Ourham
Albuquarqua
Cincinnati
Middlaaax
Racina
••Diffarancea batwaan
YSS
198S
48
44
53
36
57
64
36
1992
49
38'
40'
43'
65*
57'
33
1988 and 199?.
Jifl
1988.
SO
54
46
€2
42
34
63
1992
45
57
53
52
30
35
61
ara significant at p
Don't
1988
2
2
• 1
2
2
2
1
< .05.
Know ,
1992
8 ' • ."
5 i ••' -
7 } •
5
5- ' '
8
5 . •
' ' ' • ' ••>'-"

TABLE 3.2.3                    WHAT TY« Of PtACS OK FACJUTY POSE* A THREAT TO THE SAFETY Of TW
                               ENVIRONMENT (1992: pafMnta; unaWad
                                               Ra<-P.     Alba.     Cine.    MMd._   Haen.
Chamical manufacturing plant                 46       15       6       37      34       14
Nudaar facility/powar plant                  12       58      14       30       1        6
Manufacturing, ganaral                      21        7       7       12      11       33
UndflH/gartjaga coflaction/dump               7       10      <1        2      29       36
Hazartoui watta diapoaaj                    4.      11      17       1*      10        V
Military waata/waapon»/ba*a»          ,      <1        •      34        7       6         -
Sawaga uaatmant plent/                                                        _     '    .
bad tawar aynam    .                       *        7        5        65s
Poflution, gaiwal                           ,2   •     2        S        6    ,   5        7
Tobacco proct*>ing plant                   16       <1        •         •        "         "
Rafinaiy                                   1         •        *         *      11         "
Watar pollution from chamicala           •   .   4        1        3       3        2      -2
Indnarator                                 V1        "   •     '        *         "
Storage tanks for fual                        2        1        7        '
Rataarch leboratory                          •        2        *        1        ."•    •    *
GMoUna atation                           .1        24        ..12
Othar.                                     7        9       12        S       9        13
Don't know/Rafutad                         6        4        6        i       4        5

-------
  TABLE 3.2.4
COMPARISON Of SELECTED FACILITIES IDENTIFIED At
THREATENING.  1988 AND 1992 (Percents; unaided quention)
                      Rich.
                                 Rel-D.
                Alba.
Cine.
                                                                         Reen.
                    1988  1992 1988 1992 1988  1992  1988  1992  1988  1992  1988  1992
Chemical
Manufacturing
Nuclear Facility/
Power Plant
Landfill/Garbage
*- Collection/Dump
Refinery *
Industry/Manufacturing
Genorai
Gasoline Stations
i
Hazardous Waste ~ -.
<»; Disposal
&• • • -"
,?*. :
r '
'• Comparison of trends only
V : "
59

9

7
4'

5
3

6

. No

46

12

7 -
1

21
1

. 4

S3

38

5
<1

1
1

" 7 .

significance tests


15

55

10
- '

7
2

11

8

16

11
. .4- '

3
'12

23
•
6 35 37

14 31 30

<1 IS 2
•4

7 9 12
4 2 •

17 13 11

43 34 23 14

2 1 10 6

,42 . 29 32 36
19 11 i

5 11 16 33 .
3 11 2

. "icj io s '". i
" - . • ' -..-••" ;
performed. . . , • '.,.'.•



'! - . ' '
Awareness may or may not be accompanied by concern.   Table 3.2.5 compares the
community responses to the question of how much does the facility first mentioned
bother the respondent.  It is clear that concerns about facilities have not dramatically
increased; the pattern that emerges is an overall shift to less concern.
TAB1E 3.2.5
• - • • • '=*• - - •' ••' . '
HOW MUCH DOCS Tr« FAC1JTY MENTIONED RRST BOTHER YOU? (Percent)
• ' A great
• ' •- .'- • '-deal -'
•'" • \ <-•
Richmond
Raleigh-Durham
1 Albuquerque)
: Cincinnati
Middlesex
Racine
1988
17
24
26
24
34
17
1992
17
14'
20*
22
28'
15
Somfwhat
1988
48
47
43
47
51
SO
1992
39'
36'
34'
37'
42'
41'
Not too riMieh/
Not (it ell
1988
35
28
31
1892

so* ;- ' •
;*5" . - .'•
29 319*
15
33
'.»• . ! ;/ • •' •
. «f ' . . -
         • Differences between 1988 and 1992 are significant at p < .05.
                                           22

-------
The trend toward less concern may be due to a number of factors.  One of these might.
be less attentiveness to environmental issues because of concerns about the economy,
as suggested by some national data.   A recent Roper study (The Roper Organization,
1993) showed a 17-point increase (from 32 to 49 percent) between 1990 and 1992 in
those agreeing with the statement "First comes economic security and  well being, then
we can worry about environmental problems." Another might be a response to efforts
by industry and others to talk about positive changes, or lack of information about
problems.                             •                ,

Potential risks remain the chief concern in all of these communities (Table 3.2.6).  More
than half of the respondents emphasized danger to health or to the environment in the
long run.  Again, Raleigh-Durham shows significant shifts. Reporting by respondents of
unpleasant smells, irritation to eyes, and the possibility of an accident all decreased. As
mentioned above, this perhaps reflects the reporting  of the specific chemical fire in
Durham during the 1988 survey  .
  TABU 3.2.0    HOW MUCH ABE YOU BOTHERED BV...           •
               (Parosnt responding 'm or«ot d«al")

                      Rich.        RafcD.       Alba.     Cine.      Mjdi.      	
                    19881992   1988 1992 1988 1992  19881992  1988 1992 1988 1992


  "SsT""           30  37'    21   .7-   20   1*    31   36   52  51   31   18'


  °K±'lth        56   57    64  57'   60 . 74'    65   66   72  75   52   44'

  Dust, dirt, smok.       37   34    26  19'   31   31    39  30'   ,47  44   33   If

  P«SS°fan        ^   ^    fle  w.  .^   „.'„•„   si  4r   26    25


  Irritation to syMf  *                     .        „..    -._   ...   .,  A~   ..    99
    no,., throat          33   36    36  24'   41   24'    39   1i   47  42   26    22
                     61  6r    62   61    71  78' .  69  62'   72   67    58*  52'

   * Oiffarancw batwaan 1988 and 1992 arc significant at p < .05
                                                    - •

       flwmnftfff of Faeilltiqtl md Whathar Facilities aftt
 Prompted recall of specific facilities, and whether the facility was perceived to pose a
 threat, was evaluated by asking whether a variety of businesses were located nearby and
 whether those businesses posed a threat to the environment (Table 3.2.7, page 24). m
 1988 and  1992, the less common businesses-chemical plants and  'nicinerators"w.enr®
 perceived as more threatening than the more common businesses-dry cleaners and f.mng
 stations.  The  hypothesis was that more information about the  hazards of smaH
 businesses would be available to the public through Title III and other act.v.t.es such as
 the Clean Air Act. No significant changes were observed.

-------
        TABLE 3.2.7    THREAT OF NEARBY FACILITIES (Percent; aided question)
        Chemical Plant:
                                        Located Nearby  Threatening
                                        1988   1992   1988 1992
Richmond       28
Raleigh-Durham  36
Albuquerque      9
Cincinnati       34
Middlesex       53
Racine          IS
                         Total
               33
       32
       29
       11
       36
       46
       22

       32
       61
       75
       66
       66
       74
     58
     46
     61}
     71
     71!
       32  4J;

       68  64
        Drv Cleaner;
Richmond
75
        Gas Station;
        Incinerator;
                         Raleigh-Durham   70
                         Albuquerque
                         Cincinnati .
                         Middlesex
                         Racine

                         Total
               65
               72
               78
               S3.

               72
Richmond        81
Raleigh-Durham   80
Albuquerque     79
Cincinnati        79
Middlesex        86
Racine          21

Total     .  -,-    81

Richmond         7
Raleigh-Durham    9
Albuquerque      4
Cincinnati        12
Middlesex        12
Racine           £

Total             9
77
82
75
75
84
S3.

78

85
89
83
82
87
30.

85

12
  9
  7
14
  7
15.

10
10    8
12   15
 8   14
10   1SI*
15   15j.
_fi   _SL

11   13
       i
14   1«
16   23
16   29
13   20
23   23
1Q   HL

16   211
               49
               46
               52
               64
               82
               21
     47
     411 '
     4!)
     ™
     7?"
                                                        62   57
         Comparisons of trends only. No significance tests performed.
Agairj, the change in the level of concern about chemical plants in Raleigh-Durham was
observed. The number of respondents identifying a chemical plant as close dropped
slightly from 36 to 29 percent, but those identifying the plant as threatening dropped
from 75 to 46 percent.

-------
3.3   Environmental Information Sources and Channels

A major section of the 1988 survey and report analyzed the patterns of the public's
use and perceptions of various sources and channels for environmental information.
The follow-up survey in 1992 was designed to assess whether changes had occurred.
In 1988, interpersonal channels such as friends and physicians, and official channels
such as government sources, were infrequently used. Mass media was predominant.
In general, this pattern has changed very little.

Two sets of questions were asked. The first set inquired about the actual experience
of respondents in the recent past as to which channe.ls had been  used to receive
environmental information.  The second  set presented sources of environmental
information and asked how much information they received from these sources, as
well as how knowledgeable and trustworthy they thought these sources are.

In addition to the above, a third series of questions were asked, specifically to recall
other health and environmental safety information. When a respondent recalls a story
in the past week, it is reasonable to ask where the information came from and what
the information was.  This provides more detailed information about sources and
channels. Media coverage was monitored during the survey as well. ,
                                                               »        -  , ''
3.3.1  forces of Information and its Content

Mass media remains the primary source of information in all communities, as measured
by recent recall (Table 3.3.1) and prompted response (Table 3.3.2, page 26).  The
number of mentions of television versus newspapers is down. In 1988, television and
newspapers were essentially the same (except in Racine).  In comparing the two data
sets, multiple responses were collected from 86% of the respondents to this question
in 1988,  whereas in 1992 only 33% of the cases  recorded  multiple  responses.
Interviewers in 1988 may have probed more fully.
   TAiU 3.3.1      •« Tt* PAST THREE MONTH* 8PA1TWHX). HAVE YOU READ OK »*A«»
                ANYTWNO AiOUT THf MMC* OF CHEMICAL* OK HAZARDOUS WA»T1 IN YOU*
                COMMUNITY?* (Pareantafla who mpondod
                                    Month*
                                                P««tWa«k
         Richmond

         Ralaigh-Ourham

         Albuquarqua

         Cincinnati
1988
'48
66
57
56
59
24
1992
23'
35'
56
65°
4V
24
1988
28
53
52
29
48
31
1992
22'
29'
30*
32
32'
28
         Racina

   •Oiffarancaa batwean 1988 and 1992 ara significantly diffarant at p < .05.

-------
  TABLE 3.3.2
SOURCES OF INFORMATION (P«rc«nt«g« who had h««rd;/r««d in past weak)
"WHERE DID YOU HEAR OR READ THIS INFORMATION?'
                    Rich.
   Ral-0.
                                       Alba.
Cine.
Midd.
1
Newspapers
Television
Radio
Wofk '
Farnily/firianda/
neighbor* v
1988
64
82
20
3
7
1992
61 -
28
5
15
: 5
1988
78
78
16
2
10
1992
64
31
7
7
-
1988
77
80
1S

-------
  TABLE 3.3.3    INFORMATION CONTENT OF AREA NEWSPAPERS (Number o« atoma)


                                 Rich.    Ral-D.     Alba,     Cine.      Midd.    Racn.



  Accidental chamical leak/
   diacharga

  Sawag* traatmant/
   contamination from

  Watar pollution from ehamieala

  Watar poUution, ganaral

  Pollution of wall watar

  LandfiHi -

  PoUution, ganaral

  Air poUution. ganaral

  Risk* from ehamieala in
   tha a*aa

  NucUar powar plant

  Tranaporurtion/diapoaal/
   ttorag* information

  Oaanup of hazardous matariala

  Local hazardous waata

  Nudaar warta


  Othara

  Oon't know/R«fusad
                                  17      13
5
9
7
-
• 4
16
•
-

6
5
-
-
34
6
-
8
4
- '
2
4
8 .
6
2
5 •
2
•
4 '
29
12
20
10
13
9
2
3
3
2
1
4

3
6
19
4
14 .
11 ,
7
• •
27
'4
7
6
11
5 .
3
7
3
.14
a
•BJBBBBUBBBl
-
• 8 .
6
•
-
9.
0
9
•
2
4
6
'
13
8
•amiHHBHi
21
-
25
•-

3
S
•
•'• -
5
3
8
•
17
7
mm
The fire in Raleigh-Durham has been discussed in Section 3.1. The chemical fire in
1988 was particularly salient, even though the highest volume of coverage in 1988
was about beach pollution. The more diffuse pattern of issues and their coverage in
1992 is reflected in lower levels of recall. The Raleigh Times was the only newspaper
that covered the community right-to-know efforts specifically.  This story was not
recalled by the respondents.

Table  3.3.2. shows that information  obtained through work is a category that
increased between 1988 and 1992, particularly in Richmond and Racine.  The use of
radio decreased in four of the six communities, while information obtained from others
increased across all communities.

When  respondents were  asked  to evaluate their  use and  perceptions of various
information sources, the changes were interesting but did not have strategic

-------
implications for changes in communication strategies recoi
report (see Table 3.3.4 for a summary of perceptions of
recommendations from the 1988
     information sources).
TABLE 3.3.4 PERCEPTION

•".;.;.- .: . .
News Reporters
Environmental Groups
Friend/Relatives
LEPC
State Government
Local Government
" Fedoral Government
'. ' . .V
Chemical Industry Officials
Doctors .
EPA" /

'Differences between 1988 and
* 'Federal EPA was not specifiec
Overall, there was a
OF INFORMATION SOURCES
Amount Ree'd
%ALot
1988 1992
28 25
21 16
. . 8. ; ' ,• .9:
5 ' 9
5 6
•-.' 5 S
. .4 . - '• '6.
:/ .'3 '4
- . " 4 '. ' "'8
' ' -9

1992 are significant at p < .OS
in 1 988 survey.
decrease in those

Trust
%ALot
1988 1992
28 18'
40 29'
35 32
27 18'
12 ; 8
11 5'
11 8
8 6
47 28'
22

: •
receiving a lot
~ •
„ Knowledgeable
% Verv
1988 1992
.19 12'
54 44<
?• 11
S3 24'
29 32
23 12'
; 36. ". 38
S8 62
27;'* 23
'-. . - . S2 •'
\ :•-
. • . ' . ' . - • " ' -
of information from
environmental groups (see Table 3.3.5).  Changes in Racine, Cincinnati
Durham account for most of that decrease.  The number of people
information  from the LEPC more than  doubled in Racine.
significant increase, and about the same as the percentage rece iving
tion from news reporters in that city.  Compared with other cities,
Racine indicated receiving a lot of information from any source.
                  and Raleigh-
              receiving a lot of
          This is a statistically
               a lot of informa-
               fewer people in

-------
 TASIE 3.3.S
  PERCEPTION OF INFORMATION SOURCES: AMOUNT OF INFORMATION
  RECEIVED
  (Pareantao* reporting '• tot")       '
  Naws Raportars

  Environmtntai
  Groups

  Friands/Rtlativas

  LEPC

  Stata Govirnm«nt

  Local Government

  Federal Government

  Chemical Industry
   Official*

  Doctors

  EPA"
                      Rich.     -  Rel-0.      Alba.       Cloe.       Midd.      Reen.
                    1988  1992.1988  1992  1938  1992  1988  1992  1988  1992  1988  1992
                   26
22
32
                                   25'
               32   32
                         32
25
                                        20
                                                                      14
                                             13
17
5
4
4
3
*5
3
3
—
14
10
' 4
4
7 ,
6
4*
12'
9
27
8
10
8
7
5
4'
4
.
19'
S
6
8
3
. 4'
4
6
12
26
4
. 4'
r
.7
4'.
2
1
. .
22
8
S
8
7
6
'4
8
,10
21
a
: s
4- '
6
'•••"•
2
5
.
14*
11
6
9
'.-'«
7
,5
7
9
19
14
6
4
4~
'>:
• 2 ^
• 4
, • , •
16
12
8
4
3
6
3
7
• - T
7
IS
5
S
8
4
4
3
3
-
r
'9-"
12'
2
7
2
2
7
: 7'
  ' Differanen batwaan 1988 and 1992 ara significant at p < .05.
  "Fadaral EPA was not tpacifiad in 1988 aurvay.
            of Information Sources

Trust in all sources of information is reported as lower in 1992 than in 1988 (Table
3.3.6). This trend is observed in all six communities. The relative ranking of sources
is,  however, about the same.   Doctors, environmental  groups, and friends and
relatives  are the most trusted.   Chemical industry officials and local government
remain the least trusted sources.

In the 1992 survey, we specifically asked about the Federal Environmental Protection
Agency.  The named agency fared much better than the less-well identified "federal
government.' This is consistent with the trend that large.amorphous categories are
viewed less favorably than specific agencies.  This also is consistent with the data on
the favorability rating of various federal agencies (Figure 3.3.1) where EPA is rated
more favorably than the general category of most federal agencies.

-------
  TABLE 3.3.6     PERCEPTION OF INFORMATION SOURCES: TRUST OF SOURCES
    '     f  j   (Percentage reporting "• lot*) .

    1                  .    Rich.      Ral-D.     Alba.      Cine.
               .         1988 1992  1988  1992 1988  1992 1988  1992

  News Reporters            30  16'    29   17*   26  22   30   22°

  Environmental Groups        40  30'    40   29°   37  29*   37   28°

  Friends/Relatives           34  34    36   34    29  24   34   33

  LEPC                  30  17°    31   22*   25  18°   27   16*

  State Government          14  T    11   11    '12   9    11    8

  Local Government          1.1   3*    12   4°     9   4    11    5*

  Federal Government         12  7     13   10    12   9    11    7

  Chimicel Industry Officials     10  896     8   6     86

  Doctors                 45  34*    44   23V  40  25'   51   29°

  EPA"                   -  24     -   .29     -   16     -   23
  "Differences between 1988 and 1992 are significant at p < .05.
  "Federal EPA was not specified in 1988 surwy.
  Midd.
1988  1992

 26   15°

 44   28°



 24   17*

 98

 10    5

 8    7

;' 5    4

 49   22'

     17
 Racn.
19881992

22   17

42   25*

35   24'

32   21°

17   7°

16   9°

14   7°

u  •:.*'.'.

51   30°

  -   25
3.3.3 Perception of Sources* Knowledge
Table 3.3.7. shows that  news reporters, environmental  groups, LEPCs, and local
government tended to be viewed as less knowledgeable  in 1992 than  in  11988.
Environmental groups were seen as significantly less knowledgeable in five of the six
communities.   Doctors were viewed as  less knowledgeable  in five of the  six
communities, especially Raleigh-Durham and Middlesex.     j
3.3.4 Overall Impressions

The;pattern of using information sources is still very similar to that observed in 1988
(see Table 3.3.4).  LEPCs are not viewed as a major source of information, and their'
trust and knowledge ratings have declined. Environmental groups and government are
also! viewed less favorably.  One possible conclusion  is that there is more public
cynicism about community or grass roots information source!*.

There may be relationships between information accessibility/source use and perceived
trust  The 1992 results show that LEPCs, environmental groups, and government
sources received relatively low use. Similarly, trust and favorability ratings declined
for these  sources.  The potential relationship  between source  use (or perceived
accessibility) and trust would be useful to explore further. Attitude questions indicate
that the public often believes they do not hear about a problem  until it is  too late.

-------
They also are often frustrated by the process of information seeking. These data may
indicate that, without use, channels of information begin to lose credibility.
TABLE 3.3.7
PERCEPTION Of DNFOnMATION SOUKCCft: HOW KNOWLEDGEABLE tt
SOUP.CC (Percentage reporting 'vary') ,
Rich.
1988 1992
Naws Reporters
Environmental Groupe
Friends/Relatives
LEPC
State Government
Local Government
Federal Government
Chemical Industry
Officials
Oootort
EPA"
18
51
10
32
t
27
21
34
57
23
.
10'
44*
13
28
32
14'
39
61
29'
51
Ret-D.
1988 1992
18
55
11
42
30
. n-
39
59
29
•
9'
40*
3 '
2S-
33-
• r
41
63
21'
62
* Differences between 1988 and 1992 are significant «t p
"Federal EPA was not specified in 1988 survey.
Alba. • Cine.
1988 1992 1988 1992
17
48
5
31
23
21
36
56
26
' . •
< ,08.
18 21 13*
45 54 45* .
8 10-10
33 33 22*
22 28 32
15' 24 11'
37 35 36
55 50 65*
25 28 23
53 - 52

Midd. Keen.
1988 1992 1988 1992
18 12* 14 11
60 47* 55 38'
11 12 8 8
32 17' 32 29
33 39° 31 28
26 11' 24 19
39 40 34 3O
64 66 57 56
28 " 17* 28 23
. • . 49 •' - .' -44' •

Another explanation  may reflect a rationalization of a somewhat  lowered public
environmental concern and a discounting of risk messages.  Yet another possible
explanation is that effective risk communication strategies are not peing^employed in
these communities.                                                         .

-------
         Ul
         -J
         CQ
    OP
    St
   0
       Q:
   QC
  LU
  LL
1

££

                                   1  1
o  co
CO  UJ

2  U

    UJ
                                                      CO
                                                      O
          „ o
p  o  co
!"  it  CE
u.  to  -
                                                                          co g
                                                                             o

                                                                             te
               z

              o>

-------
3.4   Self-Rated Knowledge

Self-rated knowledge on several items, such as community right-to-know laws and
local emergency plans, was included to evaluate the level of awareness of information
that may have been disseminated in response to SARA Title III. Overall, there was a
decrease in  self-rated knowledge  about these items.  Table 3.4.1  illustrates this
decrease by showing the percentage of respondents who said they had a lot or some
  TAtU 3.4.1    SELF-MATED KNOWLEDaE ON VARIOUS ENVWONMB1TAL ISSUES                t

               Total parcantaga rttpondirig that th«y h«va a lot or Mm*:

                                       -    1988    1992

                  Quality of drinking watar         63      62

                  Community right-to-know         44      34'

                  Local amargancy plans           35      37  r

                  Environmental claan-up          45      39*

                  Risk* of chamicala             54     4«*
                                                   •         '       -»

  Pareantagfl raiponding that thay h«v« • lot or «oma, by city:      .

                     RICH.       s»b2*      Alls.      Sins*      Mdd*      Sasa*
                  19881992  1988  1992  1988 1992  1988 1992 1988  1992 1988  1992

  duality of         57   62   66   6O'   69   76'   65   60   62   56'   88   66
  drinking water

                         -       --•         4-   «   &   «   **•
   plan*            34   35   *•   **   ao   °*            '             » .
                                                                • ' ,              '^
   Environmantal                     •                                „    ._   ,_.
   cleanup          44   39   51   39'  49   48   43   38'  45   37   42   35

   JfUficLe         50   44'  59   48'  S2   47   54  . W  59   49'   SO   38'

   •Differaneea betwaan 1988 and 1992 ara significant at p < .05.



 knowledge about community right-to-kriow laws, clean up of hazardous materials, and
 risks of chemicals in their areas.  Table 3.4.2 (page 34} also illustrates this decrease
 as measured by the mean score on the 4-point scale (with 1 signifying that they know
 almost nothing and 4 indicating that they know a lot.  One can see that knowledge
 about quality of drinking water and local emergency plans showed no difference.  A
 slight scale change and differences in interviewer  techniques in the  1992 survey may
 have influenced the response to this questipn.

-------
TABLE 3.4.2
             MEAN PERCEIVED KNOWLEDGE LEVELS BY COMMUNITY
                       To^al      Rich.        R«l-0.       Alba.       Cine.
                                                               Midd.      Raen.
                    1988 1992 1988  1992  1988  1992 1988 1992 1988  1992   1988  1992  1988 1992
Quality of drinking
 water
2.80  2.68'  2.65  2.64  2.80  2.62* 2.91  2.93  2.81   2.63
                                              2.76  2.52* 2.87  2.72V
Right-to-Know laws   2.36  2.04' 2.21  1.98'  2.41   1.96*2.33  2.05* 2.40  2.06 j   2.44  2.14*2.342.05*

Emergency Prepared-                                                           I     '
 nass Plans          2.16  2.12  2.09  2.03  2.36  2.29   2.18  2.05  2.16  2.17   1.96  1.96  2.24 2.21

Activities to
 clean up spills       2.35  2.14' 2.32  2.15*  2.45  2.16*  2.43  2.32  2.35  2.08'   2.30  2.12*  2.29 2.04*

Risk of chemicals     2.54  2.27* 2.45  2.24*2.61   2.25'  2.55  2.34* 2.55  2.361   2.62  2.32*2.442.11*
Scale Range • 1  to 4    •
1 .»,Know almost nothing/nothing
3 » Know a little
                   2 - Know very lint*
                   4 m Know a lot
' Differences between 1988 and 1992 are significant at p < .05.

Table 3.4.3 shows that patterns of response by gender, age, an
in 1992 to those identified in 1988. For example, knowledge
TABLE 3.4.3
Quality of drinking water
1988
1992
Right-to-know laws
1988
1992
Emergency preparedness plans .
198B
: 1992
Activities to clean up spUls
1988
1992
Risk of chemicals
1988
1992

d education are similar
6f community right-to
MEAN PERCEIVED KNOWLEDGE LEVELS BY KEY C EMOGRAPHICS
Gander
Male Female
2.89 2.71
2,77 2.61
2.45
2.11
2.20
2.11
2.42
2.67
2.62
2.40
2.26
1.98
2.12
2.13
2.29
2.04
2.45
2.16
Educat
HS or less
2.04
2.53
2.23
1.93
2.14
2.12
2.23
2.0S
2.34
2.0B
22
Some college
or more
2.92
2.76
2.45
2.10 .
2.17
2.12
2.44
2.19
2.67
2.36
Aflj
<30 30-50
2.70 2.81
2.50 2.72
2.27
1.89
, 2,07
- 1.99
„ 2.19
1.98
2.45
2.15
2.40
2.06
2.17
2.14
2.38
2.14
2.60
2.31
2.87
2.76
2.35
2.12
2.23
2.20
2.44
2.29
2.49
2.28
Scale Range « 1 to 4
1  » Know nothing
3  - Know a little
2
4
                  Know very littla
                  Know a lot
Comparison of trsnds only. No significance tests performed.

-------
know laws is rated higher'by men than women, by those with more education, and
by oider age groups.

Returning  to Table 3.4.1, patterns  of response  by community show  significant
decreases in most of the communities on most subjects. The chemical fire in Durham
may have increased attention to these issues, therefore raising attention and reported
knowledge for the Baseline survey.  Racine and Cincinnati had very active LEPCs,
which may have been more active (thereby assuring the community so that residents
no longer  feel the need to  attend to these issues) or these LEPCs simply may have
gained more community attention in their formative stages. The knowledge levels
reported in 1988  and  1992 were  much more similar for emergency plans than for
other .ireas.  This may indicate that respondents feet more comfortable with this
category relative to other areas.


3.5   Altitudes and Pr?ffPtifln!f flhmjt Chemical Risks and Risk Management

3.5.1 Attitudes

Attitudes  about chemical risks and the activities  and institutions that are aimed at
reducing those risks are important elements in planning arid evaluating community risk
communication activities.   A number of  perception  measures  about concepts,
community  activities, and  about the performance of community and  national
institutions  were  included in both the 1988 and 1992 surveys.

When presented with a series of items with.which to agree or disagree, respondents
did so in  1992 in ways that were almost exactly as they did in 1988 (Table 3.5. \,
page 36).  No significant differences  in the responses among the six communities
were observed. Only in the item related to cover-up of events was there a significant
change.  Respondents were less  likely to feel that the release of toxic chemicals is
being kept secret in all communities. These data imply that the basic attitud.na! and
belief structure and misconceptions about dose response have not changed. It would
have been surprising had there been major shifts in these measures.  These attitudes
like basic measures of human perceptions of risks form the backdrop; •oajmnjAftich.
 risk communication occurs but may not be the major determinate of the evaluation of
 community events or actions related to risks.

-------
  TABLE 3.5.1
PERCENT OF SUBJECTS AGREEING/DISAGREEING WITH ATTTTUOE FPEMS
                                        Aorae Strongly
                                       1988      1992
                                            Disagree Strnngty
                                           1988      i   1992
 • Government:
  Local officials ara interested
  in What th« public has to say
  about chemicals in the area

  Business:
  Local businesses are usually
  •vary caraful with dangerous
  chamicals

  Secrecy:
  The only time tha 'public haars
  about tha ralaasa of toxic
  chsmicsls is whan tha problem
  is so  big it can't ba kapt
  secret anymore

  Ctwnicala:
  W« should assuma a chemical is
  •afa unless tasts prove it to
  ba dangerous

  Any ralaasa of chamicals into
  the air, watar or soil is not
  acceptable •           '

 . Planned release of chemicals
  into tha air,  watar or soil
  aro generally safa

  It'a not how much of a chemical
  you are exposed to that matters
  to your health; it's whether or
  not you ara exposed at all

  If a parson is axposad to a
  chemical that can cause cancer,
  than  that parson ia likely to
  gat cancer later in Ufa

  There ara some chemical risks that
  aro too small to worry about
                       18
                       13
 19
 t1
18
26
                       16
                       28
                       66
                       15
                       41
58*
 13
 42
                       39
 43
SI
13
                                           43
19
21-
                       38       38          6


                       17       19         35
  'Differences between 1988 and 1992 ara significant at p < .05.
3.5.2 Perceptions of Community Risk Management Efforts  i

Public opinion  about  community  activities that affect ch«mical risks  and their
management could have been influenced by the information potentially available under
Title III.  The perceptions of actions by businesses, governmienit and environmental
groups are another measure of the kind of information flowing in these communities
and the  public's attentiveness to it (see Table 3.5.2, page 37.).

