ML20082C908
| ML20082C908 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 11/18/1983 |
| From: | Erikson K, Jerrica Johnson SUFFOLK COUNTY, NY |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20082C880 | List: |
| References | |
| ISSUANCES-OL-3, NUDOCS 8311220242 | |
| Download: ML20082C908 (49) | |
Text
_ ___ ______ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
. o UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board
)
In the Matter of )
)
LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY ) Docket No. 50-322-OL-03
) (Emergency Planning)
(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, )
Unit 1) )
)
)
TESTIMONY OF KAI T. ERIKSON AND JAMES H. JOHNSON ON BEHALF OF SUFFOLK COUNTY CONCERNING CONTENTION 25 -- ROLE CONFLICT Q. Please state your names and summarize your professional backgrounds.
A. My name is Kai T. Erikson. I have been Professor of Sociology and American Studies at Yale University since 1966, and Editor of The Yale Review since 1979. I received a B.A.
in sociology from Reed College in 1953, and both an M. A. in 1955 and a Ph.D. in 1963 from the University of Chicago. I held a jcint appointment in th i Department of Psychiatry and s
the Department of Sociology at the University of Pittsburgh from 1959 to 1963, and a similar appointment at Emory Universi-L ty from 1963 to 1966. I am currently President-Elect of the 0311220242 831118 PDR ADOCK 050003pg PDR b (-
l
American Sociological Association and will begin a term as President in August of 1984. I was President of the Eastern Sociological Society in 1980-1981, and President of the Society j for the Study of Social Problems in 1970-1971.
1 In recent years my professional work has focused increas-ingly on human responses to emergencies. Between 1973 and 1976 I conducted an intensive study of the Buffalo Creek disaster of 1972, and I wrote a book on the subject which in 1977 won the Sorokin Award of the American Sociological Association for the best work written in sociology during the preceeding year as well as a Nomination for the National Book Award- Since that time I have conducted a briefer study of the effects of mercury contamination on an Ojibwa Indian Band in Northwest Ontario, and I have written on general problems of toxic waste disposal with particular reference to the situation at Love Canal in up-l state New York and on the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in J
1945. I have lectured widely on the general subject of human emergencies, including the principal address to the Red Cross National Convention in Miami, Florida, in 1977.
In the past several years I have kept abreast of research dealing with human reactions to the accident at Three Mile Is-land. Since 1981 I have testified on matters relating to emer-gency planning before Atomic Safety and Licensing Boards of the l I
Nuclear Regulatory Commission in the TMI-l Restart Proceeding, the Diablo Canyon Operating License Proceeding, and the Indian Point Emergency Planning Proceeding. In 1982, I participated in a workshop on psychological stress at Three Mile Island held by the Mitre Corporation on behalf of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
In 1982, I was retained by Suffolk County to participate in the County's efforts to develop an offsite emergency re-sponse plan for Shoreham. In that capacity I served on the Suffolk County Radiological Emergency Response Plan Steering Committee, helped design three surveys commissioned by the County, and participated in the formulation of the Draft County i
i Of fsite Radiological Emergency Response Plan. A copy of my professional qualifications is Attachment I hereto.
1 A. My name is James H. Johnson, Jr. I am an Assistant Professor of Geography at the University of California at Los Angeles. I hold degrees in geography from North Carolina Central University (B.S., 1975), University of Wisconsin at Madison (M.S., 1977), and Michigan State University (Ph.D, 1980). My current research concerns human responses to hazards of technological origin, especially nuclear power plant accidents, and I have authored or co-authored several papers on actual and intended evacuation behavior in a radiological l
I .
emergency. A copy of my professional qualifications is Attachment 2 hereto.
Q. What is the purpose of this testimony?
A. The purpose of this testimony is to address Emergency Planning Contention 25.
Q. Do you agree with the concerns stated in Contention 257 l A. Yes we do.
Q. What is meant by the term " role conflict" as used in Contention 25?
A. In sociology and other of the social sciences, the term " role conflict" is often used to describe the situation in which an individual. is confronted with contradictory demands on his or her sense of loyalty as a result of membership in 1
different groups. Human beings often find themselves in situa-tions where two obligations.about which they feel strongly are in conflict and appear to draw them in opposing directions.
This kind of dilemma is extremely acute on those occasions when i the sense of duty one feels as the member of a family and the sense of duty one feels as the member of an emergency team suggest different courses of action.1/ To choose one course of 1/ Lowis Killian observed more than three decades ago the l tendency for people to experience role conflict in crisis
( (Footnote cont'd next page) l l'
=_ ... _
l i . .
l l
action rather than the other, of course, is not a matter of "right" or " wrong": both choices involve noble human feelings and motives. Social scientists generally agree that this is a prime example of " role conflict," and they also agree that the individuals involved in such a dilemma must find some way to i
resolve the conflict if they are to act effectively.2/
Q. How does the concept of role conflict relate to radiological emergency planning and preparedness?
A. It is essential to any emergency plan that persons called upon to aid in the response to the emergency -- be they (Footnote cont'd from previous page) situations. He noted that:
When catastrophe strikes a community, many individuals find that latent conflict between ordinarily nonconflicting group loyalties suddenly becomes apparent and that they are faced with the dilemma of l
making an immediate choice between various roles.
Lewis M. Killian, "The Significance of Multiple-Group Member-l ships in Disaster," American Journal of Sociology 57: 309-14
( (1952) at p. 310.
2/ LILCO's witnesses Dynes and Mileti have, upon occasion, referred to this phenomenom as " role strain" rather than
" role conflict." The dilemma and competing loyLities faced by the emergency workera are the same regardless of the words used to describe them. " Role conflict" is the generally accepted term in the field.
8 professional emergency workers or volunteers -- will report to their assigned posts and perform the emergency duties assigned them.
C. What makes you believe that emergency workers for a Shoreham emergency might experience role conflict?
A. Many emergency workers will belong to families living in the general vicinity of the Shoreham plant. They are very likely to be concerned about their families' welfare and to consider them in sufficient danger to require evacuation or some other protective action. In that event, they will experi-ence role conflict, for the needs of their families and their emergency duties will pull them in opposing directions.
< Q. Do you believe emergency workers for a shoreham emer-gency might not resolve their conflict in favor of reporting for duty?
A. There are sound reasons to believe that many of the persons who are counted on by LILCO to assume emergency duties will not be available in the crucial early stages of an emer-gency -- if, indeed, they become available at all. This is be-cause they will attend first to the welfare of their families and will be reluctant to report for emergency duty until such time as they have been assured of the safety of their loved ones or have seen to the safety of their loved ones themselves.
O. Does the LILCO Plan rely upon persons' resolving their role conflict by reporting to perform emergency duties?
A. Yes. The LILCO Plan relies upon the willingness of a large number of persons to report promptly to various kinds of emergency duty in the event of a radiological accident at Shoreham. Figure 2.1.1 of the LILCO Plan indicates that an emergency force of more than 1,300 persons is expected to be available to the Director of LERO to implement the Plan. Upon the declaration of an emergency requiring protective actions, l
these persons are expected to report promptly to their assigned emergency posts, many of which are within the lO-mile EPZ.
Many of these people have families and loved ones who live near or within the EPZ.
It is also clear that implementation of the Plan is depen-dent upon the cooperation of scores of additional persons not included in the LILCO estimats of 1300 persons. Specifically, the individuals relied upon for implementation of the LILCO Plan fall into six general categories, as identified in the j
subparts of Contention 25.
First, as stated in Contention 25.A, the Plan is premised on the availability of LILCO personnel to exercise command and l
l
control of the emergency response and to perform innumerable emergency duties. Of the 1318 persons identified as being nec-essary in Figure 2.1 1 of the Plan (that is, the persons comprising LERO), 867 are identified as being LILCO employees.
The LILCO employees are expected to perform all the functions described in Figure 2.1.1, except for ambulance driving, dose assessment, telephone rep $1r, field sanitary support, and relo-cation center services.3/
Second, as stated in Contention 25.B, all functions relat-ed to offsite accident and dose assessment and projection, with the exception of that performed by the Radiation Health Coordinator, are to be performed by personnel from the Department of Energy Radiological Assistance Plan (" DOE-RAP") .
