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£££! ~ *§•
• £
------- |