-------
 TAI1E 3.6.2
 Environment*! group* ara activa
              Total
              Richmond
              RalaiQh-Durham
              Albuquarqua
              Cincinnati
              Middlaaax
              Racina

 fualnaaaaa raducad amount of ctvamicala
              •total
               Richmond
               Ralaigh-Durham
               Albuquarqua
               Cincinnati
               Middlatax
               Racina

 Traioad poUea and fira dapartmant
               Total
               Richmond
               Ralaigh-Durham
               Albuquarqua
               Cincinnati
               Middlatax
               Racina
       i«a notify community
               Total
               Richmond
               Ralaigh-Ourham
               Albuquarqua
               Cincinnati
               Middtaaax
               Racina
  Emargcncy plan for hazardous
  matafiain axiats
               Total
               Richmond
               Ralaigh-Ourham
               Albuquarqua
               ancinnati
               MUdlaaax
               Racina
ACTIVITIES (Parcant)
Ya«
1988
60
50
76
68
63
53
52
45
47
47
40
49
39
60
81
89
85
85
80
67
82
26
28
33
26
27
18
32
S3
61
66
59
49
' 39
SI '
1992
53'
45
58*
68
55*
51
43'
51'
49
51
48'
56'
51'
56
74'
81'
77'
81
72'
61*
72'
23
26
26'
23
22
17
25'
43'
44'
52'
55
42'
30'
32'
No
1988
38
47
22
30
34
45
44
45
43
42
.48
45
51
32
15
9
12
12
1S
25
18
69
67
63
69
6S
77
62
35
30
25
31
40
47
38
1992
34
40'
32'
25
32
34*
43
32'
30'
34'
37'
35'
29'
2*'
5'
4
3'
5'
6'
r .
7*
51'
46V
53'
52'
56'
SO'
46'
is-
is'
13'
15'
19'
19'
20'
Don't Know
1988
3
3
2
3
4
2
4
10
10
11
13
7
10
9
S
3
3
3
9
8
4
5
' 5 •
5
6
6
6
6
11
10
9
10
12
15
12
1992
13'
IS'-
10'
8
14'
15'
14'
17'
21'
16
15
9
21'
20'
21V
16'
20'
14'
22'
31'
22'
26'
28'
21*
25'
22*
32*
29'
» 41'
43*
35'
30'
39'
51'
48'
   Diffaranca* batwatn 198« and 1992 ara aignificant at p < .05.
Most communities report that community environmental activmes have decreased.
Fewer respondents report the  existence  of an emergency plan, trained police and
firefighters, and active environmental groups. There was, however, a significant trend
toward the public's feeling that businesses are using, storing,  and releasing fewer
chemicals.  The other major finding is that the number of people saying they do not
know has increased substantially. Most  of the increase  in^'^  ""**•*
seems to be a shift away from the "no" responses in the 198d survey.  Although, if

-------
the interviewers were less aggressive in pushing for choices, this could account for
some of the differences in affirmative responses. The message from these data is that
the level of awareness of Title ill activities has not  increased.  The message that is
more prevalent is that businesses have reduced toxic use and emissions, particularly
in Middlesex County.  A full content analysis of news coverage has not been done,
but this message  about progress in reducing toxics does not Seem to have been a
major thrust of coverage.  This is, however, a fruitful area for more research to
determine whether interpersonal communications have carried this message and, even
though the use of these channels  is not recalled, that it  is I influential.  Another
possibility is that the increased level of activity by the chemical industry in relating to
their, plant communities, which  is documented nationally in our industry survey, is
affecting public perceptions.                               |    .   .
    . '•' '        • '         '           .-'•-.    '     ''."-.!••    "      ''-''
How these responses  relate to each other from the standpoint of communication
activities is not clear.  Perhaps the most plausible explanation is that there has been
no fundamental shift,  but that the feelings of less threat or a lessened attentive/less
to the threat of chemicals are reflected in this slightly less polar view about disclosure
of releases.
3.6 '  Personal Activities Related to the Environment        |     .
   . ;     •                 :            •    •     -•".  j  *'...•
Table 3.6.1. (page 39) illustrates the comparison,  by community,  of protective
behaviors of the  respondents in 1988 and 1992.   Respondents in five of the six
communities (Richmond,  Raleigh/Durham, Albuquerque,  Middlesex  County, and
Racine) reported  drinking bottled water significantly more often in 1992 than the
respondents did in the 1988 survey. Significantly more respondents in 1992 reported
contributing time  or money to an environmental cause. Respondents  who reported
moving or choosing not to live in a certain house remained unchanged from 1988 to
1992.

Table 3.6.2 (page 40) illustrates that demographic differences in respondent activity
patterns were similar in both  surveys.  Bottled  water  usage increased more
significantly in the younger, more educated age group. Contributing time or money
is not age or education related.

The battern that emerges is one that would suggest that environmental activities are
considered to be more important.  Support for environmental  activities is more
prevalent than active participation. This suggests a receptivity to environmental action
but the absolute numbers indicate that active participation is very limited.

Active participation in recycling activities are high, however. Table 3.6.3 (page 41)
shows  that  over  three-quarters  of the  respondents in  1992  reported  that they
sometimes recycle glass bottles, aluminum cans, and newspapers (this question was
not included  in the 1988 survey).  Respondents 4n Middlesex County are among the
most active  in personal  environmental  behaviors, except for using  biodegradable
soaps/detergents and doing volunteer work for environmental groups.

-------
         TAStE 3.8.1
   Contributed Tim* or Money
    to an Environmental Cause
           1988
           1992

   U«ed Bottled Drinking Water
          1988
          1992

  Attended a Town or
  Community Meeting
          1988
          1992

  Talked to Doctor
         1988
         1992

  Called or Written a
  Government Official
         1988
         1992

 Qona to th» library to
 find Out More About
 th« Problem
        1988
        1992

Moved or Choaen Not  to
Uva in a Certain Houaa
       1918
       1992
                                36
                                48*
42
SO'
                               19
                               24
                               20
                               19
                              18
                              19
                              15
                              It
                             14
                             15
                                       Rich.
   39
  47*
                                       43
                                     'SO'
  14
 21'
  20
  20
 18
 21
 14
 17
13
18
                                            34
                                            S3'
            23
            46'
                                           23
                                           23
                                           18
                                           18
                                          13
                                          15
                                          17
                                          23'
                                         13
                                         17
                                         • **

Difference! between 1989 »mt iaa*
             ••« 1SS8 and 1992 ara eJanificant at p < .05
•^^-^n
                                                         AISs,
 28
 43'
28
41'
                         20
                         27'
                         18
                         19
                         IS
                         21'
                        15
                        21'
                       14
                       11
                                   35
                                   42'
                                                             48
         16
         20
        20
        IS
        14
        18
       15
       13
       14
       14
                                                                            41
                                                                            54'
                                                                      59
                                                                      81'
                                                                           25
                                                                           29
                                                                          20
                                                                          19
                                                                          22
                                                                          21
                                                                         18
                                                                         24'
                                                                         16
                                                                         17
                                                                                    fiacn.
                                                 37
                                                 S3*
                                                                                     20
                                                                                     35'
                                                 17
                                                 28'
                                                19
                                                16
                                                12
                                                19'
                                               13
                                               15
                                               9
                                               13
sad  that  outdoor  air  polLon  Z auto  bS^Pi^fnt°f Albu«?«e«)uerespon"en«
                                             39

-------

TABLE 3.6.2 AGE ANC
(Percent)


Contributed time or money to an
- environmental cause
1988
1992
Used bottled drinking water
1 1988
1992
Attended a town or community
meeting
1988
1992
Talked to doctor
I 1988
* : 1992 .
j- Called or written a government
official
{ 1988
1992
Gone to the library to find out
more about the problem
! 1988
1992
Moved or chosen not to live in
a certain house .
1988
1992
'Differences between 1 988 and

' I ' " "'
r - . ' . . " .".''" ' ' '
'-•'',. '•••,'.' - '
' ---.-.-
' v ' ''..'• .'.'•...'• •' .
> EDUCATION LEVELS OF RESPONDENTS ENGAGING IN PROTECTIVE BEHAVIOR
&S£ .EDUCATION
. SO HS-1-- >HS
" • '
' ' : ' ' '.'-'• ^ ' ••.'',. , . •
29 44 31 '.24 , 46
44' SS* 38* 35* 55'
' --, - '-..•',.
' " •" - ... S
'.-' 42 '.'•".: 47 34 39 ' '' ' • 44 ' '.'.'-'
63' S2 34 43 54'

' ' '•-••- i '"'
14 22 18 13 23
2V 27 22 17 ; 27 /
r --'-'.. '."••"'' •- -« ''^ ;' . '.'•"•
19 23 14 17 22
21 20 . 16 13 . 23

' • • ' •'.•'• :
12 20 14 9 - 21
14 22 19 11 24

•' ' ' '
18 19 10 8 20
21* 20 15 8 2S

- ' ' ' ' • . '• . "' ' • ' '-''''.'.•
r '
16 17 7 11 IS
-17 20 5 7 19
1992ara«gnifieantatp < .08 .
"F -tl - l --•''-'' ;_
'--...' -" . • ' • ''."."'..•'-'. -'"• '• ''-- ' -•'
Af\

-------
TABLE 3.6.3
                                RESPONDENTS ENGAGING IN ENVIRONMENTAL BEHAVIOR BY COMMUNITY
                                (Percent indicating at least "sometimes')
                        Total

Recycle glass bottles or    87
aluminum cans

Recycle newspapers       79

Purchase products        86
because they are safe
for the environment

Uee biodegradable, low-   77
phosphate
soap/detergent

Avoid buying products
from companies you       63
think aren't doing a
good job protecting the
environment

Us* public                32
transportation or car
pool

Do volunteer work for      15
local environmental
groups

Use bottled drinking'       40
water
                                     Rjfih     RelD    Alba.

                                     80      87      83
                                     71

                                     84



                                     74
81

86



80
74

87
                                      60 '     59      68
                                      33      2«      31
                                      18      10      14
                                      36      30      30
Cine.

85


74

83



75




 62

 r


 35



 12



. 38
Midd.

99


96

91



74




65




 32



 12



 67
Raco.

93


76

87



80




62




 35



 14



 27

-------
  TABLE 3.6.4
SERIOUSNESS OF SELECTED ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
(Parcentege indicating atleeat gome what senous)    !
                              Total   Rich.   Rai-O.   Albo.   Cine. ''  Midd.   Racn.
  Indoor air pollution in office
   or horn*
      i'     •
  Global elimata change*

  Municipal drinking water

  Use of household product* like
   cleaner* and bug killers

  Exposure to EMF

  Availability of landfill apace
    .  i    .
  Outdoor air pollution from
   factories, mills

  Water pollution from
   industrial wastes

  .Pollution from things people
   dump into rivers and lakes

  Outdoor air pollution from
   auto, bus, and truck exhaust
41
47
38
31
46
26
39
42
30
32
40
42
38 ' . !
44 1
>s
82
48 46
31
40
25
49 49 41 , 48 49 'p 43
, *-''-- f - , ;[ _
26 21 20 21 24 42 19
63 52 63 53 66
F6 " . • 67
   57     53     34    39    76     87     53
   65     62     51     56    83     86
      57
   73     69     63    66    85
73   .73
    77     71     66    90    78     85     63
3.7   /Symptoms and Their Attribution

One of the findings of the 1988 survey was that there was a significant minority who
visited the doctor with minor health symptoms and a significant minority who reported
attributing these symptoms to the environment.
When comparing the 1992 survey with the 1988 data, Table 51.7.1 shows that the
most dramatic shift is to a smaller percentage of respondents who attributed their
symptoms to environmental  causes in  1992.  This pattern is  also  seen at the
community level in Table 3.7.2.  This finding is consistent with the perception of a
lessened environmental threat. In an earlier study of  physicians, doctors seemed to
have  heightened  environmental  attribution   by  corroborating  patient  opinions
(McCallum, 1992).   Also  in the study/physician and public attitudes were highly
correlated so there may be less corroboration because of lower physician concern.
Sincej this study showed that environmental  attribution was frequently a patient-
initiatied issue, there  was less opportunity for physicians to have an influence. There
is no external evidence that any information on this topic was lictively disseminated
to doctors or patients, even though,  in a 1990 survey  of physicians (McCallum,
1990), physicians indicated that they were receiving informationj from journals as well
as the media.    •                                             I

-------
TABLE 3.7.1 SYMPTOMS ATTRIBUTED TO ENVIRONMENTAL CAUSES (Pareant)
: • . , '
Exparioncing . Conaultad ,
Svmntoma

Irritation of ayaa, noaa or throat
Haadaehaa
Shonnaan of braath
Nauaan
Skin rash-ia
, . «
Any Symptom
1988
37
36
18
13
12

60
1992
37
37
14 ,
11
11

-
Doctor"
1988
27
23
39
35
-.2

37
1992
35-
24
55*
38
50

-*• ;
Enviro'nmantal
C«U»B" ,
1988
SO
21
41
28
28

40
1992
28'
12'
25'
.17'
20*
I
' ' ** 'v
  '  Diffarancaa batwaan 1988 and 1992 ara aignificant at p < .08.
  " Parcant of all thoaa axpariancing aymptoina
  TA81E 3.7.2.    REPORTED SYMPTOMS AND THOSI ATTW1UTID TO THE CNVWONMENT IN EACH COMMUNITY
               (Paroanuoa raapondJng vaal                    -                 »
  Svnwtom

  Irritation of ayai, noaa
                      Rich.      Ral-D.       Alba.       Cine.       MMd.
                    1 988V 992  198S 1992  19881992   1988  1992   1988  1992  1988   1992
or throat
E
A

Haadachaa
P
W
A
Shortnaia of Braath
E
A
Nautca
E
A
SkJn Rathas
E
A
,36 •
49

36
17
16
31
12
10
12
30
28"
26*

34
8'
10'
20'
9
18
' 9
7*
29
41

34
1O
13
25
• 12
28
12
13
31
23'

39*
8
10'
23,
14
10*
10
14
36
31

32
17
12
24
11
19
10
22
39
23'
V
32
rr
12
20
9
28*
11
24
40
SO

40
25
21
42
15
35 .
14
30
43
;28'

39
13'
20
22'
12
ir
12
ir
45
60

44
26
22
48
18
38
; 11
39
44
36'

43
17*
16'
38*
12'
2*'
k
12
30*
35
61

31
28
26
5*
11
33
11
31
29'
26'
.
34
7*
16*
• 24'
9
10*
'". ' 9
22'
  Whara: E - Exparianting aymptoma
         A - Attributing aymptom to anvironmant (ptrcant of tM thoaa exparitneino aymptonw)
  ' Diffarancat betwaen 1988 and 119f 2 art tignificaiit at p < .05.
The percent of respondents in each community reporting symptoms in the past ware
essentially the same for 1988 and  1992 (see Table 3.7.1).  Eye, ""^J*™*
sufferers and those experiencing shortness of breath were significantly more likely to

-------
 visit|the doctor in 1992 than in 1988. This suggests that there has not been a shift
 in the overall pattern of interaction.                         I
 3.8  Job Performance of Responsible Parties

 Because citizens view environmental health issues as a problem for government and
 industry, their perception of job performance may be very influential in determining
•their level of concern.  Participants were queried about government,  industry and
 environmental groups and specifically about LEPCs. Respondents were asked to rate
 each group on a four point scale from excellent to poor. The retsults are presented in
 Tabfe 3.8.1  (page 45)  with and  without  the  "don't  know" and "not  familiar"
 responses. As in several other questions there was a greater number of "don't know"
 responses in 1992.                     ;r                  I
     •             ""     '      •    • -           -           •'[•_    • •        ' •
   ; •    , •                    -             .               •[             "
 The pattern of responses is very different across  communities. In Middlesex County
 where the strongest positive shift in attitude about environmental quality has occurred,
 three job rating categories  had strong positive shifts as Well.  The  EPA, local
 environmental groups and LEPCs all had increased positive, ratings and decreased
'negative ratings that were statistically significant when analyzed with or without the
 "don't know" responses included.  Raleigh-Durham had a similar shift in  the LEPC's
 rating.   Albuquerque had a significant negative  shift  in the job rating  for local
 government. Cincinnati had a positive shift in the rating of environmental  groups and
 Racine  had a positive shift in the job rating of local businesses.
 If we assume that the "don't know" responses reflect a more thoughtful response by
 some participants, then it may be appropriate to conduct the analysis including them.
 In most cases the negative ratings decrease more than the positive ratings increase
 when the "don't know" are included. There is also an increase in the number of items
 that are statistically significant; the increase in "don't knows" contributing most to
 this increase in significance.                                                   .
   '                   .              '           ,          r   -  •-
 Overall Middlesex and Raleigh- Durham had the most positive  shifts in  perceived job
 performance.  Richmond, Racine and Cincinnati showed little  change.  Albuquerque
 had a slight negative shift.

-------
TABLE 3.8.1 ' PERCEPTIONS OF JOB PERFORMANCE (Percentaoee)
Excel/Good Fair/Poor Excel/Good
Positive 	

1 Vocal Government
Richmond
Raleigh-Durham
Middlesex
Albuquerque
Cincinnati
Racine
State Government
Richmond
Raleigh-Durham
Middlesex
Albuquerque
Cincinnati
Rscine
Richmond
Raleigh-Durham
Middlesex
Albuquerque
Cincinnati
Racine
Loe>T6utin»ifM
Richmond
Raleigh-Durham
Middlesex •
Albuquerque
Cincinnati
Racine
LocsLSnv. Groups
Richmond
Raleigh-Durham
Middlesex
Albuquerque
Cincinnati
' Racine
16PC
Richmond
RaMgh-Durham
Mkktfesex
Afcuquarque
Cincinnati
Racine)
1988

34
36
22
33
31
41

37
35
24
32
27
42
45
50
30
40
45
47
26
28
17
24
23
35
52
SB
41
S3
48
57
47
43
31
44
39
48 •
1992

35
37
24
26*
28
41

37
40
29
34
28
43
49
54
40'
44
44
48
30
30
21
25
23
42'
56
58
53*
56
59*
55
48"
55*
40'
49
44
SO
Negative
1988

66
65
78
87
69
59

63
65
7«
68
73
58
45
49
70
60
55
53
74
72
83
76
77
65'
48
42
59
47
51
43
53
57
69
56
61
52
1992

65
63
76
74".
72
59

63
60
71
87
72
57
51*
46
60*
56
57
52
70
70
79
75
77
58*
44
42
47*
44
41*
45
52
45*
60*
51
56
50
Positive-
1988

33
35
22
33
31
40

36
35
24
32
27-
42
43
49 '
30
39
44
46
26
28
17
23
22
34
49
S6
40
52
47
§6
43
41
27
41
35
45
1992

33
35
23
26' -
27
39

36
31.
28
33
26
40
45
51
38*
42
42
43
28
29
20
24
22
40'
51
S3
48*
52
56°
S3
42
49
33°
43
39
45
Fair/Poor :
Negative
1988

64
64
77
67
68
58

62
65
75
67
71
57
S3
49
69
59
54
52
53
71
80
75
76
63
46
41
57
46
49
43
48
S3
61
52
56
48
1992

61
60
71*
71
69
56

60
58',
67*
65
70
53
47*
43*
57'
S3'
54
4>
47'
67
72'
71
74
55'
40'
4O
42'
42
39'
44
45
40'
50'
44'
SO'
44
Don't
1988

3
1
1
1 ,
1"
2

3
1
1
1
2
1
, 4
2
1
2
2
3
3
1
2
2
2
2
5
3
3
2
.'4-
.» ™
9
6
12
9
7
Know
1992

5
4
7°
3
- 4
S

5
3
5
3
4
4
7
5
6
• 6
4
9*
7
4
7
' 6
4 '
5
8
7
10'
6
5
4
14
11
17
13'
11
11
Th. first two cotumn. rapres.nt the p.rc.nt.g.. with th. "don't know" response. incJud«l. The Uwt thra. column.
show the rssponsw with 'don't know" clculefd ..().r.to*v; th. 'not tantar- rasponsM w.r. coded aa imas.no.
•Differancaa between 1988 and 1992 an significant ntp < .05.                                     .

-------
3.9   Factor Analysis

Understanding risk communication as a means of influencing attitudes and actions that
enhance the public's health and well-being is an important goal of research. A factor
analysis was undertaken to explore ways that personal variables (e.g., perception of
risks,' knowledge, and  involvement), perception of community activities (e.g., job
performance of responsible parties), levels of awareness and concern about hazards
(e.g.,! awareness of threatening facilities) and demographic characteristics influence
community patterns of response (see McCallum, Santos, and Hammond* 1994). The
pattern of responses presents a complex picture of responses across communities.
Some of the factors that may influence  actions and  perceptions  related to  the
environment have been discussed throughout this - report'.     1

This analysis is an initial attempt to explore the underlying relationships among these
characteristics.   The  variables  have  been selected based Jon  the  theory that
knowledge, involvement, and perceived threat are important Underlying factors that
are influenced by external factors such as  community activities and socioeconomic
status.  "   ,  '  •-.      .  . .. .    .     _   "    •''_.-.  .-'•  ...I';'' ..'• '     :   •

The variables selected for the factor analyses were chosen because they suggested
the best indicators for measuring the population's assessment orf risk and  the
environmental status of their communities.  These measures included assessments of
the residents' community quality of life, the threat posed  by various  toxic facilities,
respondents' self  assessments of their knowledge  of environmental  risks/their
participation in environmentally "protective" activities (such as attending meetings or
recycling efforts), and their assessment of the performance of various local and federal
organizations.                                             i

The  data  which have  been discussed in  previous sections were restructured to
facilitate factor analysis.

The following variables and indexes were submitted to factor analysis:

      Perception of Environmental Quality (Section 3,1)

      Community has few environmental risks (Question  5d)
     • Community has clean air and water  (Question 5b)
      Perceived seriousness index (Question 6)

      Self-Rated Knowledge (Section 3.4)
     '         •                 . • '                          s
          ' •         •     '     •  -   '  -   •      •  ,   ~ ••     -!.
     ' Mean knowledge scores for various topics (Question 23)

      Job Performance of Responsible  Parties (Section 3.8)

      Mean job performance score for  various responsible parties; (Question 27)

-------
      Involvement/Activities (Section 3.6)

      Number of community actions performed (called an official, etc.) (Question 28)
      Number of  consumer activities performed (recycle cans and bottles,  etc.)
      {Question 31, asked in 1992 only)1

      Awareness  (Section 3.2)
         *                               ' •"            - '        :
      Index of facility awareness and amount bothered (Questions 8 and 9)

      Threat  (Section 3.2)

      Awareness  of various facilities and whether threatened (Questions 11 and 12)
      Awareness  of community control activities (Question 26 a-e)

      Sociodemographic Status
                                                  -           ' '    .     •     ' .'.
      Education
      Age                     .      .
      (Income was eliminated because of its strong correlation with education and
      education's higher reliability)                               .

Before submitting to factor analysis, the  variables were receded so that the variable
values more accurately reflected the direction of the responses. In most cases where
options were "yes," "no," or "don't know," responses were coded 2, 1, or 0. The
two-part questions requesting identification of a hazardous facility located nearby and
assessment of the threat of that facility  were combined by adding the responses to
each set of identifying questions. For example, the "yes" response to location of a
chemical plant nearby was added to the "yes" response for whether that facility posed
a threat. The variable THRSCORE ("threat score") was similarly created, adding the
response to the question "Did the facility first mentioned (in a prior question) pose a
threat?" to the measure of the extent to  which the respondent was bothered by that
facility.                                                                  --.'.

The variable named  TQ28 is a count  of the "yes" responses to the questions
attempting to identify respondent engagement in specific protective behaviors. The
question 31  series was asked  only in 1992. and is  an attempt to gain  further
understanding of  protective activities. The variable TQ31 is a composite score of the
number of activities reported by an individual.

The self-rated knowledge question series uses a full five-point scale. The job score
series are questions relating to performance ratings of various agencies and uses a
similar five-point  scale (0 to 4), where '0' is the indicator for bothJ"don t know  and
missing cases (including "not familiar" responses). The awareness question series
Indicates whether the respondent  has any knowledge of local efforts such as
    M992(a) analysis includes this question; 1992 does not include this question.

-------
                                                         L                  - -
hazardous materials emergency planning. This series is coded on a three-point scale:
"no,;" "don't know," and "yes" (1, 2, and 3 respectively).
    i              -•             '                          !"•'•"
Combined with the demographics (age and education), 32 variables were submitted
to exploratory factor analysis for each year the survey was conducted.  The 1988
survjey exhibited eight factors, and the 1992 survey coalesced around 9 factors. Two
factor analyses were performed for 1992. The 1992(A) analysis included the activity
index TQ31 described above, and the solution labelled 1992 did not. Factor scores
were then calculated for each factor for each case, and the means of the factor scores
evaluated by community.                                  [

Factor analysts of the 1988 and 1992 data sets (both \ ith and without Question 31)
revealed similar structures,  the 1988-solution yielded eight factors and the 1992
solution yielded nine factors (see Tables 3.9.1, 3.9.2, 3.9.3, 3.9.4, pages 50-53).
The factors are easily identifiable and make theoretical sense.;                  -
                         - •                             .  1'        '
The Coverall comparison of the  three factor solutions is  given in Table 3.9.1. The
factors identified account for about half of the variance in the data. In evaluating the
contribution of the individual measures, it may be helpful to discuss the individual
factor solutions and then discuss the comparisons.          i
    •;   •   .      •         .         "       • '.  •      '       i    . : •»  .' •      •
For 1988 data, the solution produced 8 factors. Table 3.9.2 shows the loads of the
variables on the individual factors.  For example, the job ratings for various groups
accounts for the most variance. Job ratings load on this factor, with the same sign
indicating that peoples' rating of environmental performance of all responsible parties
are all correlated,  and  peoples' belief that responsible parties] are doing a good job
explains the most variance in the data. This is consistent with the theory that people
view environment as "someone else's problem," and therefore  their concerns are
determined by the way they perceive their job performance  as the most important
variable in evaluating environmental issues.                 i

The 1992 data yielded a 9-factor solution. The only factor that was different was a
factor for environmental activity (see Table 3.9.3), which was stronger in the 1992(A)
solution (see Table 3.9.4) and included an index of consumer-related activities adapted
from a Roper study of consumer behavior (The Roper Organization, 1990). The factor
still remained, but with less influence, when only the standard questions that were
asked in 1988 and 1992 were  included,  this suggests that environmental activity,
or at least reported activity, may have  gained in influence in the interval between
1988 and  1992, particularly when consumer-related environmental behaviors are
included.
    •      '      .        ••   .   .  .     ',      •             •[''/
In comparing  the three factor solutions, factors are  presented in order of their
significance, based oh how much variance they explain. The loading scores in the
matrix provide a measure of the importance of that variable to that factor.
                              -                           I "'
With this brief discussion of the individual solutions, a discussion of the overall data
structure (see Table 3.9.1) provides insights into the factors that are most important.
    ','    ''       -  •   '  • '   ,      '      -     • .  ' -       .  -:•-  .  - - '

-------
    appears.
 respectively.  In 1992(a).
  not be very important.
                                             0     en
                                             of the environmental activity factor

                                                     their relative position may
•oadings of awarenes of thretertng

                pncter

suggests that simple means
                                                distributlon of   «»' scores

-------
within communities analysis need to be included in additional
These analyses could enhance our ability to deal with specific
work with these data.
 target audiences.

-------

-------
   s *
                                  I
                                  i.
                                         <3
   S««

    I
    I _#

 5.*
   *<•
   •:5*

   ii*
              I
                                    If
                                    H
   s* i-  1
          ~
       !
  ls* l| I
  S-t
                             I
                             ]
f;
  |_*
  S_#
§:_=
  «
 —^
  f
  i/
     I
     £
          •1*1
          ill
                         • u u
     jji
      •ill
S


U
.-•I  Is
I|]||sf|l



iiliiilll
                        Jl
                         rt
                         • H
                        1
                        ***<*!•• •••Sill
                        'I
                        'IS
                        \s
  •3
  I
    11.1??
   > u u u i= >S
si.

 Ill
                    • — —  iS^SzfiESiS*1^***©"*1*
                          •>f^r«i(nfe<(rwmnm

-------
       TABLE 3.9.2
         SUMMARY OF FACTOR ANALYSIS, 1*B8
 F»ctor:
12          3
                  Largi
Job               Facility
Scot*  Knowladoa  Thraat
 1
 2
 3
 4
 S
 6
 7
 8
 9
 10
 11
 12
 13
 14
 IS
 17
 1«
 19
 20
 21
 22
 23
 24
 25
 26
 27
 29
 29
30
31
32

% Vtritoci
           Bunnaa*      Environmental
           Communicate  Quality

                        .71505
                        .70444
                       -.52654
                                                                     Familiar
                                                                     Thraat
                          Local ,
                          Influence
           .33293
           .69539
           .7*127
           .66329
           .72662
           .75052
 .53134

• .57553

 .56960

 .59294
 .63651
 .59317
 .34354
                                         .34956
             -.31891




             .7918O

             .78236
Socio-
Dafnoofaohie
                                                                               .48242
                                                                               .87232
                                                                 -.70189
          .21669
-.26570
  .77827
  .66476
  .74686
  .77086
  .70815
  .74152
  16%
                         11%    7%
                           .56562
                           .48127
                           .60778
                           .67560
                           5%
                                                      4%
                                                                    4%
                                                 .37229
                                                 .35552
                                                 .40400

                                                 4%
                                                                                             3%
                                                    52

-------
TABLE 3.9.3   !  SUMMARY OF FACTOR ANALYSIS. 1992
Factor:
v.ri»b)»«
2
3
4
5
6
,7
8
9
10
11
12
13
 14
 15
 17
.18
 19
20
21
 22
 23
 24
 25
 26
 27
 28
 29
 30
 31
 32
       m .
    2          3
              , Large
               Facility
    saaaHdat  Eautt
                     .32998
                     .59088
                     .63860
                     .70887
                     .64274
,.75907
.65533
.71401 •
.73463
.70725
.04449
        Environmantal   Familiar
        Quality         Thraat

         .65811
         .75056
         .57636
6 •.
Local
Ifrfluanea
7
Buainaaa
Aetiva
8 •:''•'
Environ
Aetivrtv
i • • » '
nantal Soeio-
pamoari


lohic
* . •
.45256  -.25772.

.58579

.49295

.58221
.64911
.65744
                                                   -.49888




                                                    .75897

                                                    .724*3
                                                -.61412
                                                                                .43444
                                                                                   .89682
                                                               ,65775
   Varianca
                 14%
                         9%
                                 6%
                                          5%
                                                        4%
                                                                        .30717  ^
                                                    .432154
                                                       , ,1
                                                        J

                                           .56882        !