See Plan at Figure 2.1.2; page 2.2-3; section 3.5B; OPIP 2.1.1 at 21-24. Although the Radiation Health Coordinator was orig-inally identified by LILCO as being a Brookhaven National Labo-ratory (or DOE) employee (see OPIP 2.1.1, Rev. O and Rev. 1 at 3/ Although Revision 2 of Figure 2.1.1 shows the Director of Local Response, the Coordinator of Public Information, the Public Information Support Staff, and the Public Informa-tion Communicator as non-LILCO personnel (by having those positions appear in boxes with dashed rather than solid lines) ( see Figure 2.1.1 at 1) , Revision 2 of OPIP 2.1.1 continues to identify LILCO employees as the persons des-ignated to fill those positions (OPIP 2.1.1 at 5, 66, 69 and 70). Accordingly, we assume that LILCO employees will fill those positions.
12), Revision 2 of the Plan states that this position will be filled by individuals identified only as " Representative Outside Consultants. " (OPIP 2.1.1, Rev. 2, at 12). BNL re-fused to assume the responsibilities assigned to the Radiation Health Coordinator (Transcript of Deposition of John Weismantle, September 7, 1983, at 58) and apparently no one else has yet agreed to assume that position. In any event, LILCO does not intend to have a LILCO employee act as Radiation Health Coordinator. (Weismantle Tr. at 59). These DOE-RAP personnel and whoever ends up being the Radiation Health Coordinator are the primary source of all offsite aecessment and dose data and recommendations to the Director of Local Re-sponse as to what protective actions should be ordered for the public. (See OPIPS 3.5.1, 3.5.2, 3.5.3 and 3.6.1).
Third, as stated in Contention 25.C, the LILCO Plan relies upon the availability of school bus drivers. Under the LILCO Plan, should an accident occur during school hours, LILCO will advise the schools to implement an early dismissal of students.
(Plan at 3.6-7; Appendix A at IV-169). This is the only pro-tective action provided under the LILCO Plan for school chil-dren in all but one of the 17 public school districts having schools located, or children residing, in or just beyond the EPZ (Appendix A at II-10; IV-167 to 170).d/ The LILCO rian 4/ LILCO asserts that children in the Shoreham-Wading River School District are the only ones who will be evacuated, by bus, to a relocation center. (Appendix A at IV-170).
1 -
f l
assumes that an early dismissal will result in the rapid and safe return of children to the custody of their parents, who can then see that the children are sheltered or evacuated.
(Appendix A at IV-169). This assumption, in turn, is dependent upon the availability of school bus drivers to transport the children from school to their homes. (See, e.g., Testimony of Nick J. Muto and J. Thomas Smith, Robert Petrilak, and Dr.
George D. Jeffers and Anthony J. Rossi Regarding Contention 25).
Fourth, as stated in Contention 25.D, the provision in the LILCO Plan for the early dismissal of schools is also dependent upon the availability of teachers, administrators, other school employees, and crossing guards, all of whom are necessary to supervise and otherwise implement early dismissals of the schools. (See Appendix A at II-19). (See Testimony of Nick J.
Muto and J. Thomas Smith, Robert Petrilak, and Dr. George D.
Je ffers and Anthony J. Rossi Regarding Contention 25). The services of such personnel would also be necessary in the event of an accident if children were to be evacuated from schools or if they were to remain in the school buildings.
Fifth, as stated in Content ion 25.E. , the LILCO Plan as-sumes that non-LILCO personnel will be available to perform the following functions necessary to evacuate hospitals, other-special facilities, and handicapped persons:
l
-- drive and staff ambulances (Figure 2.1.1, Plan 2.2-4, OPIP 3.6.5);
fly and staff airplanes or helicopters
( App. A a t IV-173, 175);
-- obtain, operate and staff LIRR trains (App. A at IV-173-75);
transport lumber to LIRR stations (App. A at IV-173-74); and
-- convert train seats to hold patients' i bed matresses (Id.).
Although the Plan estimates a need for 110 ambulance drivers, none of whom will be LILCO employees (Figure 2.1.1),5/ it is clear from other portions of the Plan that a much larger number of ambulance drivers is necessary. (See Testimony of Dr. David Harris on Contention 25). There is no estimate of the number of persons necessary to perform many of the other functions listed above, nor does LILCO indicate who it believes will per-form many of those functions.
In addition, as noted by Dr. Harris in his testimony on contention 25.E, the proposed evacuation of hospitals, special facilities and the handicapped would also necessitate large numbers of trained medical and paramedical personnel to provide patient care and attention during the evacuation process. Even 1
5/
~
Certain patients will, according to the LILCO Plan, be evacuated by buses driven by LILCO employees. (Appendix A at IV-173, IV-178, and IV-180).
i Q
a sheltering recommendation for hospitals and special facilities would require a large number of trained medical per-sonnel, as stated by Dr. Harris.
I Sixth, as stated in Contention 25.F, the LILCO Plan relies upon volunteers from the American Red Cross (" ARC") to staff and operate the five relocation centers for evacuees. These non-LILCO volunteers are expected, under the LILCO Plan, to manage the relocation centers and to provide medical treatment and nursing and counseling services, as well as registration, feeding, clothing, housing, and recreational services to evacuees. (Plan at 2.2-1; 3.7-2; 4.2-1 to 4.2-4; OPIP 4.2.1).
The Plan estimates that 334 persons from the ARC would be needed to staff the three primary relocation centers. In addition, three unidentified non-LILCO employees are to provide
" sanitary support" at the relocation centers. (Figure 2.1.1, at 2).
- In summary, the implementation of the LILCO Plan depends upon the persons described above and in the Plan reporting promptly to perform their designated emergency roles.
O. Is it valid to assume that all the foregoing persons will report promptly to perform their designated emergency roles?
.I 1
I l
l l t
A. No. In making this assumption, LILCO has failed to consider properly the impact of role conflict on the behavior of emergency workers in crisis situations. Virtually all the available evidence -- that is, studies of natural and man-made or technological disasters, research conducted in the aftermath of the accident at Three Mile Island, and surveys of persons likely to be called upon to perform emergency duties on Long Island -- suggests strongly that, in the event of an accident at Shoreham, a significant proportion of the workers relied upon by LILCO will find that their emergency work roles and f amily obligations conflict, and that they will resolve this conflict in favor of ensuring the health, safety and welfare of their own families. Accordingly, a substantial number of the workers necessary for the implementation of the LILCO .?lan will, 'n i fact, not be available promptly to perform the duties assigned to them by LILCO.
LILCO's assumption that all workers will be available is contrary to two well established facts about human behavior in moments of crisis.
First, one of the most firmly established findings in di-saster esearch is that families tend to evacuate or take any kind of protective action as a unit or in intact groups. This conclusion has been drawn by virtually all specialists in the area of emergency decision making and disaster planning.6/
l l 6/ See, for example, Allen H. Barton, Comm'inities in Disas-ter: A Sociological Analysis of Collective Stress Situa-(Footnote cont'd next page) !
s .
[
Ronald W. Perry, Professor of Sociology at Arizona State University and one of the leading experts on human emergencies, puts the matter as follows:
With respect to evacuation, it is known that families tend to evacuate as units, and that the separation of family members often involves anxiety and attempts by evacuees to reunite families, sometimes by returnin areas.7/g to the previously evacuated In light of these findings, it is only reasonable and prudent to assume that a substantial number of emergency workers, feel- .
ing that evacuation is the required protective action, will return to their homes as soon as an emergency is declared so they can join their families in that activity.
(Footnote cont'd from previous page) tions. New York: Doubleday, 1969; Thomas E. Drabek and Keith S. Boggs, " Families in Disaster: Reactions and Rel-atives." Journal of Marriage and the Family. 30: 443-51 l (1968); Reuben Hill and Donald A. Hansen, " Families in Di-saster," in George W. Baker and Dwight W. Chapman, editors, Man and Society in Disaster. New York: Basic Books, 1962; J. Hans and T. Sell, " Evacuation Risks: An Evaluation," U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1974; T. Drabek, The Social Process in Disaster: Family Evacua-tion," Social Problems, 16: 336-349 (1969).
