Part One: Interviews With Residents
Under the supervision of Professor Christina Zarcadoolas, the members of the Brown University class Environmental Studies 126: Public Perceptions of the Environment designed and implemented an in-depth interview study of residents. The goals were to investigate how residents perceived and responded to the water contamination event and to capture the voices and experiences of Pascoag residents, with particular emphasis on residents' information sources, concerns, behavior modifications, satisfaction with government officials, perceptions of their community, and thoughts toward the future.

The interview consisted of a series of 34 questions. Questions were divided into the following five categories: Background/demographics; History of Events; Personal Response; Officials' Response; The Future. A total of 26 students, both undergraduate and graduate, conducted approximately four interviews each, for a total of 100 interviews. Of these, 72 were in-person interviews and 18 were telephone interviews. Whenever possible, interviews were audiotaped, and the average interview lasted approximately forty minutes. The in-person interviews were conducted in residential homes, the Pascoag firehouse, and George's Pizza and Pub in downtown Pascoag. These interview were conducted from April 12 through May 1, 2002.

Sample
The study used an opportunistic sample. Initial contacts were provided through communication with a local activist group formed during the contamination event, Concerned Citizens for a Healthy Pascoag. We asked group leaders to provide contact information that would represent a wide range of resident opinions. Study participants were also recruited through posted flyers in local gathering places, ads in the Bargain Buyer, a widely-read weekly circular, and a snow ball method using residents to supply names of other residents. The in-person interviews were conducted in residential homes, the Pascoag firehouse, and George's Pizza and Pub.

This study was not designed to include sampling methodology to produce a statistically representative sample. Rather, the findings should be interpreted as representative of the beliefs of the residents interviewed and not the entire village. As previously stated, our initial contact with residents was through the Concerned Citizens activist group, and this group later supplied names of other residents. In addition, other recruitment methods required that the residents themselves take the initiative to respond to our call for participants. These factors in recruitment of participants may mean that those interviewed disproportionately represent the segment of the village population that was most proactive regarding the water contamination.

Confidentiality
Participants were assured that their names and other identifying characteristics would remain confidential. To maintain confidentiality, all completed protocols and audiotapes were immediately collected following interviews. Identifying information was removed, and each interview was from then on referred to by an assigned number. Original interview sheets and code list were kept in a locked location.

Analysis
Each student conducted a preliminary analysis of his or her data, coding for topics and themes. The group then agreed upon a set of five salient topics: Information sources, water behaviors, concerns, officials, community and the future. Each researcher compiled his or her data by themes within the topics. Inter-coder reliability was achieved through small groups working together by topic.

Part Two: Interviews With Officials

Part Two expands the breadth of the study to incorporate the roles played by local and state officials in responding to the Pascoag contamination. As the situation unfolded in September, an interdepartmental committee of officials from Governor Almond's office, the Rhode Island Department of Health (HEALTH), the Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management (DEM), the Rhode Island Water Resources Board, the Pascoag Utility District and other involved parties was formed. This report, based on in-depth interviews with key officials involved in the state and local response, analyzes and identifies how those officials perceived their roles and responsibilities pertaining to the contamination event. The report concludes with recommendations aimed at prevention and preparedness in the event of a similar situation in the future.

Sources
The primary source of information for this report consists of in-depth interviews and documents from senior leadership of the following agencies and organizations:

• The Rhode Island Department of Health (HEALTH)
• The Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management (DEM)
• The Rhode Island Water Resources Board (WRB)
• The Rhode Island Underground Storage Tank Financial Responsibility Fund Review Board
• The Office of Governor Lincoln Almond
• The Office of United States Senator Jack Reed
• State Representative Scott Rabideau (R-Burrillville)
• State Senator Paul Fogarty (D-Burrillville, Glocester)
• The Pascoag Utility District
• The Burrillville Town Council

Additional background information was obtained from the Fall 2001 archives of the Providence Journal and the Woonsocket Call.