                                           .69311    .68405
                                                     . .  '!  .
                                          4%     - ' , 4% "I
                                                       53

-------
   TA«U 3.9.4     8UMMAIIY OF FACTO* ANALY8W. 1992A
  1                           .                  .61517
  3                                             .72162
  4                                            -.58945
  5                                                               %-.4S375  .37717

  *                           .««630            -.3033S                             -8SMO

  J             .              .59245                    -58754      ,  '

  10                         .4739S                               .75591
  il                                                                    '           .2768O
  ^                         .56262                               -72013
  J*                          -85593                    .''..
  *                          .6414t
 .,                                  .82795
 "                .80078                   «
 }J                .68878
 1*                .63409
 *>                .71760
 f!                -85758                                    •   '  .   . .-'•'-:
 22         .75257                                             :
 23 c        .64183                                                         '  -
 2*         .71917                                                          '      .32909
 25         .72564                                                                  .
 28         .69076

 S         'et023                            -25454
 29                                        .'-'•,•'•         '
 30
31            '                                   '                       .S9774
32                                                                       .67099
                                     5%
                                                 54

-------
FIGURE 3.9.5
                              Histogram
        PLACE: 2 RALEIGH/DURHAM
       REGR FACTOR SCORE 1 FOR ANALYSIS  1
       Histogram

       PLACE:  1  RICHMOND
      REGR FACTOR SCORE 1. FOR ANALYSIS  1
                               .55
                                                     Sid. Dev« 1.04
                                                     Mlean «.08
                                                     N « 418.00
                                                      Dev «= 1.03
                                                     in s ...pi
                                                     403.00

-------
 SECTION 4:   SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS
 4.1    gymmary of Discussion

 Based on the analysis of the responses to individual  questions and a  principal
 component  factor  analysis,  overall  there  are  strong  differences between the
 communities and weak differences between the 1988 and 1992 survey responses.
 The differences among communities appear to reflect events being reported  in
 newspapers during the survey field period.

 Overall, the level of awareness and concern have probably decreased. There was a
 concomitant reduction in the number of news stories during the second survey field
 period. National data also reflect a decreased level of concern. Speculation has been
 that concern over the economy, health care, and other issues may have replaced the
 environment on individuals' lists of concerns.

 There is little evidence that the information from Title III is reaching a significant
 segment of the population.  Levels of awareness and self-rated knowledge are the
 same or lower in 1992 than in 1988 in all of the study communities.   The only
 demonstrable shift is in the percentage of respondents who say they "don't know"
 whether control activities are occurring.  The "don't know"  responses seem to  be
 shifts from "no" responses in 1988.  Several conclusions can be drawn from these
 data. While the instructions to the interviewers were the same in 1988 and 1992,
 there could  have been differences  in technique  so that respondents  felt more
 comfortable saying "don't know".

 Lower-interest or involvement levels could also influence these responses. The fact
 that  respondents report a higher level of environmental  activity argues against this
 conclusion.

 Finally, one  might conclude that the "don't know" responses reflect an  increased
 awareness. While respondents may not be aware of the specifics of emergency plans,
 or trained personnel, they may not automatically discount their existence.

 Another explanation that is consistent with the higher level of media coveragejn 1988
 is that the anticipation of Title III activities may have created more interest 'than did
 its implementation.  Without communications support and an  effective program to
 make the TRI and emergency planning relevant to individual concerns, the public may
' have discounted the  information  because they did not know  what to do with the
 information which they were receiving.
  4.1.1  Environmental Quality

  Ratings of environmental quality have  improved or stayed the same.  Middlesex
  County has shown the greatest positive shift.   Overall, there is a trend to less

                                      56

-------

         -,     '
     A conclusion that can
    Natipnal surveys

  4.1e:a
the lessened
      to
                                                              iaware"«s
.4.1.4

"^e lack :0f shifts in
                                                                    - may
                                   57

-------
 Although the percentage is still very high, the significant decrease in the measure
 related to perceived secrecy about environmental  problems may reflect a greater
 feeling of access and may reflect the general but modest shift in public opinion.


 4.1.5 Information Sources                           .            ,

 The patterns of use and the trust of sources of information changed in absolute
 numbers but not in their relative positions. The reported use of electronic media has
 decreased. If this reflects less television coverage, this may account in part for lower
 levels of awareness. Authoritative sources, including environmental groups, have lost
 credibility, while friends and relatives maintained their ratings.  There was also a
 significant increase in the number of respondents receiving environmental information
 at work.
 ».«.1.6 Knowledge

 Self-rated knowledge levels appear to have decreased.  At the very least, they have
 not increased.
.4:1.7 Similarities and Differences 8n

 Based on this analysis, the structure of the problems are similar in all communities.
 Performance of responsible parties and perceptions of community conditions and
 socip-demographic  variables are the most important influences on environmental
 issues. Different communities show a range of response. Understanding more about
 the relationships of these variables to one another and their link to external stimuli
 could be productive in being able to design more effective communication targeted to
 specific  communities.  Some of the key results that would benefit  from further
 exploration are:

       •  Dramatic increase in  positive attitudes and  lower levels  of concern in
         Middlesex compared to no change in attitudes and increased concern in
         Cincinnati  and Racine
                                                          *-  '      .     *
       •  Strong evidence that  events during the survey field period  changed the
         responses in Raleigh-Durham and perhaps other communities

       •  The negative shift in the views about job performance in Albuquerque

       •  The  overall  negative  shift  in trust ratings for authoritative sources of
         environmental  information compared to no shift for interpersonal sources in
         Middlesex  compared to other communities.
                                     58

-------
4-2;  Conclusion*                                         !
    \  «""*«***»««*i»tM6    ,-.,,-•-       ,           . (    -  ^ • i     ,    ••    ,  •  j •




In the six communities studied:                             !





1.   ]  The^-nc ^o, m0re aware of toxic chemica* (n ,he co,nu,n,«v than rt was

5-   ; Awareness and seated
                                       ^




                                             '
                                          *»' si
                                             "Vhlflh
                                                            , than betwaen
                                                                durin9 the

                                      o, .mer9encv Plans nve not increased

                                59

-------
REFERENCES


Arkin, E., and McCallum, D. (1988); Public knowtedow and attitudes; Environmental JSSue.8 ^'iWd tt
toxic chemical^ A raviBw of anhiie polling data. 1 984-1 987. Washington. DC:  Institute for Health
Policy Analysis.

Barum, M., Dillon, P., and Russell, B. (1 992). Managing Chemical Risks. N«w York: Lewis Publishing.

Chess, C., Greenberg, M., Tamuz, M., and Saville, A. (I992a). Buiidino Trust from Within: Behind the
se«n««  of Rohm and Haas'  Bristol  Plant.    New  Brunswick, NJ:  Center  for  Environmental
Communication.

Chess, C., Saville, A., Tamuz, M., and Greenberg, M. (1 992b). "The Organizational Links Between Risk
Communication and Risk Management: The Case of Sysron Chemicals Inc." RJtK APJ'YSfc. Vol.  12,
No. 3, pp. 431-438.                                                «

Congressional Record. (September 19, 1985).  page S1 181 I.Washington. DC.

European Cor.,.,iunhy. Directive 82/501 /EEC, "The Ssvnp Directive", Article 8 (1)

Lynn, P.M., Kartez,  J.D.,  and Connelly, C.  (1992).  The Toxic Raleasa Inventory: Environmental
Democracy in Action. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (Publication No. 700-F-
92-001).      •                                                          .           ,

McCallum, D.  (1994).  "Risk  Communication: A Tool for Behavior Change."  Washington, D.C.:
National Institute on Drug Abuse. In  preparation.

McCallum, D., Santos, S., and  Hammond, S.  (April 1994). Kanawha Vallav Health Effects Project:
        of Telephone Survey. In preparation.                  . .
 McCallum, D., Hammond, S., Morris, L., & Covello, V. (1990).  Public Knowledge and Perceptions of
 Chemical Risks in Six CommunitiM: Analvsia of a Bas«line Survey (EPA 230-01-90-074). Washington,
 DC: Institute for Health Policy Analysis;

 McCallum, D., & Arkin, E.  (September  1988). s General Public Focus Groups (unpublished report).
 Washington, DC:  FOCUS GROUP.        .                  .

 McNeil, C., Arkin,  E., and McCallum, D. (1989).  Toxic and hazardous chemicals. Title III and
 communities;  An outreach manual for  community  groups (EPA 56-1-89-002).  Washington, DC:
 Environmental Protection Agency.

 The Roper Organization. (July 1990). Tha Environment: Public Attitudes and Individual Behaviors.

 The Roper Organization. (1993). Tha Graan Gauge Reports.

 Santos, S.L, Covelio, V.T., and McCallum, D. (1993).  Industry Resoonsa to SARA Title III: Pollution
 Prevention,  Risk Reduction, and Risk Communication. Washington, DC: Columbia University Center
 for Risk Communication.                                      .
                                            60

-------
APPENDIX A
                                                  EPA-230-01-90-074
   PUBLIC KNOWLEDGE ANX) PERCEPTIONS


   CHEMICAL RISKS IN SIX COMMUNITIES:




  Analysis of a Baseline Survey
                           Progress Report Prepared by:


                           Georgetown Uiuversity Medical Center
                           Program on Risk Communication


                           David B. McCalhim, Ph.D., Dir« ctor

                          '•'rXfa^HS H?m?°nd.'MA, Project Director
                           Louis A. Moms, Pb.D., Project Consultant


                           and
                           Columbia University
                           Center for Risk Communication


                           Vincent T. CoveUo, Ph.D., Direclor
                          January 1990
OF
                                                Agency
                    in collaboration with

      The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry

-------
                          EXECUTIVE SUMMARY




           and
     Under a cooperative agreement with the Environmental






                                                                 *

about the most effective ^SSJSniSt?^? J^PJrtant information
Superfund communities.   conununication strategies for other

-------
   The data analyses that, have been completed support the
following recommendations for program managers and communicators!

RECOMMENDATIONS                                 I
      Use the baseline data and other studies to guide
        communication strategies at the federal land local level

           Recognize target audiences
           Pretest messages                     j
          -           •       '     '    •.        .  i *  • ,  .  -
        . -  Understand the importance of mass media in carrying
             environmental messages
                                                     1'
      Encourage and support health professionals to become
        .involved in disseminating environmental information so
        *b.at .the personal implications, of health! factors can be
       •.. dressed.   --.- ... -•   -.._.-,..•    .    !  . .' ^  : * ;

      Develop messages based on the public's concept of        .
        environmental issues.   The public is interested in the
        overall burden of risk and does not distinguish among
      •  sources of environmental risk.   They want, the focus to be
        on safety.  Hence, an overall communications.strategy
        that keys activities of related programs! to pollution
        prevention should be considered.               '"    -

      Work with the mass media to improve communication with
        various publics.

      Develop non-media channels of environmental information.
        Of particular concern is the public's, lack of  use of
        government sources.    ,                 I

      Capitalize on the LEPC's perceived credibility.   Support is
        needed to enhance performance so that credibility and
        public access can be maintained.

      Improve public access to information on emergency plans.
                                                t     " '
      Develop model community programs  on toxic waste  and
       Superfund  issues  to  respond to high fear
       communities.    .
levels within
     Fully analyze  Baseline  data  to  guide current and future
       activities,  particularly exploring the  characteristics
       that differentiate  target  audiences of  environmental
       messages.                                j
                               ii

-------
                                                         •--
SUMMARY
               s

                to oth.r
•nvironm.nt.
inclua.d,  eh.mical
           nuolMr
thase iooal
environment, th.
to chemicals in
mentioned included:
    expo.u« to

                                  "port*, that «,.„

                                                thrMt
                                  l«»9-t.rm thr.«t»pps«i by
                                              r.sp=ndents
                                                         whlch
                            Mh
                                            ohe"ioals  in the
                                                   3 exP°s^
                                                   threats
                           ill

-------
COflUnunltV and
                           Dif feraneea
   Middlesex County  respondents  are  more sensitive to
     and cynical about environmental risks  in their community
     «5aSH-r2<2?? Other resP°nd«nts.   For «Xaaple,  almost half
     of the Middlesex respondents view environmental risks as
     a serious problem, whereas  less than one-third of all
     other respondents report a  serious problem.

   Respondents in Albuquerque and Racine appear to  be less
     concerned about environmental threats  tkari do  respondents
     in the other communities.               !          F««W«««

   Older respondents (over 50) are more tolerant of long-term
     and immediate threats posed by chemical  facilities than
     are younger respondents.      ;

   Respondent-  with higher .educational  levelib seem  to be  more
     knowledc,  ;>le about locations in their eoriariunity that
     pose a tl..eat to the environment than are less educated
     respondents.                                      ««*-«!.««
                  fgr. environmental
(see pages 37 to 51 for more detailed information)
   T¥J222?!LPf rqSt °f ^* r««P°nd«nts had heard or read
     something in the previous week about ch«mical risks in
     their community.   Mass media sources, particularly local
     newspaperjrand local television news  Sdre SitSS moi?
           »8  S* SSUJCe °f thi* formation.!  The issues most
          < m;nti°Jfd fey respondents as being ~h«, topic of
          lnforna^on w^f« chemical fires , transportation of
            intentional/illegal dumping of hazardous
      ori« ?A  ?Sd ocean, P°ll«tion,  which correspond to the
     stories in  the news in each of the surveyed communities.

                            reca}vin9 the .most  information
                          in tnair °on»unity from news .
                                                      "ting
  Chratfna
    rating
                    of ficials have the higheist knowledge
              all sources, but the lowest triist rating!
                                                     news
                            iv

-------
APPENDIX B    MEDIA ANALYSIS
A media analysis was conducted to determine the level of environmental reporting
and to identify newspaper reports during the survey period that might affect public
opinion regarding the risk to public health from adverse environmental events.

The significant environmental reports in the local and "national" newspapers were
indexed and analyzed for the period of August through October 1992, which was
the three-month  period in which the telephone survey was administered in the six
communities.
Methodology

In order to understand what environmental issues were being reported in the
newspapers before and during the time of the 1992 resurvey of the six baseline
communities, and their influence on public opinion in these communities,
newspapers in five of the six communities were subscribed to, as well as two
"national" newspapers. The New York Times and The Washington Post. Those
articles that covered environmental events that might affect public health,
particularly adverse events pertaining to toxic chemicals and hazardous wastes
were clipped and indexed for the August through October 1992 survey period.

The Richmond newspaper was accessed through the Dialog computerized lead
paragraph news service and indexed for the three survey months.  Page placement
information  is not available through Dialog, and because only the lead paragraph is
accessible, sources were incomplete or unavailable.

The newspapers analyzed were:

       The Raleigh News & Observer
       The Durham Herald-Sun
       The Albuquerque Journal                       ,   -   ' c
       The Cincinnati Inquirer                                        \
       The Richmond Times Dispatch
       The Racine Journal Times
       The Washington Post
       The New York Times

 Each newspaper was reviewed on a monthly basis and the major subject topics
 listed for each article in order to give an idea of what events might affect the
 public's perception of risk to their health from environmental events.
                                                                         B-l

-------
                                                             at. •
   rad,oactive waste landfill          '^ 8bout the •••«* for alsite for a
   laws ihave been in effect since 1 sal th.'a'mn9 *saster P^on'nel. Whto *•..
   coverage of them during the survey ^ "** >!S8nti8ll>' . W re.io8ni,ion or
  Raleigh News Observer
                                    coverage of local and national
         : ,1,       ~  ——•••» u 10 survey oeriori ?A 9.-»;_i        '»«iionai
               ~K      vaar r
Julv:


                                                              B-2

-------
August:
Pesticides in processed foods
Waste oil
Golf courses and pollution
Water pollution in Pigeon River
Beach pollution

Lawn mower pollution
Low-level radioactive waste site
Water pollution
September:  Environmental pollutants
            Cadmium                               .
            Water pollution in Pigeon River (5)
            Pesticides and farmers
            Ozone
            Dioxin health effects
            Toxic chemicals from industries - explains emergency plan and
            Community Right-to-Know

October:    Incinerators and health problems
            Clean Air Act   .
            Low-level radioactive waste facility
            Chemical fire
            Air pollution
            CO poisoning deaths
            Oxygenated fuels
            Auto emissions testing
            Ozone                               ,         .
            Wetlands development
 Durham Herald Sun

 The Durham Herald Sun is a smaller paper which relies heavily on wire services for
 articles.  During the survey period, there were nine articles which covered
 environmental issues, and of those, 22% were written by staff.  Most articles
 came from the Associated Press.  Environmental reporting was much less frequent
 than in the Raleigh papers. Some of the more significant articles covered during
 the survey period included lawn mower pollution, farm workers and pesticjdes, the
 upcoming introduction of oxygenated gasoline, ozone, and landfills.

 Listing bv Month and Subject
  July:
       i


  August:
  Asbestos trial
  Environmental problems in Soviet Union

  EPA wants lawn mowers for research
  Farm workers and pesticides
                                                                           B-3

-------
  September: Motorists required to use gasohol in Triangle
             Dioxin
             Toxic Air - RTF
             Research, business & environment - RTF

  October:    White House blocks EPA regulations
             Nuclear reactor incident in Japan
      :       Wetlands at landfill site
 Albuquerque Journal

 This New Mexico newspaper, with the sub-banner of "Home-owred
 operated," had among the most environmental coverage in the six
 Mexico also has some serious issues which affect the environment
 prominent being WIPP {Waste Isolation Pilot Pr^tct). WIPp received
 coverage before and during the survey period,   jher major issues
 during the survey involved water pollution in tht Rio Grande (r
 Albuquerque downstream), what to do with radioactive waste ...
 National Laboratory, farm workers and pesticides, the Mescalero
 application to study developing  a nuclear waste storage site on t,
 and air pollution in Albuquerque, which is caused mainly by cars
 inversion problem.
    (mainly
      from
 Of the 35 articles, a total of 18 staff writers were responsible for
 stones. Two main reporters covered 21 and 10 articles
 others covered more than 2 articles each.  Reporting seemed to
 and objective.
Ustino bv Month and
July:       Air quality - Albuquerque       '
      !:''•'•  Hair dye and cancer
            WIPP (6)
            Oil leak in Fairfax, VA
      i      Sick building syndrome
            Lead in water - Albuquerque
      ;      Ocean pollution vllS
            Jemez Mountain water pollution - NM
            Nuclear waste storage - Mescaleros - NM (2)
      I      Recycling at electric plant'.- local

August:     Pets and pesticides   ~
      •;••     WIPP  (3)
      ;   ,   Water pollution in Eddy County
            Radioactive waste at Los Alamos (2)
            Nuclear waste storage - Mescaleros - NM {3}
      !      Farm workers and  pesticides
   and Home- "
 cities.  New
   the most
    a great deal of
 before and
   from
   Los Alamos
Apaches'
   reservation,
dust and an
       tteir
         46% of the
respectively,, and three
       be fairly unbiased
                                                                        B-4

-------
September:  County water pollution
            Radioactive waste at Los Alamos
            Water pollution at Isleta Pueblo (4)
            Rio Grande pollution (3)
            EPA, racism, and environmental laws - US
            WIPP (2)
            Redefining hazardous wastes - EPA
            Albuquerque air pollution

October:    Rocky Flats - Colorado
            Water pollution at Isleta Pueblo  (4)
            WIPP (3)
            Albuquerque air pollution
            General environmental issues
 Cincinnati enquirer

 The Enquirer is owned by the Gannett organization, and has a USAToday look and
 uses a lot of color. From February to October, fifty percent of the 33 articles
 dealing with environmental issues were written by 14 staff reporters, and the two
 main reporters wrote six articles each.   Local environmental issues during the
 survey period included air pollution in the city, radioactive pollution at the closed
 Fernald uranium plant, and the search for a low-level radioactive waste disposal
 site in Ohio.

       bv Month and SubiMS
 July:        Pesticides in food - US
             EPA proposal for tougher emissions tests - US
             Radon in tap water - US
             Herbicide resistant weeds in Australia and England

 August:     Air pollution in Cincinnati
             Fernald  uranium plant pollution (2)
             Low-level radioactive waste disposal - Ohio (2)

 September: Fernald uranium plant pollution
             Costs of new water testing regulations - National           ' Au-'
             Residents fight against pollution by Home Aeration Systems .- Ohio
             Forum held on sewage systems - Ohio
             Radioactive waste disposal in the Mid-West - National (Regional)
             Sewage disposal  systems - Ohio
             Pesticides linked  to cancer in farmers - National
             Community outraged  at pipeline route - Ohio
             Chemical waste leads to lawsuit against RR.- Kentucky
             Language  of label law - Ohio                          .
             Aeration units pollute local waterways - Ohio
                                                                           B-5

-------
Ohio

October:
International
              Hamilton County's sewage dilemma -Ohio
              Indoor pollution as maior health hazard - National
              Mock disaster exercise at Fernald - Local/Ohio
              Justice Department leniency with polluters - Nationial

                 ™8'8 "^ *"* Iook 9uilty due to lack of Prosecution -

              Emergency crews and their ability to contain chemical disasters - Ohio
              Firefighters trained to fight toxic spills - Local     i     sasters  Or"°
              Mock disaster at Fernald -Local/Ohio             !
              Restoration of sewage polluted creeks - Ohio      j
              Disposal sites for low level radiation - National
              Monsanto c°-  drastically reduces air pollution due to public pressure -
             Toxic chemicaMcyanide) clean-up • Local
             Nuclear waste, storage for the s Mid-West - O' V
             Protecting the Little Man River from pollutit. - Ohio
             EPA announces violators by Rotek, Inc. for not reporting toxic
             chemicals -  Aroma                              I    *
             ** buSi"^SS is bringin9 indust^ j"to clean air compliance -

             Gore promises compliance by Federal Facilities • Fernal^
           Times-Dispatch
 Articles were only reviewed for the survey period         an inree articles,
       bv Month
August:     Potomac Yards pollution - Alexandria (3)
            Superfund site cleanup -local
            Virginia Indoor Clean Air Act
            Lead poisoning prevention in children - local (2)
      ;      Police radar units and cancer - local
            Pollution and oysters -local
                                                                          B-6

-------
            Farm workers and pesticides - US
            PCB storage at Radford Army ammunition plant
            Ozone   .                  •
            Ash pile pollution in Roanoke County
            Lawn care and the Chesapeake Bay
            Lead contamination and Portsmouth housing project
            Lawn mowers and air pollution
            Cleanup at Chesterfield Sewer Plant
            Lead contamination in pewter baby cups
            Air pollution in park - Virginia

September:  Air pollution reduction at paper mill
            Farmers and skin cancer - US
            Solar-powered lawn mower - US
            Leaf burning  prohibition
            Lead-contaminated soil removal • local
            Irradiated poultry
           • Chesapeake Bay pollution
            Potomac Yards pollution
            Toxic fumes kill 3 men - Arlington  '
            Toxic waste water - Chase City
            People  pollute more than industries - Cousteau

October:    Oxygenated gasoline - Northern Virginia
            Cleanup at Artex Fibers plant
            Regional incinerator dropped
            Tire fire pollution - Richmond (2)
            Pollution controls on gas pumps - Virginia
            Approval denied for Buena Vista power plant
            Auto emissions inspections - Virginia
            Virginia Power to cut pollution at power plant
            Lead in drinking water • US  and Richmond (3)
            Lead poisoning in children
            Pollution tracking by computer
Racine Journal Times

Racine was another community included after additional funding was approved.
Back copies of the newspaper were ordered for the survey months, and The Racine
Journal Times was clipped from August 1992 through the end of October 1992.
Most of the reporting on environmental events came from news services. Only 12
of the 47 articles were written by 8 staff reporters. One staff reporter did four of
the articles, but there did not appear to be any one reporter specializing in
environmental coverage.  Seventy five percent of the coverage was from outside
sources, and of that, three quarters was from the AP news service.      .-.'..-

The biggest environmental news story reported in August and September was the
closing of the beaches on Lake Michigan during the summer  months, due to
                                                                         B-7

-------
 bacterial pollution of the water.  Lead in the local drinkina
                 ther lmPorta"t story, and approving
                  received frequent coverage;

 Ustlno bv Month and
                                                              n
 August:     Global warming (2)
    '         Recycling
    I         Toxic chemical spill on river
             Water pollution in Lake Michigan (4)
    I         Air pollution in Yosemite
             Lead poisoning in children
             Ppllution in CIS
            Toxic chemical spill in superior forced evacuation
            Cow belching and  methane studies in Japan
            Problem of contaminated delinquent prqperties/buildir

September:  Water pollution in Lake Michigan
    I        Gasoline tank leak  lawsuit
            State mercury testing program
    ,        Diminished need for nuclear waste storage facility
            Co,on of toxic waste incinerator .&
                                                             of 22
                                                                  '
 October:
           Environmental pollutants may damage sperm DI
           Just.ce department accused of not pVosecuSng rr
           State sues Sara Lee for violating air pollution la J
           Preventing lead poisoning in children
           Irradiation in poultry
           Lead in city drinking water (2)
           Ozone depletion (2)
           Op Ed on environment activism
           Alternative fuels

           Oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico
           Food irradiation
           Radon in subdivision
           Passive smoking
           Arsenic in well water
           Diesel fuel spill in Lake tributary
           World vital signs improving
           Improving air quality nationwide
          Hazardous waste storage
                                  pay $43 million
and its effects on
one of the local
                                                        production
                                                          majc r polluters
           .                             .
            EPA examines toxins in lake
            Xrray. exposure at dental clinic
                                                             water cleanup
Washington Post
                                                                          B-8

-------
The Post reported more national and international environmentally important issues
and events than the local community papers, as well as articles relating to EPA and
government action affecting the environment. An on-going report before and
during the survey period covered a large underground oil leak in Fairfax County,
Virginia.  The coverage of the oil leak was largely sympathetic to the homeowners
affected by the leak. Also receiving prominent coverage were lead in drinking
water and children, pollution of wells in Maryland, a fatal toxic fumes accident in
Arlington, and the Rocky Flats cleanup in Colorado. Sixteen reporters covered
66% of the 44 articles.  Four reporters wrote more  than two articles each.

list bv Month and Subject
                             .;( ,     -       •            , , •     -.
August:     C02emissions
            Auto and industry emission standards
            Texaco oil leak in Fairfax, VA (2)
            Chemicals from landfill contaminate Md.  wells (2)        .
            Wetlands.
            River pollution and the Chesapeake Bay
            Pollution in former Soviet Union
            Lead poisoning in children
            Toxic pollutants  in German neighborhood
            TRI - toxic releases                                  -

September: Lead levels in children - national
            Acetone cleanup in western Maryland
            Texaco oil spill in Fairfax, VA (2)
            Dexter Corp. pollution fine, RCRA, CWA - Conn.
            Lack of prosecution of corporate polluters.- national (2)
            Food irradiation        .
            Toxic fumes kill  3 - Arlington, VA (2)
            Fuel efficient cars
            Definition of hazardous waste - EPA
            Ozone                                  ,

 October:   Clean Air Act deadlines missed by EPA
            Rocky Flats - Colorado (3)
            Buena Vista power plant permit blocked - Virginia
            Worker exposure to glycol ethers and  IBM
            Texaco oil spill in Fairfax, VA
             Positive environment trends.
             Lead in drinking water • DC metro area
            Toxic chemical test kit for home
             Penalties for pollution .
             Recycling refinery
             Passive smoke as carcinogen
             Unpolluted  air protection
             Lead and children
             Oxygenated gasoline - metro area
             Environmental crimes
                                                                           B-9

-------
                Bush and global warming issues
                Alaska wetlands
    Hew York Tunes
               Issues which appeared
                                                 °' *" 52 artte'« on
   that appeared in the
»». as a wire service at
                                            '*X'Pr
                                                 P?!article, on WIPP in New
              and Long Island.               '     metrOPOlitan

' ^SEStt^fc^s^'^^
  VGnifla nr«««.___ •  ~. ... '    *"»«•»»» »»irr tin THO mart**-*:**.-.	^. I .
Augus
             Toxic waste at NYC «andfi«ls
             Ethanol and pollution
             Forests as C02 eaters
             Ozone in smoggy cities
             Regional ozone pollution plan
             Lawn mowers and pollution . US
            Big asbestos case - Baltimore
            .—w Kwnuuun in Romania
            Auto pollution in Connecticut
            Land contamination by industry  TP
       '     fe\nrtdblaf "9 on Williamsburg Bridge
            Lead and children - US
            WIPP . New Mexico

September:  Radiation and Chernobyl

            Lead ,n drinking water - New York
                                                                    B-10

-------
October:
Drycleaning and toxic chemicals - New York
PCS contamination in New Bedford Harbor
Texaco oil spill in Fairfax,  VA
Toxic materials in  Hudson
Low emission vehicle program - California
Ozone and radiation - New Zealand and Germany
Superfund site cleanup by drug companies - Penn.
C02 and atmosphere - general
Sandblasting on Gowanus Expressway
Industrial pollution controls
Oxygenated gasoline - New York
Radioactive materials at nuclear weapons plant in Georgia
Spent radioactive  fuel problems
Hazardous waste  disposal at federal installations
Auto pollution lawsuit - NY, NJ & Conn.
Rocky Flats - Colorado
Hazardous .waste  in town dumps - US

Standards for nuclear waste (2)
Disposal of nuclear  waste
Standards for radiation exposure
Environmental computer searches
Nuclear waste dump - Yucca Mountain
 Rocky Flats - Colorado (2)  .
 Radiation dosage study
 Leak at nuclear power plant - Lithuania
 Radiation, nuclear weapons  and Communism
 Cleaner air in 41  cities
 Federal nuclear waste deposit
 Chromium dumping in public park - New Jersey
 Recycling
 Nuclear research
 Dioxin chemical waste burning - Arkansas (2)
 Oxygenated  gasoline
 Front Page Coverage

 Environmental events were not front page newsmakers in these communities. The
 following chart illustrates frequency by newspaper of front page reporting of
 environmentally related events.
 Articles on  Total Number
 jvjewspaD.er.             Front Pace

 Raleigh News/Observer    5
 Durham Herald Sun        3
 Albuquerque Journal     12
                          Percentage on
                          Other Pages  Of Articles
                             20
                              7
                             21
25
10
33
Articles on

 Front Paoe

 20
 30
 36
                                                                        B-ll

-------
  Cincinnati Inquirer         <4
  Richmond Times Dispatch  3
  Racine i Journal Times       7
  Washington Post         ,6
  New York Times           2
42
40
38
50
45
47
44
52
 6
15
14
 4
  The Albuquerque Journal had the greatest frequency of front-page reports on
  environmental issues, with 36% of the articles appearing on the front page; the
  New York Times had the lowest, with only 4% of articles on environmental issues
  receiving front-page placement. The two articles which the Times placed on the
  front page examined the possible health effects resulting  from sandblasting on the
  Williamsburg bridge, and an article about a discarded White House jproposal that
  would have  allowed manufacturers to dispose of hazardous wastes; in town dumps.
  In the latter  article, the Times reported, that the proposal was dismissed because of
  concerns about the  presidential election.