-7/ Ronald W. Perry, " Incentives for Evacuation in Natural Di-saster: Research Based Community Planning," American Planning Association, October 1979.
14 -
Y
I I
l Second, it is widely known in the social and behavioral l
sciences that large numbers of those who experience role con flict resolve the tension by reuniting with their families even at the cost of abandoning their emergency responsibilities on either a short-term or long-term basis. Such an outcome is recognized by most social scientists who have reviewed the lit-erature pertaining to human behavior in crises. The following persons, for example, are distinguished experts on the subject of individual and organizational reactions to disaster:
l Charles Fritz states:
Most people quickly resolve this conflict in favor of loyalty first to the family or other intimates, and then only turn their attention to larger and more impersonal social group loyalties.8/
Hill and Hansen state:
Not until all intimates . . . within reach are safe, will an individual willingly lend his support and aid to other persons
. . . . After impact, only the rare person can do anything but search until the fate t
of his loved ones is known. Usually he must actually see his loved ones face to face. Not until then can he be depended upon to enter into the general rescue work.2/
~8/ Charles E. Fritz, " Disaster," in Robert K, Merton and Robert Nisbet, editors, Contemporary Social Problems. New York: Harcourt Brace, 1961, p. 677.
9/ Og. cit., p. 187.
f
Thompson and Hawkes state:
The pull of the family on its members is dramatically highlighted when those members are also members of disaster-ready organi-zations. The result is role conflict
. . . . It appears that the conflict will be resolved in favor of the family and pri-mary values.10/
In study after study of particular emergencies, as indi ,
cated below, the same findings are reported. For example, surveys administered by Killian in four Southwest U.S.
communities stricken by disasters (tornadoes and explosions) revealed that the most common dilemma reported was loyalty to family versus loyalty to other obligations:
In all the communities there were individuals such as policemen, firemen, and public utilities workers, whose loved ones were threatened by the same disaster that demanded their services as " troubleshoot-ers." Even persons who had no such defi-nite roles to play in times of catastrophe were confronted with the alternatives of seeing after their own primary groups or of assisting in the rescue and relief of any of the large number of injured persons regardless of identity. Indeed, only the unattached person in the community was .
! likely to be free of such conflict.ll/ l
-~10/ James D. Thompson and Robert W. Hawkes, " Disaster, Commu-nity Organization, and Administrative-Process," in George W. Baker and Dwight W. Chapman, editors, Man and Society in Disaster. New York: Basic Books, 1962, pp. 283-84.
1/ Op,. cit. p. 311.
~
t -
l !
l l
t
He noted later in the same article that this dilemma, in most instances, was resolved in favor of the health, safety, and welfare of the primary group. Other disaster studies, including several that have been cited by LILCO as support for its belief that emergency workers would report for duty as ex-pected,12/ conclude that role conflicts are likely to be re-solved in favor of attending to family rather than emergency duty obligations. The following conclusions, for example, are all taken from studies cited by LILCO:
r Prince, speaking of a ship explosion and fire in Nova i
Scotia:
[T]he earliest leaderuhip . . . was that on the part of those uno had no family ties .
. . . The others as a rule ran first to their homes to discover if their own families were in danger.13/
Bates, speaking of a hurricane in the American South:
The Hurricane Audrey experience seems to have engendered little of this kind of conflict during the warning and impact phases. It is clear that, with a few notable exceptions, men regarded their first duty as being to their families.14/
--12/ See LILCO response to Su ffolk County informal discovery request 34 of July 18, 3983.
13/
~~
S.H. Prince, Catastrophe and Social Change. New York:
Columbia University Press, 1920.
14/ Fred L. Bates, et al., The Social and Psychological Consequences of a Natural Disaster. Washington, D.C.:
(Footnote cont'd next page)
I
Ellemers, speaning of a flood in Holland:
[T]he nature of the disaster was such that people dropped all other tasks in order to assist their own f amilies, or just to be with them.15/
It is clear that the need to protect and care for one's family is deep and compelling. This basic fact of human nature makes the LILCO assumption that necessary workers will be available to perform emergency response functions invalid.
Q. What is the result of workers' experiencing role conflict and resolving it in favor of their family obligations?
A. Such a resolution of role conflict can result in two l
different responses, each of which would seriously affect the implementation of LILCO's emergency plan. The first is non-response, in which the individual becomes so active in re-location efforts on behalf of his or her family, and/or remains with the family during the crisis, that he or she is not avail-able for emergency duty until the crisis, or his or her role in (Footnote cont'd from previous page)
National Academy of Sciences / National Research Council Di-I saster Study No. 18, p. 53.
15/ H.L. Ellemers, Studies in Holland Flood Disaster 1953,
! Committee on Disaster Studies, National Academy of Sci-ences/ National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1955, l Volume IV, p. 22.
l I
l
I I
i the crisis has passed. The second is delayed response, in which the individual reports for duty only af ter the needs of the family have been met to his or her satisfaction. The ulti-mate result of each of these responses is that the emergency worker's job is not performed as expected -- because the worker either fails to report altogether or arrives too late.
Q. Is the likelihood of emergency workers' resolving role conflict in favor of family obligations affected by the type of emergency involved?
A. Role conflict is a serious problem in any kind of human emergency. However, such conflict is far more likely to be resolved in favor of family obligations when the event in question involves the danger of radioactivity, rather than some other kind of emergency.
Q. Why is that?
A. Available evidence shows that people are more afraid of radiation than they are of most other potential sources of danger. Ionizing radiation cannot be seen, touched, heard, smelled, tasted, or sensed in any direct way, so people have no way of knowing whether they are being e> posed to it, except if they receive doses sufficiently large to induce radiation sickness. Further, people who suspect that they have been in l -
19 -
l
I the presence of radiation may not know for years or even generations whether any damage has been done, and, if so, to j whom.
A good deal of research -- principally that of Paul Slovic and his associates -- confirms this conclusion emphatically.
It is well established, for example, that the public associates radiation with, among other things, birth defects and cancer.16/ Because people fear radiation, they are more apt to react with concern and alarm when they think members of their families may be in danger of exposure to it. Pronounced fear of radiation, for example, is the reason given by most re-searchers for the extraordinary evacuation of the area sur-rounding Three Mile Island at the time of the accident there.17/
--16/ See P.S. Slovic, S. Lichtenstein, B. Fischhoff, " Images of Disaster: Perception and Acceptance of Risk from Nuclear Power," in G.T. Goodman and W.P. Rowe, editors, Energy Risk Management (New York: Academic Press, 1979). For a detailed review of the relevant literature, see Susan Saegert, "Pyschological Issues in Planning for A Radiological Emergency," A Report prepared for Suffolk County, Long Island, January 1983. Other work of Slovic-and his associates is summarized in Slovic, Fischoff, and Lichtenstein, " Perceived Risk, " in R. Schering and A.
Albers, editors, Societal Risk Assessment: How Safe is Safe Enough? (New York: Plenum Press, 1980). Other studies that report similar findings include Michael K.
Lindell and Ronald W. Perry, " Nuclear Power Plant Emergen-cy Warning: How Would the Public Respond?" Nuclear News, 26: 49-53 (1983).
17/ See also Houts, P.S. and M. K. Goldhaber, " Psychological and Social Effects on the Population Surrounding Three (Footnote cont'd next page)
~
i i 1
- The TMI experience also provides evidence of the relation-t i
ship between fear of radiation and role conflict resulting in 1
worker unavailability. Several recent studies indicate that i
i role conflict was a problem during the TMI crisis. In describing the situation at area hospitals during the TMI accident, for example, Smith and Fisher noted that:
During the (hospital emergency response) planning process, a new problem arose --
the exodus of people included physicians, nurses, and technicians required to staff both the short-term and long-term medical facilities. 18/
l Dr. Smith and Mr. Fisher, it should be noted, were speaking j from first-hand experience in the passage quoted above, for they were responsible for the evacuation of both long-term and short-term patients from the hospitals of Dauphin County in the event of an emergency at nearby TMI.
(Footnote cont'd from previous page)
Mile Island after the Nuclear Accident on March 28, 1979,"
in S. Majumdar, editor, Energy, Environment and the Econo-my, Pennsylvania Academy of Sciences, 1981; and Peter S.