R,cThe Albuquerque Journal had seven front-page articles that covered the
  controversy between Albuquerque and a small Pueblo Indian village over pollution
  in the Rio Grande, and what the city could  and could not dump into the river.
  Three articles covered the debate over the opening of the Waste Isolation Pilot
  Project! (WIPP), one  examined Los Alamos National Lab and its radioactive waste,
  another reported on "no burn" days  ordered by EPA for Albuquerque, and another
  looked at local clean air funds. Front page coverage by this newspaper concerned
  events in Albuquerque and New Mexico.

  The Washington Post put six of 44 articles on the front page:  One; article
  announced that the  EPA wouldn't tighten urban ozone standards; another covered
  the oil leak in Fairfax at the Star Enterprise tank farm; another examined claims that
  the Justice Department spared corporate polluters from prosecution and
  punishment; one reported on three local deaths resulting  from toxic; fumes; one
  described the cleaner, costlier gasoline being introduced in  November to cut winter
  air pollution; and one was a political article on President Bush's perceived lack of
  interest  in the global warming debate.  The Post in general  reported more about the
  EPA and overall environmental politics, as well as local events.    i
                                           - ''              • •    ,(.•''         -

  Out of 45 articles concerning the environment, The Richmond Times  Dispatch
  placed three articles on the front page.  One article covered pollution at Potomac
  Yards, where the Redskins were considering relocating, another was  on the health
  of local  residents living near a Superfund site, and one on Richmond officials
  disputing the city being named as having a high amount of lead in drinking water.
  There Was no pattern to front page reporting. Eight of the  other articles were   ,
  reported on  the front page of the Area/State section.  In total number of articles
  the Richmond paper had as many as the Post and the Times.

  The Ra|leigh  and Durham papers both reported the introduction of jiasohol on their
  front pages.  Both papers also covered the new EPA lab to be constructed at
  Research Triangle Park, the health of a local worker who worked v^ith cadmium, a
  health study done on a local incinerator, a  worker error at a Japanese nuclear
  reactor, White House delay of EPA rules, and wetlands and a local landfill site.
                                                                          B-12

-------
 The Cincinnati Enquirer reported two front page articles on the pollution cleanup at
 the Fernald uranium plant, which got quite a bit of overall coverage before and
 during the study.


 During the survey period, the Racine Journal Times devoted three front page
 articles to the beach closings at Lake Michigan, due to high levels of bacteria in the
 water, and the ensuing studies to determine the source of the contamination. Two
 other front page articles covered lead in the city drinking water and  what actions to
 take, and another a local lawsuit involving an underground gasoline  leak.  The other
 two articles, which were not on local events, dealt with southern California cities
 having to pay $43.2 million for coastal water cleanup and improvement in world
 "vital signs".

 Local environmental events made front page news, but there did not seem to be
 any pattern of reporting or any trend except for the Albuquerque paper, where the
 Rio Grande water pollution got prominent coverage, and in Racine where  beach
 closings due to water pollution was a major news story.
                                                     •     .   ' .  ; •
 Conclusions                                               v   '    '

 The environmental reporting in these newspapers seemed to  be driven by health
 risks, politics, and regulation. The health related articles fell  into two  categories:
• the immediate threats such as lead poisoning in children; and more  distant threats,
 such as PCBs stored illegally. Political issues were appeared in the  coverage of
 major sites such as WIPP and Rocky Flats in Colorado where federal money was
 involved; regulation issues were apparent in the articles that covered  regulation of
 industry and government polluters, and the fines imposed on them.

 The differences in reporting were significant regarding local events. There were
 similarities in reporting on national studies or events, such as ozone and  global
 warming, the introduction of oxygenated gasoline in the winter months in more
 polluted cities to reduce auto emissions, and lead in drinking water and its effects
 on the health of children.

 While all the newspapers reported environmental problems outside their readership
 area, the events that most likely influence public opinion most are the local ones
 that the public experiences and that affects their lives, e.g. chemical  truck .
 accidents, tire  fires, radioactive waste landfills, lead in community drinking water,
 and air, water and soil pollution in their own communities especially that involving
 superfund sites.  Events such as the ozone holes that were projected to  appear
 over North America are probably viewed by most as only happening to other
 people.  (Curiously, there was reporting in all papers of the ozone holes  expected
 to appear over North America but some months  later only two papers reported
 that, in fact, the holes never materialized.)

 If there is any  influence from news reporting on  public opinion that shows up in the
 survey, it should come more from the reporting of local events, regional and/or
 state events rather than national and world events.  Ozone and global warming

                                                                          B-13'

-------
issues that seem to be Important in each
then! determine the newspaper •
                                                                       on
assess the

  response.
                                                                 B-14

-------

 in

i
                                                                                                  CO   «-•
                                                            CM  If)
                                                                                                      "CM
                 CO
                                             CO
                                                                                                       CM
         ja

         tz
                                              »-  CM
                                                                                          2  .a
         cr
         43
                 oo
                                              o>
                                                                 Ifl
                                                                                                   CO   00
          03
         cc
         CM

         CM
                          in
                                    00
                                                            G
                                                            CM   00
                                                                                    CM   O>
                                          r-  CO   »
                                                                  CM
                                                                                          CM
                                                                                           <*   10
m
w
O
                  r*  t-
ai


O
O
UJ


u.

O
s


w
  CA
  .a
           ?o      =
O)

I
                   a.
tn

03



0)

•-   S
S   S   c

c'  55   2
js   g   .—   vt   co

s   -g   >   s   «
<   <   U4   j£   i£
aza
Landfills
                                                 •o
                                                 CO
                                                                  O
.      8    »
      D    C   M


     III


 .  1    I   I
 2  2    ±   5
 co  :=    (0   j=
 (0   O    ^   ^    .

 3  5    o   S
 •—   w  '  ^- ' T3

 1   S    1  »    §

 1   8-  8  S   ^
 2   Z    O  a.   oc
,o
*«5



"5
 Q.


 S
 CO

-------
           (A


           I
                      t£>
                   O  CM   *•
                                                                                *•   in
                                                                                                        eo
w     •  *•'
                                                                  cs  w  .n
                                                                               «^   09  r°
                   CN
                                                       in        CM
           (D
           oc
                   r*.  CM
                                                                       CM  CM
                                                                                                            CM
           u
                                      CO
                                                                                                       (D
O
O
u
<
u.
O

I
 to
 ^J
 Q.

•
            cp
           O
CO
1
O
<
r»
"5
.1
(D
s.
Asbestos 1
Environmental issues, gen'l 13
CO
£
2
0>
i
">
UJ
Fires, chemical 1
Fires, non-chemical 1
Hazardous waste 5
Landfills 1
Lead 21
Nuclear facilities/issues/radiation 55
Ozone/global warming 10
Pesticides/herbicides 8
Radon . 1
Recycling 7
SAuvann svsfAms/leales. etc. ' 5
__ _ - . _o_ -—-»•-— — 	 • 	 . 	 • ; 	 r 	 —
tn
®
m
.1
• s
"5
42-
li
J3
is
ja.
CO
technology 2
toxic chemicals/spills/emissions 45
Water pollution 27

-------
St^?^ °F MEDIA COVE«AGE, 1988 AND 1992
(Months of August through October)
City Subiecj Number of
_ 	 Articles
Cincinnati Fernald
Air pollution
Landfills
Hazardous waste
Toxic spills, contamination, emissions
Medical waste
Sewer systems, leaks, etc.
Fire at water treatment plant
Water pollution
Radioactive waste disposal
Environmental law
Pesticides, herbicides
Raleigh-Durham Water pollution
Air pollution
Medical waste
Hazardous waste
Chemical fire -
Toxic chemicals, spills, emissions
Nuclear issues
Asbestos
Pesticides
. Landfill
Ozone
Radon
Superfund
Alternative fuels
Environment, general
Environmental law
-Lfififi 1993
12 • , ,6 : '" v
12 : • -4 ..-..:'• l ''
8 •'•' '•••' • o "- ••-••
3 0
4 \ ' •••- 4 • .'.
- 2 . , • •:, o • .. •- .;;
2 '•- - .' 5 ^: '.. :
1 0
6 , 2
° . '-;..:- s •-•• ... •-' ':'
0 6
° "•' I
40 2
22 4
20 ... _ 0
" 0
* ' . "-1 ..- • - ' •-
9 5
8 3
5 0
*- • ' .-' * ' "••-' -•••••''. -
4-- .'• •• ••--! • • . :••••'; • ••; .
* ,'-.--' , • 2 '•• • : ,
4 0
2 0
0 2
0 3
o-:-. .- . ;,;.-,, •.
; • B-i7 • ' •- . - ' ;l

-------
                                                   1988
                                                     1^92
Albuquerque
   ftmond
Hazardous waste
Water pollution
Air pollution
Nuclear facilities
Toxic chemicals
Pesticides          '
Medical waste
Environmental law

Water pollution
Air pollution
Nuclear issues
Landfill
Hazardous waste
Toxic chemicals
Pesticides, herbicides
Radon gas
Medical waste
Chemical explosion/fire
Recycling        ,
Unidentified globes
Fires, non-chemical
Asbestos
Alternative fuels
Lead
Environment, general
Ozone, global warming
 Sewage systems, leaks
 Superfund, polluted sites
Technology and environment
23

15
12
11
10
8
4 ;
4
4
1
1
1

1
0
Q
0
0
0
0
                                                                       0
                                                                       1
                                                                      10
                                                                       0
                                                                       3
                                                                       0
                                                                       P
                                                                       0
                                                                       0
                                                                       0
                                                                        *
                                                                              B-18

-------

Racine Air pollution
Hazardous waste.
Water pollution
Landfill
Pesticide
Recycling
Chemical fire/explosion
Lead
Alternative fuels
Environment, general
Environmental law
Nuclear facilities, issues, radiation
Ozone, global warming
Radon
Toxic chemicals
New York Hazardous waste
Air pollution . . . ' .
Nuclear facilities, issues, radiation
Medical waste
Water pollution
Chemical fire
Recycling
Lead
Alternative fuels
Asbestos
Ozone, global warming
Superfund, polluted sites
Technology and environment
Toxic chemicals
4 OOQ 1 QQ? '
198? ±3iSLA
3 '. •- . - 7 ';• ' '-. .. ••• • :
3 . . ; ':.M" '. ''-'. .-• ;
2 / - .-." 4 : '"- ; -.-
, -• - - o •:•-;. -. .- • ,;:
i o
1 • ' '•'••--' 5 ' '' :. ' • ; . - .•
', f :i
1 - o ...... • • _;. , \
0 . • - ' 4 -
•6: ; .' •-."' •••':' 1 , ••.:'. •'/:••
o '•".. : 4 -• . "• :
o V
o. • "' " - 4 ..; •'" ,. ;
0 4
o .'•.'.. . 1
• °- • ' ' * •"•"." -., .'
10 2
7 10
•- 5 ' " 17 '. ' • '-'
2 0
' '2-- - ".- ' ' •- i' ' -• '•".; ^:
" ''*... ° • ' ' ',.v
-•v , ..' 1 '• .
0 4
"° -- ;. " ' • 2 '••< :'--r .:',''•
" o • . • ;- ..•• 1 '-•.'•: •••': .
.' Q , ' •'• ;1 •' . •• .: ' ' '"">
'o . ,: /.:..' ""• 1 , ' ;•• '•'••.'•
' 0 ' ' • ' " 1 '•-. '• ' • -•
o 11
B-19

-------
Washington, DC Air pollution
               Toxic chemicals
               Environmentallaw violations
               Lead
               Hazardous waste
               Underground contamination
               Water pollution
               Ozone, global warming
              Alternative fuels
              Environment, general
             ^Nuclear facilities, issues, radiation
isas
•4 "•" . '
3
2 .' .':'' '
2 ' --.
1
• • ' • •
1
1-
1
0
0
o '-'' -
isaz
.- • .-. ' -; 7
13
.- 4
'/ •-- .4
1

0
' .. •:.-. "I
2
1
. 5
2
  3FV
                                                                             B-20

-------
APPENDIX C   ANALYSIS OF PUBUC OPINION                  -
                 Based  on Data  from the  Roper  Center  for  Public
                 Opinion Research
                                                                    V
Background

As part of the 1992 follow-up survey of the. six U.S. Baseline communities, the
Columbia University  Center for Risk Communication obtained national data on
environmental issues from the Roper Center for Pubic Opinion Research at the
University of Connecticut.  After considering over 1000 environmentally  related
questions for the years 1988 to 1991, 373 questions that correlated most closely to
those asked on the follow-up survey were selected. Following this summary are some
of the responses obtained from the Roper Organization (pages C-5 to C-10).
-•.             -   •
 Environmental Quality                  •

 Approximately two-thirds of the American public think that the overall environment in
 the US is not good and is getting worse; however, when asked about their own
 community, the opposite is true - two-thirds believe the environment in their own
 communities is good. When asked "Compared to most other areas, do you think your
 community has clean air and water?*;  63% responded yes.  When asked if they
 thought their communities had "few environmental health risks", 63% responded yes.
 In another survey, when asked if current environmental problems have personally
 affected them, 74% responded "not really". (Cambridge Energy Research Associates,
 1989, phone).

 The 1992 follow-up study supports the Roper data,  showing that two-thirds of
 Americans view their local environment in a positive light. When asked if they thought
 that their community had  clean air and water, 66% of respondents  replied "yes",
 while 29% answered "no".  When asked if they believed their community had few
 environmental health risks, 58% said "yes", while 30% said "no".

 When asked,  in general terms, if they are  willing to pay a higher cost for a.clean
 environment-in higher utility bills, higher taxes  to  maintain and, clean  up  the
 environment, etc.-the majority (over two-thirds) say yes. But when asked specifically
 if they are willing to pay $200 more per year, the number drops dramatically.
 Environmental Impact           '                        v

 Consumers say they want to clean up the environment, but the majority are not
 actively involved in doing something about it, and do not appear to understand their
 own impact on the environment. Sixty-one percent feel they can do little or nothing
 about air pollution from auto exhaust (Roper, 1990, personal).  Fifty-five percent of
 consumers never use mass transportation (USA Today, 1990, phone); these results
 are similar to the response in the 1992 follow-up: 51 % never use mass transportation,

                                        .  .':        ''••-''       •.  C-l

-------
                                                     Driving

  as an option by these con^umersTSereTnot TSSZSS^1*"*^' * "°tSeen
  them; to do so. or it is inconvenient. Consume? conderr^ ^rhf Q °"°mic ince"tive for
  to be; a function of economy and convenience          * e7irOnment aPPears
  »?^^^.ttjds?SS£ j??-- wnat is the


 A conclusion from the 1988 analysis of the Roper data applies to this data-








           -              *               . *  ' "  ~! •"* - '    '  , ,' .

 Sources of Information                             !
                                                  the 1992
    (42%). ani friends an    ies ^S  T . ^ em"ronment!" B'»«PS (57%).
 1990. the top major sources of iitarma^L r a.Roper Persona! «"vey done in
 were TV news (75%). new^apei, 66^1 TndwlV'r0nmental prollle™ and i««es
 news media is a major source ofTnformttifn 1  ma.8azlne shows < « *). Thus, the
 follow-up dara. TV and '
                                      'S llmited- A '"-"on from
Business, the Environment, and Costs
     '    '       "'    :
eSentTat^ey5^^^               "~ » clean up the
of environmental problem^ theykeep buvTno nr H"SUmerS S8e busine^s ""*• ca"»
not on i,e ^^•'mam''m^^f'M  lit
                                                    C-2

-------
 Seventy-two percent of the public say that business will require regulation to develop
 nlw! env ronmentally safe products (Roper, 1990, personal) But when asked if they
 fever a law banning lawn fertilizers, 53% were opposed (Washington Post 1990,
 phone).  Seventy-five percent said  they would favor more effective pollution control
 Equipment in power plants even if  rates were to go up (Yankelovich, 1990, phone).


 Buying Products

 Seventy-three percent of consumers buy on the basis of price and quality as opposed
 to 19% on the basis of a company's environmental record (AP, 1990, phone). In one
 survey,  a  substantial group said they buy  products based on the manufacturers
 environmental reputation or on the product's effect onthe environment (40-50%).
                                             j        .  -    •
 In the 1992 resurvey, 40% of respondents said that they almost always purchase
 products because they are safe for the environment and 46% said they sometimes do.
 When-askfed if they avoid buyinp  : roducts from companies that they think are not
 doing a good Sob protecting the environment, 26% said almost always, while 36%
 said sometimes.            *

 Twenty-nine percent of respondents in one Roper survey said they regularly avoid
 buying the products of companies with poor environmental records,-25% said they
 occasionally do, and 40% said they do not (Yankelovich,  1990, phone.)  In another
 survey, 53% said they, as consumers, are not willing to pay more for products that
* are environmentally sound (Roper,  1990, personal). In the same survey, 70% said the
 major reason for environmental problems is that consumers are more interested in the
 convenience provided by many products than in the effect those products have on the
 environment.  Fifty-four percent do not avoid buying products from companies that
 are not environmentally responsible (Roper, 1990, personal). In a Gallup Poll in 1990,
 ,72%  said they did not boycott a  company's products because of its record on the
 environment.                '

 household Products

 Forty-seven percent of respondents in the 1992 resurvey said they almost always use
 biodegradable, low-phosphate soaps and detergents, and 30% said they sometimes
 do. In a Roper survey done in 1990, 68% said they would be willing to see the ban
 of  toxic ingredients  in products  like  insecticides and bathroom cleansers in their
 community; 24% said it would not be worth the cost.


  Volunteering to Protect the Environment

  In  response  to  the question "How often do you do volunteer  work for local
  environmental groups" in the 1992 follow-up survey,  73% said never.  A 1989
  national poll by the U.S. Council for Energy Awareness asked  if, in the past year, the
  respondent or anyone in the  respondent's household donated to or was active in 9
  group or organization working to protect the environment; 73% responded no.
                                                                         C-3

-------
The average American does  not  appear to be  concerned enough about a clean
environment to  volunteer, which  corroborates the finding that the majority of
Americans think their local environment does not need help.      !"'  V
Air Pollution and the Clean Air Act                              I
        " -               ' •                         .     " '     -["'•'
                                                             I
Most respondents to the follow-up survey believed that air pollution is a very serious
or somewhat serious problem. When asked how much of a problem they considered
air pollution from various sources,  77% responded that air pollution from vehicle
exhaust is a "very serious" or "somewhat serious" problem, 57%j believed that air
pollution from factories, mills, or other processing plants was  "very serious" or
"somewhat serious," and 65% thought that air pollution from industrial waste is "very
serious" or "somewhat serious."

In an Associated Press/Media General poll, 75% of respondents believed that laws
against pollution in the U.".  were too weak  (1990).   Ninety-three percent favor
stronger action by govern.,  .it to stop pollution (Harris poll, 1989], and 85% favor
stricter control of auto emissions to control air pollution (Harris poll,  199.0).
                             •            •                    i  . •
While a majority of Americans believe that air pollution is a problem, and that stronger
government regulations are needed to control pollution, 55% had not never heard of
the Clean Air Act.  Of the 41 % of respondents who had read or heard about the bill,
4p% thought it did not go far enough, and one-third believed it had  about the right
balance.

Consumers seem to feel that protecting and/or improving air quality isi "someone else's
problem" - primarily the government's.  Clearly, there is strong support for more and
stronger regulations; however, as noted above, only a small percentage of Americans
have made changes in their transportation and lifestyle habits that would help reduce
air pollution.
Community Rioht-to-Know                                     |

The Community Right-to-Know laws were passed with the idea that the public would
benefit.  Unfortunataly, the laws and their benefits were not widely publicized. The
follow-up survey asked how much the respondents felt they know about Community
Right-to-Know laws; while 38% responded "almost nothing," and 26% said "not too
much,? only 8% thought they knew "a lot" and 26% felt they knew "some."

Other  questions on the  resurvey dealt  with the acquisition of information about
environmental risks or problems, and responses showed a pattern of little information
being disseminated or sought.  When  asked if, in the preceding three months, the
respondents had read or heard anything about the risks of chemicals or hazardous
waste in their community, less than half (43%) said  "yes"; when  asked if they had
read or heard anything in the past week, 30% responded "yes", whiiie 69% said "no".
Only 11 %  of respondents had called or written for information aboSut  environmental
problems in the past year.

• •'. .-.r •••''""•      * .••      .         "'       ,   v  -. ':"    ;; ">;-" •.    c-4

-------
  ROPER DATA
  TAXES & HIGHER PRICES
  1.  X
                                                                  fees on
     emissions, hazardous waste  and CFcT Thl^T?   Pr°dUCtS SUCh a§ carbon
     but might raise the coit^SuiSi^S^lS? ^ Personal income tax«s
     type of hew environmental tax?     Produc's-  Would you favor or oppose this
     Favor                     -700,      ,« ..
                              7«%      (Gallup, 1991, phone)
 2.  How worried are you that environmental regulations wi,, result in higher taxes?
 Very worried
 Somewhat worried
 Not.very worried
.I*M* worried
 wa
 Yes
                            26%
                            34%
                            26%
                            "*
                            61%
                                       (USA Today. 1990. phone,
                                        Ch ** <° si9niflcan«(y reduce air and
                                                          »
                                       (USAToday, 1990, phone)
4. Which is more impor^n,. pro,ec,,n8 ,he environment or .ceepin9 prices down,
  Protecting the environment  81%
  Keeping prices down        13%
                                       ,NBC. 1991, phone)
 Support
 Oppose
 $300 increase?
 Support
 °PP°se

                            47%
                            52%
                          59%
                          59%
                                      (Half sample, Washington Post, 1 990
                                      phone)
only?
Yes
                          -no.
                          70^
                                             •
                                         r environmental cleanup purposes
                                     (Yankelovich, 1990, phone)

-------
    7
       Agree
                   te environment even if it means increase


                                71%      (CBS/NYT, 1990,
   JOBS

   1.
      .Strongly agree
      Somewhat agree
      Somewhat disagree
      Strongly disagree
                                                      government spending and
                                                          phone)

                               29%
                               39%
                               17%
                               10%
  2
                                          (USAToday, 199C, phone)
«t
£
     L;imit jobs, income levels     12%
     Increase jobs, income levels  82%
    sacrifice economic growth in

    Sacrifice growth
    Sacrifice environment
                              72%
                              15%
  '
   Favor
   Oppose
                             33%
                             59%
_
 '
  Willing
  Not worth cost
  Don't know
                             54%
                             34%
                             12%
                                        (Manilla, 1990, phcine!
                                                 V°Ur
                                                            :  We must be
 (Manilla, 1990,

producing factories



(Hart-Teeter, 1990,
                                                             >vouM re,ult
                                      (Roper, 1990, personall)
                                                                   C-6

-------
6  Do vou favor- or oppose shutting down a major company which provided many

   jobs in your community if it was polluting the environment?


   Favor       "             44%
   Oppose                    52%      (Washington Post, 1990, phone)


7  Do you favor or oppose strict enforcement of pollution regulations against an

   industrial plant in your area, even if workers might be laid off as a result?


   Favor                      66%                       '
                              25%      (Yankelovich, 1990, phone)
ELECTRIC COSTS


1   Would- you be willing to pay fifty dollars more each - .bnth on your electric bill if
    it meant that electricity could be produced Jn a clear  way that would reduce a.r
    pollution?


    Yes
                               51%      (USAToday, 1990, phone)


 2.  Do you favor requiring more effective pollution control equipment in electric power

    plants, even if rates for electricity were to go up.                    :


    Favor                      75%      (Yankelovich, 1990, phone)
 STANDARD OF LIVING


 1. Would you be willing to accept a lower standard of living if it meant a cleaner

    environment?


    Yes                       63%
    No                        27%       (USAToday, 1990, phone)


 2 Do you think the environment should be sacrificed in order to maintain your
    standard ofliving, or do you think sacrifices in your standard of living should be

    made fn order to protect the environment?


    Maintain standard of living     8%
    Protect the environment    85%       (USA Today, 1992, phone)
                                                                         C-7

-------
CLEAN AIR ACT
      i                    :              .            •
1.  Should Congress make the Clean Air Act stricter than it is now?

   Make it stricter              73%      (Harris; 1990, phone]

2.  Hayeyou read or heard anything about the Clean Air Bill?
   Ye?
   No
41%
55%
                                        (Hart-Teeter, 1990, phone)

3. Haye you heard of the passage of the Clean Air Act?
    Heard a lot about
    Heard something about
    Never-heard of
CONVENIENCE
21%
44%
35%
                                        (P   ;A, 1990, phone)
1.  How worried are you that environmental regulations will make life a lot less
    convenient?
    Ve'ry worried
    Somewhat worried
    Not very worried
    Not at all worried
17%
31%
30%
18%
                                        (U.SA Today, 1990, phone)
2.  Everyone wants a clean environment, but the question comes down to at what
    cost or inconvenience. Would you limit the number of large cars that could be
    produced?                                              I
    Favor
    Oppose
 AUTO! AIR POLLUTION
 51%
 44%
                                        (Hart-Teeter, 1990, phone)
 1.  Do you favor stricter control  of emissions from auto engines to control air
    pollution?                                              ]
    Favor
 85%
                                        (Harris, 1990, phone)
                                                                       C-8

-------
  TOXIC CHEMICALS


  1 .  EPA requires companies using toxic chemicals to follow certain procedures in the

     use, transportation, and disposal of those chemicals.  Should procedures be


     More strict                 81%      (Tobacco Institute, 1988, phone)



 GOVERNMENT



 1.  Federal government should become more involved  in solving environmental
     problems.                                       •      ,


     More involved              82%      (Marist Institute, 1989, phone)
     More involved              82%      (1990)

         . involved              80%      (1991)
         *
        *                -                         •


 2.  More government regulation needed to solve pollution problems.


    More Needed              68%      (Opinion Dynamics, 1989, phone)
 3'
    Yes       .                79%      (Yankelovich, 1989, phone)



CONSUMER PRODUCTS
1 ' fvlUtShen?f Ft!? lngredients in Products like insecticides and bathroom cleaners,
   even though this means they may not work as fast or be as effective.        '

   Willing                     68%

   Not worth the cost          24%      (Roper, 1990, personal)


2.  Do you favor or oppose laws that ban lawn fertilizers?


   Favor                      43%            -

   °PP°se                     53%      (Washington Post, 1990, phone)


                               envir°nmental ^ord, or decide main.y on basis
   Mfr.'s environmental record  19%

   Price and quality            73%      (AP, 1990, phone)
                                                                     C-9

-------
 4.  Do you support restrictions on product packaging to reduce trash.

    Support                   88%      (AP, 1990, phone)  !
      .•-.-"           •    •..  •      .  , .•   .   •     '       i-  "'.-..-.'.''
 5.  Done to improve the quality of the environment - boyconed a company's
    products because of its record on the environment           I

    No/don't know             72%      (Gallup, 1990, phone)
      !••                       71%      (1991)
      i                '."""-.'     '•''••      ••         !  '"'.'" -,••••'•  • ., •.
           ;     '   '   " '      •  ' . ' .      .'         "     ,     ' , '
 6.  Have you ever stopped buying products from a company because it was polluting
    the environment.                               '         I
    Ye*           •   •'•-.' - 51%  • .  .     •     •'.•••".   •'(•   .' .  .  .'•-. ,.
,*  No                        48%      (USAToday, 1990, phone)
 7,  Do you avoid  buying  products from companies whk'r you
    environmentally responsible
do not feel are
    Do on regular basis         16%                         j
    Do from time to time        27%                         i
    Don't'really bother         54%       (Roper, 1990, personal)
                                                                      C-10

-------
       APPENDIX D
BASELINE II 1992 QUESTIONNAIRE
                                    Baseline  Study of
                    Public Knowledge and  Perceptions of Chemical Risks
                         T 0 P  L I  N E Q It E S T  I 0 N N A  I R E
                           PRINCETON SURVEY RESEARCH ASSOCIATES
                            457 N. Harrison Street, Suite 104
                                   Princeton,  NJ   08540
(After introductory remarks and selection of  respondent)
5.    The first questions involve your views  about the quality of  '-fe  in  the  (Name
      Community) area.
Compared to most other areas,  do you think that  the  (Name  Community) area has:  (READ EACH
ITEM, RECORD'ONE ANSWER FOR EACH.  ROTATE LIST.)
                                                            Don't
                                                Yes  Mfi    Know   Refused
b. Clean air and water
c. Good -health care
d. Few environmental health risks
e. A low crime rate
d^b -
66
80
58
41
29
12
30
53
OBIBMMMB
5
8
12
" 6
- - 100
- 100
-'100
- « 100
6.    Compared with other health and safety risks, such as car accidents, food-borne^
      Illness, heart disease, and home fires, do you think the risk of chemicals produced,
      stored, or processed 1n the fYQUR COMMUNITY) area 1s:  not a problem, a minor
      problem, a slightly serious problem, a serious problem or a very serious problem?
      15 •••
      37  '
      24
      15
      5
      4

      100'/.
Not a problem
A minor problem
A,slightly serious problem
A serious problem (or)
A very serious .problem
Don't Know
Refused

-------
 7.    Do you think there are any facilities or locations in your
      to the "safety of the environment, such as a threat to the
31
00
00
 1
 2
IF

20
 1
 0
•L
 3
 1
 4
10

 1

 6
 5

13
 8
 4
      49    Yes
      45 ;   No -
      6  i   D/K
      .-'  ;   Ref
     100%
                -ASK QUESTION 8
               —Skip to Q. 11
8.    Would you briefly describe the type of place or facility?
      ASK: What is it that they make or do there? (PROBE ONLY OKE;  What other
facilities?")  (RECORD ALL MENTIONS, ALLOW UP TO THREE REi
Chemical manufacturing plant
Dry cleaners                        -
   ;i   ' •  -  »           .       •        '     •
Farm supplier
Gasoline station
Incinerator
Landfill/garbage collection       •
facility/dump
Nuclear facility/power plant        .
Pharmaceutical manufacturer
   •i             • ••        -..-•..
Public swimming pool
Refinery
Research 1aboratory
Sewage treatment plant
   :                      .       i
Hazardous waste disposal
facility
Hazardous material
transport facility
Don't know/Refused  (Skip to Q. 11)
Other (Specify)
   [     • '        ' '  ',        - • -
Manufacturing Industries/Companies  (General)
Military Waste/Weapons Disposal
Pollution (General)
                                                           area that pose a threat
                                                          air, 'water or son ?
                                                           IF RESPONSE IS NOT CLEAR
                                                                PONSES)

-------
9     To what extent, if at all,  are you bothered by (Name  of  first  piantionad  facility
      from 0.8V?   (SRP:  IF 2 OR MORE FACILITIES MENTIONED IN Q.  8,  ADD:   ",  that  you
      mentioned first?")  Are you bothered a .great deal,  somewhat,  not too much,  or not  at
      all?               •                                             .
      21
      38
      24
      16
      1

    loo«
A great deal
Somewhat	
Not too much
Not at all
Don't Know
Refused 	
I—Ask Question 10
 —Skip to Question 11
10.    Please te^ll me if any of the following bothers you about this (Name of first
      mentioned facility from 0.8>?   Are you bothered a great deal, some, not too much or
      not at all by:   (READ FIRST ITEM.)
      And, thinking about the (FACILITY), are you bothered a great deal, some, not too
      much, not at all  by '(HEM)?  (RECORD ONE ANSWER FOR EACH, ROTATE ORDER.  REPEAT
      QUESTION FOR FIRST THREE ITEMS AND AS NEEDED THEREAFTER.)      .
                                  A Great         Not      Not    Don't
                                   Deal   Some  Too Much  At All  Know  Refuse
      a)  An unpleasant smell         35
      b)  The danger it poses to
          health in the long run     66
      c)  Dust, dirt, or smoke
          in the air                 34
      d)  Toxic substances that
         go into the air or water    64
      e)  The possibility that a
         major acclderit could harm
         •or kill people              .-45
      f)  The Irritation it causes
         to eyes,nose, throat,
         or skin                     30
      g)  Long term damage to the
         environment                 66
      h)  A decrease in property
         values                      23
                                27
                                29
                                34
                                 29
                                 30
                      12
                      14
                      14
24
17
100
                                                     100
100
                                                     100
                    » 100
32
29
24
13
1
18
22
1
31
3
3
4
- - 100
- .100
» 100

-------
                                  A Great          Not       Not  S   Don't
                                   Deal    Some  .Too  Much   At All   Know  Refuse'
      i)  The treat it posses
         to fish,  wildlife
         and plants?

      j)  Trucks traveling to
         and from the facility?
      58
29
      (FORM I*A,B,C,E,F,G,
      27     32

FORM II.D,J,H,1)
8
        16
         23
100
100
ASK Q. 11 AND 12 IN SEQUENCE.   ASK Q.  12 ONLY FOR FACILITIES LOCATED IN RESPONDENT'S
COMMUNITY: "YES" IN Q. 11                                .      i
                                                               !•             '•>,-.
11.   °I'm going to read a list of facilities that may be locate*! in the (.COMMUNITY) area.
      (You may have already mentioned one or more-of these facilities.) Now* I'd like you
      to £eU me if there is such a fariuty located where vou currently-live. First...