Houts, " Relationships Between Restart Attitudes and Other Variables," Hershey, Pa.: Hershey Medical Center, 1982.
--18/ J. Stanley Smith, Jr., and James H. Fisher, "Three Mile Island: The Silent Disaster," Journal of the American Med-ical Association, 245: 1656-1659, 1981, p. 1658.
l I
l I
. - . ~ _ . - _ _ - _ . . _ _ _ _ _ - . _
I .
I i
)
Christopher Maxwell, Director of Radiation Therapy of Com-i munity General Osteopathic Hospital at Harrisburg, in another analysis and evaluation of hospital emergency response during 4
the TMI accident, stated that "the cenflicting responsibilities to family and work resulted in escalating staffing problems as the crisis continued." Nursing and ancillary support staff who had young children felt considerable pressure as it became evident that the problem at TMI was unlikely to be resolved quickly. Many elected to leave the area to protect their families.19/ Many hospital personnel, then, left the TMI area i entirely and stayed away until the immediate crisis was over (non-response). At one of the local hospitals, for example, it l
was reported that only six of the 70 staff physicians were available for emergency duty.20/ Other hospital personnel, primarily workers and managers, reported to work only.after e
they had moved their families outside the danger zone (delayed I
response). In light of these observed behaviors, Maxwell con-cluded that in the event of another radiological emergency "ad-ministrators can expect significant absences from staff members 19/ Christopher Maxwell, " Hospital Organizational Response to I the Nuclear Accident at Three Mile Island: Implications for Future-Oriented Planning" American Journal of Public Health. 72. 275-279, (1982).
20/ Maxwell, 1982, p. 276.
who have family responsibilities and should anticipate a shortage of physicians."21/ Moreover, Dr. Gordon K. MacLeod, Secretary of Health of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania at the time of the TMI accident, complained of the "many hospital workers" who were unavailable for emergency duty because they !
t had joined their families in evacuation.22/
We must presume that fear of radiation was in large part responsible for the staffing problems at local hospitals during l the TMI crisis. This is because post-accident surveys indicate clearly that concern for personal and family health and safety was the primary reason many people, including doctors, nurses, and other hospital personnel, decided to evacuate the area. 22/
1 21/ Id. at 278.
22/
~~
Gordon K. Macleod, "Some Public Health Lessons from Three Mile Island: A Case Study in Chaos," Ambio: A Journal of the Human Environment, 10: 18-23 (1981).
-~23/ S . D. Brunn, J.H. Johnson, Jr., and D.J. Zeigler, Final Report on a Social Survey of Three Mile Island Area Residents, Michigan State University, Department of Geog-raphy, East Lansing, August 1979. S .- Cutter and K.
Barnes, " Evacuation Behavior and Three Mile Island,"
Disasters 6:116-124 (1982). Goldhaber, M.K. and J.E.
Lehman, Crisis Evacuation During The Three Mile Island Nu-clear Accident: The TMI Population Registry. Paper presented at the 1982 Annual meeting of the American Public Health Association, Montreal, Quebec (updated May, 1983).
t
Q. Do you base your conclusion that role conflict will result in unavailability of emergency workers during a Shoreham emergency on any data other than what you have discussed above?
A. Yes. The most direct evidence concerning the will-ingness of emergency workers to report to the posts assigned them in the event of an accident at Shoreham comes from two surveys conducted in 1982 on behalf of Suffolk County by Social Data Analysts, Inc. The results of those surveys indicate that large numbers of emergency workers, including some of those relied on in the LILCO Plan, will experience role conflict and will resolve that conflict by attending to the safety of their families prior to, or in lieu of, performing their assigned emergency response function.
The subjects of the surveys were (a) school bus drivers who drive buses for schools within 10 miles of Shoreham, and (b) members of volunteer fire departments which serve the area surrounding the plant. The methodology used in designing and conducting the surveys and a detailed discussion of the results, is presented in the testimony of Stephen Cole on Con-tention 25, and therefore will not be repeated here.
The school bus drivers and volunteer firemen who were surveyed are representative of some of the types of individualc I
likely to be called upon to perform emergency response duties in the event of an accident at Shoreham. Indeed, the very school bus drivers who were surveyed are, under the LILCO Plan, actually expected to perform their normal driving duties by im-plementing an early dismissal during a shoreham emergency,24/
and school bus drivers have families, concerns, and perceptions of their job duties that are likely to De similar to those of other individuals relied upon by LILCO. Similarly, although volunteer firemen are not relied upon by LILCO for imple-mentation of particular protective actions, they are expected by LILCO "to carry out their normal response functions during an emergency." (Plan at 2.2-4). More importantly, the intend-ed behavior of firemen, whose normal function is to respond to emergency situations, provides instructive evidence as to how the LILCO employees, BNL employees, school personnel, medical and transportation personnel, and ARC and other volunteers ac-tually relied upon by LILCO, are likely to respond to a Shoreham emergency.
24/
~~
The school bus drivers surveyed were the population of drivers for five of the school districts located in the EPZ or with children residing in the EPZ which LILCO will advise to institute an early dismissal in the event of an emergency. See Testimony of Stephen Cole on Contention 25; Appendix A at IV-167 to IV-169.
__ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ = _ _ - .-_
i . .
More than two-thirds of the school bus drivers surveyed indicated that under the conditions outlined in the question, other loyalties or obligations would take precedence over their performance of their school bus driving duties.25/ In short, the strong sense of obligation to look after one's own family l first, as evidenced by the survey results, supports Contention 25.C which asserts that substantial numbers of school bus driv-ers would not be available to implement early dismissalo of schools, a task which, under the LILCO Plan, must be carried out quickly if children are to be sheltered or evacuated.
Similarly, 291 members of five of the fire departments
! serving the areas immediately surrounding the Shoreham plant (roughly 60% of the members of those departments) were surveyed. More than two-thirds of the firemen surveyed indi-cated that they would not be available on an immediate basis to 1
perform emergency duties in the event of a Shoreham accident.
More than a third would not be available at all to perform such duties.
In short, the findings and analyses of the County surveys strongly indicate that significant numbers of workers -counted 25/ For details, see testimony of Stephen Cole on Contention 25.
1 1
on by LILCO to assume emergency duties in a crisis at Shoreham will not only experience a marked degree of role conflict, but also will resolve that conflict by turning to the needs of their families before they do anything else.
l l
Q. How do the survey results relate to che LILCO Plan and Contention 2S?
A. First, because of the perceived salience and centrality of a possible accident at the Shoreham plant to the health, safety and' welfare of the public on Long Island, we believe that the County's surveys yielded reliable estimates of the emergency behavior that can be expected on Long Island in the event of a reactor accident. See also Testimony of Stephen Cole on Contention 23,' in which he explains why surveys are re-
~
liable predictors of actual behavior.
Second, the factors responsible for the intended behavior of the persons we surveyed are just as likely to influence the behavior of the workers relied upon by LILCO as they did the participants in the surveys. There is no reason to believe that the workers relied upon by LILCO will have any less concern for the well-being of their families, or any greater d esire to resolve a role conflict in favor of performing LILCO-assigned emergency duties than did the survey respondents.
D k
- b. 3
k Third, we have the following additional observations con-cerning the survey results and certain particular subparts of Contention 25.
Contention 25.A: Role conflict and worker unavailability is likely to be even more of a problem with respect to the LILCO employees discussed in Contention 25. A than was evidenced in the surveys. The LILCO employees assigned emergency duties
- include large numbers of office workers, meter readers, truck drivers, computer programmers, and management personnel. (OPIP 2.1.1) These people are not accustomed either to subjecting themselves to danger or to performing the type of public service roles played by firemen or school bus drivers. In addition, in the event of an emergency, they are expected to perform not their ordinary jobs, but instead some potentially
, dangerous and relatively unfamiliar jobs assigned to them by the LILCO Plan, c-iven these circumstances, role conflict is even more likely to be resolved in favor of not reporting promptly for duty. See Testimony of Donald J. Dilworth on Con-i tention 25.
Contention 25.C: As noted above, the results of the i \
school bus driver, survey constitute direct evidence that the statements in Contention 25.C are true. A large number of the actual individuals whom LILCO expects to provide prompt s
t I , .
e transportation home for school children have stated that they
(
will not in fact perform that function. (See also Testimony of Nick J. Muto and J. Thomas Smith, Robert Petr11ak, and Dr.
George D. Jeffers and Anthony Rossi concerning Contentions 25.C and 25.D).26/ Indeed, the LILCO Plan itself acknowledges the role conflict problem with respect to school bus drivers by proposing that LILCO employees will serve as the bus drivers for the evacuation of the Shoreham-Wading River School Dis-trict. (See OPIP 2.1.1 at 50; OPIP 3.6.5)21/
The likelihood that school bus drivers will be unavailable in the event of a Shoreham emergency has also been expressly recognized by several of the school districts in the EPZ. See the Testimony cited immediately above.
26/ In any event, as will be discussed in the Suffolk County testimony on Contentions 24.E and 24.M, LILCO has no agreements with schools or school bus drivers which indi-cate that the necessary number of drivers will be avail-able to Unplement the proposed early dismissals.
27/ The Plan further implicitly recognizes the role- conflict problem in its discussion of the proposal to evacuate persons in the EPZ without access to automobiles by means of buses, to be driven by LILCO employees. (Appendix A at III-36) The earlier version of Appendix A explicitly states the reason that LILCO employees are necessary (the explanation has been deleted from Revision 2): "it is obvious that we cannot rely on the regular drivers of these vehicles [ buses] to be willing to drive during a radiological emergency." (Appendix A, Revision 0 or 1, at III-36).
i
r l
l l
Contention 25.D: The LILCO Plan similarly acknowledges 1
the truth of Contention 25.D in the statement in Appendix A of '
the Plan that "the majority of teachers would elect to leave and take care of their own family" rather than supervise chil-dren during an evacuation. ( Appendix A at II-26). See also the Testimony cited above which further supports our opinion that the survey findings are representative of the likely actions of others such as school personnel.28/
Contention 25.E: Ambulance drivers and emergency medical personnel such as paramedics, are not unlike the volunteer firemen surveyed in that they have established or well defined roles in emergency situations. Th ere fore , it is unreasonable to expect that ambulance drivers will be any more willing than firemen to report promptly to calls for assistance in the event of a radiological emergency at the Shoreham plant. Their emer-gency duties and family obligations will conflict and large numbers of them will be likely to resolve this conflict by looking after the health, safety, and welfare of their families.29/
28/ In any event, as will be discussed in the Suffolk County Testimony on Contention 24.E, LILCO has no agreements with schools which indicate that the necessary school personnel will be available to implement the LILCO-proposed protec-tive actions for school children.
29/ In any event, as will be discussed in the Suffolk County Testimony on Contentions 24.G, 24.J and 24.K, LILCO has no i
(Footnote cont'd next page)
Q. Does the LILCO Plan adequately take role conflict into account?
A. LILCO has recently added a provision to its Plan, which appears to be an attempt to compensate for role conflict.
In our opinion neither this attempt, nor any other that could be tried by LILCO will signiff.cantly reduce the role conflict that will be experienced by the emergency workers relied upon by LILCO.
The new provision in the LILCO Plan is for a so-callcd
" Emergency Worker Tracking System." Th e " sys t em " is described in the Plan as follows:
To ensure that the immediate families of all emergency workers are provided for throughout the incident, a special tracking / contact system will be initiated by LERO. This system will allow family members to rapidly relay messages to their relatives while that individual is serving as a LERO emergency worker. (Plan at 2.1-7 to 8)
See also OPIP 3.4.2, which calls this system the "LERO (Footnote cont'd from previous page) agreements with special facilities, their staffs, or ambu-lance companies that indicate that the necessary medical and paramedical personnel will be available to implement the LILCO-proposed protective actions for special facilities.
I Family Tracking" System. In our opinion, it is highly unlikely I that such a system would inspire enough confidence in emergency workers to make them willing to leave the fate of their families in the hands of others. As we have explained above, many, if not most, of the workers will feel that they must attend to their families before reporting for duty and that they must make sure on a first-hand basis that their families have been safely cared for.
In our opinion, the proposed Tracking System will be inef-fective in reducing role conflict for several reasons. First, the "LERO Family Tracking System" arranges for family members to get messages to emergency workers, which is setting up a flow of communication in the wrong direction, because emergency workers will not be comfortable unless they can initiate con-tact themselves. Emergency workers will not report until they have received assurances about the safety of their families.
This tracking system, however, is not operative until the worker has already reported, and, even then, it does not allow for workers to get in touch with family members. It appears designed to tell the families where the on-duty workers are.30/
l
~~30/ Even the f amilie.s ' concerns will not be effectively dealt with under the LILCO proposal since the Family Tracking Center personnel who take the calls from families "are prohibited from making any statements about the status of j an emergency." (OPIP 3.4.2, section 3.1).
l Second, the LERO Family Tracking System involves the es-tablishment of a message center rather than a communication l 1
l center. Even if the si tem were to work to perfection and mes-sages were conveyed without error to scores of locations in the the middle of an emergency --an outcome hard to imagine --
LILCO apparently assumes that emergency workers will be content to report to duty based solely upon the hope that they may receive a message about the fate of their families at some point after they have arrived at the post assigned them. There is no basis for this assumption. Indeed, it is inconceivable i '
to us that such a system could have any significant impact on reducing role conflict even if the system were to work; and, it is inconceivable to us, moreover, that it could work amidst all the confusion, alarm and urgencies that attend human emergencies.
, Third, LILCO witnesses testified during depositions that the f amily's message would not be relayed to the LERO worker, except in what LILCO determined were " emergency" situati ns (Transcript of Deposition of William Renz, September 2, 1983, at 76-77). The " vast majority of messages" will not be given to emergency workers until they return to their initial re-porting locations. Id. at 76. See also OPIP 3.4.2 section 5.2.2.c, which states that messages are left for workers at l
i
staging areas, transfer points, or with a location coordinator, not that messages are transmitted to the workers.31/ Thus, LERO workers will not receive all their messages in a timely manner, because only those messages LILCO considers to be
" emergency" messages will be transmitted to them promptly.
Those judged to be of the "non-emergency" type will not be given to workers until their shifts end, several hours later.
In addition, the proposed tracking system may heighten a worker's concern about his or her family and thus may cause a worker to leave his or her post, if a worker does not receive a message from his or her family when other workers do.
Finally, the proposed tracking system is clearly only in-tended to apply to the LILCO employees who are assigned emer-gency roles (see OPIP 3.4.2) and therefore does nothing to deal with the role conflict problems identified in Contentions 25.B through 25.F. for non-LILCO workers. It bears noting that out of the approximately 1300 people LILCO explicitly relies upon, approximately 450 are non-LILCO personnel. In addition, all the people identified in Contentions 25.C and 25.D, and many of those identified in Contention 25.E (See Testimony of David Harris) are non-LILCO employees.
31/ The ability of the " Contact Points" at staging areas to transmit the messages by emergency communications methods will be addressed in the Suf folk Cs'inty Testimony on Con-tentfans 28-34.
4 Q. In your opinion, is the fact that under the LILCO Plan a large number of e.ergency workers are LILCO employees likely to reduce the impact of role conflict?
A. No. There is no reason to believe that LILCO employ-ees will be less concerned about the safety of their families than other citizens of Suffolk County, although there are many reasons to believe that LILCO employees will be shy about saying so.
Q. What is your conclusion with respect to this conten-tion?
A. The LILCO Plan largely takes for granted that emer-gency workers will report for duty, regardless of the obliga-tions they feel toward their own families. This is unre-alistic. In our opinion, the LILCO Plan cannot and will not be successfully implemented because the necessary emergency workers will not be available to perform the functions assigned to them by LILCO.
l l .
9
9 h
d ATTACHMENT 1 O
ATTACHMENT 1 i
Kai T. Erikson Department of Sociology Born in Vienna, Austria, 1931 Yale University U.S. citizen (derivative, 1937)
New Haven, Connecticut Married, two children EDUCATION 1949-1950 University of California, Berkeley 1950-1953 Reed College (B.A.)