Is there a (HEM) located near where you currently live. (READ EACH ITEM,  ROTATE LIST)
(REPEAT QUESTION FOR FIRST THREE ITEMS.)
         I
a) Chemical manu-
   facturing plant

b) Dry cleaners

d) Gasoline station

e) Incinerator

f) Landfill

g) Sewage treatment
   plant

h) Hazardous waste
   facilities


Yei
32
78
84
10
41


No
61
21
15
82
55
ij. 11-
Don't
Know
7
1
1
8
4
\

Refused
- '"• 100
- « 100
- » 100
» 100
. 100
... — ,_v. x


Yes No
64
13
21'
57
55
32
77
•
76
40
41

Oon't
Know
4
10
3
3
4


Refused
« 100
- - too
- - 100
" I00
- 100
  33   59     8


  15   76     9
          « 100   34   60   6
            100   74   ?.l   5
                                 « 100


                                 - 100
12    Do you think  (ITEM)  poses  a  threat  to  the  safety of the environment  in  the  (ISUfi,
      COMMUNITY)  area?  (MARK  RESPONSE ABOVE  UNDER QUESTION 12)

-------
13.   In the past three months,  have  you  read  or  heard  anything  about  the  risks of
      chemicals or hazardous  wastes  in  the  (COMMUNITY!  area?
14.
15.
      43    Yes	
      56    No	
      1     Don't Know
            Refused	
                     —Ask Question  14

                     —Skip to Q.  17
100X
 In the past week, have you read or heard anything about the risks of chemicals  or
 hazardous wastes in the fCOMMUNITY! area?            x
      30   -Yes-	
      69   Wo	
      1    Don't Know
      -	  Refused	
                      -Ask Question 15
                   	Go to Q. 17
100JS
 What was the information that you heard or read?  (PROBE AND CLARIFY FULLY)  (ALLOW
 THREE RESPONSES)                                            .
       Accidental chemical leak/discharge  10X
       Sewage Treatment/Contaminaton       10X
       Water Pollution from Chemicals       9%                                ,

-------
 IG  '   Where did you read or hear  this  information?   (DO'NOT  READ |RESPONSES,  USE  FOR  POST
'.  ".   INTERVIEW CODING ONLY)  (ALLOW MULTIPLE RESPONSE)  -(PROBE QNLI  ONCE)
 00
  3
  •2
 00
 00
  2

 00 :

 00
 00
 00.
 00

 21
 00
  8
 12
  3
 00
 44
 21
 10
Doctors or other health professionals
Family members/Friends or neighbors-
Government officials (LOCAL/STATE/NATIONAL)
Government publications                ,
Hotljines
Letters or newsletters from
  environmental groups
Letters or newsletters from
  chemical ..companies
    i           ,     '.   ,  •
Library.
Local businesses
Local Emergency Planning Committee
Magazines (SPECIFY  NAME(S) AS AN  "LL"
OTHER)
Newspapers (unspecified)
Notices in mail
                       *
Radio
Television news  (LOCAL)
    i
Television news  (NATIONAL)
Town meetings
Newspapers  (LOCAL)
Newspapers  (GENERAL)
Other  (SPECIFY)
  1    Don't Know/Refused
 18    TV (General)
  7    Worlc

-------
SRP NOTE:  Q. 17, 18 & 19 ARE ALL RANDOM START. ALL THREE SHOULD START ON THE SAME RANDOM
START ITEM.                              ,                   .
17.   There are several different sources of information about the risks that chemicals
      might pose to a community.  I'd like to ask you some1 questions about each of those
      sources.  First...
Hould you say that you a
a) Friends and relatives?
b) Local emergency planning
      committees?
c) Doctors?
d) S'tate government officials?
e) Chemical industry officials?
f) Federal government officials?
g) Environmental groups?
i) Local government officials?
k) News reporters?
1) Federal Environmental
   Protection Agency?
COMMUNITY) area from: (READ EACH ITEM
, ROTATE LIST.
• ITEMS AND AS NEEDED THEREAFTER.)
Information
aj^t
9
t '
6
. 3
ils? 6
ials? 4
:ials? 6
16
ils? 5
25
Some
31
24
19
,- 29
15
25
41
33
48
Not Too
Much
24
20
16
28
24
27
15
26
13
None
• 35.
45
55
35
55
40
26
34
12
Don't
Know
1
5
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
Refused .
-" ' « 100
- -wo
. 100
« 100
- 100
' - » 100
• 100
- 100
'- « 100
34    21
33
100
(SPLIT FORM: I:ORH I: A^.E.F,    FORM  II: B,C,G,1[,K,L)

-------
18.    I'm going  read  this  list  again.
      source.
This time, please tell me how much vou trust each
How much'do you  trust  (ITEM1 a  lot,  some,  not too much,  or not [at all  when it comes  to
finding out abouFthT rTIkTof  chemicals  in the (COMMUNITY) area?  (START ON SAME ITEM AS
IN Q. 17)  (REPEAT QUESTION FOR  FIRST £J1£ ITEMS AND AS NEEDED THEREAFTER.)
a)  Friends and relatives?

b):  Local! emergency, planning
      committees?

c)  Doctors?

d)  State government officials?

e)  Chemical industry officials?

f) . Fedefal government officials?
         I  >           ..";..
g)  Environmental groups?

i)  Local government officials?
         j ' -     • .     '•'•.'
k)  Newsi reporters?

1)  Federal Environmental
    Protection Agency?
A_Lot
32
.18
28
8
6
? 8
28
5
18
22
Jj-i
"»
Some
43
47
41
42
25
36
45
39
S3
47
lot Too
Much A
14
18
16
29
32
31
17
33
19
19
Not DC
t All KE
10
n't
ow
1
11 6
14
20 r
35
24
8
22
9
10
,-.
1
2
*
2 •
T
1
2
Refused
- . 100
: - = loo
- » 100
-. - 100
-' - 100
'"•"'•r' * 100
- = 100
- - 100
- - 100
= - 100
                                              8

-------
19    I'm going to read the list one last time.  This time please tell me how
      knowledgeable'you think each source is about the risks of chemicals, to the
      environment.                        .
Do vou think {1T1EH1 fls/arel very, somewhat, not too or not at all knowledgeable about the
risks of chemicTlsto the (COMMUNITY) area? (START .ON SAME ITEM AS IN Q. 17&18)  (REPEAT
QUESTION FOR FIRST FIVE ITEMS AND AS NEEDED THEREAFTER.)
a)  Friends and relatives?
b).  Local emergency planning
      commit'tee.s?
                                 Very
                                  11
                                  24
                                  23
                                  32
c)  Doctors?
d)  State government officials?
e)  Chemical Industry officials?  62'
f)  Federal government officials? 38
g)  Environmental groups?         44
i)  Local government officials?   12
k)• News reporters?               12
    •?
1)  Federal Environmental         52
    Protection Agency?
                                       Knowledgeable
                                        Some- Not
                                        What  Ififi
50
52

51
49
25
42
42
SO
59
35
26
13

17
12
 5
12
 8
27
22
 7
 Not
At All
  11
   5
   7
   5  *
   5
   5
   4
   9
   6
   4
Don't
Know
  2
  6

  2
  2
  3
  3
  2
  2
  1
  2
                          Refused
100
100

100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100

-------
20.
21.
22.

23
      In the  last  year,  have  you called or written to seek information about environmental
      problems  in  your community?                •          -    K       !            "
     '  '  ,    .'''-.'•"'.' i         -.••-••        .
      ii.'i  Yes    ; •  :••:.-.     .   -'. ;  ,,'        ..•    '.•'• ." '

      89 ;  No   '  , ••  '       '.'.   •   _ -.  '•   .'•'•  '. .  ..'•  . '   -._'

      _^   Don't  Know

      ~ ,  Refused         .
     100%

        NO QUESTION 21
        NO QUESTION 22
         ' '  ;, ~    "     ' !      •       .          .     •      '    '  i   ••••'.•.•.   ''•-•-
      The next  questions deal with how much you feel xsa  know  about  different
      environmental topics in your area.  If you don't  know  about  a  topic,  that's okay,
      •ust tell  me   Would you say you know a  lot, some,  not too much,  or almost nothing
       ust ten  me.  wouio yu _jrjr . __     (REPEAT QUESTION FOR FIRST'THREE ITEMS AND
AS NEEDED THEREAFTER.)

: ' • - • .'••.•'
. : ' • . . •-.-'. '... •
c) The quality of your area's
drinking water?
d) Community right-to-know laws?
f) Emergency preparedness plans
. , in your area?
h) Activities to clean up
accidental spills of
hazardous materials?
4 A Tk« «• •(*•!/«• nf />liom1 »*a1 e



A Lot
17 - '

8
9

9

7



Some
45

26
28

3.0

39


Not
Too Much
21

26
24

26

27


Almos
Nothi
16

38
38
, .
34
.•
26
' ,

t Don't
nfl Know
:'. "Y
• ' •''''. '
2
1

' ' l
• "
' • . i



Refuse
' '. «• '

«.


• - .'.
.- •

                                                                                 100


                                                                                 100

                                                                                 100


                                                                                 100



                                                                                 100
     in your area?
                                              • . '  •    -      -   *     \ -      •   "          -
The next few questions   are  important to us because they will help us learn learn how to
better cbmmunicate with  the  /COMMUNITY NAMEV community about eiwironmental issues:
24a.  How concerned  to  you think (item) are/ is about PROTECT JNI the health            .    .
      people  in your community from possible effects of chemicals?  Do they have: a lot of
      concern, some,  not too much or none at all? (READ EACH  ITEM, ROTATE LIST)
a.  Industry  officials?

b.  The  Federal  EnvironmiBntal
    Protection Agency?

c.  Environmental  groups?

A Lot
12
30

Some
46
47
" Not
Too Much
, , • ( r
29
' : 14 , '
None
At AIT
10
4
Don't.
Know
3
5

Refused
'•'"-.- -100
- - 100
                                51
35
                                                                                 100
                                              10

-------
 24b.   I'd  like to-read this list again. This time please tell  me how much you think  each
      group tries to RESTRICT what people in your community can find out about health  and
      safety problems from chemicals?  Do they try a lot, some, not too much, or not at
      all? (READ EACH ITEM, ROTATE LIST)            .                       ,
                                      • '         " '        '        •         ,,,""•'      ,"

                             	RESTRICT INFORMATION——
                                    -         Not       Not     Don't
                             A Lot   Some   Too Much   At All    Know   Refused
                                                                    '     •   i '       •'
a. Industry officials?         29     42       14         9       6       -  » 100
          J                              •             •  .•              •    •.  .•
c. The Federal  Environmental    9     40       25        19       7      ' -  - 100
   Protection Agency?                 •                                  .             ,

d. Environmental  groups?        6     22       24        42       6       -  « 100


(Q 24A & B: ': Cases per community: Richmond 123, Raleigh Durham 140, Albuquerque 105;
Cincinnati 105,'Middlesex 77, Racine 213).

25.   Please' tell me if you agree or disagree with each of the following statements.
      First,  (STATEMENT, ROTATE LIST) IF AGREE: Would you agree strongly, or agree
      somewhat?  IF DISAGREE, Would you disagree strongly, or disagree somewhat? (REPEAT
      QUESTION FOR FIRST THREE ITEMS AND AS NEEDED THEREAFTER.)

                                         Some-
                                Strongly what   Somewhat Strongly Don't   -
  " •-                             Agree  Agree  Disagree Disagree Know Refused


a) We should assume a chemical is
   safe unless tests prove it       13    13       16      56       2     -  « 100
   dangerous.

b) Any release of chemicals into
   the environment is not           42    17       25      14       2     -  » 100
   acceptable

c) Local officials are interested
   in what the public has to say    19   .  41      21      16       3     -  « 100
   about chemicals in the area.

d) The only time the public hears                  •
   about the release of toxic       58     20      13    ^   B       1     -  • 100
   chemicals is when the problem
   is so big it can't be kept
   secret anymore

e) It's not the amount of a chemical
   you are exposed to that matters, ,43     18       15      21      3     -  - 100
   it's whether or not you are
   exposed at all.

f) If a person is exposed to a
   chemical that can cause cancer,  38     30      20       7       5       -  « 100
   then that person is likely to
   get cancer later.in life.

-------
        .  '' '    • • -. '     •,•'-•:     -  •  •'•  'Some-'          "      .!•'-.   '..•••.-•
                                .Strongly what   Somewhat Strongly-Don't
                                   Agree   Agree  Disagree .Disagree Know Refused.
g)  There  are  some  chemical  risks                                 !
    that are too small  to worry      19     24      19       37'. |     1     -  -100
    .about.; '     .""'.,""           -  -      •       ./.',-        '  j '.  .. , •;/'     ''"• •'_ '..'.
h)  Local  businesses are usually     11     27      30       28  |    4     -  -100
    very careful with  dangerous                                  ]
    chemicals                                                     j
i)  Planned releases of chemicals      4     20      33       39  j     A   '  -  «  100
    into the environment are                           _          !
    are generally  safe.                                          i
(FORM  I:  ITEMS A-E ,   FORM II: ITEMS F-I)      .                j
      Next,  PC  Hke  to ask you a few questions about some things .that'may- or  may not be
      happening \nthe (COMMUNITY) area.                        I
26a.  First,  in  the  (Community) area, is there an emergency preparedness         plan  for
      hazardous materials, or not?                              !
:  -    43     Yes     -     •'       '  '   ' .  ••'••''.•;       ';   .   :  . j'   • .''.'"' .; •'  ';••   ' •
                   • .      .       - ...      '  '    ...  .     .     -  •  -j '...--. ^ •   - . ' ,      -  -
'   "   is     NO-   '  ','..,•""  .•"'.'.'.''   .      ••'.   -.•'    •'. M;-:1 ''• ''.'-..-• /;..' •.•>•;;"'• -"-
                                    .          > . -    '  -     ...    p        *      •    -'.''•',-
      41  !   Don't know                  f                        !
       ~    Refused
      100X
 26b.   Doe? the police or fire department have trained  personnel
       emergencies, or not?
 .   . : 74,:  •:Yes:   :         .         .•;../   ,   '  "  . :
        S :   No    7        ;             . :.    .          .'-'.    :
       21    Don't know
       ==    Refused
      ioo%
 26c.   DoJlocal businesses notify  the  community  about any toxic
 to respond to chemical
chemicals they use, store
          release, or not?
       23 .   Yes
       51 ;   No
       26    Don't know
             Refused
      IOQ%
                                              12

-------
 26e.  Do you think local businesses h§ve reduced the amount of toxic chemicals they store,
      use, or release, or not?
      51

      32

      17


     100%
         Yes

         No   •

         Don't know

         Refused
                                             ,'si,-
26d.  Are environmental groups active in discussing the risks of toxic chemicals in your
      area, or not?
      53

    ,.34
    t -,

      i3


     100J4
         Yes

         No

         Don't know

        .Refused
27.
   What kind of job do you think each of the following groups is do.ing at keeping the
   (COMMUNITY) area safe from the risks of hazardous chemicals?   •

   Would you say that (ITEM) is doing an excellent, good, fair, or poor job keeping the
   fCOMMUNITY) area safe from the risks of hazardous chemicals?   (READ EACH ITEM)
   (RECORD ONE ANSWER FOR EACH)  (REPEAT QUESTION FOR FIRST THREE ITEMS AND AS NEEDED
   THEREAFTER.)

                                ,                  ,, Never Heard
                                '        i•  •   1V  of/Not   Don't
                           Excellent Good  Fair  Poor Familiar  Know  Refused

a) The local government

b) Local businesses

c) The Federal Environmental
      Protection Agency

d) The state government

e) The local emergency
      planning committee

f) Local environmental groups  8
2
2
1 7
3
6
. ^^£m^^^~ <
27
23
36
28
35
^^MBMin*
48
49
40
47
36
18
20
11
17
10
1
- .
1
1
3
•••MMMBiB
4
6
5
4
10
- - 100
•-. - 100
- * 100
- -100
.... . 100
                                         43
34
100
                                             13

-------
28.   Next,  I'm going to read some things people may or may not do to protect
   ";  .themselves from chemical  risks in the environment.

Have you ever (READ ITEM) because of risks in the environment? (REPEAT
QUESTION FOR EVERY ITEM) (ROTATE LIST)                  -  \   '•
                                                        Don't
                                             Yes   {to   Knfiw.  Refused
                                                   84
 FORM

 29.

 30.
                                                   81
 a) Moved or  chosen  not  to  live  ..'       15
   in  a certain  house

 b) Gone to the library  to  find  out      19
   more about an environmental
   problem         .

 c) Attended  a town  or community
 '• meeting
- ' *  • %                 ,• •      r    - ;  -
 d) Contributed  time or  money to
   an  environmental cause        -

 e) Called  or written to a  government
   official

 f) Talked  to a  doctor?   •

 g)  Encouraged local business and
    industry to.provide information
    about  toxic  substances?

 h)  Encouraged recycling in
   your community?

 1)  Encouraged local business and
   'industry to take a  stronger role
    in cleaning up  the  environment?

 j)  Asked local  government to take a     20    79
    stronger role in cleaning up  the
    environment?

 I: A-E,  FORM II: F-J                   .

 NO QUESTION 29

 NO QUESTION 30
1
100
  ,\


100
?4
48
19
19
17
76
31
76
"
52
1
80
81
•
82
.. .
23
68
- — « 100
- '"--•' » 100
1 - »100
- - - « 100
i ;-" -loo
1 - - 100
1 '.--.- 100
                                                                       100
                                        14

-------
   31    Here is another list of things  people may or may not do.  This time,
         please tell  me how often,  if ever, you  do each one.  First, do you
         almost always, sometimes,  hardly  ever,  or never: (READ  EACH ITEM, ROTATE

         LIST)!                           f     3   T,    ,  I     cT
                                        Almost   Some- Hardly        Don't
                                        Always   Times  Ever  Never  Know   Refused

a. Recycle glass bottles or aluminum
   cans?         .               "     .

b. Recycle newspapers?        ,    .
             >                • '
d. Purchase products because they are
   safe for the environment?
 t
e. .Use biodegrHable, low phosphate
  ^ "soaps/deter^ ..ts?
    * •       %
f. Avoid buying products from companies
   you think aren't doing a good job
   protecting the environment?

g. Use public transportation, or car
   pool?

h. Do volunteer work for local
   environmental groups?

i) Use bottled drinking water

(FORM I«A,B,D,I,   FORM II-E.F.G.H)
66
62

40
47
26
12
2
17
OHH^HHM«»« V
20
17

46
30
36
20
12
23 .
3
4

5 ,
6
13
16
13
13
10
17

8
13
22
51
73
47
1 - • 100
- » 100
"l
1 I- « 100
- . I • .
4 »- =100
3 ; - « 100
1 - » 100
- - -100
- - - 100
                                          15

-------
31a,   For each  of  the  following environmental  issues, please tell me  if you think it
      is-  A  very serious  problem, a  somewhat  serious  problem,! a minor problem,  or no
      problem at all  in  (Community)  area?  The first  issue,  is:  (READ  ALL,  ITEMS,
      ROTATE LIST)                                        :   !

                             Very    Somewhat    A           !
 a.' Indoor, air pollution.
    in offices or homes?

 b.  Global climate changes?
;       f
 c.  The Imunicipal drinking
    water?

 d.  Use of household  products
    like  cteaners and bug
    killers?  ,

 e.  Exposure  to  electromagnetic
    fields?

 f.  The!avail ability  of
    landfill  space?

 g.  Outdoor  air  pollution  from   18     39        33
    factories, mills,
    processing plants, etc?

 h.  Water pollution  from         25     40      *  24
    industrial wastes?

 i.  Pollution from things         32      41       21
    people dump  into rivers,                -
    lakes and streams?

 j.  Outdoor air  pollution from   28  •    49       18
    auto, bus and truck
    exhaust?

 FORH I-  A THRU E, FORM II- F THRU J: ALHAYS READ HI I TOGETHER, ALTERNATING ORDER
Serious
Problem

•8 ' ,
16
13

ic

*-...
3
27
Serious Minor Not A Don't
Problem Problem Problem Know Refused
32 39 15
32 27 18
25 32 25
36 35 12
6 - » 100
7 ' ' - « 100
5 - » 100
4 _ . 100
20 30 26i 18 - - 100
36 19 SI 9 - - 100
                                                            i:
- .  loo


- •  100


- -  100


- -  100
                                          16

-------
32.    If  there was a large spill or release of hazardous chemicals in the
       (COMMUNITY) area, how do you think you would first be notified?  (DO NOT
       READ LIST.)  (IF RESPONDENT SAYS "NEWS", ASK:  Would that be on TV,
       radio or some other source?) (DO NOT PROBE)
       1 Friends/relatives/Neighbors
       3 Siren/warning signal                            .'..,.
       1 Emergency broadcast system
       5 Police         .  '     .
       9 Television (news)
                                        •'...-..                        . •
       3 Radio (news)
";       2 Firefighters
   •      *           •               .                    '
       5 Newspapers                                                        .
       3 Other (SPECIFY)
       5 Don't Know
       43 TV  (GENERAL)   .        ...                           -
       35. Radio (GENERAL)
       2 News  (GENERAL)
Q. 33  FORM I ONLY                          •         -      ,.-.,,
33.'   And what about during  the  last  twelve months,  have the  chemical
       companies  1n the  (Community) area Increased or decreased their efforts
       to provide Information to  the community or have their efforts  remained
       pretty much the  same?
       11     Increased
       2     Decreased                           .
       75     Stayed the  same
       12     Don't Know
      lOOJi
                                       17

-------
Q. 34 FORM II  ONLY                                 •              iu
34.;   During the last  five  years,  have  the  chemical companies  in  the
      (Community)  area increased or decreased  their efforts  to. provide
   ;   information  to  the  community or have  their efforts  remained pretty much
      the same?
      20
       2
      62
      16
     100%
      Increased
      Decreased
      Stayed the same
      Don't Know
Finally, a few questions about yourself.  These questions are asked for   •
statistical purposes only and help us better understand the results of this
study:\ -     • "    .   .   .,•.'•'••.'.••-'•    -'•--_       I   . '       .
35.
 In what year were you born?  (RECORD)
 Under 30 years old           26
 30 to 50 years old           44
 Over 50 years old            29
      Don't Know/Refused
                                  100%
36.
What  is the  highest  level  of education you  have  completed? (DO NOT READ
LIST)   (RECORD ONLY  ONE  ANSWER)
  2    8th  grade or less
  4    Less than high  school
29    High school  degree
26    Some college
21    College degree
  3    Some graduate work
 12    Graduate degree
  3    Vocational/technical  school
—    Other (SPECIFY)
~     Don't know           ,
100%
                                       18

-------
 37.    Are you  currently married, widowed, divorced, separated, or have you
       never  been married?                        ,
       55 Married?
       7 Widowed?
       10 Divorced
       '2 Separated
       25 Never married                                         ,
      _1 Refused
     100JJ
38.    Including yourself, how ma'ny people live in your household? (SRP: VERIFY
       IF OVER 101         ,                    .
      One'                  21
      Two         •         32
      Three - Four         36
      Five or more         10                                  -
                             •.                                         '
      Don't Know/Refused   _1
                          100%
39.   NO QUESTION 39                                                 .
40.-   Do you own or rent your current place of residence? (RECORD ONLY ONE
   •   ANSWER)
      64 Own
      33 Rent
       2 Other (SPECIFY)
      _1 Don't know
     10054
41.    Is this your year-round residence, that is do you live here for at least
      7 months out of the year?
      98 Yes
       2 No                                           ,        .
      — Don't Know
      rr Refused
     •100%
                                      19

-------
42.    How many  years have you (IF YES, DK, NA IN Q.  41:  "Hyed in,"  IF  MO  IH
      Q.  41  :   "been coming to "V the (COMMUNITY) area?  - (DON'T READ)   (RECORD
      ONLY ONE)    .                       "•'•'.'"'           "
       2  Less than  six months
       2  Six months to one year
      14  One to five years
      11  Six to ten years
       8  Ten to fifteen years
      63  More  than  fifteen years
      —  Don't  know
     IQQY.
43.    Are*you  currently employed  full-time, part-time, not employed, or
      retired?
      58     Full-time——Skip  to Q.  45
      12     Part-time——Skip  to Q.  45
      15     Not employed—Continue
      -15     Retired     —Continue
                               _ s-     -  '     t
      —     Don't know	Skip  to Q 47    V
      ~     Refused——Skip  to Q.  47
     1005J
44.    Are you  .......(READ LIST)?
      51     A homemaker?    Skip to Q.  47'
      19    A student?      Skip to Q.  47
      —    Retired?        Continue to Q.  45
       7    Disabled?  .     Skip to Q.  47
       5    Temporarily
            laid off?       Continue to Q.  45
       16    Not employed
            looking for
            work?           Continue to Q.  45
       2    Other—VOL— (SPECIFY)   Skip to Q. 47
            Don' t  Know—VOL—       Sk1 p to Q. 47
       ~    No answer—VOL—        Skip to Q. 47
      100%                           .
     '••";'.''••.•         '             20         •'

-------
SRP NOTE:  FOR Q. 45 & 46, CHECK Q.  43.   IF "1"  OR "2",  PRESENT FIRST  WORDING
IN PARENTHESES.  IF "4", PRESENT 2ND WORDING.

45.   What (Is/was) your exact job,  profession,  or line.of work?  That is,           ,
      what kind of work (do/did) you do at your job or profession?  (CLARIFY
      FULLY, RECORD ON VBA)

                              TOP FOUR MENTIONS

      14% Administrative support/Clerical

       9% Marketing/sales: wholesale, retail

       8% Service: bartenders, janitors,  cooks etc.

       8% Health care professionals, including physicians, nurses,
          health technicians etc.
         *               '                    '        •       '       '                     i
                                   *                   v       '      '-      i      •
46.   In which kind of business, industry, or profession (do/did) you work?
      That is, what is done or made where you (work/worked)? (CLARIFY FULLY,
      RECORD ON VBA)

                              TOP FOUR MENTIONS
                                                              » " .
      36% Service                                                     '              r

      18X Manufacturing                                                             •

      11% Retail trade                         .

       8% Transportation and public utilities

47.   Other than yourself, does anyone in your immediate family work as a
      health professional?  (RECORD ALL THAT APPLY)
                                                                             1          ••
      20    Yes

      80    No

      ~    Don't Know
     10054                ,                                          •
                                       21

-------
FOR EACH ITEM IN Q.  49 - IF RESPONSE IS "YES"Sl  IMMEDIATELY
BEFORE CONTINUING TO THE NEXT ITEM IN Q.  49.    ,
49. i  During the past month have you experienced any of the
   . ;  problems:  (READ EACH ITEM, ROTATE LIST)
      In the past month, have you experienced  (HEM)?
50.    (IF YES)  Did you consult your doctor about this probl
51.   Do you think this was caused by chemicals in the environment?
a) Headache's?
b) Nausea?         •
d) Irritation of the
   eyes, nose or throat?
e) Shortness of breath?
    !       :  \      '. .
f) Skin rashes?
                    	Q.  49—
                             Don't
                         fjo.  Know
                               1
37  62
11  89
37  63

14  85
11  89
.—p. 50—-
         Don't
Yes . JNo  Know
 24  76  .-•'.
 38  62   -
 35  65   -

 55  45   -
 50  50   -
51a.;  Are you currently taking any prescription medications?
    !  32    Yes——--—;--Ask Q. 51b
      68    No	
                                                         }. *0 & Q, 51
                                                      following health
                                                     em?
                                                            —Q. 51—
                                                                     Don't
                                                            Y_ej,  tJo  Know
11  89
17  70
28  59
                                                                13
                                                                13
                                                       25  60   15
                                                      V20  66   14
            Don't Know
            Refused-
                  —Skip to Q. 52
     100%
Is this prescription medication something you have to take all the time,
or are you taking 1t to treat a short-term illness 1"
                                                           ike  a  bad cold or
      flu?
      82    Taking for a long  time
      16    Taking for short-term illness
       2    Don't Know
      —    Refused
     100%
                                       22

-------
52.   Have you or any member of your  immediate  family had cancer?
      34    Yes--	Continue           "       • '""•',
      66    No	Skip To Q.  54
            Don't Know—Skip to Q.  54
      —    Refused	Skip ,to Q.  54
     100%                  •
53.   Do you think this cancer was  caused by  chemicals  in  the environment,  or
      not?
54.
      16
      66

     100%'
            Yes
            No  "   -~
            Don't Know
      Which of the following categories best describes your total  annual
      household income, before taxes?   Is it: (READ LIST)
      18
      24
      22
      28
       2
      _6
     100%
            Less than $20,000
            $20,000 to $35,000
            $35,000 to $50,000
            $50,000 or over
            Don't know (VOL)
            Refused (VOL)   .
55.   What is your zip code?
                               (ZIP)
                              98 Don't Know
56.   Is this the only telephone number for this residence?  (IF MORE THAN
      ONE, MAKE SURE THIS IS NOT AN EXTENSION)
                                                            ---,''•'(
      90    Yes, only one number-—-—Skip to Q. 58                 •
      10    No, two or more numbers——Continue
      —  '  Don't Know	-Skip to Q. SB
      n    Refused	Skip to Q. 58
     100%
                                       23

-------
57.
58.
59.[
60.
     How many telephone numbers do you have for this residence?   (SRP:
     VERIFY H IS 2 OR MORE; CHECK IF.*•IS 5 OR MORE)
      Two
                    76
                                      (# telephone number*)
                                      98 Don't Know
      Three or more  24
                    100%
                                                  99  Refused
     Are you, yourself, of Hispanic  origin  or descent,  such as Mexican,
     Puerto Rican, Cuban or other  Spanish background?
       6
      93
     10054'
           Yes
             No
           Don't  know
           Refused
      Are  you white,  black,  asian^or some other?
      78.    White
      15    Black
       2    Asian
       4    Other
      _1    Refused
     100%
      Again, let me say that all the information you have; given us  is
      completely confidential.  This research on toxic chemicals  1s being
          .  „  . •  A •  ••  • i j	. _ _ j ^ ..   TL w &A^ ^ ^ ^^^&B ^*A«k £«•<»••• /*** 1 limn 4 9
      conducted  by Columbia University.  The researchers
      University may need to get in touch with you again.
      tell  me  your first name so that they will know who
      call:
                                                          from Columbia
                                                           Would you  please
                                                          to  ask for 1f  they
                                   (SPECIFY)
                9 Refused
611   Interviewer:  RECORD SEX OF  RESPONDENT (DO NOT ASK)             !
•': ;    48.  .Male ,  .      1 '.   .   ..'.-.  . ;  • '' -.   • •"-'.    ]  ' •  v'.- '•  '".
      5g    Female       2                                i
     100%                                                |
Conclusion: Thank-you  for your time and help answering these questions.
            evening/Good-day.
                                                                           Good-
                                        24

-------
      Eighty-two percent of the respondents believe that they
        will receive their first notification of a chemical
        emergency in their area from the news media.


Community and Demographic Differences

   .  Middlesex County respondents rely more on national
        television news, newspapers, and radio for environmental
        information thap do respondents in other communities.

   .  Those respondents with higher education levels identify
        the media as the source for emergency notification more
        (85 percent) than those with a high school education or
        less (78 percent); younger respondents were more likely
        to identify the media as the source of no'-fication in an
     ,   emergency than .were older respondents.
Perceived Knowledge;  General Findings
   (see pages 53 to 64 for more detailed information)

   .   Less than 15 percent of the respondents felt that they knew
        a lot about seven of the eight specific environmental
        topics presented.  Twenty-four percent of the respondents
        felt that they knew a lot about the eighth topic,  the
        quality of their drinking water.

   .   Awareness of emergency preparedness plans ranked the lowest
        of the eight areas probed.  Almost three in ten
        respondents (29 percent)  stated that they knew nothing
        about this topic.
                                                                f
   .   Eighty-one percent of the respondents believe that police
        and fire departments have trained emergency personnel.

   .   Only 41 percent.of all respondents agreed that the
        federal government is doing a good job cleaning up the
        environment.

      Most respondents believe that there are active
        environmental groups (60  percent)  and active local
        government groups (59 percent)  dedicated to environmental
        issues.

   .   Less than half of the respondents believe that local
        businesses are reducing their use of toxic chemicals  and
        only  27  percent believe that these local businesses have
        notified the community about their use of these
        chemicals.

-------
   Community and Demographic Differeng??   |

   .  Respondents with higher education leyels rate their
        knowledge of the risks of chemical f in their community
        higher than do respondents with lesis education; younoer
        respondents (under 30) report the lowest levels of
        perceived knowledge.               i

   .  Middlesex County and Durham respondents report higher
        levels of perceived knowledge across all topic area* than
        respondents in the other communities.
Attitudes About Environmental Issues t  General
   (see pages 65 to 80 for more detailed information)
.     ,     >       ......   _       .-'.'.     i      •.',-.'...    ..

y .;.  ' Fifty-nine percent agreed with the statement that loot /
        officials are interested in what the public has to say
        about chemicals in their area*

   .   Eighty-three percent agreed with the statement that the
        only time the public hears about the release of toxic
        chemicals is when the problem is so big.it can't be kept
        secret anymore, suggesting a lack o|f perceived openness.

   .   Fifty-one percent of the respondents strongly disagreed
        that a chemical is safe until tests prove it dangerous.
               1 '  ' -  '             •     .      i •    "       "••',.•
   .   Half of the respondents agreed with the statement that
        chemicals have provided as much benefit as harm to our
        health.            :      .   -    '   . [    '.,•,-,•.-..'•••
                            .  1     .       , •[.   '    .   • , .   -      •.

      Most of the respondents do not discriminate between
        accidental  releases and planned releases; both ard judged
        to be unsafe and  unacceptable.

   i   Sixty-three percent agree with the statement that it is not
        how much of a chemical one is exposed to that matters to
        one's health,  it  is whether or not pne is exposed at all,
        suggesting  that dose response is not understood by the
        public.                             |  ,

   .   Fifty-six  percent disagreed  with the stsitement that there
        are  some chemical risks  that are too small to worry
        about, suggesting that a substantial minority do believe
        that some chemical risks are not significant.

   .   Eighty-five percent of the respondents disagree with the
        statement that burying toxic wastes! iri landfills is not a*
        serious problem,  highlighting the piiiblic's sensitivity to
        toxic waste issues.                                  ~

-------
       Local environmental groups were cited by 50 percent of the
         respondents as doing a good or excellent job of keepino
         their area safe from the threat .of toxic chemicals.
         Local businesses received the lowest rating of
         performance; only 25 percent agreed that they were doino
         a good or excellent job.  No group received strongly
         positive job ratings.                     .       " J
 Community and Demoaranhie

    .   Respondents in Middlesex County seem to have the most
         cynxcal attitudes about environmental issues, with the
         highest level of respondents disagreeing that the federal
         government is doing a good job (43 percent) ,  65 percent
         disagreeing that local businesses are very careful -ith
         dangerous .chemicals; and 90 percent agreeing that  ie
       <• only time the public -hears about the release of toxic
         chemicals is when the problem is so big it cannot be  Kent
         secret anymore.                                         r

    .   Respondents from Richmond,  Racine,  and Cincinnati were  more
         likely than other respondents to agree that the federal
         government is doing a good job cleaning up the
         environment.         -

    .   Respondents over age 50 have a more tolerant attitude
         toward environmental risks than do younger respondents.


gelf-Reported  Protective Behaviors;   General Findings
   • (see  pages  81  to. 85 for moire detailed  information)

    .   Thirty-seven  percent of the respondents have contributed
         time or money to an environmental causa in the past.

    .   Thirty-six  percent have  used bottled drinking water.

    .   Twenty percent  or  less of our  respondents have  engaged  in
        environmental  information-seeking behavior (i.e., talked
        to doctor, called government official,  gone to library).


Community and Demographic D
      Respondents in Middlesex County have engaged in more
        information-seeking behaviors than respondents in the
        other communities.                                     ,

      Across all communities, respondents with a higher level of
        education and those who are between 30 and 50 are most
        likely to engage in information-seeking behaviors .
                               vii

-------
       Respondents  in Albuquerque are less likely than other
         respondents  to have donated time or money to an
         environmental cause.                 [
                                ^  :       .   - j^- .-•  „ .

    .   Fifty-nine percent of Middlesex County! respondents drink
         bottled water,  but only 19  percent of  respondents in
         Racine drink bottled water.          |

    .   Across  all communities,  thosewho drink  bottled water are
         better educated and younger than are! respondents who
         engage in  other behaviors.           I             ;

                                             ,!,   .    "",•"..'
Reaction to Health Problems;   General Findings              ,
  ;,  (see  pages J37 to  97  for. more detailed information)
 ' -   »    ,     '  '   '        •"'"..'           .1    •
       Sixty percent  of  the respondents had experienced at least
         one of the following health problems in  the past month:
         headaches, nausea,  shortness of breath,  skin rashes,  or
         irritation of the eyes,  nose,  throatl

    .   Thirty-seven percent of these respondents!  had consulted
         their doctor about the health problem.

       Forty percent  of  those  respondents whojexperienced these
         symptoms attributed the cause of the problem to the
         environment.

    .  Twenty-six percent of the respondents liad  experienced a
         personal health tragedy (cancer or cliild with  birth
         defects) and 25 percent of  these respondents attributed
         the tragedy  to  the environment.      j
Community and Demographic Differences

   „  More respondents in Middlesex County  ((56 percent) reported
        having symptoms than did respondentsjin any other
        community.

      Over 40 percent of the respondents in Richmond, Durham, and
        Albuquerque reported experiencing none of the symptoms.

   <,  Forty-two percent of female respondent!} reported consulting
        a physician for their symptoms compared with only 31
        percent of the males.               I

      Environmental causes are more often se«n as the source of
        physical symptoms in Middlesex County (51 percent) and in
        Racine (49 percent) than in any other community.
                               viii


-------
APPENDIX E
                      Study of Public Knowledge and
                       Perception of Chemical  Risks

                           Weighted Tabulations
                                 Banner A

                              November, 1992
                    Princeton Survey Research Associates
                               P.O. Box 1450
                           Princeton, NJ  08542

                               (609) 924-9204

-------

-------
                              TABLE OF CONTENTS                          p  y

Question                                                               Number
Number!
      think that the (COMMUNITY) has?                             ....     1,
            b) Clean air and water  ....••••*•''''"       .     2
            c) Good health care •••;•••** ° '* ° " °  '*'*  °     3
            d) Few environmental health risks .....•••••••••     4
            e) A low crime rate ....... ..... .........


                                                                  p     ,
               problem.  a serious probUm or  a very serious problem? ----   5
                                                                             6
       the air,  water or soil?    .......  .... ..«  •.    «          .
 8     Would you briefly describe the type of place or  facility?" .  .  .  .  .   .7
 ••
       deal, some, not too much or not at all by?                    ^ ^    10
             a) An unpleasant smell  ....... ..... •
             b) The danger it poses to                                   .11
                health in the long run ......••.•••«•••
             c) Dust, dirt, or smoke                                     ,    12
                in the air .....•••••••••••••'*''
             d) Toxic substances that                                        13
                go into the air or water  .  .  .........  ......
             e) The possibility that a
                major accident could harm                                   J4
                or kill people  ......  .  .  .  .  ........
             f) The  irritation  it  causes
                to eyes, nose,  throat,                             .....   15
                or skin   ...•..•••••••••••. .......
             g) Long  term damage  to  the                         ......   16
                environment   ...••••••••  *. •  ' .'
             h) A decrease in property                       .....  ^     17
                val ues  .....  • ...... ......—  •••
              i) The  treat it posses                                ....    18
                 to fish,  wildlife and plants?  ......  ......
              j)  Trucks  traveling to                                      •.   19
                 and from the facility? .....••••••••'•

-------
Question
Number
11
                          TABLE OF  CONTENTS  (cent.)
                                                                    Page
                                                                  Number
I'm going to read a list of  facilities  that may be located in the
(COMMUNITY) area.   (You may have already mentioned[one or more of
these facilities.)  Now,  I'd  like you  to tell me  if inhere is such a
facility located where you currently live.  First..  «  «   «
            h) Hazardous waste facilities  . . ... « « >|- • • • •  •••  • ;  Zb

12    Do you think (ITEM) poses a threat to the  safety of  fhe environment
      in the  (YOUR COMMUNITY) area?
            a) Chemical manufacturing plant ................   *'
            b) Dry cleaners  ........x.  ........  >\ •• . •*•••.  •  •  •   «*
            d) Gasoline station  .	  .| ........   «
            e) Incinerator   .  .  .  .-  .  .  •  ................   3«
            f) Landfill  ............. •  • -  •  .... >  >  _•  •  •   31
            g) Sewage treatment plant  .........  .| ...........   «
            h) Hazardous waste facilities  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .[ .  .  .;.  -  •••.'•_  33

13    In the oast three months, have you read or heard anything  about the
      risks of cheiictls"5r~hlzardous wastes  in the  (COMMUNITY)  area?  .  .   34

14:   in the past week, have you  read or heard anything about the risks of
   1   chemicals  or hazardous  wastes  in  the (COMMUNITY)  arfa?   ...  .  .  •   35

IB!   What was the information that  you heard or read?   ...  .  .  .;.  .  >   36

16i   Where did  you  read  or hear this  information?  . .  ....  .  ......   37

17    There are  several  different sources  of .informationjabout  the  risks
   r   that chemicals might  pose to a community.  I'd likeito ask you some
   [   questions  about  each  of those  sources.   First...

      Would you  say that you get a lot, some,  not too  much,  or no information
      about possible risks  of chemicals in the (COMMUNITY^ area from:
   !         a)  Friends and  relatives? ..........  j ........   «
   ;         b)  Local emergency planning committees?  ..  ,i ........  . jj
   ;         c) Doctors? .. ..........••..•«•••••••    "
            d)  State government officials?	i ........  ,.-ji
.  • i       ^  e)  Chemical industry officials? .  . . .	•   J«
   I         f)  Federal  government officials?   .....•......••:•;.  Jj
   :         g)  Environmental groups?  . . -.•'.• « «  « - - f • • • •> •  •.•"• •   ^2
   !          i)  Local government officials?  ......  •. ...... • •   "
             k)  News  reporters?  . .  .	• I  r ' ' * ° s  ' ' '   A?
            1)  Federal Environmental Protection Agency?

-------
                          TABLE OF CONTENTS  (cont.)
                                                                              .
18.   I'm going read this list again.  This time, please tell me how much
      you trust each source.                                         ,

      How much do you trust' f ITEM) a lot, some, no* too much, or not ft all when
      it comes to finding out  about the risks of chemicals  in the (COMMUNITY)
      area?                 .                     .             ,              .e
            a)  Friends and relatives ...... .....  .......   JJ.
            b)  Local emergency planning committees . .  . ..... • • •   JJ
            c)  Doctors .......... -^ •«••• ..... • • •   f°
   •   V     d)  State government officials  ... ......... . • • •   |*
      •    *  e)  Chemical industry officials ... ...... .......   |Z
           • f)  Federal government officials  .....  .........   M
            g)  Environmental  groups  ..................   5J
            i)  Local government officials  ......  .........   55
            k)  News reporters  ..............•.....•••••   |°
            1)  Federal Environmental Protection Agency ..... ....   57.

19.   I'm going to read the list one last time.   This time please tell me
      how  knowledgeable you  think each  source 1s  about  the  risks of
      chemicals to the environment.

      Do  you  think  (ITEM)  (is/are)  very, somewhat, not  too  or not  at all
      k^ledoeable  about the  risks of  chemicals to the (COMMUNITY) area?
            a)  Friends and relatives .......  ...........   58
            b)  Local emergency planning  committees  . . .......  •  •   •>»
            c)  Doctors  ......  .......  •  . ..........   °o
            d)  State government officials  ...............   0*
            e)  Chemical  industry officials    ..............   «
            f)  Federal government officials   ..............   w
            g)  Environmental  groups  .............  .  ....   64
            1)  Local government officials  ........  t  ......   "
            k)  News reporters  .....  . ./.  •• •  « •  • • .•••  •  •  •  •  •   J;'
            1)  Federal  Environmental Protection Agency  ..*......   o/

20    In  the  last year, have  you  called or written to seek .information
      about environmental problems  in your community? .....  .....   68

23.   The  next questions  deal with  how much  you feel yjzsi know  about
      different  environmental topics in your area.   If you don t  know \
      about a topic, that's okay, just  tell me.  Would you say you know a
   '   lot, some, not too much, or  almost nothing about?    .                ,,•
            c) The  quality  of your area's drinking water  ....... .   69
            d) Community right-to-know  laws .....  .....  .....   /u
            f) Emergency preparedness plans in your area  •'.••••-••••   71
            h)  Activities  to clean  up  accidental  spills  of  hazardous
                  materials .  .  .  ......... ...........    /2
            i) The  risks of chemicals  in your area  ..... ......    /*

-------
                           TABLE OF CONTENTS (cent.)
                 .                       ,

 24a.   How concerned io  you think  (ITEM)  (are/is)  about  PROTECTING  the
       health and safety  of people in your community from possible effects .;%1
   i    of chemicals? Do  they have: a lot of concern, some,  not too much or
       none at all?                          ,                                _.
             a) Industry officials . ...  . .  ...  ; v 4 ...  ..... •   74
             b) The Federal Environmental Protection Agency  .  . .. . ...   75
             c) Environmental  groups .  . .  . .  ..." •' •• • -.| '.-. • .«••'• «''»'-« •   76

 24b   I'd like to read this list  again.  This time please tell me how much
-       yoo-think each group tries to RESTRICT what people in your community
       can find 'out 'about  health  and safety problems  from chemicals?  Do
       they try a lot,  some, not too much,  or not at all? j                    _
             a) Industry officials . .  ... ... ......... ... .   //
             c) The Federal Environmental Protection Agency  .......   /8
   i          d) Environmental  groups ....... ... . . .. \ '. • •  • V   79
 25    Please tell me if you agree or disagree with each of the following
       statements.   First...    (IF  AGREE:)  Would you  agree  strong y, or
       agree somewhat?   (IF, DISAGREE:)  Would you  disagree  strongly, or
       disagree somewhat?                             ',   ! .  '    . .     •
   r     >    a) We should assume a chemical is safe unless tests prove it
   i                dangerous ......  .  .  • •  .  .....  • • •  • • •   80
             b)  Any release  of chemicals  into  the  environment  is not
        '  -•        acceptable   ..-•.'•.-.. .  .  .	i •  -  « • «  « • «   81
             c) Local officials are interested in what the public has to
                   say about chemicals in the area  .  .  .  i .  .  . . .  . ....  8Z
             d) The only time the public  hears about  the  release of  toxic
                   chemicals is when the problem  is  so blg Sit can't  be kept   _ •

   i ." .             secret anymore   ..  .  .  .  . ....  .  .  .  •  -°'  :.''
             e) It's not the amount  of a  chemical you are exposed  to that
                   matters, it's whether  or not  you are exposed at all  . .   84
             f) If a person is  exposed to  a chemical that can cause  cancer,
                   then  that  person is  likely  to  get  cancer later in      .
                   life	  ^ ...... -   85
             g) There are some  chemical-risks that  are too  small to  worry     '
                   about  .  ....  . .  ......  .  .  •  •  .--  ^ •:••••  •   86
   :          h)  Local  businesses are usually very  careful with dangerous

             i)  Planned releases  of chemicals  into  the environment  are     _
   ;                generally safe   ........  ...]..... •;... .;•    »8

 26a.  First,  in  the  (COMMUNITY)  a,rea,  is there  an emergency preparedness     gg
   I    plan  for  hazardous materials, or not?  ......
  26b.   Does the police or fire department have trained personnel to respond    g
        to  chemical  emergencies, or not? , ..... . . - - -  - - - • • •• - •
  2k.   Do  local  businesses notify the community about anjr toxic chemicals
        they use, store or release, or not? .... . . . . ••.•'•/; ' ' '_   ••

-------
                         TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont.>
Question
Number
                                                                     Number

26e   Do you think  local  businesses  have  reduced the amount of  toxic
      chemicals  they store, use, or release, or not?   ......  .. .  .  .

26d.  Are environmental  groups  active  in discussing  the  risks  of toxic
      chemicals  in your area, or not? . .  .......  . . • • •  •  • •  •  •

n    What kind  of job do you think each of the following groups Is doing
      at keeping , th! i (COMMUNITY)  area safe from the risks of hazardous
      ^chemicals?          _                •  .

      •'uAtArf vnn  sav  that  (ITEM) is doing an excellent, good, fair, or poor job
      .keeping thMCOMMNITY) area safe from the  risks of hazardous chemicals?

            a) The local  government .  . .  . -  •  - •  •  '''*''  \\\\    95

            c) ThrkderaieESvironmental' Protection  Agency*  . . ,  . . •  •    |6

            e) The  local  emergency  planning committee .....*....„••    98
            f) Local environmental  groups . , ........«•••••

?a    Next   I'm going to read  some things  people may or may not do to
      protect th«Sse?ves from chemical risks in the  environment.

      Have you ever (READ ITEM) because of risks in  the environment?
           ya) Moved or chosen  not to  live in a certain house .  .  ....  100
            b) Gone  to the library to find out more about an environmental
                  problem ..... ..... •  • ••••••••. .....  .__
            c)  Attended a town  or community meeting ........•••  •*«*
            d)  Contributed time or money to an environmental cause  . . .   03
            e)  Called or written to a government official . . .  . .  • « •   »

            gf))  licourlged 'focal ' businWs ' and 'industry  to  "provide
                  information about toxic  substances  ........ •,'-•
             M  Encouraaed recycling in your community .........••
             1)  EncSurlged local business  and  industry to take a stronger
                  role in cleaning up the  environment .  .  ... ;;•;••   1UB
             j)  Asked local government to take a stronger  role in cleaning
                  up the environment  ......•«••••••••••



 »-                                                    .

       Si^1httsi.Sillsst:  ...  . ... . . ,.

                                     •be«use • ihe/ ire ' safe •  for "the"

                Usebioderadabie!  low phosphate soaps/detergents  ... .
             f  Avol b^?ift Produits frbm companies  you think aren't doing
                   a good job protecting the environment ....  .. . ... •  •

-------
                          TABLE OF CONTENTS (cent.)
Question
Number
Slicont.    g) Use public transportation, or car pool
32 v


33'.

  I



34,


  i


3&.

37.


38.

40.
 42.
 43
            h) Do volunteer work for local environmental groups .....  116
            i) Use bottled drinking water .......                    '
                                                               killers
31a   For each of the following environmental  issues,  ploase tell  me if
      vou think it is: A very serious problem,  a somewhat serious problem,
      a minor problem, or nJ problem at all in (COMMUNITY) area?
            a) Indoor air pollution, in offices or homes
•  .'•          b) Global climate changes . *'	 .
            c) The municipal drinking water ... . . . .  . i .
         *   d) Use of household products like cleaners and bug
            e) Exposure to electromagnetic fields .
  i    • "    f) The availability of landfill space .
            g) Outdoor  air pollution from  factories,  mills, processing
                  plants, etc . .	• ••  •-• • • '.•[-•  ••'• •  •  • • •
  i          h) Water pollution from  industrial wastes . . .  . ...  , .-,
            i) Pollution from things ssSSlSL^S^Jl^S. rivers, lakes and
                  streams                                      "
                                                                          Page
                                                                        Number
                                                                           115
                                                                           117
            j) Outdoor air pollution from auto, bus and truck exhaust  . '.

      If there was a large spill or release of hazardous chemicals  in the
      (COMMUNITY) area, how do you think you would first be notified?  .  .
       -.•'•''..    -            -           .. .      •  -  r  '   '
      And  what  about during  the last twelve  months,  hata the chemical
      companies  in the  (COMMUNITY) area  increased or  decreased their
      efforts  to provide  information  to  the  community  or  have their
      efforts remained pretty much  the  same?   ...  .  .  •  •  •  •  ;  •  •  •  •

      During  the last  five  years,  have  the  chemical  companies  in the
      (COMMUNITY)  area  increased or decreased their efforts to^provide
      information to  the community  or have  their  efforts[remained  pretty
      much the same?  .  ....  .  ....  •  •  •  •. • '•." • .:•} '• ,*  •  *  "  "

      What is the highest  level  of  education  you  have  complisted?   .  .  *..
                 -.-'...          • .   " :   '  ;     :       '   i   . •     '
      Are  you currently married, widowed, divorced, separated, or have you
      never been married?  .  .......  ^  ...«••
       Including yourself,  how many people live in your household? .  .  .  .-.

       Do  you own or rent your current place of residence? .  . . . .  •  •  .

       Is  this your year-round residence, that is do you live here for at
       least 7 months out of the year? . . . . . . . • - !• •  • -;• •  •  •  •
       How many years have you  (lived  in/been coming to) the (COMMUNITY)
       area? ........»•••••••'• ° * * ° '
118
119
120
121
122
123

124
125

126
127
128




129




130

131


' 132

133

 134


 135


 136
       Are you currently employed  full-time,  part-time,-.hot employed, or
       retired?  .......•••«••••••••• j*  • ' *  *  *

-------
                          TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont. >
Question                                                               Number
Number*                    ~,                             "•''.'.'' "^^^
44.   Are you a homemaker, a student, retired, disabled, temporarily laid  -.-
      off, or not employed and looking for work?  .  .  ....  .  .. ...  .  ,  •  •   138

45    What (is/was) your exact job, profession, or line of work?^  That is,
      whit kind of work (do/did) you do at your job or profession?  .  .  .   139

46    In  which  kind of business,  industry,  or profession  (do/did)  you
      work?  That is, what is done or made where you (work/worked)? .  .  .   141

47.'   Otihv.  than yourself, does anyone in your immediate family work as a
      heauh professional?  ...... ...... ...........

49.   During  the  past month have  you experienced any of  the following
      health problems?                                                     143
            a) Headaches  ..... • ..... ...........,...•**
            b) Nausea  ............. • ' • ;  ..... •***""
            d) Irritation of the eyes, nose or throat  ..........
            e) Shortness of breath  . ...... ........... A
            f) Skin rashes  ........... v ..._.....-•- ^ ••• •

50.   Did you consult  your doctor  about this  problem?
            a) Headaches   ..... »••*.««••••••••••••
            b) Nausea  . .  -----  ..„..,/.....•••>•••••
            d) Irritation of the eyes, nose or throat  .. .  . .... . ,-
            e) Shortness  of breath .......  .....  .......
            f) Skin  rashes   .  .  .  . ...  ••  ...... •• ........
51.   Do you  think this  was  caused  by  chemicals  in the environment?
            a)  Headaches  .......  ...........  -----  * •"
            b)  Nausea .  ........•..•••••••••  .....
            d)  Irritation of the eyes, nose  or throat  .  ...  . ••  .  .  •  •  . |||
            e)  Shortness of  breath   ...........••••«•••   }|?
            .f)  Skin rashes  .......  .........••••.••   ia/

Sla.  Are  you currently  -taking, any  prescription  medications?   .  .  ...  .  .   158

51b   Is this prescription medication  something  you  have ^to take.all  the
      time, or are you taking it to treat a short-term illness like a bad    _
      cold or flu?  .........••.••••••••••  .....

52.   Have you or any member of your immediate family had cancer?  .....   160

53.   Do you  think this  cancer was caused by  chemicals in the environment,   ^
      or  not? ...._...- .•..•••••'•' ..... ........

54.   Which of the following categories best describes your total  annual
      household income,  before  taxes? ......... .....  ....

56/57 How many telephone numbers do you have for this residence? . . .-: .   163

-------
                           TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont.)
Question
Number
58    Are you, yourself,  of Hispanic origin or descent,  such as Mexican,
      Puerto  Rican,  Cuban or other Spanish background?
 59 i   Are you white,  black,  asian or some other?

 61.   Sex of respondent .  ...  ......  .  .  '.
   I '   :   . ,  '   -        - -    '•' ' .  -

.SlF"EY METHODOLOGY

 TOir LINE  QUESTIONNAIRE
  Page
Number
   164

   165

   166

-------

-------
         .8 S
                  a§    as ««


             ,: s K°. • •  g» g~
             i: s Kg'    sss as
         i ^«o i    '   '
         •   m i


         :  £?i BC'1
             J S
           •s:
         *  Mf i

         :  85:
            ": a s^
            •' = «8


          :  s|:

          i  n?
          :  5s:
          :  «|:
                           s  ~
                             O*O*
u ,

1
s
      i  iji!
      |  I li:
    •8
                      "-W CMD ,O~«

                      Sa ^ *«
        i    :  8-M
        '  l~ •  * i»e
          ii
S  -II
52s  'u °
«)*2 tii"
•CS-S 5^
             o
             uj


             1
               ^   5
               e   e

-------
                 SS
                          a-0. 3". t*:
                          So Sm -OB
                          •-in  tM  ^
                 .  _     era
                 mo     »n*"
         gEoE: S £§

               • -o me  • • -*Q ge JC°
           sg=! * ag     £s ** «s  x
           ^!£o •

               ; *» 8°,  ' ' yj 2*1 S"^
If


I
            !=:
            "8:

            *!«
            ||l

            lei  s
                  «e  • •  ••'^

                  KS     SS
                             «•* o«e
               lA ^>O  i • f^»^» dM ^"O

               t S     Ss & s*.-
                U ino     *o»- «o -*«:
                <^ IAO     ffO ^fn


                as0. • •  s^ srt K;
                ** "*S     ^S ^5
           SI i
           K  I
           15:
              •  — h-O
                              
-------
   :  a
     -
  «:  5 K°.  ' '  S": ffT: R»  s«
>ofc:  S Kg     £5 Sj« .Sjj  R^

-------
       g
       Sxox
  E! i
              * • *
              wo  • •

              is
             S2 B2-25 S: 82 ,22
        i S3!
        < •£*'
                             B B «9
           ! K Co   ms; ""g ~St "~S ""S *"*  "*
           •   *"O    ~
'  si * £s
» ««!   *•
        8

        ? ino
         ft!
     ... go . .  »<> gin f. «>e 55^ Jg^ P!J2

                                                        •run

                                                         ni
          H.C »

          MO I
                        1
        s  i:

        I  fc:-«

             » no • •
fM •  -
Sc   ^

- £  I
          E,
 i  li  lli«5"^sl^^^228-65

                                      s   «s*a.«s ~
                                                       "
•• s°. a^. ?s"- S""« ?2 s^
  B^ ;:». Km •«— mo. •»«
  ^^o »•*•  •*
                                   fi
                                             B «S


                                             i
                                             fai
                                             5*
                                           4   -g' »  S" *

                                           S_.  • ••  - «•;

-------
             i £l£:  ~ ~2     «« Ss
             • ej*"!    ~S      -  S
                             o"
                            «So
                                   s^1 a**
                                     '   '
 SI
             i  rf
             •    t  ni

            »if!  "
            ••  O«a* « ,
            S  "8!
            «  |||  I

               •gS:


              ||i
              "**•' 8
               i:


              g :  t g»  • •
              l£:  ~ gg
             II:
  8
  I
  •s
  8

•I
If
  II   i
           t 5
             ai
             •  : s
             Si:
3
F

     ?iS
              ^ *  O
              s:  -
              o •  •-
5

S


-------
                mem
     8§
ss:
« 3 •
si:
-gs:
I!  1
u    • u
M    *^ tl
2    -c jc
8    **o-2
     S5*
*S   JU2
 ;   pi
 i •  55
 •   i-**^
 s   l£S

 i   JH£
     t=2c
     O •" •
 *-   '••••^^
 *5   r^s
 u    O»»
 O*    J=%>*
 P   !il

 ^^   »* ** o
 «   •T>0
 X3«  wjjjl*
isi s "i
                      cuts. eo. ««r !•  • •
                      *K' ,.5 -S
              018 UMB
              ~  -
 • xi
 I
    8
   i  «- me  • •
 Sii
       *M> •    9 •
       ^    *^5
  s:
 IS iSi"5
 «O«^ "^	
 e -•*-
     li
1    1-i
**    2  *..
• .    2. ?«. «-.
*  I s  «  s
,,  ° S  a  o

-------
 -
fc.      » U
u      •*» tf

I      £sr
SJ!    3«*
              £ii:
                           /
            i  e «*o « •  o^ SO** !fi*** ffi*^ ^"i
          «* •  5% a *    '• ^ • ^ • »• • "*_j  _!
          Ei..." Sg     -5   R   *  -  ~
                   i m «e
                  Li sss
                             •^ jft" •« •«*!
                             *   «   «>  °
                               r>«  inm  • •  own d*-*
                               as8?       ~  ~
                               R^
                5&1..
                   •  rj »no  « •

             s j(    ^
             I is:   »
             s -8:
                  j:
                    i

                  « j
                  2:
          2!!
          s  :  s 8=;
          si-:    "8
          i  :  S
                              I *5 ^ ^


                              » IMO 2T^ "°^
                              • IM •. «>J "   •
                                 s   s
                                    no
C«5
       •
       SSf
       — Se
r           i.
          ?S
                 2t:
                                 g  o  '«
                    i  IM  me  • i  2"* 'oe> ""^
                    I  "  So       « "~  «
                                  B  «M
                                  in  f»
          ±€:
                                          ••
                                          §   :
                                      i   *.