1953-1955 University of Chicago (M.A.)
1955-1963 University of Chicago (Ph.D.)
POSITIONS 1954-1955 Research Fellow, Family Study Center, University of Chicago 1955-1957 Social Science Technician, Walter Reed Army Institute of Research, Walter Reed Army Medical Center (while on active duty, U.S. Army) 1959-1963 Instructor to Assistant Professor, Departments of Psychiatry and Sociology, University of Pittsburgh 1963-1966 Associate Professor, Departments of Psychiatry and Sociology, Emory University 1966- Associate Professor to Professor, Department of Sociology and American Studies Program, Yale University 1968-1969 Fellow, Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences, Stanford, California 1969-1973 Master, Trumbull College, Yale University (Chair, Council of Masters, 1970-1973) 1974-1977 Chair, American Studies Program, Yale University 1979- Editor, The Yale Review 1
5 1
t l
SELECTED PUBLICATIONS Books ,
Wayward Puritans: A Study in the Sociology of Deviance (New York: John Wiley, 1966)
Everything in Its Path: Destruction of Community in the ~~
Buffalo Creek Flood (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1976)
Articles "The Confirmation of the Delinquent," Chicago Review, Winter, 1957 (with Erik H. Erikson)
" Patient Role and Social Uncertainty: A Dilemma of the Mentally Ill," Psychiatry, 20:263-274, 1957 "The Functions of Deviance in Groups," Social Problems, 7:98-107, 1959 (with Robert A. Dentler)
" Impressions of Soviet Psychiatry: Some Travel Notes,"
Psychiatric Communications, 5:1-12, 1962
" Notes on the Sociology of Deviance," Social Problems, 9:307-314, 1962 "A Return to Zero," American Scholar, 36:134-146, 1966 "A Comment on Disguised Observation in Sociology,"
Social Problems, 14:366-373, 1967
" Sociology and the Historical Perspective," American Sociologist, 5:331-338, 1970
" Introduction," In Search of Common Ground: Conversations with Erik H. Erikson and Huey P. Newton (New York:
Norton, 1973)
" Loss of Communality on Buffalo Creek," American Journal of Psychiatry, 133:302-306, 1976 "On Teaching Sociology," New England Sociologist, 1:35-40, 1979 "A Report to the People of Grassy Narrows," in Christopher Vecsey and Robert W. Venables, editors, American Indian Environments: Ecological Issues in Native American History ;
(Syracuse, N.Y.: Syracuse University Press, 1980) (with i Christopher Vecsey)
J
I i
SELECTED PUBLICATIONS (continued)
Book Reviews American Journal of Sociology American Scholar American Sociological Review Contemporary Sociology New York Times Book Review Transaction Vanity Fair Yale Law Journal HONORS McIver Award, American Sociological Association, 1967 Sorokin Award, American Sociological Association, 1977
, Nominee, National Book Awards, 1977 PROFESSIONAL MEMBERSHIPS American Sociological Association (President, 1984-1985; Committee on Executive Office and Budget, 1978-1981; Council, 1974-1977; Chair, Committee on Professional Ethics, 1971-1973)
Society for the Study of Social Problems (President, 1970-1971) l Eastern Sociological Society (President, 1980-1981) l i
l November 1983
1 1
1
.l 4
1 1
,1 4
4 i
J l
}
1
+
Y 1
1 I
+
4 i
I i
I 2
I i.
ATTACHMENT 2 I
1 i
+
i I
i i
4
(
i i
i
{
i
)
l f
l
ATTACHMENT 2 CURRICULUM VITAE James H. Johnson, Jr.
Mailing Address Home Address Department of Geography 15325 Magnolia Blvd. #305 University of California Sherman Oaks, CA. 91403 Los Angeles, CA. 90024 (213) 789-6121/789-5506 (213) 825-1415/825-1071 EDUCATION: B.S., Geography, North Carolina Central' University,1975.
M.S., Geography, University of Wisconsin-Madison,1977.
Ph.D. , Geography, Michigan State University,1980.
FIELDS OF SPECIALIZATION: Teaching and Research Systematic: energy policy and planning, urban, social geography of the inner city.
Methods: reseach design, theory and methodology in geography.
SPECIAL HONORS:
Recipient of the Theodore R. Speigner Award for the highest academic average, Department of Geography, North Carolina Central University,1975.
Summa Cum Laude Graduate, Department of Geography, North Carolina Central University, 1975.
Selected as an Outstanding Young Man in America by the' Jaycees in 1976.
Graduate Fellow, Department of Geography, University of Wisconsin-Madison, 1975-77.
Recipient of the first place award ($100) for the best graduate student paper presented at the East Lakes Division of the Association of American Geographers Annual Meetings, Michigan State University, September 15-16, 1978.
JOB EXPERIENCE:
Job
Title:
Assistant Professor Location: Department of Geography, UCLA
, Duties: Teach courses in urban, social, and cultural geography; and environme" al quality. '
! Years: 1980 to p :sent.
l Job
Title:
Research. Assistant l Location: Michigan Department of Commerce, Energy Administration, Lansing l Duties: Review grant proposals for schools and hospitals for energy con-l servation assistance. Research on vanpooling.
Years: June 1980 to August 1980.
Job
Title:
Research Assistant (Quarter Time)
Location: Center for Urban Affairs, College of Urban Development, Michigan State University Duties: Computer analysis of data for various projects.
Years: Summer 1978 to Spring 1980
l James H. Johnson, Jr.
Page 2 JOB EXPERIENCE (Cont'd.):
Job
Title:
Research Assistant (Half Time)
, Location: Departments of Geography and Agricultural Economics, Center for
! Environmental Quality, Michigan State University Duties: Research and writing of reports and presentations to legislative and consumer groups regarding Electric Utility Rate Reform in Michigan (under contract #71-3698).
Years: Summer 1979 to Spring 1980.
Job
Title:
Teaching Assistant (Half Time)
Location: Department of Geography, Michigan State University Duties: Range from directing discussion sections to lecturing in the following courses:
Future Worlds - Fall 1977; Spring 1978 Geography of Culture - Winter 1978 World Regional Geography - Winter 1978 American City and Region - Winter 1979 Quantitative Methods in Geography - Spring 1978; Fall 1978; Spring 1979.
Advanced Quantitative Methods - Winter 1979.
Years: Fall 1977 to Spring 1979.
Job
Title:
Field Laboratory Technician Location: Air Pollution Monitoring Field Project, Tulsa, Oklahoma Research Triangle Institute, Research Triangle Park, Durham
.. North C&rolina Duties: Operated and maintained two air pollution monitoring field research stations; analyzed data from 0 ,3NO and N02 monitors daily.
Years: June 1977 to September 1977.
Job
Title:
Junior Computer Operator Location: Duke University Computation Center, Durham, North Carolina Duti es: Command IBM /360 Years: February 1975 to August 1975.
Job
Title:
Engineer's Assistant Location: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, Durham, North Carolina Duties: Run Chemical Analysis for double alkali scrubber systems.
Years: 1972-75 (Stay in School Program).
PROFESSIONAL AND CIVIC AFFILIATIONS:
Church: Member, St. John Missionary Baptist Church Falkland, North Carolina Other Organizations:
Gamma Pi Chapter, Gamma Theta Upsilon
- Association of American Geographers l
Triangle Geographers Association Association of Pacific Coast Geographers Western Social Science Association American Associatior, for the Advancement of Science
James H. Johnson, Jr.
Page 3 i RESEARCH IN PROGRESS:
"Vanpool Programs: Their Evolution and Potential Improvement Through the Application of a Location-Allocation ftdel." (submitted for publication consideration).
" Evacuation Planning for Radiological Emergencies." (submitted for publication consideration).
"Following Directions During Radiological Emergencies." (submitted for publication consideration).
" Black Migration to the South, 1970-80." (submitte'd for publication con-sideration).
" Black Suburbanization in the Los Angeles Metropolitan Area During the 1970's,"
invited chapter for The Geography of Afro-Americans, edited by R.A. Obudho (to be published in 1983).
" Determinants of Evacuation Behavior During Nuclear Accidents," invited chapter for The Nuclear Power Plant: A Geographical Persoective on Technology Assessnent, edited by Mike Pasqualetti (to be published in 1983).
" Human Response to Radiological Emergencies." (to be submitted for publication consideration in February,1983).
" Distinguishing Public Reactions Toware a Hazardous Waste Dump in West Covina, California." (to be submitted for publication consideration in March,1983).
" Technology as Hazard." AAG Resource Publications in Geography to be published in 1983 (with Donald J. Zeigler and Stanley D. Brunn).
PUBLICATIONS:
1 1977 " Black Migration as a Response to Social Psychological Stress: A Note on Migrant Letters, 1916-1918," Proceedings, New England-St. Lawrence Valley Geographical Society, Vol. 6, pp. 42-46 (with Walter C. Farrell, Jr.).
1978 " Black Migration as a Response to Social-Psychological Stress: A Note on Migrant Letters, 1916-1918," The Geographical Survey, Vol . 7, pp.
22-27 (with Walter C. Farrell, Jr.); a revised version.
1978 " Black Philadelphians: A Factorial Ecology," Proceedings, Pennsylvania Academy of Sciences, Vol. 52, pp. 91195 (with Walter C. Farrell, Jr. and John D. Oliver).
1979 "The Quality of. Afro-American Life in Houston, Texas: A Geographical 3
Perspective," in J. Pinder and R. Proctor, Perspectives on the Urban South: Selected Papers from the Fourth Annual Conference, pp. 207-221.
Norfolk, Virginia: Norfolk State College and Old Dominion University, 1979, (with Walter C. Farrell, Jr. and Patricia Johnson).
i l
i e ==ee m4 >86eme hr w a*
w ~y--
James H. Johnson, Jr.
Page 4 PUBLICATIONS (Cont'd.): l 1979 "Recent Methodological Developments and the Geography of Black Ameri ca ," The Pennsylvania Geographer, Vol .17, pp.19-30 (with Walter C. Farrell, Jr.).
1979 "Phenomenology in Geography," The Geographical Survey, Vol . 8, pp.
3-9 (with Walter C. Farrell, Jr.).
1979 " Educational Concern of Inner City Black Parents," ERIC Document (June 1979), #106-297 (with Walter C. Farrell, Jr.).
1979 " Preliminary Report on a Social Survey of Three Mile Island Area Residents." Department of Geography, Michigan State University, May 1979 (with Stanley D. Brunn and Donald J. Zeigler).
1979 " Final Report on a Social Survey of Three Mile Island Area Residents."
Department of Geography, Michigar. State University, August 1979, 220 pp.
(with Stanley D. Brunn and Donald J. Zeigler).
1979 " Preliminary Review and Analysis of Electric Utility Rate Reform:
Implications for Oakland and Livingston Counties, Michigan." Report for Michigan Corrrnunity Action Agency Association and Oakland-Livingston Human Services Agency, under contract #71-3698. Departments of Geography and Agricultural Economics and Center for Environmental Quality, Michigan State University, September 24,1979 (with Bradley T. Cullen).
1979 " Spatial Patterns of Alcohol Outlets in the Washington, D.C. Black Community," Proceedings, Pennsylvania Academy of Sciences, Vol . 53, pp. 89-97 (with Marvin P. Dawkins and Walter C. Farrell, Jr.) .
1980 " Residential Preference Patterns of Afro-American College Students in Three Different States," The Professional Geographer, Vol . 32, pp.
37-42 (with Stanley D. Brunn).
1980 " Spatial and Behavioral Aspects of Counterstream Migration of Blacks to the South," in Brunn, Stanley D. and James 0. Wheeler, eds., The American Metropolitan System: Present and Future. New York: John Wiley and Sons, Scripta Series in Geography, Victor Winston Publisher, 1980, pp. 59-75 (with Stanley D. Brunn).
l 1980 "Locational Conflict and Public Attitudes Regarding the Burial of Nuclear Waste: The Alpena, Michigan Experience," East Lakes Geographer, Vol .15, pp. 24-40 (with Stanley D. Brunn and Brian McGirr).
1981 " Evacuation from the Nuclear Technological Disaster at Three Mile Island," The Geographical Review, Vol.17, pp.1-16 (with Stanley D.
Brunn and Donald J. Zeigler).
t 1981 " Household Energy Consumption in Oakland and Livingston Counties, l Michigan: Some Patterns, Alternatives and Policy Implications." A' Report for the Michigan Community Action Agency Association and the Oakland-Livingston Human Service Agency. East Lansing: Michigan State University, 65 pp. (wit- L.M. Sormiers , G. A. Woods, and T.C. Miller) .
l
____-.m- _ _
9 8 James H. Johnson, Jr.
Page 5 l l
l PUBLICATIONS (Cont'd. ):
1981 " Spatial Perspectives on Counter-stream Black fiigration to 'the South,"
CAAS Newsletter, Vol . 5, fiay, pp. 9-10 ( Abstract) .
1981 " Gentrification and Incumbent Upgrading: Benefits and Costs," CAAS Newsletter, Vol . 6, November, pp.10,16.
1981 " Community Reaction Toward an Abandoned Hazardous Waste Dump," in Proceedings of Acolied Geoaraphy Conference, edited by J.W. Frazier and B.J. Epstein, Vol . 4, pp. 423-424 ( Aostract) .
1982 " Implications of the Black Move to the South," Black Enterprise, Vol .12, January, p. 21 (with Walter C. Farrell, Jr.).
1982 " Impact of Electricity Utility Rate Reform in Oakland and Livingston Counties, Michigan," Journal of Environmental Systems, Vol.12, pp.
27-36 (with Bradley T. Cullen and Lawrence M. Sommers).
1982 "A Note on Black Migration to the South," Geoarachical Perspectives, Number 49, pp. 38-43.
1982 "Further Analysis and Interpretation of the Shoreham Evacuation Survey,"
prepared for Suffolk County, Long Island, New York, Noveder, 71 pp.
(with Donald J. Zeigler).
1982 " Basis for Selection of Emergency Planning Zones for the Shoreham Nuclear Power Plant, Suffolk County, New York." F.C. Finlayson and Associates, Cerritos, Ca. , October (with F.C. Finlayson).
1983 "The Role of Community Action in Neighborhood Revitalization: A Study of the Eastown Community, Grand Rapids," Urban Geooraphy, forthcoming.
1983 " Implications of Electric Utility Rate Reform Legislation for Low Income Households in Oakland and Livingston Counties, Michigan," Social Science Journal, forthcoming (with B.T. Cullen and L.M. Somers).
1983 Review of Revitalizing Cities, by H. Braviel Holcos and Robert Beauregard. The Professional Geographer, forthcoming.
1983 Review of Not on My Street, by M.J. Dear and S.M. Taylor. Environment and Plannina A, forthcoming.
1983 Review of Alley Life in Washincton, by James Borchert, Historical Geography Newsletter, torthcoming.
PRESENTATIONS - PROFESSIONAL MEETINGS:
1976 Annual Meeting, New England-St. Lawrence Valley Geographical Society,
'" Black Migration as a Response to Psycho-Social Stress: A Note on Migrant Letters," Salem, Massachusetts.
1976 Annual Meeting, Association for the Study of Afro-American Life and History, Comentator for session " Considerations in Culture," Chicago, l Illinois.
l l
I . ..
James H. Johnson, Jr.
Page 6 PRESENTATIONS - PROFESSIONAL MEETINGS (Cont'd.):
1977 Annual Meeting, Popular Culture Association, " Folk Reasons for Early I 20th Century Black Migration," Baltimore, Maryland (with Walter C.
Farrell, Jr. and Phillip Kitchart). i 1978 Annual Meeting, Norfolk State Co?lege and Old Dominion University Con-ference on the Urban South, "The Quality of Afro-American Life in Houston, Texas: A Geo raphical Perspective," Norfolk, Virginia (with Walter C. Farrell, Jr. .
l 1978 Annual Meeting, Michigan Academy of Scienc.es, ' Factors Influencing the Decline of White and Non-White Operated Farms in the Central Coastal Plains of North Carolina, 1945-1969," Ypsilanti, Michigan (with Walter C. Farrell , Jr. ) .