-------
           «t
          ilj
                   S • •  *5 £5 *S *£ =5
             _ 5 •
             Jjjj
           8  I:
           g  "-,
                 - no .
                    » ouj two ;r»  •
                    s  si  «  *
I!
  o •
 I
 fi
  &
  K
 If
I
SS
is
iii
     -i

  i
 i:

si
«5 *
ss:
sJ
lii
                 o oo • i  !2®t
                 •* *^    "^
                i — me
                                s  a  -
« f>^i «x ">"> S"1
 • o^» m • o»j» 01 •
^ SHU  IM  6.  «»
             fc^j RJ S|    8.o ~*  5  g '«
                     H *»
                     ni  oi
                    ««- eo> mm ign *-* PUM
 «u
 >s*
 B
                  S
                  §
                       o

                            III
                            .•5  « • S-

-------
                                  =3 "S •S *S
            K.E; *
             sfsi
                * »•

             -*«o •'
               K»l

               :?!  H
           >  'I:
              *is
                                 ' «B 3
                                 ^

                                 -

S
    I  K «M ,
   jj  ' 1-
   I-

   :•'  *
 .1:     '•
    !  S 5s?
 if:     I
 oSi  .   "*
 00*
 teu.
 g • <  
-------
  u
  I
 1
 it
 B?
 •« —
 if!
  i    i
fit
goj.
                                            "
                 5. «c;,
                  y™^ i
               5 wb •
                          s
                                  5 8"?  ~-J RTJ
                  S|.            .
                   •i -5 S3  "  SS aS SS ^ —
                   4| - "8     -a HR -a -a  ~
                   I:
               9   .i  I
                   si
                 |f!  * *!
                 •CO I
                 s  :  Cf s°
               '  III    ^
              u»  K«  n!
              «w  m      ni

              ^*^ ^^8  M^ com »i ^
              «  sd  "a  &  ~


              5*"J S*^  IC*^ S*^ * *
              *JM "''JO   N»  •»
              ••>  cv   •-  ni
                        OO
f •  •* f-fc •
»    -8
fi
jilrf
no
tdft
             *  ru mo
                *•:
                  jSirt       " • '^ * ^ * Ift •    •
                  '§      5   S  2  K   -
     go  ii  m» BO
     ~g     ".« *gi
-CJ
*
       V 
       •o>->

*w».  «e «_
               S
               C9
               i I
                                               i
                                               £
        I   *-
                           «
                           c
                                        §   -

-------
              Li  I

          :5 S=  r
          l.eS!  R
                           a
                            Sty 5<0  "°«i
               .  c
               .:  S
                  '
                            8°: fe^.
                            SR -a
                                 •>• <£<»
   ~   ?   :  £2:
   g&   i   :  «   .
-  2   I   :  ?>.:
   *   —   >i 5«>
       ~    .iio

       2  . !: Js-'.  *
        '    >  O«* •
           >>  £•!
        •   >r —2;

        Is s  Sfci
                                .
                             ^^.   CM
  g    "Si :  i.:  5  «e
  •*•    ** O I  Olf i     **O
       e   *  *^ V *,     «•
£-5    >.«

— I    £i
0«1    «""
S*    JSi
«c£    «^M


II    ^fc
8"    -23
Si    «-3
B—    OP
                               -".  £"!  cr.
       t«
    CD   <
    ^  «
  ^i  l£8
                   O


                   S   '
                   —  ->   S'
                   s  s   *
                   ice
                                S   e  "S

-------
                          S-J S'! K .
                          **• as -*
                  IUO • •  O*^ ^®
                  S»J     !» • 5> •
                  5-o     mo >-s
                  SB      •- «»«
           -52!  1
            i-s:
                             .

                            "
                as®. • •  a*, s*.
                S ss   .  *5 ss
      "BE
 -    K!
!•••    -5
5s    -si
            x  i  >r
            a  i  do
            5x>  Pi
            8^:

                ".  S«!
                1-  ss
                           KS KR




                        " H&
.  .

Si:
                             o  gro
                        a

-------
         i Sikf. *• "I  .
         i X**O t


         «. .:  s «=., • •
         U U t* t  AJ *-O
         oox*  «- mo
         i   M «  in nj •    *?^»
         |||||Ta|    -K



            »'  R S°  '' 8*

         f "*-?-  * 3§    SS
                          So
                          min



                          §:•
         :  fife:
                        ^ a^
                        « am
           8||

           •S8 i
           Sli
                  "! <:' -S^ 8*1 S*S

                  8    ~W "S >
                       ic«j S^ sux
                       •™AI f^*O
111
     ^

     i
 I

 *k>
 o

 i
I

It
     a!
           si-:
                 *^O • <  F^^ ; J^^™ S«*®


                 SRS    SS? §S ™"
                    •• e'te
                          MM

                          5s
is   :
     =1

     II
             :
           i  <
                           «! JP?
                sg
                           5«
                           u
               o •


               s

-------
 i ?
         s
 i ru NO i •  <«5

:l R SS '  »3
          Sfei    ~
            M «
             I IA «*O
           .£! S So
           51:   -I

           ill  .


            *l 5S

     8 £

 £   It
 s-   as
            u *

           *•'•  s §5
           u*« i  ^ «O


           ai     s
           •M I. I



           •f "  "** »^
           JBU •     5
  O f^O  I I
             :  a
                     • s-.
             :  fe fS°.
           Hi
           -

 1   IP
 15   «qj=
           i-i ^

           £3:
           u  !
            • fri
            31. t

           h\
        " £5 ^ ^



        " 5^ t*: S*.
                        ^5 3". S^
                           8 *
                       S*: g: j?r.
                       _w »-r.  K,
Xs
    ' .Soi
   o .,

   i

   !i

-------
                : g
           u.« «
               '
                     .
                 S So
                 ^» «r O
           :—g?:

           ill!-18
          ^ MO i
          5   Ui

          i 4s\ 3
s
  a
  e

            s •
            J-g: •-
            *•«•
              : S
             V i ^
              :  s ae
              •:  s is
             5'i
             sl:
             •CUI


             It!8
             ?§:
                              .   .
                          5 as •.«-
               _.'.' 33= • •  2r ft"

                       1 -g-vgy.g-:
                         in mm  nj
                      ' S?^ -"1** "O*
                        1^.* «o • O •
l|
||
SJi

3«
fi
sfg

15
      i-
     * i
 y    —
 -*- .   **
      |3
      S 5
     "•'S
     2 S

     iJ
     S 7
     * s
     «^5
L: S SS ''
           2i:
            .  ! R $°. ••
           *•: m Sg
            •J:
             >  2
               s

              -a.

               S S
               ^ . O
                              
-------
        Sg

5 it!

  •gsi S
  Bl
         ^e i >  t"-" •**« Sf
         §g   ;&j Bai "-
r>
I!
I
s
$1
•s
u
I
*»•
o
I
8-
o
Jr
I!
•gl
• M
e
SJi
a-
SO
sis
li
TS-i
s
3
1
•
1
1
1
: t
1
1
•
1
£ i
T
i $
o *^
!• "^
Is
. S
* 1
2 *
*• •
S £
a*
:|
s ^
f!
i|
5^1
«•_
V •
•gfe*
ip;
oS««
<0B^
•Tag
ski's
at**** *>
r^^ CT
•
i '
i
t
i
•
•
3»
t
I
t
1
1
I
1
I
I
1
I
I
I
I







Ib
I
.:
2:
i
8x'»
-K!
83:
•cu •
ki
Ss *
25:
* ,
& :
fi
i^
£5.:
«»••
i i
Si!
•si!
*°:
i «
Klj
I!
»- t
1
•






5 R°. ' '
*" al
« »-o « •
a Kg
a-q '•.

s

M
m
|

in
«M
1



i
°
S


go i •

S"
I>-O I I
Sg

•DO i i
*i
§1"





s
i i
O4* ««M S"1
~5 Ss -V
cto'^-
in , <«•
S" ff": S"!
R^ Sjj ~~

5^
•"3

9"
,"B

imn
*s
!S"!
Ss







w
•TS

9
*

^
i=







«3

"2
«5

«^*
-M
's.


•g
I
t
i
*«
« " v !

-------
                                a  ~
  »l
    R


    I
15   SI

f   «  s
5   -|

is*
£   8.  •

o   S*




I   If

    !:•
 s.

 If
t
3"
as
' cfc* '5I5-
ifSS .""ScJ
 •»  «'i«*


:*.E»I*

               4='*''
               ••:
                5.C-;
                £#:

                5*;
                               5.  *
                          *"«
               *:
           £ 12
             If:

             SI
                   "
              : '3
                I

                s

                §

                         *  *  I

-------
    o
    •5

                   s*. s~. s*.
                   •"»=«'
              8:=  • '
              RS
         Ol-l
         uai
          . i 0> IOO i •
         •§?: a |gj
          "i nt -»o • • pw
          ±i R 5s   ""fc
        i "riRs-.sgB*.
  fe
  S
•S2ZX
5?" "2
S-S3

if
          5:
      •CU I
      S >.! «- «o
      V** t    O

      I!!
      Z i 10 W%0
      £.: a ss
            !
          
-------

  S
              5*1
           s   f:

          ,
       •     «  •
                 *

  I   !£:

      i
                                           mm

                                            rj
««r jam «ni

                                  ^ •"S Stt »»  *-o .-.  ««,l g-,
                                  v»  **  *^  «O  ^^   '  — • wl •
                 2S
$2
2=«  'Sc«


Sife!-f
                 -
               •



                                             "•   —  «   o

-------
       o e <
       KI in*
               s
          -: fc 52
        :is.; ~ s|
        B-E •    ^"
       x f^
       5 fc:
       «= «»R!

Ill
L.    «^
I    :i

«   i!
 K   *• *
 "   8,"
 S   |I


 *   i
 i    ii
     •8
3-   3«
s|   It
«*
           •• 2
             "
          i2:
           8*< •
           • i
          ifi
                      5  &  s -«  • -
            .  .
            i s
 5o   gi


 P*  li=



 stis fft
 ***•»•
 ••«„
               2
                        si'   M

-------
•v '.   :•
     s  -g

   II  '
   ;    -s
   M
   •»•  J!
   '!

   I  -II
       #
 I?




 ll
ill
               1 :
                       "
 gfe T
   S

   s
1-     I

-------

          |ti  R 2s


            ,  eg «{O

       HfcoEi  « »§
         o*"*o *
         tn int
         ss
           !i  BS  "

         • i«
         1 IT:
              s 98
                      «-«- m
                       ota f-«s wo

                       *
     o
81  .
I    !i
           •  •
          •§£:
            ii
             :  3 R°. '' S
             .  m £.0    ~0
                  s
            1:
             i .— je
               s «
             :  S «
           ?§:
                          .
                         ••   CM
                         -   Rj
 I

ll
g.
I?
     i
     f!
     :B
     sc
            iF:
            Ii!
             5;
                a
             O *  *-
                 a
                        go. ^
                        «
                                  3.  **«
s   a
P  -Si
                s
                §
                                       "8

-------
              • m *-° ' *  2!° S* S*-
          gc£: K tg    "« &% 3;*

              • 0 go • >  eorg -*o> mo>
          Eo£i 3 as    ^
           **a'     ^
          n in »
          «eCi S §° "  S2
          MB! ~2    _





           ei-*59
           MOl
             •«
              i to ^e < * S**





             £:

             !l SB fi «
             li    "^


             si

          . if!
  *• J     Hi

     2
     b

            fcilH'182
 *   §5   ,1
 |   \M-S   i ^s;

 u   c?    A* •
 •s   II     <»:
 S   §S    - :  S S?  "  ST
 —   o—>
 8-   1*
 u .   ^•
s£    :l     ,_:  S
*<^   *« u     	
i
•~ ^   ^ t_
                  mo
 25
 c
r,
«»—
      Ir-
      x-

1
                £     S
                (9     !«
                                 1
                                 o  s   o

-------
f
   I!

   I
         s
                               inM
                     8°. ' '
                     £§
                     5g
                                   S":
                                   ~
                 ,: s
                  * ^ NtO * * 55*» S\^»


               ill"*1   '"* •"
               «8i
                .  i o -oo • i jom "*N
               •ss: R 3d    s^j 55.

                  £8
                ^1  35°.  • •  ssn SB^ s^ 52 R2
                 li
                                   «•> •
                                   *a
                  ;  §
                Mi ~
                s§:
              r! £ 2s
              '  8 R°.
            £-!  ~ S8
i

!
    if
    IS
          44 UJ



          ft

          J!
MW     J
£    d
•c*^     o
*a-   15=
 K±
                 .1!
             •§ :
             Si
             CO
               i §
                          tS^ o • • •  !•»_; «•» •
                          £0. S« NO  mg  •»
             .J i  N NO

             * '  "° «O
             o •  *• mo
             »-1     ^
                                            1
                      1
                   5  o
                               4-      *•      ~



                               -   .1  o   I  f

-------


                •»:
                                sr. e

        £
i    M
f    gf
S    P
             5:
             .  :  a *e ..
            g^;  ~ ftg
            ill     '
            lii - s2
            lii   ~~
              '••*sl'JS  "
            M O -I
                                5£ S£! #°- 3*

                                ££ 3T: JSr: S"
                                ""5  2  g  v

 S"
:**
•&
       K
     Jlf
M-
              s
              S
              S
              o
              5s
              » o
                   0 .. ,<=•
                                        I
g  :   f
*•  «   *.
-  S   5

-------
              «  •»»• «*c
             I i  m PX_
             . i  to «oe
           ifc!  te **
                    .
                    g
             S:

          1 l=i
  in


§ I   s
s    Si
•5    S

             1i
              £:


             If! 5
             S2:
                         sr^ a*.-fis «2'
                          ^ *7f  fc  S
           !J  IS!  '"•SSg-BS
           57i    «"5          i?  "•

           sii    .-
       ~   — U  i
                           ja*. yu
                :
                1  S ff°,  ' *  S"! ftff 8 • <5*>
             Ill
                  a S|




                  h- NO

               c; R So
               o< •- mo
                                  ' «5  ^
                                  B> »-O»   ••
 gte  >gg
 *«*««•   »«—S

                 1.1

                 1 B,  s'
.      S  if

5   I  «  -   S
    g  o  o   o

-------
            —SI



             If!

             ua!
                     8
                     g   •
             S^i  <
             ££:

             s*i  .
  i  :
     £:
     •ife   '



-'   •_.  c  =*•
•    Jte  •;  7; e •
«    Tit  3  u  •

    S°

    3
li
               S
                    ,o
             •-      I  I   I
             o   j  "  •   ~
             r   I  is   g

-------
g  i  s
s
                           =^  SJD J>jX  «o  e
              • i    *» •
            MCI.I CM «TO

            Si*-     'i
                 Bm i««-  MB"

                 -tn «,,>  *o
IM«M

 o
    • i  8 Se. ' '  8"! g"] ffi" S*.
                                    .  S*. S*!
                                          0
                I  •* lA •
              a: 'a sg
              * i     *-
             B;
  •     •»
  u    ••»


 I    |



 I   'Ii
«!_    •* U
*«1B    •—

-i    cjB
3_
•c^
S8
ga
tH

a
  £^:



  "•"*! S




    • I

    II
      i 1*1



  111

   S^I £
   • •« «

  —U i


  i.1 a
   U+* I

   o  !

    * i S

   j^i





   lils
                            e  Bin o.— S«J «M»^

                            *  5f^ SW 5*   e
                        • i  Btn  «—» gin JOB t^o
                           £l» So| cjtjj
                                    S  2   -
                            3$ 52
                                   (D« 
-------
 s s
 S 2 r
 i   i
 if  H
  o   SC

  I   II
  "   II
  5   la
II
8"
    T1S*
15 (
           ££»:
e;. a
            Sg
                       » s^ sn SB". S1"
                       s 5-s 3jj | So °y
           Mi

£i    i<  » 88
 JS    ^* *    *•
         I
         i
         s
         <9
         ii
           i!
                             p  f

-------

       _ O i
       m in •


       si*:  ~ II " ^ ^ •

       "si.   ol  . ~ - s
         »?!  S II 'v 3s.5s •



         t n go •• y, g* !
         •! - 3 !8d   3w- ««° '
         ft! " SS    « •*
         SH«i i   »•
       -  !=:
       s  *»s:

       §  -52! S JSes   SW "5 '
       *"  •   J=
*• *  **    s i o.
         • X; «-


         II!
         5*  , o »o . . &o K* C^. ST 8~.
         c  I ~ «S2   ~SKS*^'*''0
         ^mmtf |  ^"O    *^l  <"   .



 1  B  I"li §il " SCE1^'1^1^


 1  I  '«        "•*;«.



 f  ?   j|issi^^.""


 S±  -si   t-i s Ig   §S % ^  « ^
          _i i ni CMO <
                      .
                     S^. KCJ
                     mat  ~-
 J=
 mm too
 •# •


 P''



 sts
            i 5
            S S
i «  :
s «  g

-------
            1 I

            f £ ««. ''' S^ o10. g-: 8°: a«
            .:  * s§   »s a? «o £u "_•


            i  ft »2 " 35 So* £!3 *ir £*!
            :   sg •  S S "S *  -

            :  g


         ,.iv ,.__s_


         B'ill  " 2-   "^ * "^ M "^
         5 *8:

           ||   -o      ^ -* -^ «






          MJR "... JJJ^   _

          Ji   "-    " ~* "S "*  ~





         if j s ~§   ^ ^ ^ ^

* a  -    *"!
  *  *    £>.: S "* ' * S5 8"! ~^ S^ S^




        » FJ1^



 1  I   s j|i ~ s  . •-» ^^-"S
 o  o    sJ:


 I  I    111 § ^   ^ ^ ^  ^

    •>&      • ^ S®  ' ' S»°i S° «•*••• **•
    5:    i,: s s§   »j ^ So **
    •-    ^li    -    «••».-.
         ill

         «! m  ~°
    «s    S: 2  Ss   •«! 505 «w
            s
            s
            I ,  3
            I'i  :  r
!^<  '»'
IS .:
I 'fell

-------
v
                     !' S? 80     S»"
                  "-"< s.ag"    Ss Is  s°
                                       .
                                 Kft. o>m  SIM  ••
   t  m iw •     m • ^ *  «v •
  a:  « sg     -s 3R  ~s

 fc:
                 "jc  !  ,   ^^




                    u I  O  f*O  I I
                                                run

                                                *"d
                              S".
                               ni
    £  i
                  S^i  «
                  ^ U t
                  ^M i


                  ssi
                s   1:
                i !  "-,
                a   ^:
                          sg
               O»4» ^v»  t^^1 ftfM
               KI • rj .  in • «n

               -8 ra   s  :
                            •
                           Q
                           o
•I;
gj


su!

&  i
             g mo i i  IM«J mo ig»r "m  mm
                         »e
                         o •
                         -*o
                         • o
      •   —   =
      o   •   r
    S*

    S3
ll
i;
                   i :  2
                   3.1  IM
                  if:
                                  o pom
                                         *o>  iw   «
                  i!'
     g s0!
     m ^e
 ^!  JS 3s! ' '  S"
 i— i  cu r^o     «-*•»
 p•  — mo     mm
                                      » CMO
                                                sr
    st»  TJ
                                                 i
     g

     s
     z
     (3
                                          o
                                      •§   s  s

                                      1   -  -
                                      £   I  £

-------
                                    BO.








                                       • ( I








         i  Sfei
         •     *
         >     •





         • 1j{'$. 2g    *£ sj  *s *s "~

           •si;








             • | « Mi     <* «



              >: S K'-'.SS £j  8j$ «rf



             „': S $"  "  ^ SS SS ^


 ;«.  ^      111
     0     ' >c  i *» *»o  • >  OAO «j«xi 2»o «*e
     A      St«fcM»     B**"
-------
•El
       I

              8i«'
  ?   •>>

         CMC
  **  <      ^-
,S s:


       ** cgS     «-«v  i*>

       t «o  • •  g°j 58**j sn
       " SS      in *"&  "*
C «S~O i


     - •*•  ~°.  ''  2**i yf*' K*'
  Isi *  ss   "  'T* ~s   -
  •*W I     *"
  ||i     o  ..  _  e3*   95->"
 •Ca.    2""
  U  4t  UJ^ O^
  ||1  gM
                    S
                    i
            S   o
                            8      -
                            5   •   *•
                            w   *•   C
                            ooo

-------
                    S3 "fe R2





        :S*g:  ""   "". ~* """ "••


        isg£: s ii  52.25 22'§3






        I OC i
        ; ua.

          • ' -c «Me>   fi~.° ?fi.^ »
    *«



 1  t
 .  *
 g  s  •. : 2 so ••






if  i

s.   I



a  -1  '  1fifi'"Bs«'Ci5
    4«



   -I?
I~« B-*
III fa*
          I
           *J ' Z
           « 5


           ° 9
.- .im
O £ ** I *•
"III I

-------
    s
                  .:  fc  s°.  ' '  :r: S":  S": 5«  g*.
               tt c u i    rvi*r 0w£   o
             •c >>o >. i  *-  mo          —ru  «-f\f 5-m

               e? **e 5      *"    .
               fn  in i









                  ^'  S  S°  ' '   **"* ^^  "^ S°*  **^
                  v •  fn  to •      in* 9*  ^ • v«  «* •
               • •** i  o*  ^o •     II'MO otn  VMD i/t^*   ••



                ?li
                OOi*

                    i 'jn  go  * «   UM- «-in  ine^ sro  **<;








                 • to •  jfi  *oo  * i   « ma   *•

                 |i T   -          —-".


                   i  2*  mo  • i   «jM>j git*  «^> M«O  we
                   i  CM  ^» •      e> • c\l •  in* r» •  m*

                  .:  s  iSS      "«» sfe  ess Sfe   -


                 li      '


                . J  «  S°.  ' '   5T: S1^  K-5 fe*  ~^
                • x«  ^  ino       ^- —3-  »^;j -^5   o
               ^jS :      ^*       ^™  •*•   ^1  f^

                8§:
                g|:
               s2:
                     o S .
                     » Ss
                             '•'  5)*-  ?:•» '*"  °m  •«
                                 ffl •  ra • to •  ^ •  ^
                                 «-»^  tnt* w»ni  oin   «
        •  •  «"-»
            ffi.:  C-..- K^  g^;  «^
                          o  i t  wi*.  air> ma>. o. ino.  aw
                       » 2. •  *»
Cr    «


F"   ft
^*-     ••

e*u.  *IJ
5sa  •.i
sw«  sJ

feiP«
S  «
                      1?
             -!   I   i   I    §

-------
                         "! s*: t°. a0:
                              *   -
        ss s:  a £2
        «>>»>•;«- «5

         5 SI

          ' _;  *° -1"0,  ' *










          •Si!'-'' '




          ill .**    ^
          »c.


          U*«»  5S ^>9    ^—* !S.— z« C*—* "*_





          _ *  O' IBO  B i




          S!





           li  s  §


           • : = Kg

           I:

            : as0.  • • s^ %°. sr. &•.
          «>• •» me     -c v-m Aa S^m
         -He!    2        « w «

 R        Si:
         •CUI        ,   .








"•••   *•     ^*  *


;   1-fepj



I   if    •




i'."-.'1'
         c
         1
         w



        " X
         u
         •»•
         •I



    £     ft' a ?2   ' S»^ *•
      —   g; N ^o       5rm,

8!2 |S£
•    '•!'
      ,o  **
»  K  **  S
-  S  «.  1

-------
        § if:
        S MO!
         Is! S=
       i e:
       s "•.
       a
II
K.


If  P
 S  48
I  «
**  •!
          S
                 «*  m  SJ
   *•**  t —€ *
   *l^ •' «I*
   l^iJ.issi "^s^

           8s
         I
                        I
         is  «-  s.,  ; j f

-------
.ItfiA*
:*-8:

|U •»  •> < -*T  «5J •
O U  t- » "*  *O2
< XO X'    ••g

;s"gi


igjil'-  sl

i"si
     i in  h»o
.  «s: S  Ro
:  S3:    -s
:  s?:
:  Si:
   M
   sSi
, '


fr
II
S £

>••





' ^M
1
4«
U
• >
H
1
Jf!
•!':
g :
sf :
|2:
.s«.
X
             .  grw

               ~
                     trie tn**   o
        i
       5 a0. • •  5°: ft*: Se. S=
       S Rg     ~ -5  fc  «
        « So ..  •• =»
        2 go    NO S*
           o   . • i^  *™
        - 5|    =«  ~5 -S "8 '"






        S toe    (wX  m» 2i-* &« *"•*
           O      «!•«.»•  «• .





        C «o  ' * Ij^  S^ 5°" S**- S^
                               •8
                               I

-------
          tic"! «5 og     **•» ~{R= ?Rj "TK *"*
          tm m >• i   ^S

             , r>- «»o  « '  •>«o* *•» *"° °^ 8"!
        1  2oS.i * -§     "^ ""* •"£ "3  ":

          Sgci I S|  "  »5 -^ 2g SJ -^2

             i in r-o  • •  «r^ JS"S R"^ jfi*^ S"!
            *' m So      i*» •*•* "*^- *o>  **

           o •- *
                       «M- m* -«» »« «""
            si •* Sg     "^ *?~ ~s ^  "*

        I Hi     "
        1 -gai  S              ~ "

           ili

           5^1  s sj " !=J 5^ *g ^ ^.
           S«B •     ^       •
             t                        •
           •£1



            |!*^    ZZ-
             * I   W»S        ' **•  ^  **
            i:    "           ^ ^ ^
             S>.! M So      *s  2  !C *^S  *°
           _ e!   '*
           •cu'               .
S S        g • fc go  • • onj g« g< fe". g^:
-Si     ssri   5g      *  S ^ ^  "
     *     S§:                •"    -
           25:


 —    o*
 -    fc§ •
 I    £|
 *»•
  o
 I
  £•   5^    — fe'
  u    Eo •    "3 •
  C    ?">•   "e  M —D • I
  v    Ofc—      •  m «"O • •
 «»•    i5^    . :  s fio



 
-------
           «g i. 4  tn -oo    KUn SIM t»w»  ru«  m

           **s!  ^ ~~  •  '^':J ^  ^V

           L. u i  *o inO    oo «*K.' «*O  fv* -•  «»•
           KO >•«    (MCP    «"•*»  ^  ftl  «-
            *• i     •• ,          &


             «1  fc S® * '  S^ 5*^ fe*^  5°5 ***l
           M e t- *  ru **o    <>eM **^*" n*o  «*ki  .  v-o     «r  N   ^- • '   K^
            S||  •• SS  . ."8

            Hi
            uo»
              •  JJJ jOO • i  »-•
             •I I  M *OQ    ^^<-	  - -

          I III.   ~*     *  -""•-
          ^ coo *
          S  01
          • •3  ' '  4D NO * *  S^ ^MO **AI  ^*^O 9AO^



          "|     -     ""       ""





            «*^» i          ,

              *K»o*   .m>^«fu««M «oe  mo  *»•


             !=  /'
              :  at s° • •  s~ B5* 2*~  c^ s*
            ".I  s Ss    ^ «s »s  ^  -
             •s:
             »•  .     •     -    •
              i  " BO i *  o*r «ni NO>  oe> itro
            tt^k*  A!  O    2« ^* *   *  "^ *  "



      _      X •  M IAO i '•  Bv> mCk IA«»  O^ 040
      •      •..*.!»_.   . ST. -_. s*;  « . - .
      •«

      i
      **^      ^          "         /
                     8 i  ^^™ ^*^te !fi^^  W^" f^*O





                     -"  S2S2£S2a2
                   ««     m-  «•  'M  ^

            "51:     ~
      s      **•*


          •Jll'l-   % .•«•«•«--



            "°:  I S2 "  S3 8P- ??  *?