1978 Annual Meeting, Pennsylvania Academy of Science, " Black Philadelphians:
A Factorial Ecology," Champion, Pennsylvania (with Walter C. Farrell, Jr.).
1978 Annual Meeting, East Lakes Division, Association of American Geographers.
" Spatial Variations in Attitudes Toward Nuclear Waste Disposal in Alpena, Michigan," East Lansing, Michigan (with Brian J. McGirr).
1979 Annual Meeting, Norfolk State College and Old Dominion University Con-ference on the Urban South, " Black Migration to the South: A Focus on Durham, North Carolina," Norfolk, Virginia (with Walter C. Farrell, Jr.).
4 1979 Sixth Annual National Conference on the Black Family, " Searching for Elbow Room: A Perspective on Southern Black Migration," Louisville, Kentucky (with Walter C. Farrell, Jr.).
1979 Annual Meeting, Michigan Academy of Sciences, " Urban Homesteading and i Historic Preservation: Problems and Prospects," Mt. Pleasant, Michigan (with Walter C. Farrell, Jr.).
1979 Annual Meeting, Pennsylvania Academy of Science, " Spatial Patterns of Alcohol Outlets in the Washington, D.C. Black Community," Mount Pocono, Pennsylvania (with Marvin P. Dawkins and Walter C. Farrell, Jr.).
1979 Annual Meeting, East Lakes Division, Association of American Geographers,
" Electricity Utility Rate Reform or Maintenance of the Status Quo?"
Akron, Ohio (with Bradley T. Cullen).
1979 Quarterly Meeting, Michigan Consnunity Action Agency Association, " Pre-liminary Review and Analysis of Electric Utility Rate Reform: Implica-tions for Oakland and Livingston Counties, Michigan," Lansing, Michigan,.
l 1979 Monthly Meeting, Oakland-Livingston Human Service Agency, " Benefits and Costs of Lifeline Electric Utility Rate Reform," Pontiac, Michigan.
! 1979 Annual Meeting, Southeast Division, Association of American Geographers,
( "Locational Conflict and Public Attitudes Regarding the Burial of l Nuclear Waste: The Alpena, Michigan Experience," Nashville, Tennessee l (with Stanley D. Brunn and Brian J. McGirr).
l
. .x - ..
?
Janes H. Johnson, Jr.
Page 7 PRESENTATIONS - PROFESSIONAL MEETINGS (Cent'd.):
1981 Annual Meeting, Western Social Science Association, " Electric Utility Rate Reform: The Significance of the Spatial Factor," San Diego, California.
1981 Annual Meeting, Southwestern Economics Association, "Corbinational Programming Solution to a Park and Ride Mass Transit Problem," Dallas, Texas (with Bradley T. Cullen).
1981 Annual Meeting, Association of American Geographers, " Location-Allocation fboel of Vanpool Park and Ride Sites: The Lansing, Michigan Example,"
Los Angeles, California (with Bradley T. Cullen and Lawrence M. Sommers).
1982 Annual Meeting, Association of American Geographers, "Regionalization as a Step Toward Developing a National Energy Policy," San Antonio, Texas.
INVITED PRESENTATIONS AND TESTIMONY:
1976 Prairie View A&M University, Department of Economics, Geography, and Social Science and the School of Agriculture, "The Effects of Mechaniza-tion on the Production of Flue-Cured Tobacco in the Coastal Plains of North Carolina," Prairie View, Texas.
1977 Cheyney State College, Urban Studies Department, " Data Gathering Techniques in the Social Sciences," Cheyney, Pennsylvania.
1978 Monthly Meeting, Woodbridge Neighborhood Citizens Council, " Benefits and Costs of Neighborhood Revitalization," Detroit, Michigan.
1980 Comments on the Revision of Chapter 90 (Liquor and Tavern Regulation) of the Milwaukee Code and Related Concerns. Presented to the Utilities and Licenses Committee of the Milwaukee, Wisconsin Common Council, November 3 (with Walter C. Farrell, Jr.).
1981 Faculty Seminar Series, Center for Afro-American Studies, " Spatial Perspectives on Counter-stream Migration to the South," University of California at Los Angeles.
1981 Special 1981 Faculty Lecture Series, UCLA Bi-Centennial Symposium on the Human and Physical Ecology of the City, "The Ghettoization of Blacks in Los Angeles," University of California at Los Angeles.
1982 Testimony Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board, United States of America Nuclear Regulatory Commission. In the Matter of Pacific -
Gas and Electric Company (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2) (Emergency Planning Proceedings), January 19, 1982.
1983 " Evacuation Planning for Radiological Emergencies," Department of Geography, University of California at Davis, Davis, Ca., January.
l
James H. Johnson, Jr.
Page 8 INVITED PRESENTATIONS AND TESTIMONY (Cont'd.):
1983 Testimony Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board, United States of America Nuclear Regulatory Commission. In the Matter of Long Island Lighting Company (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1), Docket No.
50-322 (CL) (Emergency Planning Proceedings), January.
MEDIA INTERVIEWS AND PUBLICATIONS:
1977 " Incentive to Poor?" response to ecitorial "No Free Abortion," Tulsa World (August 26,1977), p. 5.
1978 WKAR (radio), East Lansing, Michigan. " Nuclear Waste Disposal in North-eastern Michigan."
1979 " Lifeline Bill Will Not Aid Poor," The State News (October 9,1979) with Bradley T. Cullen.
1979 WKAR (radio), East Lansing, Michigan. " Social Survey of Three Mile Island Area Residents." (with Stanley D. Brunn and Donald Zeigler).
1979 WELM, Channel ll, East Lansin9, Michigan. " Preliminary Report on a Social Survey of Three Mile Island Area Residents." (with Stanley D.
Brunn and Donald J. Zeigler).
ARTICLES WRITTEN BY OTHERS REGARDING MY WORK:
1978 Fran Murray, "Alpena Residents Still Oppose Nuclear Waste Site," press release, Department of Infomation Services, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan, September 21, 1978.
1978 United Press International . "Alpena County Still Against a Waste Dump Si te , " Detroit News (September 24, 1978). A number of other Michigan cities' newspapers carried accounts from the original news release.
1979 Fran Murray, " Residents of Three Mile Island Area Fear Impact of Disaster,"
press release, Department of Information Services, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan, May 18, 1979.
1979 Fran Murray, "U Survey of Three Mile Island . Area Issue," MSU News Bulletin (October 31, 1979), p. 2.
i l 1979 Ellis Cose, "In the Aftermath of Three Mile Island," Detroit Free Press
! (October 31,1979) , p.10A.
1979 Karen Zurawski, "Eastown Community Association Study Movements of People,"
Photo Reporter (October 1,1979), p.1.
1982 Frances Cerra, " Evacuation Plan Stirs Old Doubts," New York Times (May 16,1982), Section 21, p. 1.
i
- = - em. m . we e e - e..-
ADDENDUM PUBLICATIONS
, 1. James H. Johnson, Jr., " Planning for Spontaneous Evacuation During A Radiological Emergency," Nuclear Safety, forthcoming.
- 2. James H. Johnson, Jr., and Donald J. Zeigler, " Distinguishing Human Responses to Radiological Emergencies," Economic Geography, forthcoming.
- 3. James H. Johnson, Jr., and Donald J. Zeigler, "A Spatial Analysis of Evacuation Intentions at the Shoreham Nuclear Power Station," in Nuclear Power: Assessing and Managing Hazardous Technology, edited by M. J. Pasquoletti and K. D.
Pijawka, Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press, forthcoming.
- 4. Bradley T. Cullen and James H. Johnson, Jr., " Energy Assistance for the Poor: An Evaluation and Alternative Allocation Procedure," Energy, The International Journal, forthcoming.
- 3. Mcluin L. Oliver and James H. Johnson, Jr., Inter-ethnic Conflict in an Urban Ghetto: The Case of Blacks and Hispanics in Los Angeles, in Research in Social Movements, Conflict and Change, edited by R. Radcliff, JAI Press, forthcoming.
- 6. Donald J. Zeigler, James H. Johnson, Jr., and Stanley D. Brunn, Technology Hazards, Resource Publication in Geography, Washington, D.C.: Association of American Geographers, forthcoming.
.