31    L     *";     f

M*    '°~'

If    If      ^i  a S" "  %o §2 912  S2 *2"
II    Is      gj  - «v  .  ~*.  --«•.-
it- *sl"
o Sin  i  8 c
S

I.
w <  «
         nil
          *   •  -o  -o '•
                     S   |
                         !  1   1  ?  !

-------
i   I   I   i  I     .
I   «   t   s  «     s

5.   &•  a   a ' a
SB   01   «>   -I  T
a   a   •   i»  2
•*   «   ta   t  <*
i   3   5
{•on
                    =   2 I
                    S   ,i
                                    jf r

                                    -»3s
                                    i?"
Pi-
                                            3.5
                                     -oi    T.S

                                      K   TL
                                      »•»«    «^»
                                      11    p«
                      • a•      • ^

        **  rv>— WN"    ' §2  IS  ! S
r*Ji  ?£  I**2 ?5 r*!S     ?s  CJ  <»
IMM  IM—  UK« M^ a     o*-  n>  >  >.
• ^A  • Ul  • M • ^ • O     • *•*  O  *
O*-  ««*  «W .U*0i OMU * *  OfU  *>  * 0—





5*   !*o*  J"!!* S-5 r*uS     ?2  o  '  • -
•SWI  Otf*  ^5* OO MO»  * •  ON  4  '





    s   s- s- s«     I      i-g^








 wiC! VtS bw!  bw  b«4  • • bS -•  ' ^


                              ill


 p  r,. ?a  ?s  ?s     ^5 s  :5s
 MUI U««  KM!  MM  I I OUI M  < X







    U» -l~ O- .^.  • . O      ^




 p- ^fw-Ko;  «|     ig «  Is"   s




                       -*      • m






                           -    »



' ^iJNt \gt**~ OV^O  ***O^  oS  ' *  O0* Oi  '




                        -      IP

         ••   ^M' So     8S w  IS"

 &..»»•    *..Vi.:jrj



                       • .•      >3»  *
         —   —   o> •      g-j    ;«g
 ^   -lint ^k^  0W  aOrfl     O9 W  *  wS» US  »S  —*•  « • bo> M  < •    ;
                                       8  '• i

                                       S:S
                                       53    »
                                             II
                                       SJ    i^

                                       S3    o

                                       is    i

                                       §:/  1
                                         n"  °  S


                                         1  1"-
      • 4A  • 9

      •*O  OM










      o>ni  *4e>

-------
                    : R fc6!
             iu« »', S S°. .• •
             «>.ox! "° *"S
                    :    K°.
                  *• S So

              5  ill    -*
              S  "8:

              s  -g'si
                2!
                                           s-5 5°:
                                           "*• *
                                      fe"; 2»
        **
  o  m   c
  -  «.   |

  ™     **
*  9  -
               IS!
   E
   5
        §   =
                fi
               — • c •
  s    r-
 «$    «
 £,    •«
 •!?    *l
 h    **
if    as
 U    !*
 rs-
=•&-.   o  S .  ' '  ~«  "*• •*-
            j|j  ~  Sf     -"R  -«o So




             «•'  S  K6!  • •  fe~  sj* «~
             o I  S  *8e     *3«o  CJpI So
                  5 2
                  '• s
                           f  •§   •§   f ' -
                             -

-------
           Hi!
           e o •
           m in •
               i  p. eo  ' •
              a:
          8 ill
  i
^    I
                           o-* 5{»- g«  OK- £«•
                           ^ ^ «8  "ft *
             «x!
             e  i
                               sr°. si^ «"•
                                s   a  s
                                       .
  i»    «
.2    ?
«j     »••»•
I?    H
      MO*^
 -    51
ii    ;i
             4
             <&•
"°i  •-
   i  O
t  i  ru
              s:  a £P
              O i  •- ino
                             *. 5*. KT! gj
                             S -^ "S ^
g-
5 o

its
                        91   I
                                 . 'I  6  '3
                                 t  5 ' 5   €
                                 • • 5  -o   1
                              >•'••£  «  *•   5
                              1  i   i   f  -
                              I  1   I.   I  §

-------
           gt-fe'  ™ "-&
           0  2X!  *~ •»**
           .S S:
              •
                » 5S
          8 ili

          i '"IS
              :  8

                "

             ..:  s
            s-s:
         ,  •  — •  »• Hl^
         •C   I i     *".
         ig   *•

         :a    :  a 3°.
         ?   .!  r s§
              • s s.
          : Si-: » «g-

          i S§:    r
      S,  :
           .  :  s
         •  c <  .»
  8-


ll

                       RS
2"
    ccfe
    .-s

Ilitf

 ?! i  f|i     "'
 "' '   *:  ss6;
.isi !   sj  «si

 |i' :
                               '
          S
          u

          i I
                oo.   c

-------
      *   2  l|
          I. M
                         • » a -p-i

                        £81 2%
                       ' SS
                  is
ru  *•-•
W« *-5
             Pa i:  i1*
          i .  OO ' O»  *
             ^s s  i
          .,i  oJi !S  •
                        '!•
                        53
                        »—1*
                        M (•

                        u
                              ft  ;,
                                .
                              ,a
                              5
&M 3- 5*.     8w w ;•<*

VS 1.SR »M  > i  OM,™ <• *





ju'^-fc'    i-JH
U4«! ^*Q %owi  * *  oCS ^ *
  * ~ '        • ' •    i X
                  * *

M^b *»fO ft*—   '  QWI -* '•*•
WOt "O"«4 O***     OW -^ *
toa UOP o£  * *  out £ 1^





             mil
          • <  oS m  > xr.
 M» wiw -


 •A^V uiS *
 «s psd *~     Pa s i^s
                          I

                          n

                          3-
                          I  1 i
                   •:
 K|  Ul^i


 £3 '5
 CM* 0*4
 KS 5S
 WlQ — *. O
                   i an
                   . 10
              r™ w  ii
              oS w  •
                    I Ul  U
                    I O  O

              gui -  !•
-------
                • i •»»-.
             K°.
         So
         in i
       il>: "* &!
          :  8
            *
             ss
       g "Si
                      ». •"
                     *«> S
!'i
t;!
         S*i,
          * IA •"Q * i N^

         ±i 5 is   §g
                  g!R
          .i 5
           :
         •CU I
         J m
       liiB"
 «*   •*"
ll
         . e-;
         £*'•
         Hi
           • 
-------

                                    en rvio . £>m  inO   O
            .  i  «
           -ss:  8
                          B".  55 s:- ~3
             S" •  *•"
             j= i  »-
           jc u i
             •
             1:
  s         lli

K i


jj    .5


II    t     fc  :  s  gi
 i    f     |=:     ^i

 -    -   | «Si
 U    -MX    .  «.  _«^
tptlom
H

I!   II
tl   «B
       i:
       jrf.c

              i:  s 8°.  "
              S >  «r mo
                             ^ ft". a?°. sn  • • 5
                                as
 sisT«l
                  UJ <

                  S ft

                                           U  1
                                           s«  r
                                           55  .R.

-------

             if!
*•§
       !
 =   *
               ? 5
                     •--'••*
  e-
  u


il
if
8
                          3* w a°  *««•.*
                         .«a £«i -BW   o s
           I
              I
                                    B
                        »'  l••'*  i !i  I

-------
                    runt  NN
               mo  i  •  ec
            ""
                                    ** Sf° S"!
                                            "8

                                       i    5
                                       *Ot   *C
'  . U
                            ^   u   t-  ****   *

                            1   e   i  S5   S

-------
           to£j S Sg   "S
   .:  fc S^
            "S:
             .'  2 M
                        'r» •««»
         • ft -B
         : -S8:
         i  Jh'i
         >  *•«• i
            .:. S
     e
     **
   o  «


   I:;
     •s
            I:
 S^i

JI:
             .' R 3°. • '
              * Is
                      « a**!
           s:
  f   sr
  g   ^2
I*   *

I1   ^
Sj
11  It
             s
             i
               «  *

-------
              I  M  -*O I

          82 CI  3  So
          Se>.o>.i     MO
                         *•«» m^ mi> '
                               *jr\i

                                o
           o o *
           •o m«

             .: fc  s°. '
               • o f-o  •

               i » §8
               I  M *>O
               i  m M •
              11  m «o
              • i    "O
                                                                                         : •'*'
                                 K«M
            ai
             5*
              ,i  s
                  §s    ^
                               u«n

                               "*o
I!

i
ii

              'i:«
              : = 8°.
           82?: ~ ~S

           ||:


           • Xi ^ ^Q
           •M i    ^5

           S§:     '
                            •8S
           7  :  s ge.  • •  s*. s^
           e  !  S So     K": "fc
           r i  •    v»o      «*  m
 !   i!
o

I
 If
    Ii

    3s
     «o
             si  E
            if:
             •S5!
                           Kf.
             _1 I  N. MO

             oi  S5o
                                   •g
                                   s
 ste
    £ll5
    i  **-C
     • uS
                  = _.   s
                  U «   «

-------
I  §   ..
U    *^






I    5
I    i

       ?
^    i
*rfV    <««
4?S    5
               ;*

              it
              ii
              -5
              II
Si    Sfe
«—    S£

ri-   i&


8  -iJi
pptk  x
S 5«j i •« c
«S~ «'J*
U  « IU<*i^^V
Cnj-> xn • £
rs-g 5"!-s
                   in o-o • •  «»»r

                   Pi fed     &o
                            s£
                     Sg
                     i
                 3 So
                   R So
                   S
                             "2 ss
                   o no  i •  «
-------
                      *  oto* or*-  «)«*•
                        •* • IM •    •
                       • MIA •*fi   o
                        ^r»  IM
        •

     ygj
               - s§
           ili
  a
           x:*t
           O*rf •



           1

           i^i
         E
         S
         s
       I:
             £:
                         v-w -«

                         Ss ss
                   s
              •  KI -»o  i i  Ka

             .!  ru rud     rug

            Us^"
            II!    '.'•
 U   —
3.
-i
"08
*MU


s
*&
            *Ir
            •I:
            •ss:
5s
             ~t i cu cue
             s: R So
             O i «- me
                         <«HM

                         is
                         «
-------
               »   tn i


              tutu *» * 2 S° *' '  ^"^  f*v\

              Siofcj « SJg     Kg  Sg
    S
 r
                   :  8
             • «[
                c ..' 3 3*  ' •  y>  gtn

                 5*S J    ***2      *^.  iv*»
                 Mi            **   *0
                 ii
                           '•  8B J2
                               «- «5S
            5  S
              •"
       n

         s
         o
      -fe
                                 Sf: .»*»
              ' *^  '

               Jis
                       ig'
 4W^   ^ (j
         •  !  S K

      „ f=j  ~=
 ?£


ll
-—U
||

II
g*
.u

a-
              s.

              II
              .  S "J5 S3-''' 2?
              ~             •>•»
        g;  2! S|
|S=
i"— *°" S»  *
                             I  5 ..§••

-------
81
  §

  1
                                   Din -»P- *>'- • «*IM
   ! i u  £ '  55 tftS?      *n® «»^ ^*ir  "frf*  o
   ;;>.0>.;    ~o      «-«   -•       —•
    o**e I
    —  in«
         •  r- >*e  « •  -oe «•» t*J  M° * "2   •"  "IS  °
         »    »^       in   ««       •"



                   1 '  R"! •»**! o> •  •-  •  _}
                       «rffn CMIM   «r  ««o  e
              *(WO      V"T*   ^       *^



      uaii





   »- vio i
   g   «•      .
   5   • _ i  n  MO   * •  oi^ h»o  <^^D  2^  *






          i  a  mo   * •  <>*• AIN  N*O  »*w*» IAN
       C • •  **•  S-^      H2*^ *^«*;   «  g-J   _;
       •£ i     *n9      ^^   ijf   «"  ^t2
      €£!      —  .      "*



      ||i                   „___


        |j  -  If      2S "S   «  -S







        si

          1  *~  s°  *' jj"i  "°*  s* y\°-' ***^
       *>»•  ~  Sg     "^  "j;  ""•*   5   °


       sli
       •CM <
       x  i  ft  mo  • • NM  fu«»  *m«r M^J  ' '





       *  ,i  •- go  i •  ^t>>  4*>; j^e o^o  i i


        u** •       ^


       "z::  .     •'..  ^'«.'^«,.-






        lsi     J        "   l~~~




          1:   .
          ' i  -r CMO  i i  **^  m»  0>. 
-------
           &
                    88
                ••

                 •"
                           "i g«> fe- CM« 1MB,

                           9 -g :•** «s *«!
            ttl-
                 '

  --••  5

«N  •   £
S*  B>   a
o>  •   «T
-a,   «
      4*

      •8
            if:


            •cu •'







            II:!
            X
              i

            e :
 8
 1
 £
 "o
 §


]
           "
;§•  1=

;|o  J|



 o •> uj «*n
i TJ^^ *m «
 ucx 
-------
                 • t  *%J  ^ •      (•» • o  • O *  (^- •  N *
                il >* •     ^o  .     ^  ^   <^  ^*5
                c  •      ^
                MO *
                 in *                 '
                   •  a  *?o  *  i  too ^o* jf'O  o»*  o*ft
                _ ^'  *o  u^S     * MM mo mo»  rwf^   o

                 in •
                  *  &  QO  •  i  em h»N- rx*«»  rxi^»  • •


                 *n t





                  t  m  MO  •  •  n^»  ^O OP» *&W  • '

            g |||     ^      ~Ci  "S ~K   S
            •M B«^ •
            5 "8:
            2  •_;  jo -«o  i  i  n*o  h^» mai> •*• «-^
            o ^— v •  M *c •      o *  in * •• • in » ^* •
            m M*!  OT 2§      r^  "^s **£* *R  °
               *aS i









            s ' 1:       "                  '"*

            §  u":SRc?1I5h:S"J3<«ge:s«5
            »   .:  •» 5s     ~"  -s  *s  2s  °






    gt          "u!
    5          xtv c«o   i i -    «>•      ^"^              x)  «»  «o
 *J*     S      c  ;  «M go      »~^  mrg  2Ur  S^
  u     i   ^  UMI     ^S       »•   IM   «-   m


  S  .   S   I  5  ;          ...  0.0.          ^


  t     g      isi      -       ,    -1><

  0    i      **•
       **



       t.
       «rf
 «i~    O



If    !
*!    s
1=    -8

   -
•*•  -1
Cf*J— a;*-
13      V>

i  *   -
z  O • O
I       «
:   I   i
i   I   T
S   5   "

-------
         1 ** »»w • • 5* . M . « • ^ •
      ejfcj R 2s  . *= ~* *= 23


      sL£j 5 si   ^ *a "* %*
         Si               . '
         «
         * *"• S° ' ' 2^t "** S^ S*^ l


       sm ~ 2.  2 ol' J! ol
        £y I 4^ •• •   m • ?£•• 2j|g|* SaA

       *Q L. t
       uai  ,
         • ni go • • g^ J:* ft* R^
        a! m 28   •*"&. **«Q *^  ••



       i|j S s|   ^ §5.22 &j

       £••
         . a «o • i i»tn «no —~ go
       g •; •" g^  , "",» "^  w Wg
         i

       It'


      8 ij *i...  ZZ'HC
      8  .: " §    ^S *S ^ §5




  *"     • £u •

- 2      Si^i S H§    *ft ^J5 .*» ^S


|.      PL ^.. g, s, 3,»,


1-   =ftrss

 1  .


 \  i
 1  1   «.:
 &  2   Sli

 5'  *   ""


fi-1
    I
    -8
           i
             5 o
I II! I

-------
61  !
1
                           &:*•
                           3*5
                     I •
               N
                        oun o*-* •»«»  ***
                        in • ^ • O* •  v •
                        JQr. S-, «g  ~*
             i  o ^•o

         :  s|i  s SS
         :  lit
         :  -52:
         8 «|i'
         '*
         a
           Hi

            ii 5i
            Is
             '! »
               NO
            si
            *  i

           Z|i

           Igi
           KUI
                  rg
           _(J i

           *  i  — a<

           £-i  s I
           o** *     <
                  s6.
   I   i

   t   i
   t   2
  8*-
,  %Z    m

  8^    I
  If   |
  •sl    s.
                  ^g
            «ij= i
           J°Us

                   gift jgO O« gm

                 Sea     iMfi mgj «^o n^
                 tup      ^  in   iv  ^







                 CUO  > I  IAO Jj^l
                         ^   r3
                                ni  cu
                                  few*
                                  O '
                                  •**»
                                   ^"
                        •MSI  t<-<*

                        "s's
                            me
                                  ^>5
i •  35 •
a   a

                                 !9«.

                                 5  §2 s^
                         o>* <*•
                         mn «•-
                          «™ ^
                                   f»—
                                   KI*
                                   on
                                   *™ ^™
 Hi-g
   S
 -S-5?
                      «  s| II
                                 5  E
                                 1  1

                                     o   g

-------
'*
                               -
                                    j •£ ss
                                s
                 -

              s:
                                 •»« «-e. «i«

                               a — V8
      i,   £ &
  S  * • o
  S   *




  J.-i


  !   *

!'!'  *
-•D    ..
iS    •
~ 9   «iw

                I
            I      J

                   «

-------
        .gel  HP  •' 55SSS5S.I2'


        *£l    "°
           ,  B BO  > • «0*» «••" ^^ Jga §**

       lEoii  s «§''  ~s *s "s •*• -r-

        s~si
           •  p* oo  i • of* S*T srr s*^ s*^
          M t  fc ^ •    ^ * "• & ^?	-  r-i  *«
        • cTi  ni «rcs    m^ mgj mm <>-o  ..    »-5     «  m  «M  —
        VJC •     *"
        rf**O I

           •  m oo  « « «o mm -fim »go g«^

         si:  3 SB    ^-s^^5^

         53:     -
         «:
         U9*





         MO i
          U *


         	    p»O     f*  M  ^     ^






         js u i     S    exicy**^^




         ^jag          »«^  A*  a<\i mo -MM

          • *  v oo    *^f*  ^N» IA^ ^^O tnoj






          Jiig".^5»"eB





          Jt^| "* "'S     n *"«e  «-      «•

  5



II       Sxi fe
     t>-    •« •

jj    i   ?§:

1    I   20>
i* «i         * ^  y*^  * * sc^*" «s™~
          fc_: I  g    S5 S* w«



 S   1  s Pi
 J   -  i " !  o go  ;;.






 g   3    .  :  fe S°. '' Vf3- &~>
 S   ~    i_!  R Be   -• &•»


 &   i    -55.
 U        «3 •

 «   j=      ;  •- go • • *•*• S6? "*• 8° !S"5


li   i


4   *
£S   2
 W    S
 K>-    S
 ^TT;
I
    •1-1   .I'
   1  fa   -5!   ±  5

   li !i '-I  * -1
                             ,.
                      "•8 -i-8  8
                      ^ 8*.  •  s   f

-------
             So '
             in •
           41 JC  »
           —a:
                   oe  • •
             si
                                          O>o
  a

U
u

1«
            it:
            *"
              !:
             s:
_«.

,e  :
 !    1  eS
       i  - o  •
                .
               ij
  •s
  r
 s°-
 11
 •51
•H
i

3


8
1
              fco  •

              58
                                    q*o iiffn y

                                         ~
 S=    1
      Jl

      1*2
               e < *- mo
            S
            I
            s
                             **%n  -  ' -  -  -----
                                       •8
                             I,?
                                 ^    -.   B
                                 >p    4   «

-------
                                                                                      ft.
              n
                  ° • •  °:
               «» S°.
          ssE!
          SSo!
             si  *

            §1;
            t/lO I
             U I
            • i  e
            jsti i  M
            0*- t  M
                                   .

                                   -
           s-si
                 Ke. • •
                 gg
!»  3
I     o
E     «^
II    3
 =    !
 •5   8.

  8   *5

  I   I

 s^   «
 31   •
                   .
                   s
            s2:
                    .
                   s
                —
                g
 ;*   -8
fe    i
 u  •  u<^;

 nl^  IT
                 I
1  I
O * "  €)
                                        «

                                      -  f.

-------
              «
              k:
              •-
                   o
             » O i

              I ' R
             I!
                    '
                   s
S t  •
                   .
                   g
            f:    g
                '
=   II •  i i-5
   1 fi  s Pi
I   H
I   js
 -
          Si:   K!

          fl-1'
          ^.1 3£
            i:  fe ~»
            i:  S £§'
»e  . • IM.

is    ^
                           S3
                          Sf":
                          ~

                              2  g

-------
i!
          C
                          ••N.* »n»- e«
                          o • ^ • ^ *-
            ii  S SS "  S2 j£2 iS
          g g:
              i  . a:
  •s    1  = 5'
   0
 |

 g-
 u


ll
              !i  3
       I
            III
               •  in  ^o  • •
               •  o  *• •

               :  -  88
              _ji  o»  mo  • i
              «: i  ^>  o> •
              t—»  *r  mo
              O *  N  ^*O


                 S

                 o
                                "8  8- £
                                               •s
                      -  L   1 -' *e
                   ^  |  ft   1  s| §i   t   i
                   Se  S  «O   JT  V*~ —• <-   «l   »
                   S  *  S«   f  I- -O   .£   g

-------
         S£  Z
         «>»0>
         M!
11
 »    i
            SOI
 si
J^

ll
       §£  Jii
       JC —  U
  i   I
 II
!?
It
S^    i


I    I


                    B i^ in«o tnm £«» «»^ O»IA  f%o

                 2  is     Ss Ss'« Ss So  --
                 a  «e  • •  s« ~*. §~ »* £«  *«

                 ^  So     SS fcm S£ ^fc "'S   °
••   «   w   *-  ^  *^*




* 4<* gm mi>> »« —in
                 o  «- •
                   ag
                  •  S°!  in*^ K^ ^J S°







                    um  J8« gm gw  i i











                 *™   IO   <^   ^"





                §*:  &*  a*! 2?- s?° s"°
                g^*  s   51—? ^ • "*—/ »* *
                                 i   i
                 o      en    S   Q.

                 s  s   '    I   I
                 ZOO        •
                                 S.-  s

-------
      c:
       .:  8
     «»» i  O-
     I!;
      8«?:.
   -  l=:
      *  i  «o  too  • *  ***> •*rt
     if tt •  n  O* •     *" * **
     •gs!  S  So     ~s   ••
          o  ee  < •  — •* me nx
                       "   -
             11  «» in •
             i!  - BS
                     §
       1;
         i *r MC
                     n§
      s  :
      s$:
      i-i  - 5s
                        of*
                        ~
»   •» U  1
 I   .1
 i    !
5|    I
I1    =-
£    if
•51    -"
     •I
         i  ut  r^
         :  i  «
              ss
           •o o>
           •r m
           CM »^
5  
-------
                  s
        S  g:
-- S:

 'III
 ;S!»:
,!.*!'
                        Sss
         l-si:
         • •— u «
          XCBi

         i £^3 »      O

         jii
             i  in p»o * i
           -i  5 Is
        s  ii      '
        i  -.  * M ••
                             W 3» Sfc  o
            it i  ^ m
          g|i  - Kg

          III
     :  s
  C  i  •*
                                R"?
                         ^>     »-    >•
                         o>*  «• ^e>.-^*
                         KMO  cu^ mn m-»

                         "•   ";•'"
                         S"5  V- sr: S^.
                         m-»  mm «*m   *     •   • •
                I  5  -.   =   r

-------
                              52 5:
          SM

          U

                        3  B £• £K 12 SSSTE52
         iziji

         ill
         •  —•* i
         z «?:
         8 I— •
         _ o—i
           o*» i in «>S
           ai    §
                               ujni eo

                               S! 
                                                                   *._•  ~
            S-&:
         s   *:

                                   S S3
                                                 3 S3
                                                            *  »


      •o


  *•   o
I!

I
ss
li
It
     sfe
 m   &. «
 a   sr
            «x
            ii
              •  « me
      ~_   _ u
              i  p> "O  > •

              M  «S8
 ^


 i   4
 I   82.

 fr   •o-n^
      Hr
in

jc s
             rue    SJ  »» SMO oW uwn
             eg    -«-
                                                 *:
                                                uxn •««•
                 I
                 s
                 s
                 i*
                             ,
                                             ntn uxn
                                             ^« *5
                                             t§- -s5
                                          ss -
                                                          ii
                          W ••  ^*» ** 2 S M   M   *i C • - b I      ^«  W Q *<  OT «   W
                                                                       I   I
                                                                       ««  '3
                                                                       M*w  C

                                                                       *>*•*  ,£
                                                                        a

-------
          :    .:  S 55--" §~
          ' £e^«    Kits      •*>
                                                 ^ se. sr. a*.
                            <0  l>-
                                .       .
                              5l>- KW So
 .R s:



•lltfl
                     .

                     s
                «•»•» jjo

                Eo £.0
                                         £••» «»«» ;g<0 ,gtw go  jgo;

                                         5«J ^ -* *«  -   o
          :  tf:  » 3§


          is.:
                       ....  «y© BO.
                       ST.
             l-g:
             *•«! •

             -4;
             gj;
                .  * «o  «
                .  B *• •
              • t  3 o>o
              •^ i  *» ^O


              I!     '
           a
•-
g
                            AB
              £:
                  »


                  m 58     "«
g I  it  ;
^     3*«  •
       • •  a0: s«5 S". 5*. 8":  &^ sn
          C< 8^ .So «£»«. S«8   * »-
-------
>
      2


     1

     g
      1
                            IA  inrt

                            m  Se in»

                            Is is
            §  ill
•g?i  S
                               nru  * *
          •8
          2
     3«   €5
     •c*   £S
                              « m •
                             ft S3
               S^: ^ Bo
               sa:    s
               S-&:

               sj 2 r-
                i\ 2I§
                i:
  £:

  S>>>
 _?:
 s§:
                   2  as


                   ?5  8°.
                                "
               ?§:
-
           as
     gtsT
            *•
                      SB
                    8 f?
                    » S
                        .
                 °  -
      o


      £
                                     •8
                                     S
                     8! S  S

-------
            ::'• s §d
                       ••«• S" *"*.
                       X^ SiX  o
           SO t
           in.1
           Si:

        Mil
         ;   « *
        !«3l
                       oo- ee>
    *e
           ±i 5 So
           li
            £:
            xi 5
           111
           S>: m
           I!!
           Ii-I
     SB  O
     in


jSgi Kjj "e


S S£ "



is SSR ' *
u
«^
o
1
I
      > • — U  I

      ^ 1  &!
      -fe 8 ifei
    I
     •=•5
           ti!
              i  s fc«?  ','

              :  s s°.  ''
I?"
its
II
               ^     W
               2  _,''•• £
               w  <  «
               z  o  o

-------

i
              8  Sg    So Sg
             I O  IUO
           2: s  s=o
           >. «-  me
            mm on > •
            ss is
         si£.i  s as    iRs  ss
            .:  3 «5  "
             i  tn gO

            *!  "«!
           it!

           ft!§
           s-si
            2!    s
            1:
                ^
                         w-  -
                         o |g
ill
      O  — U  i
  1    I
  *   !
 ^    I
 **?    2

 I   Si
 So    H
 *Di  in fwo  i i  me cum MB
 a~\  ^ss   '"W.JK11-5
 WM  x -
 s~± ^:
 TR-S I-?-*
                s

-------
                         ...  »eo runt
                             *o * o> •
             o o.
             m m>
                   *
  5k I
  • •


  .:  ** "o
J^:     8-
TJ S:  ,   *°
2S:
                            S
  I---'
   '
  £


 4    6,
 ss    f5-
 u '    B«
 SS    -85
 «u


3-
. k,ife
3°
:=:
              ;:  s
             s:
    £

    S

    i

                   2 -*
                           I   5  I

-------
                 o ,OO  > i  IMO  j»O





                 o BO  < •  go  jno

                 5 Kg     ~R  -"3
                                                                                                     •in;-
         .cS:
        : si":
         1  II!
              : '§
            .  i  B  NO  I • £j*
            :• i  85  «r«     A..
              •  ,KI NO  i
         I  III
         •      I
         i  M£ *
         t  MB*
         •  **— *
§  I
        s
               :  s
                     s
  -o    V
 I-

r doctor
ortmit
            i§;
            Js!
             .
             3b» •
             -5.!
             <8-«
                             'g   5
                           o»••  •

                           ****.
                            S*.
                ,  •>

                '  "
                             K? S».  ' '
              ^i
              5!  w  3
no

*§.
g°-

a-
                  s     «
                  S  .  S
                  « «   <
                  15   e
                                       •g
                                       S

-------
          iE
           .   *• »


         Sg£!  55 So
         if jc *    •£
K^ gr , R-.
-s «««>•
                     IS6!
        1 g:
        1 •» B^ •

        •? -8;
           If1*-"
g s
          ||l


          I!
          2:
                      5 22
                     r 58
            >a
            1 ^r
         II;

          -
 •s  ^
           . •  e mo
           11  «r «• •

 |^  is i  *.:  - ^    ^
 a  -g. :  -;J:
         •:


-------
            fist:
    •O  BO


  •'  =58
           .S g:

           i   •» '  O l> •
           ;asfc:  ~ s§  .
                       .
                     SS
                            5^  Kg
                             N   *O
              . i r- oo  i •  tno ino
             JS«M KI in •     j»^ Jg,,;
             if!    =i      -  .



                 • «j oo  • «  — .
                '•  «M ejo . •  ~* ON

                 '  * KS     -^S S2
                     NO      N «-«n
                 i
'II
  2!
    I Q  OO  * *  **N» §**

 82ri »  "g     "id ^S

iss    •-
 •CU i

 g  : s  s°.  • •  S-. SP".
                      35  ••
   s

   8
            t  ^31
i.   4s
 |
 A^
 &
 u

s-
51



•g'
               .
               «•;
                -a
                                 &-: S".
                _i.  jo
                <:  s
                        g
                                       •2
  %!

-------
                   I  X S°.
             i e  o .

            - «  O&. *
             ;  u».
             *     »*
             I     t


            S  if:

            i  "si
                 ;  o

                   -
               I:
                 *  
                                     "
                             o.


-------

          •.—S:
            i|i
          :  -52:
          .  UDtl
                s
            2•<

           :  Is:
           :  sS:
                 N. NO  • •  wm »5«« ««<:;
                 •no*     l^ • ""^
                 5 NO     <-g  « '"•
        2  :
         1
              .
           7 111
         § i Sii
                i  e 55  "
         s :
i  - £s
  —    *T^S     ft • - •*• £S
  i«    i?x     2:    s§
       "£
       W** v
 ">• <—i;—

 S|? - • °_ c
                              52 R2
                                   1
                                    "S
                     o   9

-------
              :: 3

              ,: §
                  SS
                  Sine  • •  IAO 
                                      ""
            III
                  S°  ** S^ 2" 2f^
                  Ift «S « '»  -
              Li 5
                               ,is  • a
  §
  8-
  2

 f
t
 Si
 a-.
 fit
       :  S go
      •i  52g
     lii
         I
                                 ° ***
                                   "
         is  5
         S o  e
i
'*  Y

-------
             ;   •  s tne

             s£££!  ~ *§•
             • £
-------